Information on the hill climb fatalities

[JekylandHyde]

Matt, I concede. There's no point in fighting the inevitable. I'm sorry to have bothered and stirred the pot so much. I simply should have followed the advice of my first hillclimb mentor: show up, pay your fees, race, don't get involved, go home.

As this rule progresses, I should have just quietly gone away. Sorry for the fuss.

I sincerely think you and your crew run an amazing hillclimb program and I have been pleased to have raced your events. I truly hope that the new rule does not affect PHA as much as I suspect it will.

Good luck to everyone.

[Steve Tumolo]

I have no idea why it took me so long to come up with this but, my first Mustang had a bolt in cage. The whole front section, bar at windshield, front down tubes and door bars, could be unbolted and removed in less than 10 minutes without help. Would that not be a viable way for the "street" cars to have things both ways?

[Sue Salsburg]

Matt - maybe I'm stupid but you keep saying "write a letter". Could you please provide details? Where exactly? To whose attention? It's seem like a done deal but I'll put in my 2 cents anyway. I just think there ought to be some performance standard - can't believe my slow SSC Mini is as dangerous as a fast car like Jeff's. It will be a sad passig of an era when we can't race our daily driver street car. Guess that's why I'm a dinosaur. Sue

[JekylandHyde]

Not that it matters ...

The problem, for me, would be that the proposed rule will effectively be eliminating the streetable cars from the hills.

No Jeff, the problem for you is the rule eliminates what you think are streetable cars. That is not a universal perception.

... Matt Green seemed to think it was a valid point:

Also, considering that a full cage makes a street-driven car significantly more dangerous on the street, then the "only $200 more" argument is thrown out the window when you have to add in a tow vehicle, trailer, the inspections and registrations on both of those, a place to store both of those, etc ...

That's an interesting line of thinking, and a very valid one. I have to admit that wasn't part of the financial model I was dealing with, but it probably should be.

[JekylandHyde]

Matt - maybe I'm stupid but you keep saying "write a letter". Could you please provide details? Where exactly? To whose attention? It's seem like a done deal but I'll put in my 2 cents anyway. I just think there ought to be some performance standard - can't believe my slow SSC Mini is as dangerous as a fast car like Jeff's. It will be a sad passig of an era when we can't race our daily driver street car. Guess that's why I'm a dinosaur. Sue

Not sure, but I assume:

Go to: http://www.scca.org
Then click "Inside SCCA"
Then click "Board and Committees"

You will have to sign in, which is the only reason I am not posting the list. I assume there is some reason they want that info only accessible to SCCA members.

The states represented on the TTSC, are:
PA (2), MO, LA, CO, IN & AL.
with the chair coming from PA.

The states represented on the TTAC, are:
WA, MO, CO, CT, WA & GA.
with the chair coming from WA.

[jmullins]

my first Mustang had a bolt in cage. The whole front section, bar at windshield, front down tubes and door bars, could be unbolted and removed in less than 10 minutes without help.

Steve, the car I am bulding now came with exactly what you said. A bolt in cage attached to the rear roll bar. I believe it was made by Kirk.

I am having it welded in and more bars added, but the way it is in the car now it could be removed pretty quickly.

[Champ]

Jeff, I hope that "getting involved" doesn't mean being on the winning side of every debate.

I don't think the issue has been decided yet. And I think there is a lot of input coming in from other parts of the country. But the simple fact here is that the genie is now out of the bottle. The public debate we're having here and on other forums shows that we see a possible problem with rollbar equipped cars.

One of the things Siemens is very serious about is potential liability. If we even suspect that there may be a risk, we must take action to eliminate it. These discussions will require the club to take action, I'm afraid.

Whatever happens, you've got several years before you'll have to do anything. I hope to see you on the hills in the meantime.

[JekylandHyde]

Jeff, I hope that "getting involved" doesn't mean being on the winning side of every debate.

Not all. Unfortunately there are other ways I've gotten involved that I've regretted it.

Also, this is not about me winning anything, I'm doing my best to make sure myself and others don't lose something.

I don't think the issue has been decided yet.

I wish I could say that.

