Open invitation to CARS for dialogue

I would think that organizers would and should have some say over rules that direct relate to safety, which includes restrictors, since they have to get the insurance. That's part of the SCCA's way of looking at things.

With rare exception the organizer doesn't get the insurance. The sanctioning body gets the insurance and then resells it to the organizer. If the event gets the insurance, such as Idaho Rally previousy or NewYork they aren't sanctioned as such and get quite a bit of freedom with rules and restrictions.

Right now some sanctioning bodies only make nickles and dimes on the insurance while others make some fairly large dollars. Probably fodder for another interesting thread....

Quote
Iowa999
I would think that organizers would and should have some say over rules that direct relate to safety, which includes restrictors, since they have to get the insurance. That's part of the SCCA's way of looking at things.

That being said, rules which are guaranteed to cause extensive expense to competitors SHOULD<-----that's the most troublesome word in the world. It should be forbidden---- be justified with clear hard examinable DATA .

The restrictor experiment has failed..
The claimed justification here was "What would we say in court if it was found we were not using (fawkin groan more weasel words) BEST PRACTICES??"

The HANS requirement was not proven, and nowhere near "universal" as was repeated to the point of nausea---and direct copy and paste exrtacts from all over the world conclusively proving that was not true were ignored, and the posted maligned.
The creative reasoning was "What would we say in court if it was found we were not using (fawkin groan more weasel words) BEST PRACTICES??"

The suggested answer: The truth is the final defence: presnt decades of RALLY crash data proving we don't die or break necks in our crashes, or even much more violent crashes. REAL evidence. Easily obtainable.

Re the circumvention of restrictors: anybody who has been around a while knows that in response to restrictors Teams spent huge sums of money, revised thinking, built highly stress insane high boost mid range monsters and re-geared and the cars were quicker. And a whole lot more expensive.
Team O'neil was changing engines daily for a while..

They should show justifications, and reasons and proof that the rules have resulted in something other than feel-good bullshit, or scardy cat imitation of what their selectively narrow knowledge base wants to pretend is "universal"...

Acceptable proof would be noticeable reduction in the insurance premiums passed along to entrants..

---

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.

Quote
john vanlandingham
SHOULD<-----that's the most troublesome word in the world. It should be forbidden

That's hilarious right there. Good to see you have a sense of humour still!

Quote

The claimed justification here was "What would we say in court if it was found we were not using (fawkin groan more weasel words) BEST PRACTICES??"

A byproduct of the excessively litigous society we live in. The reality is that following internationally recognized standards is the easiest way to protect everybody involved. If there were a court case, the question of not adhering to recognized standards would come up and there would need to be solid reasoning supporting that decision.

Quote

The HANS requirement was not proven...

what do you need for proof on that?
I know two people who suffered life changing injuries that would have been reduced, at least, or prevented with the use of a HANS device. Both were in slow cars on a slow stage. If you're looking for indepth investigations into actual accidents to prove HANS Devices would have made a difference, you're asking for something you KNOW doesn't exist and is likely prohibitively expensive to produce.

Quote

Re the circumvention of restrictors: anybody who has been around a while knows that in response to restrictors Teams spent huge sums of money, revised thinking, built highly stress insane high boost mid range monsters and re-geared and the cars were quicker. And a whole lot more expensive.

Do you think engine, diff, suspension and tire development wouldn't hav continued. Do you honestly think that without restrictors the cars wouldn't have gotten even faster than they are now?

Quote

Acceptable proof would be noticeable reduction in the insurance premiums passed along to entrants..

If you completely eliminated ALL risk of participant injury how much of a reduction in premiums would you expect? (Hint, look at the coverage for participant injury compared to the liability coverage.) The reality is that there was a belief that the ability to GET insurance without requiring H&N devices was in question. (I was a director in CARS at the time)

---

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.

