August FasTrack is out
- Thread starter planet6racing
- Start date
Bill Miller
New member
Darin,
Why do they keep saying they'll only move certain cars (and change the weight) if PCA's go through? The current rules already allow them to change the weight at the time of reclassification.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Why do they keep saying they'll only move certain cars (and change the weight) if PCA's go through? The current rules already allow them to change the weight at the time of reclassification.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Banzai240
New member
I know that... You know that... but there are some on the CRB that disagree or are otherwise hesitant to interpret the rule the way we do. Long standing traditions and all that...
We're working the issue...
Besides... reclassifications are considered rule changes and can only happen officially twice a year... After either of the BoD votes (November and December)... It is my interpretation of these actions that there are those that believe it would be safer to move these cars as we've suggested IF they have the extra insurance of being able to adjust the weight in the event of an overdog. Fair enough...
If PCAs don't pass in November, then we'll put some more weight, so to speak, behind getting them to "understand" that the rules already allow for weight changes under the conditions described in the GCR...
I think that either way, most, if not all of the reclassifications are going to get passed..., but that's just one persons optimistic view of things...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
Bill Miller
New member
Darin,
Not to get into an arguement, but I don't see what needs to be 'interpreted', it's pretty clearly spelled out that you can adjust the weight w/o any rule changes. Anyway, be that as it may, I'm also curious about some of the other reclassifications. Is it safe to assume that if they don't mention a weight change, that the cars are getting moved w/o any weight adjustments?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Not to get into an arguement, but I don't see what needs to be 'interpreted', it's pretty clearly spelled out that you can adjust the weight w/o any rule changes. Anyway, be that as it may, I'm also curious about some of the other reclassifications. Is it safe to assume that if they don't mention a weight change, that the cars are getting moved w/o any weight adjustments?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Banzai240
New member
Apparently, not everyone agrees that it is so cut and dried...
I would never "assume" anything around here, but to answer your question, yes, there are some cars recommended for reclassification that were recommended as such without a weight adjustment.
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
Mike Guenther
New member
I noticed in the GCR that the same model Mercedes 190 that's kickin butt in ITS is also spec'd in for ITA. I don't see any difference in the spec. That car would be way ahead in ITA. Am I missing something?
Mike Spencer
New member
First thing: There are two Merc's in ITS, a 6-cyl and a 4-banger. I suspect the "6" is the one that's cleaning up, but either way let's compare the 4-bangers;
The 4-cyl ITS car is a 16-valve and the ITA car is 8-valve.
Also, the compression ratio is a little higher for the "S" car (9.2 vs. 9.0), gear ratios are VERY slightly different (but not night-and-day), and the "A" car is 150 lbs. lighter.
Go figure!
(EDIT: The Bore is exactly 1 mm different between the two, they have the same stroke but end up with exactly the same displacement. Can you say "typo"?)
------------------
Mike Spencer
NC Region
ITA/7 RX-7 (almost)
ITS RX-7 (just started)
1990 RX-7 Convertible (street car)
[This message has been edited by Mike Spencer (edited June 28, 2004).]
We’ve given this some thought, and I’d like to throw out a few observations, some logically connected, most random.
First, the Fastrack publication:
GCR 20.4 refers to harnesses only, with no reference to any other restraint. If someone in Topeka wishes to, on the fly, substitute “restraint” for “harness”, and make reference to getting out of the car as well as getting out of the seat--which this clarification does--then we are now including window nets, right-side lateral head nets, etc. All of these components no longer comply with the GCR. Obviously, this won’t work. The clarification needs clarification.
Also, the G-Force SRS-1 head restraint uses the harness, and has no helmet quick-release pin. Ergo....
Second, Politics and other unsavory issues:
“...I don't believe SCCA will outlaw the device. I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps this reaction is just an unintended consequence of them trying to clarify the wording of the rule. Not a direct attempt to outlaw the ISAAC. If it was an issue of lobbying/politics then I assure you that neither the SCCA or HANS will be in my future.”
