RACE SUITS AND HELMETS

Moderator: DLRA

DirtyDave
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:47 pm
Location: Eden Valley South Ozz

Salt rash

Post by DirtyDave » Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:57 am

Hey man ,
when i was a wee boy i crashed a dirt bike on a dolimite road waring shorts and tshirt, I was about nine years old and i remember saoking bandages off of raw flesh like it was yesterday, oh the pain....at least with the salt there is less chance of infection...hee hee...
Don't Worry, It only seems Kinky the first time..

User avatar
John Broughan
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 11:50 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by John Broughan » Thu Feb 02, 2006 5:32 pm

Guys, your comments about Australianising the rule book, and having to have SFI qualifications for drivers suits do not stand up. The rule book states that suits with CAMS approval are allowed. This is section 4.1.1
As to who can change the rule book, that is only the chief steward. The meetings can pass resolutions till the cows come home, but they do not have the responsibility or the accountability for the rule book.
John Broughan
Empty Pockets Racing
200 MPH club life member

hawkwind racing
Posts: 593
Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 7:59 pm
Location: Captains Flat
Contact:

please consider

Post by hawkwind racing » Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:04 pm

John a couple of points
1.reading our current rule book it appears that the following persons can ( change the rules RACE DIRECTOR ( empowered ) sect 1 or the CHIEF STEWARD or their DELEGATE( discretion) sect 2 ,both can be protested against to the CONTEST BOARD all decisions of the contest board are final

Who is the contest board ? this is not made clear in the rule book and is open to what ever interpretation one wants to place on it , I for one would be uncomfortable with ALL power invested in one individual,I believe its imperative that a responsible and knowledgable contest board be formulated from as wide a section of club members as possible , I will be putting this to the club members at the next AGM ,along with my ideas of one possibility of implimentation .

Im concerned at the lack of response ( to put it mildly ) from our present chief steward , I have used the correct protocol , submitting rule change forms for MANY concerns without response , even after MANY attempts to contact him , the DLRA needs as a matter of urgency to impliment other means of looking at requests other that the respons ibility on a single individual, ( please note it is not my intention to place blame or put shit on John Dawson ,its not personal :wink: )

Why Im seeking changes ,firstly we dont need to slavishly follow the SCTA , we can have a look at the FIA /FIM rules as well and add our very own Aussie flavour :D pick the best and have the best
Gary
fastest busa in Captains flat pop. 200

User avatar
John Broughan
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 11:50 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by John Broughan » Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:29 pm

Gary, The race director can permit minor variations that do not change the minimum acceptable requirements. This would not allow him to waive the need for 3 inch harnesses, but may allow him to accept a 7 by 20 mm tailshaft loop, instead of the mandated 6 by 25 mm. The chief steward can waive any rule, which is a lot of power to invest in one person. That is why his decisions to waive rules can be appealed. The contest board is defined in section 5.8. I have found that it is difficult to interest members in joing these things. I tried to form an incident comitee at one meeting, to review an incident, and I was underwhelmed by the response from members, who were generally too busy or otherwise unable to assist.
I think that a club who will elect any person who puts there hand up to any vacant position is really not able to complain about things with too much credibility. I have been to nearly all AGM's since 1993, and I cannot recall a contested election.

One of the meetings at Castlemaine moved the motion on adopting this rule book, and the chief steward as the controller of it. This may not be the best method, but I can see a couple of problems with others as well. These are:
Finding a person or group willing to spend the time, and take the responsibilty of maintaining the safety standards of the club.
What happens if the cheif steward, who is responsible for the safety of all entrants, decides that one of the rule changes is not safe. He/She could be placed in a position, where if it was something they felt strongly about, of resigning. This would then place the club without a chief steward. I do not know if the club has any procedures to replace elected officials who resign part way through their term, but it would result in a lot of turmoil and damage to the club.
Section 5.29 refers to a technical advisory commitee to make recommendations on these matters, but once again you have a logistical and volunteer problem to surmount.

These are my opinions, and I put a lot of thought into the rule book, which will never please everyone, but my over riding thought was this: If I am standing in front of the coroner, explaining my part in an entrants death, do I have a defendable position for the rule change, or the existing rules.

This is something that I hope never happens, but hope is not much of a defence in our legal system.

I think the current situation with John (whatever that is) has just highlighted how this club is run by very few people, with almost no assistance. I refer again to my comment above about elections at the AGM.

