Survey: Planning a differnt type of event, need feedback

you seem to be angry about everything (current day rally related)

but hey, how boring would the world be if we all had the same opinions and outlook on everything

12xalt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you seem to be angry about everything (current day
> rally related)


I think the current rules are too stupid to be angry about them.

It's kinda like bicycle helmets. Think of all the billions and
billions of people who were dying from bicycle accidents before
the feel good laws for bicycle helmets.

So as not to distract the thread readers I waited until there were
over 50 posts before replying to this thread.

JVL's idea is great! I'd sign up in a minute if I could.

Jens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the current rules are too stupid to be
> angry about them.
>
> It's kinda like bicycle helmets. Think of all the
> billions and
> billions of people who were dying from bicycle
> accidents before
> the feel good laws for bicycle helmets.
>
> So as not to distract the thread readers I waited
> until there were
> over 50 posts before replying to this thread.
>
> JVL's idea is great! I'd sign up in a minute if I
> could.
>


my friend has this quote in his signature at another site...

"The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?"

Jens Wrote:
> Wow, dude. Trees!
> Yeah, man, we didn't... like... have trees when
> we
> rallied in the 70's. Trees are scary things,
> man.
> Trees were introduced to rally in the 80's or
> 90's.

You're being an idiot.

Just as you can't pretend the atomic bomb doesn't exist now that it is 'out' ... enhanced safety gear is here to stay, Ignorance of the risks in the '70s can't be compared to today where risks are identified and protection is available.

At one level, you can recommend safety gear and let people use their own judgment on what they decide to use. BUT, to be blunt, anyone who would compete with a helmet and without a head and neck device simply doesn't fully understand the risks.

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

Morison Wrote:
> BUT, to be blunt, anyone who would
> compete with a helmet and without a head and neck
> device simply doesn't fully understand the risks.

Keith, this statement is unprovable and my opinion is that it's not based in fact.

Anders

---

Grassroots rally. It's what I think about.

Jens,

Just in case you don't read Canadian..you're being an idiot.

In the late 70's early 80's nationals were being won with a 35 mph average. Jeep Wagoneers were a fast car then. Tires were crap, cars were crap and an honest 120hp at the wheels was a buttload. Our regional cars are averaging 25-30 mph faster than the nationals of old and todays national cars are on a whole 'nuther level. 4 point cages, tee-shirt driving suits and Snell 75 helmets are like you..a thing of the past with no relevence to today's sport.

Morison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jens Wrote:
> BUT, to be blunt, anyone who would
> compete with a helmet and without a head and neck
> device simply doesn't fully understand the risks.

Or perhaps they've looked at literally hudreds upon hundreds of violent multiple rolls of cars on videos of Finnish F0Cup cars, many of which are faster than the much ballyhoo'ed Sharp edge of the whatever here and in Canada, and not seen the Swedes and Finns breaking their necks and draw a different conclusion that you.
Maybe they also spent 20 years quite literally landing on their heads and only saw spinal compression 35 years later, and draw a different conclusion than you.

Maybe they have had numerous friends who spent a couple decades doing similar amounts of thousands of hours of racing only to die in simple car crashes, and draw differnt conclusions about the actual risks in the typical rally rollover.

Again you make statements which strongly imply that only you Keith Morison fully understands anything.

Could we please not clutter this particular thread up with more of your preaching on things either blatantly obvious or having nothing at al to do with this SURVEY of LIKELY Competitors or Potential Competitors?

We are trying to find what THEY would like to see, and compete in.

>
>
>

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Keith,

I would like to respond to two comments that you made.

"The problem is that given a closed road, I'd assume that people will drive to the performance spec of the car, not the safety spec of the car. Particularly the 'in-between' crowd who don'd have the experience to properly judge risk on the road."

How? TSDs still get the occaisonal crew out there who decide the goal is to get as many 'early' point as possible. CARS has highly suggested 'winter scoring' time allowances in all TSDs (so you only get penalized once for being late) but that only deals with the people who have the right goal in mind.

There is no hard and fast way to prevent this. All we can do is to hope that people will try to hold their average speeds. As organizers we should also not be afraid to boot someone out of an event that is being foolish.