The public debate we're having here and on other forums shows that we see a possible problem with rollbar equipped cars.

And I would agree that this is something that needs attention.
I would also agree that cars like Hyde (my turbo) and Rob Dysher's SM car and a bunch of the ASP cars (and others) should probably be bumped into the classes requiring cages, but to blindly make it so for absolutely every class is really a shame.

This does not seem like it is open for discussion on other possiblities or compromise. I've offered at least two other reasonable options and they have either been completely shut down or not acknowledged.

I do not recall if it is Vintage or Historic that is "outside the scope" of this proposed rule, but someone please explain to me how those cars with their archaic (if any) stock safety design - posting faster times than a modern-safety designed CSP car will not a need a cage, but the CSP car will?

Does that make sense to anyone??

If we even suspect that there may be a risk, we must take action to eliminate it.

There is a risk everytime someone pulls up to the line to make a run ... should we eliminate that?

I am not aware of any "no risk racing."

Whatever happens, you've got several years before you'll have to do anything. I hope to see you on the hills in the meantime.

I'm not one to wait to be shown the door, I can find it on my own.

I will do a couple of the hills this year, but we are already eliminating a few events from our schedule. There are other places to race.

[Mwilson]

Jeff, you said,"Im not one to wait to be shown the door, I can find it on my own."

"I will do a couple of the hills this year, but we are already eliminating a few events from our schedule. There are other places to race."


First, You are anticipating a rule change that may never go into effect.

Second, If it POTENTIALY does go into effect it may take a number of
years.

Third, Our organization will not make the final decision, National will.
I'm quite sure if enough drivers let National no why they do not
agree with the POTENTIAL change they will indeed take that
into consideration.

Fourth, I'm quite sure no one as you say, "is showing you the door."

Jeff,
You are a very talented man. You are a excellent driver, an exceptional writer, and are very dedicated to the sport. Your Web site, Smart Racer is one of the best I have seen. Our organization needs people like you to take over when us "Old Farts" die.
But honestly Jeff I think you are taking this way to personally. You are anticipating something that may never happen. If and when it does happen that is the time to deal with the situation and make decisions.
The 2007 season is just around the corner and I truly hope you reconsider and try to make it to all the events. I know how deeply you feel about this matter by the many posts you have made. I truly do respect your persistence and your steadfast beliefs, but step back and take a deep breath before you make up your mind.

And as far as doors go, my door will always be open.

[ReVision]

Hi Everyone,My name Mark and I just started racing this past year.I race my Toyota MR2 turbo and so far I have done a few drag racing events and have also been trying autocross lately.I would really like to try a lot of different types of racing this year and hillclimbing is something I definitly want to try after talking Jeff(JekylandHyde) and see how fun it looks.

The main issue with my car is that it is a street car and I drive it often,so having a full cage is out of the question right now.I was in the process of looking into getting a roll bar so I could race this year until I saw this discussion about only allowing cars with full cages to race.I would really rather not buy the rollbar and then have the rules changed so I can no longer compete.If the rules are changed to a roll cage only I can honestly say that I probably will not be racing.I understand the concern and why the rule may be changed,but a roll cage is something that I just don't want as long as my car is a street driven often.

[Mwilson]

Mark,
If you have been following all these posts you certainly must understand that no decision has been made as of yet concerning roll cages. If you want to race the hills you indeed are going to need a roll bar and the car will have to meet the current GCR spec's. I do understand your situation but if I were in your shoes and wanted to run the hills I wouldn't hesitate one bit on putting a roll bar in your MR2 Turbo. If the rule change goes into effect you can still Drag Race and I would think the roll bar would be a definite plus as far as safety goes. So nothing was really wasted and you had a few years of fun hillclimbing. If you truly enjoy running the hills then you have some decisions to make. One, upgrade to the full cage, or Two, give up the hills and simply run your auto cross events and drag Racing and keep your MR as a daily driver. The question is how bad do you want to try Hillclimbing? Most forms of racing are going to require you to at the least have a roll bar, with the exception of autocrossing. Although I'm not familiar with Drag Racing rules, I find it difficult to believe that they don't require you to have a roll bar. I certainly would want one in any car that I took to the drags. The way I see it if you don't want to put a full cage in your street car if the rules change then you are limited to what racing events you can participate in. Autocross-Drag Racing Vs. Hillclimbing-Road Racing-autocross-Drag Racing. At some point you are going to have to decide is the street car more important than the racing. You can't have it both ways. The choice is up to you.