Good luck with your proposals, but my prediction is that you will probably have to do it all yourself.
John Broughan
Empty Pockets Racing
200 MPH club life member

KeithTurk
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Enterprise Al USA
Contact:

Post by KeithTurk » Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:58 pm

I found this whole discussion really interesting....

My wife and I as well as Joe Timney are currently vested with running the East Coast Timing association.... and it's freaking exactly like your DLRA. It was Started and run by John Beckett in 1994 and he sold it to us 2 yrs ago so he could go racing.... ( he died last year at Bonneville so our work keeping his dream alive is even more important )

We have had many talks around this whole SCTA/ECTA or in your case SCTA/DLRA issue.... why should we as an organization follow some other place that doesn't have our best interests in mind.... and the Answer is... Because it's basically the established standard... They have written a bunch of thier rules in Blood... with over 55 yrs experience they've been places we haven't and honestly they have a much better system then we do...

Our board of directors was forced this year to come up with a basic mission statement that says we'll follow the SCTA to the best of our ability and any SCTA racer will be legal to run in our class's with the ECTA... if our rules vary accomidations will be made to allow them to compete. The intent of this is to maintain a basic level playing field so records have meaning.... when your guys come over here to run at Bonneville they will be legal to compete... and our guys going to Lake Gairdner will have all the Safety and rules sorted out... If someone sets a record with you... it will be comparable to a SCTA record... a WORLD record can then be established... so when Wayne kicks some serious ass with that New Belly tank it's going to have Merit... beyond just at Lake Gairdner... or with the DLRA... it's worth something to us to maintain that standard...

All that having been said... We are still seperate and lag behind the SCTA on many things and on average will maintain our own rule book... we'll follow as long as it's in our best interest... but the speed of the SCTA sometimes leaves us a bit behind.... so we run on last years rules and don't always accept the newest rules instantly.... thou it's our intent to accept them over time...

Like you guys we have folks that will never run Bonneville... maybe as many as 90% of our folks will never go there and don't care what the SCTA does or thinks... Because they represent the majority we have to respect thier opinions... however we still want recognition for being " Comparable" to other organizations and we want our own flavor, It's a tough balancing act.... we do have classes that don't match the SCTA and we run them to our own rules.... we don't however expect them to be "World Standards" they are just records with us.... in our case they are called Street classes for cars... and 2 stroke records for bikes...

For any interested parties... I'd be happy to supply an electronic version of the current ECTA rule book so you can see how we did it...

Best of luck in this whole mess... it's a tough deal...

Keith Turk
Race Director ECTA
200mph club member at Muroc, ECTA, Texas mile, Bonneville and maybe the DLRA someday....

momec
Posts: 667
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:15 pm

Post by momec » Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:53 am

G'Day Keith
Well put, I think the most important word you used there was balance. We do seem to have many shared problems/questions. Your right, always listen to and try and learn from others that have ploughed the same ground.
My intent was to create discussion on these safety issues.
We should never slip backwards in our standards but we should always investigate new options as we develop our sport as a whole.
I've seen the Hans device introduced in many other sectors of motorsport and Im suprised it has not popped up yet in our sport. Are they using it at Bonneville yet? Would it suit layed back driving positions?

After seeing Rods fire this year its made me question myself on what if that were my car with my bum in that seat, what would I accept as the minimum safety standard while I waited for the flames to stop? ...
I did'nt sleep that night, all this went over and over in my head and the only answer was the best stuff I can get!

Welcome aboard Keith, thanks for your valuable input and look foward to see you racing out here........

..... btw I've cottoned on to your game :D Your gathering 200mph club tickets from different tracks eh ( He who dies with the most tickets wins, is that it?) :lol: :lol:
Seeya Chris

KeithTurk
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Enterprise Al USA
Contact:

Post by KeithTurk » Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:27 pm

Yep I'm a 200mph club freak.... each of us latch onto our own goals in the sport and mine is to collect them 200mph club tickets.... only 2 of us have gotten in 4 two clubs.... me and a fella named George Potter... Freiburger and many others have three.... ( to include my wife... the only woman with 3 memberships ).... the DLRA would make 5 for me and that would be hard to beat by most folks.... If you really pay attention you'll notice that I'm not in the El Mirage club... so if I get that one done it will be 6 total, but the DLRA is most likely going to come first....

The advice I was providing on rules was only our take on the situation... your mileage may vary.... my guess is that we're more alike then we are dissimiliar.... and honestly the DLRA has the same battles.... If there is anything our organization has battled thru that can help you.... I'd really like to be part of your solution...

