Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Go here for general DLRA News

Moderator: DLRA

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 » Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:52 pm

Ralph

You have my support for a Rule Amendment that allows us to Start our Bikes on a Stand without having to sit on it ....
I am in the same boat as Mossy my Bike is pretty hard to Kick Start when I am on it.

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 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:15 am

Greg Watters wrote: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)
I agree with what Greg has proposed, I don’t think there is any need or reason for a car or bike to be in gear without someone at the controls.

For Bikes?

(MOTORCYCLES) THE RIDER SHALL BE UPON THE RACE VEHICLE ANY TIME THE ENGINE IS RUNNING WITH THE TRANSMISSION IN GEAR.

In addition, the use of a Velcro clutch strap such as pictured may be a common sense additional safety, that wouldn’t really inconvenience anyone greatly. If the bike by some far fetched reason is knocked into gear, it doesn’t go any where, as the bike has the clutch engaged. It would also serve to allow officials and fellow racers to identify that the bike is immobilized and safe. I made this using self adhesive Velcro. They would have to be sewn because the temperatures we experience would soften the glue. The club could have some made and raise a bit of money whilst doing so, perhaps include one with each entry?

My primary concern is the safe operation of Motorcycles, I’m not a Car guy but?

1.L PARTICIPANT CONDUCT:
Any participant who shows any signs of intoxication will be barred immediately from an event.
(MOTORCYCLES) THE RIDER SHALL BE UPON THE RACE VEHICLE ANY TIME THE ENGINE IS RUNNING WITH THE TRANSMISSION IN GEAR.
(CARS WITH MANUAL TRANSMISSIONS) THE DRIVER SHALL BE IN THE RACE VEHICLE ANY TIME THE ENGINE IS RUNNING WITH THE TRANSMISSION IN GEAR.
(CARS WITH AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS) THE DRIVER SHALL BE IN THE RACE VEHICLE ANY TIME THE ENGINE IS RUNNING.
Any reckless conduct by a race participant, e.g. doing warm-up passes without a helmet or other required equipment, or powering beyond the finish line will be referred to the Contest Board for action.

Click on thumbs:

Image

Image

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

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by BIG GAZ » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:59 am

Hi all,
I have been a bit flat out interstate and have not been following this thread but have responded to rgn regarding his concerns. Please remember I do not make the decisions on rule changes, I only have an input to them and effect the required changes.
I think we need to split the requirements for cars and bikes.
For cars- I think it is absolutely required that 'someone' is in the drivers seat while the engine is running. I am fairly sure we won't be changing that rule because emergency switches, fire controls etc are all located in that position. We could discuss 'who' should be in the drivers seat.
For bikes- I think Bob Ellis was happy that someone was next to the bike and in control of the bike on the start line. In the pits is a different thing and I think needs to be discussed rationally which I must congratulate you all on doing. We are all mates here trying to have fun, safely, all the while cognisant of each of our personalities. LSR certainly has a number of those and that is what makes our club unique. Please continue the conversation thoughtfully and see if we can come to an agreeable solution. I am all ears!
GAZ

User avatar
Lynchy
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:12 pm
Location: Brisneyland

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by Lynchy » Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:49 pm

As an aside to the motorcycle discussion and not trying to buy into it in any way, shape or form... but surely you could incorporate into the discussion the fact that all bikes have a lanyard operated kill switch which could be worn if running the bike and not sitting on it?

Lynchy

User avatar
gennyshovel
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:10 am
Location: Broken Hill

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by gennyshovel » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:22 pm

Your a genius Lychy
Tiny DLRA# 484
Postiebike Racing , created & funded by TwoBob Engineering

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

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by Greg Watters » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:38 pm

generally that would work
mine and several i have worked on use what was the sidestand switch as the lanyard, in N you can disconnect and walk away but in gear it kills immediately
and if mine was put into gear without the lanyard it would kill the motor

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

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by momec3 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:52 pm

A concern some of the startline crew have expressed to me, (this is related) is many times we get bikes request to start and run from their roll off start jigs. Our starters are always obliging here and allow this.