[Kupop]

Weather or not this means anything at this point; I have to say that I completely disagree with this proposed rule change.

For those of you who are unaware of who I am my name is Kevin Tulay. I have met and know many of you from this forum from being around at the hill climb events.

I have lived in Weatherly, PA my entire life. I have been around the hillclimb as far back as I can remember when I used to live in town and ride my bike there to watch. I now live at the top of the hill climb road and you all pass my house just before turning around and lining up to go back down the hill.

I seen the hill climb basically die off and I have been seeing it coming back to what it used to be. I've worked on cars that were raced in the hill climb. I've help build cars specifically to be used in the hill climb and have even donated a chassis to be one of them! I was part of the Weatherly Hill Climb Association and helped out quite a bit with the events... not even just at Weatherly. Infact there is car out in the garage right now that will be raced in the hill climbs.

But now, I have never actually raced any of the hill climb events. I do however own a mildly tuned 1993 Toyota MR2 Turbo. I originally bought this car about 3 years ago to be my "nice" street car. That all changed when I went to an autocross and got hooked. Ever since then I have started to get more and more involved with racing than just a spectator. I have now done over 2 years of autocrossing with that car and 2 track events.

Being that I've been around the hillclimbs for some time now; I live right at the top of the Weatherly Hill Climb; and have a decently prepared car, you can bet that I always get asked when I am going to race at a hill climb. I typically say that I don't plan to, that I'm not interested in them, or that I don't want to get the required safety equipment (suit and roll bar), or that I simply can not afford it.

Now ever since the first autocross I entered with my car plans that I had for this car have been drastically changing. Some of the plans I once had are no longer even thought about anymore and there are plenty of newer plans to take their place. Along with this comes the thought of installing a roll car into my car. I already plan to install a bucket racing seat and a 5 point harness because I am unhappy with my stock seats and a CG-Lock.

Provided that I do make the decision to "step-up" and install a roll bar into my car for my own personal safety, as I honest plan to do more track events, I would then be able to race a hill climb.

I can not honestly say that the hill climbs do interest me as a driver. However, if I was to have the required safety equipment in my car, or nearly all of it and only needed to get a few more parts (and not spend a lot more money), I am a lot more likely to enter a hill climb to actually try it out and see what it is like. Just like I did with autocrossing and look where that led me.

I am the type of person who is willing to try almost anything at least once. You never know if you will like something or not if you do not try it. So what is to say if I was to try an hill climb event I would not get hooked and enter more of them? I would have to say only experience for me.

If I needed a full cage in my car to even just "try" a hill climb. I can guarantee you that I would never be sitting there at the starting line in my MR2.

Therefore I have to say that having this rule of a roll cage being required would deter me from participating in hill climbs and I believe I wouldn't be the only one.

By racing a car, are we, as the driver, not taking the responsibility of an accident into account? If a driver is "okay" with racing their car up a hill surrounded by rocks and trees with only a roll bar, should that not be their decision and responsibility?

I'll straight out admit that I've driven my MR2 up the Weatherly Hillclimb, while open to the public, faster than numerous fully caged "race" cars that enter the event. So why if I attempt to do this under the SCCA when it is even in a safer environment that I am not allowed too?

I know it is to due with insurance and liability but overall I do not exactly see how a certain incident such as those proposed should result in such a drastic rule change.

Some other events base their safety requirements on the performance of the car. I believe this is at least a better solution than saying all cars are required to have a cage. However, I do not know you will classify the cars in this type of event since each hill has different times and challenges and cars even in the same class can greatly vary. I also feel that if you went with this solution even my mildly tuned street car would require a full cage.

-Kevin

[Matt Rowe]

I know I said I would be quiet but since Jeff's involvement in the MR2 community has brought many new MR2 owners in to comment let's take a look at a relevant example and see what they think.