Should we keep TSD and stage rallies separate?

Gene,

"with no relevence to today's sport." By this you mean stage rally correct? What are you thought about the safety of a faster type of TSD.

Robert.

---

Robert.

"You are way too normal to be on Rally Anarchy." Eddie Fiorelli.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/2009 10:54PM by Rallymech.

Rallymech Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "with no relevence to today's sport." By this you
> mean stage rally correct? What are you thought
> about the safety of a faster type of TSD.

TSDs are scored based on averaging a speed that is below the speed limit (usually just below if Paul Westwick is involved!). It would be hard to argue, particularly at events with "winter scoring", that competitors are encouraged to go faster than some road engineer or government official has decided is safe for the road.

It seems to me that a faster type of TSD would have competitors maintain an average speed in excess of this seed and that would make things less safe, for some definition of safe.

alan

john vanlandingham Wrote:
> Or perhaps they've looked at literally hudreds
> upon hundreds of violent multiple rolls of cars on
> videos of Finnish F0Cup cars, many of which are
> faster than the much ballyhoo'ed Sharp edge of the
> whatever here and in Canada, and not seen the
> Swedes and Finns breaking their necks and draw a
> different conclusion that you.
> Maybe they also spent 20 years quite literally
> landing on their heads and only saw spinal
> compression 35 years later, and draw a different
> conclusion than you.

Thanks for tipping your hand and showing your ignorance John,
Head and Neck devices provide little or no protection in 'violent' rolls, and aren't intended to, Neither are they designed or intended to prevent spinal compression (actually the prevent the opposite)

Beyond that, multiple rolls are spectacular, but shed energy across a long time span and, as such, are less 'violent' than a head-on tree strike.(which is where the H&N device comes in)

I have seen, first hand, that a Head and Neck device can make a significant difference in the seriousness of injury in a LOW SPEED accident. The difference I am talking about is either going home with your family that night or being in ICU for two weeks, in hospital for a month and still recovering (as in unable to work) six months later. (Observed the results of the accident, not personally involved in the accident)

Of the rally accidents I've been in, the least violent was also the one with the highest energy. 180KM/hr rolling into a stand of trees. The most violent was probably also the slowest speed one, we think 70-80Km/h-ish)

Again, from accidents I have been in, I have been sore and then sorer in following days in relatively non-violent accidents without a H&N and come out of much more violent accidents with a H&N device with NO SORENESS at all.

> Again you make statements which strongly imply
> that only you Keith Morison fully understands
> anything.

Give it a rest John. I never said anything like that. Seems you have a problem with anyone but yourself having strong, informed, opinions.

> Could we please not clutter this particular thread
> up with more of your preaching on things either
> blatantly obvious or having nothing at al to do
> with this SURVEY of LIKELY Competitors or
> Potential Competitors?
> We are trying to find what THEY would like to see,
> and compete in.

What, you think I'm not a potential competitor?

So far I have been trying to help and Robert has seemed to be both appreciative and engaging. You are the one who regularly clutters up these conversations with personal attacks and word twisting.

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

Rallymech Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Should we keep TSD and stage rallies separate?

If you can find the volunteer support, no need to separate them. The problem is less with the TSD but with the faster than brisk TSD version you are proposing.

Open roads add a whole other level of 'sanity checks' in even the 'brisk' TSDs and moving to a brisker pace on a closed road is, in my opinion, asking for trouble.

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

12xalt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What about hillclimbs? ... Cages are not required for those and there are
> trees involved and no limit set for speeds vs
> amount of safety equipment.

Hillclimbs are outside of my experience so I have no idea about this. The only hillclimb I am familiar with is Knox Mountain in Kelowna, and they definately require cages and the full 8.2 Meters of safety gear.

> So, they somehow effectly manage to get insurance
> coverage with half the people running having no
> cage and no suit.

Which sanctioning body?

One of the misconceptions is that the insurance underwriter actually reviews and/or approves the rules and safety precautions. At least in Canada, the policy is written based on the assumption that the sanctioning body will make prudent decisions and create and enforce a ruleset that protects the participants from undue risks.

In the end, a sanctioning body and their broker and/or underwriter will look to similar events to judge risks and therefor premiums. Targa NL is probably the closest model.

