Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Go here for general DLRA News

Moderator: DLRA

grumm441
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:43 pm
Location: Buggery, a tidy town
Contact:

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by grumm441 » Wed Jul 16, 2014 8:28 pm

rgn wrote: I'm only interested in rules that apply to us, within our organisation, the dlra here in Australia. Nothing else matters.
Good to hear. Section one of the rulebook Applies to us, within our organization, the DLRA, here in Australia.
rgn wrote:
grumm441 wrote:Yes it does say Driver/Rider in the rule book. Do you now need a legal definition of Rider
G
If you don't mind.
I think you would have to ask Gary rulebook@dlra.org.au what he defines as a Driver/Rider
rgn wrote:G, it is you who stated in a previous post that a day ban would apply if a bike was run without a RIDER seated on the Motorcycle.
Is that what I said.
I believe i said
grumm441 wrote: Any rider seen riding on the lake without a helmet will be yellow stickered and stood down for 24 hours
However, as I understand the clubs position, we will be standing down for 24 hours any vehicle seen running , on the salt, without a Driver/ or Rider seated in or on it

G
They make it
I make it work

rgn

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by rgn » Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:23 pm

G, thanks for the clarification. Cheers,
Ralph

hawkwind
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by hawkwind » Thu Jul 17, 2014 7:02 pm

The last nail in the coffin ........RIP lone wolf racer..... :cry:
Vehicle......................A new creation.
Designed by................Troglodyte.
Engineered/ built by......Rustic.
Financed by.................Nickles & Dimes.
Rider......................... Tardus Vetus Inflatio

rgn

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by rgn » Fri Jul 18, 2014 3:24 am

hawkwind wrote:The last nail in the coffin ........RIP lone wolf racer..... :cry:
I've contacted Gary as Graham suggested for clarification of RIDER/DRIVER definitions, I haven't heard back as yet.

I'm wondering if there is support amongst the membership for a rule amendment that goes something like this:

1.L (Participant Conduct) it states:
“A DRIVER/RIDER SHALL BE IN OR UPON THE RACE VEHICLE ANY TIME THE ENGINE IS RUNNING.”

to this:

“A DRIVER/RIDER SHALL BE IN DIRECT SUPERVISION OF THE RACE VEHICLE ANY TIME THE ENGINE IS RUNNING.” ?

User avatar
internetscooter
Posts: 474
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:18 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by internetscooter » Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:12 am

My 2 cents (just because I come from a systems engineering background and have dealt with a lot of requirements definitions for large complex projects...

The best way to analyse what a requirement should state is look at the "fit criterion" and then judge if the requirement would meet that criteria if tested.

For this rule I believe the "fit criterion" is that no vehicle shall have the ability to drive off and do a "herbie goes bananas"...

The current rule...

1.L (Participant Conduct) it states:
“A DRIVER/RIDER SHALL BE IN OR UPON THE RACE VEHICLE ANY TIME THE ENGINE IS RUNNING.”


I would say doesn't - a driver could be "in" the backseat and not in control... so better wording...

“A DRIVER/RIDER SHALL BE IN DIRECT CONTROL OF THE RACE VEHICLE ANY TIME THE ENGINE IS RUNNING.”

Which is better but doesn't allow the ability for a single person to adjust their engine without having their hands off brakes/clutch etc...

But this "could" be catered for by...

“A DRIVER/RIDER SHALL BE IN DIRECT CONTROL OF A NON-IMMOBILISED RACE VEHICLE ANY TIME THE ENGINE IS RUNNING.”

i.e. if your vehicle can't possibly move (no wheels/on blocks), then the "no herbie goes bananas" criteria is met...

Paul

Note: I have seen "herbie goes bananas" with a Honda Lead - extremely funny but then no one got hurt (except for the feelings of the owner).
Paul
---
DLRA #647
89.664 mph (aiming for 100mph+)
Vespa Labs [url]http://www.vespalabs.org[/url]

User avatar
AuotonomousRX
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:05 pm
Location: Eyre Peninsula SA

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by AuotonomousRX » Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:18 am

If a Rule amendment was put forward for a Safety Rule change like this one I am sure it would need to be submitted with a detailed Risk Assessment for the DLRA to meet it's OH&S obligations.

I think there are different requirements for Motorcycles and Car.

Starting a Motorcycle on a Bike Stand and then putting it in Gear ..... I do not believe this procedure would pass any Risk Assessment with or with out anyone on it.