Look at the photo and tell me that a roll cage wouldn't have made an important difference if this was a right hand drive car. Notice the position of the "A" pillar in relation to what would be the driver's position.



The MR2 was running 5 seconds SLOWER than the record for SSC, which is typically the slowest class on the hill. Looking back over the records there are actually only 4 classes with records that are slower. One outdated record in a faster class (SSB), two in classes that require cages and should be faster (ITC, Spec RX7), and the fourth is by .9 sec over a vintage car.

Now, people have proposed that we only require cages for cars with specific speed potential. Okay, can we agree the potential here represents "too much" without a cage?

If so, and we group by classes then there are only 4 that show a speed potential lower than this "standard". Furthermore, all of those 4 classes would likely exceed this potential as soon as someone brings out a well built example. Please note that picking this standard required a crash that fortunately did not result in any injury. So, limiting the cage requirements by class does not seem practical as it would at best only allow a couple of the less popular classes. Can we agree here?

Now, the suggestion has been made to base cage requirements on individual driver speeds. This would mean a person is allowed to run without a cage until they exceed some specific target for time at which point they would be told to go home until they put a cage in the car, similar to NHRA. That doesn't sound like a friendly policy to me but for the people who have said a cage is a deal breaker, would you still build a car with only a bar to tryout hillclimbs knowing that you may be sent home after your first run?

Please keep in mind that this is all based on choosing a cutoff point for each hill that is as arbitrary as we currently have basing the cutoff on classes. The other option is to rely on crash data as a reference hoping no one is injured in collecting that data. The former continues to expose us to second guessing on what is acceptable risk and the latter is too dangerous to use as a serious option. Furthermore, it still doesn't prevent the same problem the NHRA has with competitors showing up at the track and using a number of different tricks to avoid running too fast and being sent home. Only on a hill it's even more likely that a driver could be going just a fast at every spot on the hill only to lift early or use their brakes right before the finish.

So, it's not that this or other alternative proposals wouldn't be or haven't been considered. But they are not without serious issues. I have highlighted some above but here are a few more.

With the "cutoff speed" system do we consider the car unsafe or the driver? By that I mean if it's a two driver car and one exceeds the speed do you send only the faster driver home? The car is still capable and might very well be going faster at several points on the course, they just can't get one turn right. I would say it is the potential of the car that makes it unsafe and so both drivers would have to sit out.

Would a car exceeding the speed at one event be allowed at the next? Realistically the car has shown too much potential so why would it be considered safe. But that means the new recruit might end up sitting out an entire season having never had the chance to run most of the hills. Or do we allow them to continue to run until they break the speed limit for that hill keeping in mind that if they paid there entry fee after having been sent home once they probably already have a plan on how to not get sent home early this time.

Now it has also been suggested that we limit Novices from running hills to avoid rookie mistakes. While the MR2 in this case was driven by a relative rookie, a similar crash in the same spot happened only a year or two later by an experienced driver, the holder of several records. So why would we consider it appropriate a car safer because the nut behind the wheel has a few more miles? Trees don't take experience into consideration and our incidents typically involve at least as many old timers as rookies.

I am as frustrated with the litigious nature of our society as anyone. But it is a fact that the we live in a society where the majority of people will look for someone to blame when things go wrong. As race drivers we assume risk when we climb in the car, frequently our relatives do not see things the same way. The often referred to "spectator" incident that hurt the rally program so much was really two rally participants spectating. I'm sure they picked their spot knowing and accepting the risks, but their relatives apparently did not feel the same way and we as members of the club have all lost. While I appreciate the idea that you understand what you are getting into and have made your choice, the state of our legal system has repeatedly shown that is not relevant. Therefore the it's not just a personal risk you accept, your choices effect all hillclimbers across the country. Are you willing to take that chance that your incident would deny all of us and all future generations the chance to run?

Almost done, I promise. To close on this. First for those that feel like this has been decided already that is far from the truth. There are 6 people on the TTAC which will be making a recomendation to the BOD which is a comittee of 13. My opinion is only one and I am still listening to input. If you think you have a better solution please send it in. But even Jeff seems to acknowledge that speed potentials for some classes are beyond what is appropriate for just a bar. Therefore, where do we draw the line?