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

Morison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> john vanlandingham Wrote:
> > Or perhaps they've looked at literally
> hudreds
> > upon hundreds of violent multiple rolls of
> cars on
> > videos of Finnish F0Cup cars, many of which
> are
> > faster than the much ballyhoo'ed Sharp edge
> of the
> > whatever here and in Canada, and not seen
> the
> > Swedes and Finns breaking their necks and
> draw a
> > different conclusion that you.
> > Maybe they also spent 20 years quite
> literally
> > landing on their heads and only saw spinal
> > compression 35 years later, and draw a
> different
> > conclusion than you.
>
> Thanks for tipping your hand and showing your
> ignorance John,
> Head and Neck devices provide little or no
> protection in 'violent' rolls, and aren't intended
> to, Neither are they designed or intended to
> prevent spinal compression (actually the prevent
> the opposite)
>
> Beyond that, multiple rolls are spectacular, but
> shed energy across a long time span and, as such,
> are less 'violent' than a head-on tree
> strike.(which is where the H&N device comes
> in)
>
> I have seen, first hand, that a Head and Neck
> device can make a significant difference in the
> seriousness of injury in a LOW SPEED accident. The
> difference I am talking about is either going home
> with your family that night or being in ICU for
> two weeks, in hospital for a month and still
> recovering (as in unable to work) six months
> later. (Observed the results of the accident, not
> personally involved in the accident)
>
> Of the rally accidents I've been in, the least
> violent was also the one with the highest energy.
> 180KM/hr rolling into a stand of trees. The most
> violent was probably also the slowest speed one,
> we think 70-80Km/h-ish)
>
> Again, from accidents I have been in, I have been
> sore and then sorer in following days in
> relatively non-violent accidents without a H&N
> and come out of much more violent accidents with a
> H&N device with NO SORENESS at all.
>
> > Again you make statements which strongly
> imply
> > that only you Keith Morison fully
> understands
> > anything.
>
> Give it a rest John. I never said anything like
> that. Seems you have a problem with anyone but
> yourself having strong, informed, opinions.
>
> > Could we please not clutter this particular
> thread
> > up with more of your preaching on things
> either
> > blatantly obvious or having nothing at al to
> do
> > with this SURVEY of LIKELY Competitors or
> > Potential Competitors?
> > We are trying to find what THEY would like to
> see,
> > and compete in.
>
> What, you think I'm not a potential competitor?
>
> So far I have been trying to help and Robert has
> seemed to be both appreciative and engaging. You
> are the one who regularly clutters up these
> conversations with personal attacks and word
> twisting.


It is obvious that you are not a potential entrant, or participant.

Again, I am asking you politely to refrain from continuing with your re-stating the obvious and derailing this thread with your observations.
I have already spoken with a couple of potential competitors who have no desire to post because of your presence on this thread.
Perhaps you could start your own thread about what you want at a rally.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

john vanlandingham Wrote:
> It is obvious that you are not a potential
> entrant, or participant.

Really?

> Again, I am asking you politely to refrain from
> continuing with your re-stating the obvious and
> derailing this thread with your observations.

So far my comments have generally brought more discussion and raised questions ... not exactly 'stating the obvious.'

> I have already spoken with a couple of potential
> competitors who have no desire to post because of
> your presence on this thread.

Why, because I dare bring up the 'S' word?

> Perhaps you could start your own thread about what
> you want at a rally.

Why? I have what I want in Rally already. BUT, the idea of a marathon / overnight event is something I find interesting and I think has potential.

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

Jens Wrote:

> Back in the 70's we were dying in droves because
> we didn't have Hans devices, idiotic cage rules,
> silly suits, spectators, and TV crews, and
> photographers.
>
> Yes, boys and girls, the New World Order of drug
> dealer
> sponsored forest sprint racing / stadium stunts
> that they
> call "rally" has saved us all from the carnage
> that
> was the good ol' days.

You know, modern safety rules aren't ENTIRELY paranoid nannyism. We could reasonably expect safety rules to roll back if we also rolled back to carburetors, twin-tube shocks and truck tires.

Just sayin.

-Dave