However I can not see how simply Starting a Motorcycle on a purpose built Bike Stand with a chock in front of the Front Wheel so that the Rider/Crew could check the Bike would not pass a Risk Assessment.

Pete :D
Metric Target 250 on a 250 on a Red Bike

Pete :shock:
DLRA #866
SATA #49

rgn

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by rgn » Fri Jul 18, 2014 7:24 pm

I think I have found the answer to the question regarding RIDER/DRIVER.

SECTION 1 GENERAL COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS
The primary responsibility for the safe condition and operation of a vehicle in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations rests with the vehicle’s owner and driver.


So I think it would be safe to say in relation to 1L: PARTICIPANT CONDUCT:

A DRIVER/RIDER SHALL BE IN OR UPON THE RACE VEHICLE ANY TIME THE ENGINE IS RUNNING.

The RIDER/DRIVER is the person who is entered in the current year competition to RIDE/DRIVE the vehicle in the class the vehicle is entered. (I'm happy to be corrected in relation to this interpretation)


Pete, in relation to OH&S, I respectfully doubt that any detailed or documented risk assessment has been undertaken in relation to these rules by the club.


As (SECTION 1 GENERAL COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS says:
“The primary responsibility for the safe condition and operation of a vehicle in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations rests with the vehicle’s owner and driver.)”

I want to fulfill my obligation to SECTION 1 of the rules, myself, my team, my riders and the health of my race bikes; this all leads to a smooth running and safe competition.

Warm-up and pre-race inspection is a critical component of the safe operation of a Race-LSR vehicle. Few motor sports are as demanding and as arduous as LSR. This applies to the ambient air temperatures we experience and have to race in, and the nature of the racing. Highly strung and specialized race engines operated at wot over long distances.

For me (modern water cooled motorcycle) warm up consists of bringing the engine coolant up to about 100-108 degrees Celsius (it's when the cooling fan comes on), and then shutting down and allowing the heat to soak through the engine and transmission. The time this takes depends on whether you run a thermostat or not. (I know there are other styles of cooling systems used) . After the soak period there is the final pre-run stage of bringing the vehicle back to 85-90 degrees prior to setting off on the race run.

This could mean for some competitors, sitting outside in 43 degree temperatures and direct heat for 10-15-20 minutes. Shade will be required.

I can't even imagine what it would be like sitting in a car while warm-up etc is achieved in 2013 type conditions. And never being able to look under your bonnet while the engine is running during the race season has to be upsetting?

For me, bringing tyres up to their correct operating temperature at correct pressure is another responsibility I have according to SECTION 1.

It has been stated, even if I have the bikes enclosed in a transporter-trailer, warming up on stands with tyre warmers and crew in direct supervision with fire extinguishes at hand, if the RIDER/DRIVER is not sitting on them while this is happening it’s a day ban from competition. SECTION 1 demands that I continue to pursue this issue.

I think we need to make some changes to 1L in the interests of competitor well being and safety. btw... I'm interested in a rule change being considered, this does not reflect on the good people who are elected to enforce them.

Lakeside is looking like the new pit area in 2015. Cheers,
Ralph

User avatar
RGV
Posts: 661
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:17 pm
Location: Adelaide Hills

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by RGV » Sat Jul 19, 2014 8:36 pm

Not saying that I agree with the rule but we might have to work together to find ways of complying.

eg. A DRIVER/RIDER SHALL BE IN OR UPON THE RACE VEHICLE ANY TIME THE ENGINE IS RUNNING. NOT THE RIDER/DRIVER.

So another entered Rider/Driver might be able to be In control of your vehicle while you do what ever is needed to be done.

I agree not ideal but might be a work round.

Just a thought.

Dave

Last Minute Racing "its a 2-stroke ya twit - Its supposed to smoke"
DLRA #928
SATA #10

2010 MPS/G 250 118 MPH:)
2011 Washed Out:(
2012 Washed Out:(
2013 MPS/G 250 131 MPH (RECORD):)
2014 MPS/G 250 140 MPH (RECORD):)
2015 MPS/F 250 DNF:(

momec3
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:36 pm
Location: Cedar Grove Qld

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by momec3 » Sun Jul 20, 2014 11:06 am

I'd hate to think we are becoming another CAMS, by default. If we allow rules to be passed without proper thought and a fair degree of common sense we are doomed to follow the CAMS experience.

I think this rule makes some sense but perhaps needs amending to allow 'any suitable adult ' to be permitted to be in control. This would make it far more palatable and not impact as poorly on some teams.