Beliefs schmeleifs.
Did anybody write any other ASN like Svenskabilsportförening or AKK where they often crash hard more cars in one corner than we have total entries in whole events and ask them what percentage of their crews were dying in all the 10s of thousands of violent rollovers and crashes they have over the decades?
Or FFA and ask the same question?
And ask why they didn't require but only recommended (Except FFA in A8 and N4)?

Can you assure us---you can't---that somebody ar RA asked any other RALLY sanctioning organisation how many people were breaking their necks yearly?

You know 2 people that...Oh yeah that just wipes out 25 years of seeing truly hair raising crashes and 7-10-12 times rolls..by dozens and dozens of people the bulk who are out and waving at folks seconds later....

Your example, as scary and painful as it doubtless is/was is only 2 people out of even in North America, decades of LOTS of people rolling/crashing.. I don't recall any broken necks..

Does anybody here?


So ex-Director, when there was this "belief" what did you do before requiring every single person to spend their hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of dollars..
Did you arm yourself with data from places with vastly more data?
That seeeeems like the logical first step I think we can agree, find the reality, the NEED before deciding..
those other places probably have the same insurance underwriter in the end...how can they do it (NOT require, just recommend) and you not?

We know down here that didn't happen, the nonrequirement i slaved away over a hot keyboard for a few hours search thru all these languages to find "HANS not required" was gruffly and arrogantly brushed aside with fatuous comments EVER MAJOR RACE SERIES requires HANS" right in the face of 1012 pages directly from major federations rally rules..

See morison, that's the proble: a rules guy, a guy who wants to hang with and schmooze with all kinds of other redneck types makes as far as we can tell zero effort to confirm the need IN OUR SPORT for OUR Crashes and OUR Rollovers---which we have been doing since 30+ years ago with far sketchier cages and seats...without breaking a single neck...decides..

So what efforts did "The Board" do asking other ASNs about their records IN RALLY of broken necks?

---

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.

Quote
john vanlandingham
Beliefs schmeleifs.

When an autocratic ASN says thou shalt require H&N devices... It's hard to fight that. In many ways our HANS were tied.

Quote

Did anybody write any other ASN...

We looked at what other sanctioning bodies were doing, but I don't think the tech director at the time talked withany other ASNs. (Technically CARS isn't the ASN)
But, I'm not sure why you only look at the extreme of broken necks or fatalities. More regularly H&N devices effectively reduce injuries, which is also an important consideration.

Quote

You know 2 people that...Oh yeah that just wipes out 25 years of seeing truly hair raising crashes and 7-10-12 times rolls...

what I'm saying is if I personally know two people who suffered neck injuries on a rally stage (in separate incidents) then either it is more common than you suggest or by some freak of nature I know the only two its happened to in the world.

Quote

Your example, as scary and painful as it doubtless is/was is only 2 people out of even in North America, decades of LOTS of people rolling/crashing.. I don't recall any broken necks..

One of the examples I mentioned was a broken neck (actually a basal skull fracture) and I've known several people who have broken vertebrae or suffered significant soft tissue damage in the neck/ back in rally accidents. (And, while rolling is spectacular, it is also really REALLY tame on the body - at least in my experience, which includes rolling into trees at 110 mph.)

Quote

So ex-Director, when there was this "belief" what did you do before requiring every single person to spend their hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of dollars.

We looked at what other sanctioning bodies were doing at the time, considered the expressed position of our ASN that we were expected to adopt the requirement for H&N devices, looked at the issue of FIA only or also allowing SFI devices, and debated the timeline for adoption, ending up with two years notice (iirc) before mandating them. I doubt anyone on the board would have needed to see deaths and broken necks to see and understand the risk reduction and safety advantages.

Quote

those other places probably have the same insurance underwriter in the end...how can they do it

Probably the same reinsurer / risk pool but doubtfully the same primary underwriter.
Also, CARS doesn't actually buy its own insurance, we operate under an umbrella policy bought by the ASN.

Quote

...without breaking a single neck...