As for how to submit information to SCCA there are a couple ways. Sue, I would have thought that as the owner of a production car you would know. But for everyone's benefit I am creating a "sticky" post with details to help out with the process. Look for it on the general discussion area.

I have no issues with healthy debate on any topic and especially this one which does have the potential to have a significant effect on our sport. But let's try and keep things friendly; free of thinly veiled comments on peoples agendas, motivations or integrity; and without twisting each other words. This discussion has been literally decades in the making and any decision is not GOING to be made lightly.

[JekylandHyde]

Fourth, I'm quite sure no one as you say, "is showing you the door."

But honestly Jeff I think you are taking this way to personally. You are anticipating something that may never happen. If and when it.

Morg I appreciate the post and that means a lot. I am not taking this personally and I do not think that I am personally being shown the door, but rather the type of racer I am is being shown the door - those intersted in racing a prepared street car.

As for me cutting out events this year, I can only afford to do so many events and it looks like it is time to start trying out other venues to see where else I might have a better fit. I'm not going to wait for both of my cars to be eliminated from this venue before I start looking elsewhere.

If you told me I was going to be fired in 2-3 years,
I would not wait 2-3 years to start looking for a job.

The 3-4 events I eliminate from my PHA schedule will cover my costs to try other groups.

[JekylandHyde]

I know I said I would be quiet but since Jeff's involvement in the MR2 community has brought many new MR2 owners in to comment let's take a look at a relevant example and see what they think.

Sorry to call your bluff Matt, but when you make comments like this:
"That's fine Jeff, you show 2 good and 1 iffy peice of data. Then you make a vague statement about "quite a few people"

I really don't appreciate it.

You want to see how "vague" my reference is, I will galdly back it up.

I appreciate that a lot of people, especially while debating online, will make reference to unknown "others" that never seem to materialize. That is not me.

You want the others ... here they come. Think it's just MR2 owners? Think again.

I suspect I've talked to at least a dozen people in the last year, from at least 4 different states in different types of cars about coming out to hillclimbing. Go ahead and call my bluff again.

I know .. I know ... tell all of them to write to National.
Guess what, why should they?
They will more likely just go quietly away and race elsewhere.

At this point I've put a lot of effort into recruiting and I am surely not about to have people go through the expense of setting a car up for a sport without being aware that a rule change could seriously affect their participation. I would hate for them to come back to me and say, hey ... you got me into this and now I can't do it anymore.

[JekylandHyde]

Look at the photo and tell me that a roll cage wouldn't have made an important difference if this was a right hand drive car. Notice the position of the "A" pillar in relation to what would be the driver's position.

I appreciate that as we evaluate safety rules, it is important to consider "if"s; however, there isn't a single incident that has ever happened at a hillclimb that we could not find an "if" to make that could have made the incident tragic.

We know there is risk.

We also know that driver in the photo you posted was uncompletely unharmed.
We also know that the driver continues to race the hills in the same types of cars
with even more potential than that car had, yet he still uses "only a roll bar."

Now, people have proposed that we only require cages for cars with specific speed potential. Okay, can we agree the potential here represents "too much" without a cage?

If we agreed, I don't think you would be seeing as many cars as we do going as fast or faster than that with just a roll bar.

If I wasn't comfortable of the level of risk I am at and if Fabio is not comfortable with the level of risk he is at, do you think we would be doing this?

I realize we aren't discussing this from "what is the driver comfortable with," but what how much risk does the SCCA take? I understand that and I can appreciate the need to sanction that. I've already stated I could understand if the performance level of my car requried a cage ... but what about my non-turbo MR2? What about Sue's Mini (thanks for mentioning your Mini, Sue)?

[JekylandHyde]

So, limiting the cage requirements by class does not seem practical as it would at best only allow a couple of the less popular classes.

Are Vintage & Historic "immune" from the proposed rule? If so, why?

This would mean a person is allowed to run without a cage until they exceed some specific target for time at which point they would be told to go home until they put a cage in the car, similar to NHRA. That doesn't sound like a friendly policy to me ...