An example of how I see this current rule impacting my little team. For me to change timing I would have to sit in the drivers seat, Kathy would be holding a timing light in one hand, throttle in the other and holding revs at 6000rpm. She would not be too keen on that to begin with let alone me trusting the resulting adjustment. (no offense Kathy). It don't make common sense.
Chris

Stayt`ie
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:47 pm
Location: Mackay

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by Stayt`ie » Sun Jul 20, 2014 8:42 pm

Two Questions,,

first, What incident/incidents involving a four wheel vehicle at a SCTA event trigged this rule, :?:

second, What incident/incidents involving a two wheel vehicle at a SCTA event trigged this rule, :?:
First Australian to ride a motorcycle over 200mph at Bonneville,,,

User avatar
Cookey
Member
Posts: 430
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:36 pm
Location: South Australia

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by Cookey » Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:50 pm

From my P.O.V., I have designed and built my land speed racer that will require a lot of tuning and pre-running procedures that entail my personal presence outside of the driver's seat of the vehicle whilst in the pits and at the starting area of any DLRA controlled event.
Should the rule as set out in the current rule book be applied then technically I will not be allowed to run unless the person who is in the drivers seat of my car is qualified to be there!
So this technically means that my alternate who in the seat of the car has to be DLRA member who holds the appropriate class licence that applies to my current licence.
In order to obtain the basic DLRA licence you need to be a member and you need to pay the entry fee for the event, so I am up for double my entry fee so that a member of my crew can be in the driver's seat at any time whilst my car is at a DLRA sanctioned event. And therein as my licence is extended, the alternate who is in control of the vehicle must technically be of an equivalent in order to comply.
Anyone from the DLRA Technical Committee care to elaborate on this valid point ??
Cheers,
Tony Cooke
DLRA # 363

User avatar
RGV
Posts: 661
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:17 pm
Location: Adelaide Hills

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by RGV » Sun Jul 20, 2014 11:32 pm

Is this rule the result of a vehicle (bike) "getting away" in the pits? If so dose the rider on the seat of the running bike have to have a helmet on as if the bike gets away it is being ridden and must not be with out a helmet!!!

Im going to F class next year and will purge the fuel system at the end of each day, removing the seat and tank to do so. The engine needs to be running but there will be no seat fitted. Will I need to make a temporary seat??

Where is it going to end?? :roll:

Dave

Last Minute Racing "its a 2-stroke ya twit - Its supposed to smoke"
DLRA #928
SATA #10

2010 MPS/G 250 118 MPH:)
2011 Washed Out:(
2012 Washed Out:(
2013 MPS/G 250 131 MPH (RECORD):)
2014 MPS/G 250 140 MPH (RECORD):)
2015 MPS/F 250 DNF:(

User avatar
Greg Watters
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:57 pm

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by Greg Watters » Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:26 am

Suppose we have to look where the risks are and change the rule to reflect the needs and dangers
In the pits and at the start
On a bike i cannot see where the rule reduces the chance of a runaway, any bike on running out of gear on a sidestand and pretty much on a paddock stand too is not going to go into gear and run off
if the shifter was bumped it would pretty much make some horrible noises but not easily go into gear, and if it did get a gear it would stall the motor
not exactly a huge flywheel effect on a bike , and if it magically got a gear and moved without stalling it would fall over

Someone revving the motor on a paddock stand has a better chance of a runaway

I would propose on motorcycles the rule be changed to something like a motorcycle running in gear must have a person in control , weather than be sitting on or hands on the controls standing alongside (like oiling a chain on the stand)

Cars also
what are the chances of a manual car getting a gear and if so moving , a slow idling more standard car would stall in the unlikely event of no one in the seat knocking it into gear , and a fast idling highly modified vehicle would make the same horrible noise mentioned above

Automatics i can see the need for someone in the seat

otherwise in the pits and at the start the vehicle would need to be attended by someone capable of reaching the kill switch

Can fine tune this sort of thing and make an official rule change proposal

Mossy
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:57 pm
Location: Pt Augusta

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by Mossy » Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:05 pm

Ralph
I would support an ammendmant to the rule to allow a bike to be run on a paddock stand.
I find it easier to (kick) start my bike on the stand than it is when sitting on the bike.

Cheers Mossy
DLRA # 959

User avatar
zork
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 8:29 am
Location: St Marys 5042

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by zork » Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:31 pm

What about us one legged fellas who can not start our bikes? You can not discriminate the disabled.

Post Reply