But we have broken necks in our sport. Simply saying we haven't doesnt change that.(I honestly wish it could)

---

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.

Well it only takes one death from a head on ...and that one was and still is a bit hard to think about.

Todays cars are much faster down the line than before. North American roads are much faster. Multiple rolls are not the problem per se, crashing head on into a tree or rock is the problem. Rockrohr's hit a couple years ago was typical of what does the concerned spinal damage.

I believe in them enough, have see enough sled test crashes and data that Brent has worn one at hill climbs, track days and even drag racing his car. Many times the only one at the event and lots of people want to take a peak and talk about it. When I was but a child I remember the hoopla over seat belts in cars. My dad and others used to repeat the concern that someone would be trapped in the car and drown or burn due to the belt...that far outweighs the chance of getting hit by Pa Kettle in a truck at 60mph.

Since a HNR can be rented, borrowed, are not a one use expense but actually 5 years and get a looksee for a re-cert then shouldn't be a deal breaker for anyone. If that little expense is a deal breaker then that individual really can't afford the sport.

I mentioned that we lost people to that rule and a few others. Not a lot of people and the sport is still going along. There are worse events on the horizons than a HNR requirement. Still, rules need to be looked at and then weighed. Some aren't an option and maybe some aren't smart but collateral damage alone is not justification for not makling tough decisions.

Gene, HANS was used as an example of the PROCESS of decision making, and as we see nothing reseembling a rational description has ever been offered of the process....Innuendoes, hints, snippets...

just like so many decisions that cost people so much money..

Whim to imitate?
Fear of the story the other party could weave in court (they want my moneyez!)

Or stated concerns about speed of 3-3 rich guys and lack-o-newb entering the sport and decision, fuck up a class, costing a few guys active thousands...and detering others?

Process has always been too secrretive, too much "Truuuuust us, we're doing for your own good, it'll only cost a few hundred dollars......, we know better than you do, we have the inside info...we're Media guys"

---

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.

Quote
heymagic
Todays cars are much faster down the line than before. North American roads are much faster.

The funny thing is that the two accidents I'm talking about were BOTH in Production cars an on the slowest stage road in the region. They were both very sudden stops. (Had they been going faster they might have moved the tree or hit on a different angle and been better off)

---

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.

Quote
john vanlandingham
...as we see nothing reseembling a rational description has ever been offered of the process....Innuendoes, hints, snippets...

There are a lot of changes happening with CARS and how things are done. One of the new processes coming into place deals with rule changes and how we deal with them, regardless of where the change is coming from.
The discussion is still happening, but the basic principle is that the rules committees (one technical one administrative) look at any proposed rule change, gather comparisons from other sanctioning bodies where available/applicable (RA/NRS/USAC/FIA/MSA/CAMS as examples) and bring a reccomendation to the board, and 'the sport' (which is way WAY smarmier than 'stakeholders' in my mind) for input, reviews that input and then goes to the board for final action based on the feedback.

That isn't significantly different from current practice, it is just being codified in a written policy and is expected to be applied to all rule changes. (we've seen some 'housekeeping' changes try and sneak through substantive changes)

Quote
john vanlandingham
Whim to imitate?

I can assure you, none of the decisions taken by the CARS board can be reasonably called a whim. I've spent countless hours discussing, debating and arguing over things just to make sure that all perspectives are heard. (i'm the guy that will argue a perspective I don't actually beleive, but thinks needs to be heard and considered.)

Quote
john vanlandingham
Fear of the story the other party could weave in court (they want my moneyez!)

Even the threat of a lawsuit costs money. In the end the money anyone will get will be the insurance company's money not mine, not the event's and not the club's, but making sure you look to accepted standards is a good way to prevent even the threat of a lawsuit.

Quote
john vanlandingham
Or stated concerns about speed of 3-3 rich guys...

I don't know why you continually suggest that the concern over the speed of the open class cars had anything to do with restricting the Gr5 cars. You hang on to that idea like a kid hangs on to a security blanket.