Hmm, how can I put this? There are both lobbying and politics involved. On the lobbying front, readers may have noticed that Hubbard/Downing personnel are everywhere this year pushing the HANS device. Their favorite ploy is to offer to present to sanctioning bodies (“at no charge”) the basics of H&N restraint science. After a two-hour “scientific” presentation, they will summarize the relative effectiveness of the devices they have considered. Guess which one wins? This is what happened at the SCCA conference earlier this year.
As many readers recall, there was a flurry of complaints to Topeka that the Club was being used as a doormat by a commercial endeavor. It wouldn’t have been bad had it not come on the heels of the 2-year SFI belt rule. Let’s save that for one of many other archived threads.
About the same time we fired off an e-mail to Topeka noting that they had been chumped out, I became engaged in a rather, shall we say, “enthusiastic” discussion regarding the relative merits of the Isaac system vis-à-vis the HANS device. As it turns out, one of my opposing debaters was a regional SCCA tech and HANS user. About two weeks later, an Isaac user from that region told us that tech would not ‘acknowledge’ the Isaac system. The customer used it anyway.
Now we have the Fastrack notice.
So, yes, there is an element of politics involved here.
Lastly, safety:
“At this point I've grown a bit tired of all the questioning, and second guessing on the part of some officials, and some of my fellow competitors. Normally this type of stuff doesn't bother me, but in this case I've got people making comments to my wife about the "supposed" ISSAC shortcomings. She of course doesn't understand all the ins and outs of head restraint systems. But it doesn't help matters when she is standing in impound, and sees that I'm the only driver climbing out with an ISSAC, and everybody else has the hans. Nor does it help matters when she hears random workers/officials making comments about the ISSAC requiring two points of release, vs one on the hans.”
You should have had your wife at the ARRC last year. The Isaac/HANS ratio was at least 2:1.
This is the part I find most annoying, especially because it involves family in your case. Please, Wayne, pass on to your wife the following information.
1) No head and neck restraint ever developed has outperformed an Isaac system in scientific laboratory crash tests, especially one invented in the last millennium. None. Period.
2) Any concerns about “supposed” ISAAC shortcomings are just that—-speculative. While it is conceivable that such events may occur, they must be compared to documented, established incidents of drivers being not protected by the HANS device or, in the extreme (Justin Wilson, F1 driver, 2003 season) being sent to the hospital without having crashed.
“At any rate, if it does come to pass that the ISSAC is indeed outlawed, I will sell it and buy a hans device. I prefer the ISSAC for easy of use and comfort.”
If it comes to that, Wayne, we will pay for your HANS device and provide a sticker that reads, “This thing sucks.”
------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
First, the Fastrack publication:
GCR 20.4 refers to harnesses only, with no reference to any other restraint. If someone in Topeka wishes to, on the fly, substitute “restraint” for “harness”, and make reference to getting out of the car as well as getting out of the seat--which this clarification does--then we are now including window nets, right-side lateral head nets, etc. All of these components no longer comply with the GCR. Obviously, this won’t work. The clarification needs clarification.
Also, the G-Force SRS-1 head restraint uses the harness, and has no helmet quick-release pin. Ergo....
Second, Politics and other unsavory issues:
“...I don't believe SCCA will outlaw the device. I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps this reaction is just an unintended consequence of them trying to clarify the wording of the rule. Not a direct attempt to outlaw the ISAAC. If it was an issue of lobbying/politics then I assure you that neither the SCCA or HANS will be in my future.”
Hmm, how can I put this? There are both lobbying and politics involved. On the lobbying front, readers may have noticed that Hubbard/Downing personnel are everywhere this year pushing the HANS device. Their favorite ploy is to offer to present to sanctioning bodies (“at no charge”) the basics of H&N restraint science. After a two-hour “scientific” presentation, they will summarize the relative effectiveness of the devices they have considered. Guess which one wins? This is what happened at the SCCA conference earlier this year.