"To you" ... however it has worked quite successfully for NHRA & ECTA for years. I suspect I could find other racing organizations that have done the same. I nfact, NHRA doesn't do it just for roll bars, there is a whole host of safety equipment that is graded on scales of performance potential so many things could send you home.

It's not unfriendly if drivers are informed.

You later bring up a great point that the specifics of ahill could allow some to hit "max speed" somewhere and slow down a great deal elsewhere to come in under the targeted safety time. That is a wonderful point to counter that suggestion and discussing that is good thing. How else are we to hammer out what can work?

... would you still build a car with only a bar to tryout hillclimbs knowing that you may be sent home after your first run?

That really depends on what the level of performance to be sent home is.

I was hoping to use Jekyl (my non-turbo) in the PHA series next year.
If the bar was so low that that car would not make it in, then no I would not waste my time building a car. However, like in drag racing, when drivers can have a fairly decent idea of what they could run and they know they are well under that ... why not build a car for it?

NHRA requires a roll bar at 11.49 seconds. I assure you, no one has ever run that time or quicker by surprise.

A benefit to doing it by measured performance is you are not eliminating cars that have little perforamnce, but certain mods bump them into a higher, "caged" class.

Again, "Jekyl" as an exmaple. That car could easily be run in SM2 so should it have a cage?

Please keep in mind that this is all based on choosing a cutoff point for each hill that is as arbitrary as we currently have basing the cutoff on classes.

It would be cumbersome - I agee! ... but at least it is a step toward discussing options that could possibly increase our safety and not turn away potential racers.

As for your talking points:
1. I agree, the car gets sent home - not just the driver. For what it's worth, the NHRA typically issues a warning to slow down after one "fast run" and only sends you packing if the time is eclipsed a second time. I cna see how that would be cumbersome with a hill, but just sharing how other models are working.

2. I say let them run each hill. If they have a "plan" to get around it, I assure you it will involve goign slower

3. I never suggested limiting novices from hills, I suggested limiting drivers with NO experience in racing from the hills. Although Fabio's hill experience was limited at the time of his crash, is OVER ALL race experience was not. Again, I thought a whole part of this proposition was making sure national "perceives" that you are addressing risk.

I suspect SCCA might see other benefits if they require drivers to do a couple of SCCA autocrosses or an SCCA Level 3 event prior to attacking a hill.

4. I understand and share your frustrations with the level of lawsuits in this country and oyu make great points. The problem is the end of that line of thinking is just stop racing completely before you get sued. There is no way you will ever eliminate the risk of death in racing, but I do applaud you for considering options for reducing the risk.

[Matt Rowe]

You may have either missed my comment to keep from twisting peoples words or you missed my intent when I wrote certain things so permit to clear a few things up.

I know I said I would be quiet but since Jeff's involvement in the MR2 community has brought many new MR2 owners in to comment let's take a look at a relevant example and see what they think.

Sorry to call your bluff Matt, but when you make comments like this:
"That's fine Jeff, you show 2 good and 1 iffy peice of data. Then you make a vague statement about "quite a few people"

I really don't appreciate it.

I DID appreciate the other viewpoints and I was asking questions of the new people that you encouraged to respond. It wasn't a bluff Jeff. I don't know how many other ways to say we want to hear from people and I certainly appreciate hearing from them directly. Please don't imply that I think there presence in the discussion was unwelcome when I was taking the opportunity to ask them questions.

Look at the photo and tell me that a roll cage wouldn't have made an important difference if this was a right hand drive car. Notice the position of the "A" pillar in relation to what would be the driver's position.

I appreciate that as we evaluate safety rules, it is important to consider "if"s; however, there isn't a single incident that has ever happened at a hillclimb that we could not find an "if" to make that could have made the incident tragic.

There is a difference between if they had hit this, or if they had hit here or there and if he had been sitting on the other side of the car.

Now, people have proposed that we only require cages for cars with specific speed potential. Okay, can we agree the potential here represents "too much" without a cage?

If we agreed, I don't think you would be seeing as many cars as we do going as fast or faster than that with just a roll bar.