Our concern is sometimes these rigs are a bit to far back behind the line.
I'm sure all the starters would have a few less grey hairs if you run one of these rigs, to get it as close to the line as you can before you begin the start up procedure. Just let the startline crew know and they will be happy to accommodate.
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 » Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:01 am

i was always off the impression that the lanyard had to be attached to the person running the bike, be it in the pits or in the start area, or wherever on the salt, however, now that i reread the rules i see that this is not so, :? ,,
First Australian to ride a motorcycle over 200mph at Bonneville,,,

rgn

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by rgn » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:56 pm

From what I have observed, the group (here and overseas) is made up of capable, and very technically minded people, who know their machines and are very aware of the risks and dangers the sport presents, while being focused on the challenge and pleasure that participation brings.

I’m aware that change often requires concessions to be made, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. Rules are sometimes like relationships, we have a tendency to hang onto them even when they don’t serve our best interests, and when we finally move on, there are always concessions that we feel we need to make in separation.

A lanyard is problematic for many reasons, how long are people going to make their maintenance lanyards? Do they need to be attached to a person or inanimate object such as a support vehicle? Depending on the resolution, it will potentially require riders to be tethered to their bikes in the sun for long periods of time while warming up etc, which is not desirable.

In the pits, while you are working on the bike there is a chance you could snag the lanyard for instance on the gear lever… or around a bar, throttle grip, or other structure causing the lanyard system to become in-operational, or causing an unwanted operation, such as accidental kill while turbo is spooled.

I now understand (as explained by Gaz a few posts up) why you may need someone in a car, because of the kill and fire extinguisher circuits, and I think there is an opportunity presenting itself for the car side of the community to engage in a conversation regarding how you want to be able to operate and maintain your vehicles on the salt in the future.

If a concession needs to be made in relation to bikes, a clutch strap securely and completely immobilizes a bike simply and without potential for complication, even if a gear is selected by accident. If at any point in time you want to intentionally engage the bikes gearbox, I think someone probably needs to be sitting in the seat and in control of it. Common sense?

If there is agreement that changes need to be made to 1.L, to allow the for safe maintenance, preparation and operation of race bikes, we are going to need to get it right, and be in agreement about the changes we want at the point a submission is deployed.

Form B-3 “Rule Change or Addition Submission Form (Petition)” is just that. Though page1 of the 2015 rule book states “All regulations are subject to change without notice:” Cheers,
Ralph

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 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:18 pm

I can't run my bike for any period of time with the Clutch pulled in the Oil Pump stops pumping,

For me based on a simple Risk Assessment ..... starting the Bike in Neutral on an approved stand with a chock in front of the Front wheel without a Rider or a lanyard would be highly unlikely to be considered unsafe

However putting it into Gear with or without a Rider is when it becomes potentially unsafe .... and may prove difficult to justify.

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

Pete :shock:
DLRA #866
SATA #49

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 29, 2014 11:10 pm

There would be a lot of bikes that it would not be a good idea to run with the clutch engaged. Loads up bearings/thrust surfaces etc and the strap would only be as good as the cable or hydraulics.

rgn

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by rgn » Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:20 pm

Well forget the strap :shock: The rules need to serve everyone's interests. I don't believe they serve anyones as they stand.

As Greg Watters said in an earlier post "in control" to be substituted for upon. I think is the best proposed change as yet.

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

What does everyone think of this proposed amendment?

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

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by BIG GAZ » Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:43 pm

Sorry Ralph but I don't think this is specific enough. I think we need to separate the cars from the bikes on this one. As far as cars go Bob has indicated that 'in the seat' is probably the only and safest option.
For bikes I think 'in control' leaves too much to interpretation. A bike idling in the start area with the rider standing by, under the shade somewhere may be considered in control when it is clearly not. Maybe 'physical control' may suffice? It is up to Graham and Ross from here in.
Just my thoughts.
GAZ

rgn

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by rgn » Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:55 pm

Thanks for your input Gaz, we need to hear from everyone who has a point of view in relation to this topic. Cheers,
Ralph.

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

Re: Rule Clarification-Requirement clarification request?

Post by Stayt`ie » Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:24 pm

wouldnot "with lanyard attached to Driver/Rider at anytime engine is running", suffice, :?:
First Australian to ride a motorcycle over 200mph at Bonneville,,,

Post Reply