I can help with starting line procedures as well if your interested...

The Hans device isn't yet a mandated item... but you can expect it down the road.... I'm thinking there is another one coming out that's cheaper and easier to use.... so I'd hang out on that one.... We are buying one for David and the Hot Rod Special....

Rod's incident should shake you to the core... but it shouldn't paralize you.... it should be what makes you think.... evaluate your personal safety and make intelligent decisions based on your situation... I have two cars that are radically different and each requires its own answers to head protection.... Fires are simply ugly creatures... the best you can buy is only marginally good enough.... SFI ratings are going to make them better.... only tested to a given standard.... if you have a six or seven layer Aussie suit.... I'm not sure I wouldn't consider it....

Keith

User avatar
John Broughan
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 11:50 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by John Broughan » Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:12 am

I think there are some valuable messages or lessons in Rods incident. Some that spring to my mind are:
What sort of material should we permit for the construction of fuel tanks. I would say that aluminium is probably not suitable. The venting needs to be looked at as well. That tank should not have burst. I don't think we will ever know if the fuel tank caused the nitrous bottle to go, or vice versa.
Should we have a maximum size of fuel tank. Rod has a very large tank, which had significant quantities of fuel in it when he stopped. This ran under the car, and burned from the salt up.
The placing of nitrous bottles next to flammable items like fuel or oil tanks should be banned immediatly. This could have caused serious injury to the fire crew, and we must do everything in our power to protect them.
Drivers egress from the car needs to be checked, to ensure they can get out of the vehicle easily and quickly. We can never reproduce a panic situation, but we should check it.
Firewalls. This was my biggest bugbear as chief steward. Cars with modified firewalls are always suspect, and nearly always not up to standard with regards to strengh and sealing.
John Broughan
Empty Pockets Racing
200 MPH club life member

BIG GAZ
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:52 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by BIG GAZ » Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:21 pm

OK, I can see this is a minefield but I have got to buy a suit for blown, fuel, over 175mph. What happens if I want to use a FIA approved suit, which the rule book says is OK because CAMS equivalent is OK. BUT what is equivalent? 2 layer plus undies, 3 layer, 5 layer plus undies? Has there been any decisions at committee level that were'nt in the new 2006 rule book? I don't want to be a cheap arse, I just want to know what is acceptable.
Any direction would be good.
BIG GAZ

lag waggon
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:28 am
Location: brisbane

Post by lag waggon » Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:39 pm

Yeah whats the go with the rules reguarding blown front engined cars under 175 mph??? The rule book makes me belive that i can use an SFI 3.2A/5 with nomex underwear or a CAMS single layer or better, but then it states that all blown front engine cars require SFI 3.2A/15 or 20 gloves and boots???? Am i reading this correctly?? If i am then what is the reason behide the two different levels of protection for my car?? doesnt quite make sense to me.

If anyone could clear this up for me that would be great, cause i need to make sure i get the right gear to run at the lake.
#680 *TEAM KRAZY*
Live Life In The Fast Lane.
2010 MPS/G 650 144.057 mph

User avatar
BOB ELLIS
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:26 pm
Location: BRISBANE QLD , AUSTRALIA

Post by BOB ELLIS » Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:54 pm

Hey guys . blown front engine cars should have SFI 3.2A/20 Suits , gloves boots ,etc . What's your life worth?? Without an SFI rating (/20 is gauranteed to give 80 sec's protection before you recieve 2nd degree burns.As a comparason , a 3.2A/1 suit gives you 6 seconds before 2nd degree burns) , the Cams , FIA ,etc suits have no fire rating.Ring Revolution race gear m and ask them what the rating on their RPM suits are! Buy the good gear?? What's your life worth! Ask Rod H , BIG fire , /20 suit , NO burns. Cheers , Bob , #66 C/GCC

raybak
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:05 pm
Location: Canberra
Contact:

Post by raybak » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:03 pm

The Revolution racegear triple layer suits are good stuff, I have one and have competed in many hot events where we have had temps over 40 degrees and still felt ok. It's correct that the underwear layer's and a balaclava give good protection against fire, I think the CAMS peoplewere saying that the suit will give me 60 secs of fire protection. Don't really want to test it though.

I will have my Helmet and HANS at the 2008 event if people want to have a look at it.

Cheers

Ray
At a rally somewhere

Post Reply