As many readers recall, there was a flurry of complaints to Topeka that the Club was being used as a doormat by a commercial endeavor. It wouldn’t have been bad had it not come on the heels of the 2-year SFI belt rule. Let’s save that for one of many other archived threads.
About the same time we fired off an e-mail to Topeka noting that they had been chumped out, I became engaged in a rather, shall we say, “enthusiastic” discussion regarding the relative merits of the Isaac system vis-à-vis the HANS device. As it turns out, one of my opposing debaters was a regional SCCA tech and HANS user. About two weeks later, an Isaac user from that region told us that tech would not ‘acknowledge’ the Isaac system. The customer used it anyway.
Now we have the Fastrack notice.
So, yes, there is an element of politics involved here.
Lastly, safety:
“At this point I've grown a bit tired of all the questioning, and second guessing on the part of some officials, and some of my fellow competitors. Normally this type of stuff doesn't bother me, but in this case I've got people making comments to my wife about the "supposed" ISSAC shortcomings. She of course doesn't understand all the ins and outs of head restraint systems. But it doesn't help matters when she is standing in impound, and sees that I'm the only driver climbing out with an ISSAC, and everybody else has the hans. Nor does it help matters when she hears random workers/officials making comments about the ISSAC requiring two points of release, vs one on the hans.”
You should have had your wife at the ARRC last year. The Isaac/HANS ratio was at least 2:1.
This is the part I find most annoying, especially because it involves family in your case. Please, Wayne, pass on to your wife the following information.
1) No head and neck restraint ever developed has outperformed an Isaac system in scientific laboratory crash tests, especially one invented in the last millennium. None. Period.
2) Any concerns about “supposed” ISAAC shortcomings are just that—-speculative. While it is conceivable that such events may occur, they must be compared to documented, established incidents of drivers being not protected by the HANS device or, in the extreme (Justin Wilson, F1 driver, 2003 season) being sent to the hospital without having crashed.
“At any rate, if it does come to pass that the ISSAC is indeed outlawed, I will sell it and buy a hans device. I prefer the ISSAC for easy of use and comfort.”
If it comes to that, Wayne, we will pay for your HANS device and provide a sticker that reads, “This thing sucks.”
------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
I'm not sure about the point of this comment,but to clarify....
The SRS-1 H&N restraint is secured in exactly the same way as the HANS. It fits underneath the shoulder harnesses, but is not attached to them. Therefore, no QR pins are necessary.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
eh_tony!!!
New member
Hopefully this will all be a moot point soon.. John Baucom (Trans-Am MAP quality Enginering Mustang #86) has become a user, supporter, and believer in the Isaac system. This system has been used by John in several Trans-Am events. He is currently working with Gregg to get the ISAAC FIA approved. Assuming FIA approval, THAT should (hopefully, unless the BOD is critically stupid) negate any club arguments.
Some test photos show it clamped to the belt.
------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
No Ed, you're not missing anything. Club does not care what Pro does.
In my opinion, Pro has the best policy: A manufacturer must demonstrate that the product substantially reduces loads, and the driver must demonstrate that they can exit the car quickly. After that it is a matter of choice for the driver.
[edit: spelling]
------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
[This message has been edited by gsbaker (edited June 29, 2004).]
Shouldn't be. That's not the way it's worn, so the tests would be invalid. I also don't see any possible way to clamp it to the belts.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
It's on the Web site.
It's been tested with and without a means to keep the belts from sliding off. True, the present version may ship without this feature.
------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
Absolutely. I would encourage everyone who wishes to protect their neck and their investment to write the Board.
Also, put the Club on notice that you will hold them liable should you be denied the use of your Isaac system.
And send it certified mail, return receipt requested.
------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
[This message has been edited by gsbaker (edited June 29, 2004).]
dickita15
New member
while I understand that emotions run high and that it is percieved that the RRB is messing with your livelyhood, I have found that you have to be careful that with type of threat. I think it is a good idea to state that you have invested in a proven safety device and it seem to be counterproductive to ban it, particuarly when the threat of a hard impact is probably much greater that threat from a slightly slower egress.
dick