Dry Lakes Racers Australia

ChrisACT wrote:
Besides, the rules are actually not there to provide the highest possible level of safety for all racers (I can hear the screams at this one already). They're actually there to set a minimum standard of safety equipment without which one cannot participate. All racers can improve on those rules if they believe their particular class or speed attempt warrants it. But why should the slow guys on tiddlers have to suit up like they're going into battle? The rules should be set for the entry level. It is a minimum requirement.

It is absurd to set minimum safety standards for racers doing 60mph which are designed to fully protect racers attempting to run at 300mph. One size does not fit all.

I had planned to address this when it was time to update the rulebook this year. There are different standards for cars in different configurations and different speeds. And it would make sense to apply similar standards to motorcycles. There were a number of rule change applications submitted in the weeks before the meeting, unfortunately, this left it a bit late to change the the leathers rules and allow a greater choice of leathers. However, I asked for, and gained the permission of the club president to have a "moratorium" on leathers and this http://www.dlra.org.au/forum/viewtopic. ... 0&start=33 was supposed to be added to the newsletter so that all active members would know what was going on. Unfortunately that didn't happen. So, if anyone contacted me they were told, "if you wore them previously, they would be OK this year."

Further to that, I had also planned to ask that all rule changes be put to the active members that had run motorcycles.
I don't see the point of members who are car people voting on motorcycle rules or vice versa . As it stands, whoever is in charge of motorcycle tech approves or knocks back any rule change submissions.
I was concerned about Brett's helmet when I saw it due to it being a cheap brand, however it was one of the things that appeared to stand up quite well in the incident.
I cannot see how a SFI hood would have helped in Brett's case as I think it would've been pulled out the way anyway
I am however no longer the chief, I was unable to attend the secret meeting and got voted out.
the good news is that Ross is a Bike guy, and although I work in the motorcycle industry, my only DLRA entry has been in a car. That is however another story

Graham Hadley
FCMS

it has been interesting reading about the head sock, can I suggest another alternative.
if safety is an issue why can the individual wear the leatt system. getting tossed down the road at major high speed is no thrill at all. the leatt system will save a lot of necks and also lets air in on a hot day. my grand son rides motocross wearing the leatt and I can tell you it works very well.
don't make it mandatory but let everyone know that they can wear it if they want to. if one day I decide to do 200 mph I can guarantee you I will be wearing one. I don't think you will get any neck problems at all
nev

There was 2 high speed bike offs this year and both riders walked away, I think out current safety rules are sufficient. If any rider wants more protection thats up to them. But thats just me.

Dave

nifty nev wrote:it has been interesting reading about the head sock, can I suggest another alternative.
if safety is an issue why can the individual wear the leatt system. getting tossed down the road at major high speed is no thrill at all. the leatt system will save a lot of necks and also lets air in on a hot day. my grand son rides motocross wearing the leatt and I can tell you it works very well.
don't make it mandatory but let everyone know that they can wear it if they want to. if one day I decide to do 200 mph I can guarantee you I will be wearing one. I don't think you will get any neck problems at all
nev

I've been investigating this myself, the MotoX versions were not really suitable as they were designed for an upright riding position, but now there is a Road/Sport Bike version LEATT® STX ROAD NECK BRACE it might actually be an option.

Pete

I thought an investigation is held after any incidents, therefore why is there no definitive reason for the injuries sustained to the riders mentioned earlier in this post, I have only read peoples opinions of what may have caused the injuries. The majority of industries today do Risk Assessments before entering into any perceived "risk activity" and I think if you did one on the head sock (flash hood) for its use on motorcycle riders to protect them from fire related incidents in our clubs activities then I believe the score would be low based on the frequency of those types of incidents, thus no need to wear one (optional to rider). But if you were to do a Risk Assessment on the same protective clothing (head sock) for heat related illnesses then the score would be high or extreme with catastrophic consequences, severe injury and/or possibly death. Be careful what you wish for. I believe there is sufficient mitigation practices in place now with the scrutineering of machines and protective clothing to adequately protect riders. If people think the head sock (flash hood) will protect them from a fire ball in the event of a fuel related explosion while riding their motorcycle, that's fine. But think about the percussion injuries your body just sustained in that explosion, I think a burnt head would be the least of your worries. "Motor sports is dangerous" has been the catch cry since man starting racing machines.
Cheers