So you don’t agree that this data point represents too much speed potential? As I asked before at what point do we draw the line and how?

If I wasn't comfortable of the level of risk I am at and if Fabio is not comfortable with the level of risk he is at, do you think we would be doing this?

I personally can’t explain why he feels safe driving with only a roll bar after repeated statements from both of you that he is damn lucky. I can only assume you are both willing to take the risk (or you have invested heavily in rabbits feet or 4 leaf clovers  ). That would be fine but as I have said repeatedly the entire program unwillingly assumes some of that risk as well.

I've already stated I could understand if the performance level of my car requried a cage ... but what about my non-turbo MR2? What about Sue's Mini (thanks for mentioning your Mini, Sue)?

And as I have been trying to get you to respond to where do we draw the line and how? Sue’s mini may be slow, but how slow is slow enough?

So, limiting the cage requirements by class does not seem practical as it would at best only allow a couple of the less popular classes.

Are Vintage & Historic "immune" from the proposed rule? If so, why?

The proposal currently states that some vintage and historic vehicles are exempt based on their potential. And I will discuss that with the council when the time comes as I don’t feel that is appropriate.

This would mean a person is allowed to run without a cage until they exceed some specific target for time at which point they would be told to go home until they put a cage in the car, similar to NHRA. That doesn't sound like a friendly policy to me ...

"To you" ... however it has worked quite successfully for NHRA & ECTA for years. I suspect I could find other racing organizations that have done the same. I nfact, NHRA doesn't do it just for roll bars, there is a whole host of safety equipment that is graded on scales of performance potential so many things could send you home.

It's not unfriendly if drivers are informed.

You seem to cutout the portion of my statement where I specifically ask the new potential racers what they thought. And I have been to a drag strip once or twice in my life, I’ve seen plenty of guys that circumvent the cutoff rules and seen plenty of others go home upset when the track manager tells them they can’t run EVER again until they upgrade their gear.

... would you still build a car with only a bar to tryout hillclimbs knowing that you may be sent home after your first run?

That really depends on what the level of performance to be sent home is.

Okay let me clarify, if we use the Duryea incident as a baseline then the bar gets set where most cars would automatically fall above it. So again I’ll ask the new people in a slightly different way. Would you come out to a hill knowing that to be close to competitive in your class you would have to upgrade to a cage. Would you want to purposefully hold back on your driving to avoid going too fast?

I was hoping to use Jekyl (my non-turbo) in the PHA series next year. If the bar was so low that that car would not make it in, then no I would not waste my time building a car.

So that answers that question for you. Then HOW do we establish what that point is if you think the MR2 incident is acceptable? You seem to agree it isn’t at right point currently, correct? So what is appropriate in your mind and how do we make that cutoff?

Please keep in mind that this is all based on choosing a cutoff point for each hill that is as arbitrary as we currently have basing the cutoff on classes.

It would be cumbersome - I agee! ... but at least it is a step toward discussing options that could possibly increase our safety and not turn away potential racers.

Jeff, you’ve made a suggestion but until we can come up with a reasonable way to determine the cutoff point that makes sense it’s not just cumbersome, it’s impractical.

For what it's worth, the NHRA typically issues a warning to slow down after one "fast run" and only sends you packing if the time is eclipsed a second time.

That is NOT how I have seen the rule enforced and my guess is the NHRA rules don’t allow it if they are followed properly. If the car is too fast, it’s too fast. There is no warning you pack your gear and head home.

I say let them run each hill. If they have a "plan" to get around it, I assure you it will involve goign slower

Unlike the NHRA our competitors can easily still hit the same speed at every point on the course and still slow down for the finish? Their times may be slower but they are still exceeding the performance envelope over most of the course. The risk isn’t their average speed, it’s speeds at specific points and there is no practical way I can see to police that.

I never suggested limiting novices from hills, I suggested limiting drivers with NO experience in racing from the hills. Although Fabio's hill experience was limited at the time of his crash, is OVER ALL race experience was not. Again, I thought a whole part of this proposition was making sure national "perceives" that you are addressing risk.