Quote
john vanlandingham
Process has always been too secrretive, too much "Truuuuust us, we're doing for your own good, it'll only cost a few hundred dollars......, we know better than you do, we have the inside info...we're Media guys"

There is a difference between 'secrretive' and broadcasting the process and discussion everywhere. I don't know a single director of CARS that wouldn't discuss the decision making process if asked.
If you want, or expect, decision making through public consensus, I hate to say it but you're on crack. Considering public consultation in the decision making process is absolutely necessary but finding answers that will make everyone happy is practically unpossible in many cases.

---

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.

Yes, it is not always the max speed but the rate of deceleration.


John, while maybe you intended this as an example the way you deliver the message just turns into the same old argument ..you don't believe in them, Kieth and I do. It is a done deal, has been for years and I'm sure it will remain so.

The fact of the matter is in the case of RA and NRS the decisions are made by a person not a committee. Often input is requested and considered, decisions are looked at, sometimes they change a word or phrase or action other times they don't. I support the HNR decisons and follow the logic that none of the people at the top want to reflect back on losing a friend or ralliest over a decision they made personally. Then there is the legal issue of accepted standards and best practices, we've hashed that over before so why do it again?

My discussion with Keith was who is a stakeholder in their decision making process and who's voice gets what weight...and as organizers/workers/officials/company guys or what ever you call us, we largely agree. No name calling, no need for nasty or calling out individuals. Simple exchange of ideas without the drama. Thank you Keith.

Quote
heymagic
I support the HNR decisons and follow the logic that none of the people at the top want to reflect back on losing a friend or ralliest over a decision they made personally.

The worst injury we've seen, which was exactly the injury the HANS is designed to prevent, happened at the last rally in Canada before H&N devices were required. The board had initially talked about requiring them for the start of 2008, then the middle of 2008 but finally went with 'strongly recommended' until Jan 1 2009 and required after that. Despite knowing we recommended them and he chose to compete without one, several of us still feel bad about the extent of his injuries knowing they were preventable. (and ultimately cost him much more in real, hard cash than the H&N device would have)

---

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.

I'm sure that a number of us choosing to get into a rallycar would gladly sign a release before the event saying something to the effect of.....

'I understand that by my choosing to not use a H&N device that I may be injured or killed and agree that no-one will sue because of this or any other reason. Regardless of legal precedent.'

I'm not a fan of the horse collar.

---

JohnLane

Overkill is consistently more fun

Again its the way it was done and the pretend that it is a universal requirement for rally "IN EVERY MAJOR SERIES in the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

The way , the fait accompli is the norm...

When the Group2 rules were "in the drafting stage"...the went into the rule book verbatim with all the dumb if this size then that many valve, if that size, this many valve and the weight requirement per "corrected cc" for THE LITTLE Open class when the BIG Rich guy dominated Open 2wd class had no weight requirement.....

The "Perty line" was "equalizing competition" but the then National Steward said "Well we had a bunch of complaints from all the Mid-west PGT guys who said thet would support it if we didn't add the weight clause"

Now at the time I had the oldest car, the littlest motor and the only thing in the country with iron heads and push-rods... I joked, "well if those guys want to saddle themselves with rubber bands and delicate aluminum heads I won't hold that against them...

And the lame, behind the scene politickin' didn't help anyway , we good Group 2 guys kicked their asses bad..
Just created bad feelings and a stench of bullshit..

1.05 lbs for one open class and nothing for the 3 times as powerful other open class...

No logic can't explain that, its as ludicrous as requiring one lower budget open class to run a smaller restrictor and even a smaller motor than another high budget open class, which is patently absurd, and defies logic explanation..

Both came from closed, behind the scenes good ol' boys type horse trading.

---

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.

Meh. All I know is the horse collar would be a lot more palatable if it didn't cost two to three times what a legal helmet does.

---

Andrew Steere
Lyndeborough, NH
KB1PJY