So if his crash wasn’t based on driving experience or lack of it, or even his lack of hlllclimbing experience (remember more experienced drivers have had similar mistakes) why require different training elsewhere? It has questionable benefit for training on driving hills and presents a further barrier to bring new people in?

I understand and share your frustrations with the level of lawsuits in this country and oyu make great points. The problem is the end of that line of thinking is just stop racing completely before you get sued. There is no way you will ever eliminate the risk of death in racing, but I do applaud you for considering options for reducing the risk.

I am fully aware of rules creep when it comes to safety issues. I’ve fought it in other areas when I felt the reduction in risk was not reasonable compared to the impact on the drivers. So I do understand the argument you are trying to make but in this case I feel the benefit is greater than the cost.

Finally, keep in mind that when the roll bar only requirement was decided and even when we relied on Solo II to recruit new people the performance of cars was somewhat different. No one envisioned what Street Mod would bring to the table certainly, but even showroom stock cars are now significantly faster. It sounds like most of us at least can agree that our current requirements need to change. So I challenge everyone to help come up with a process to decide what is too fast and why? If you think your car or someone else’s car is slow enough to be safe tell me why?

[JekylandHyde]

As I asked before at what point do we draw the line and how?

Well let’s start discussing. How is the line drawn here:

The proposal currently states that some vintage and historic vehicles are exempt based on their potential.

And I have been to a drag strip once or twice in my life, I’ve seen plenty of guys that circumvent the cutoff rules and seen plenty of others go home upset when the track manager tells them they can’t run EVER again until they upgrade their gear.

You’ve been to a drag strip once or twice but in that time you have seen “plenty of guys” circumvent the rules and “plenty of others” upset? That sounds rather vague, sort of like "quite a few people."

I’ve been to at least 6 drag strips in 3 different states over the last 10 years.
The most common safety breakout is the helmet requirement at 13.99 and I’ve never seen anyone upset by going quicker. They are usually pleased that they surpassed that mark and borrow a helmet and get back in line.

The next most common mark to hit is 11.49 (used to be 11.99) and I assure you that most drivers going for that mark are well aware of the risk of being thrown out. How many threads in how many communities do you want me to link you to where people acknowledge that risk and/or have not been surprised by it being addressed?

Sorry, but I find it hard to believe in TWO trips to the drag strip you have seen “plenty of drivers” upset. I’m not even sure on two random trips to a drag track that you would even see one driver breakout out of a safety rule … much less “plenty” of them, much less ones that are upset about it.

Regardless, the only way to “circumvent” the rule is go slower, which is the goal.

That is NOT how I have seen the rule enforced

That’s not how you have seen it enforced on your one or two times at the strip? How many times did this really come up in your 2 visits?

How many dozens of people do you want, including myself, to testify that is how it is done … and done all over the country? It happened to me when I ran my first 11 second pass in Delaware and it just happened 2 weekends ago in Texas at a National event. Check out the drag forum on the MR2 board.

That is how it is done all over the country. The most important part of a drag race is the first 60’ and then up to ½-track. Drivers are generally accommodating to shutting down after ½-track as very little tends to happen “up top.”

My guess is the NHRA rules don’t allow it if they are followed properly. If the car is too fast, it’s too fast. There is no warning you pack your gear and head home.

Let me know if you want the phone number for John Krupiak, track manager of Maple Grove Raceway. As indicated above, there is plenty of benefits for a drag racer to stay and let off at the top of the track. That is known and it is commonly allowed.

Unlike the NHRA our competitors can easily still hit the same speed at every point on the course and still slow down for the finish? Their times may be slower but they are still exceeding the performance envelope over most of the course. The risk isn’t their average speed, it’s speeds at specific points and there is no practical way I can see to police that.

100% agreed. Directly applying this guideline would not be simple to address.
Are we to understand that any rule change must be “simple” then?
Or is the club willing to work a bit to address recruitment & retention issues?
If we are looking for simple and easy, then continue forward and let the cards fall where they will.

So if his crash wasn’t based on driving experience or lack of it, or even his lack of hlllclimbing experience (remember more experienced drivers have had similar mistakes) why require different training elsewhere? It has questionable benefit for training on driving hills and presents a further barrier to bring new people in?

I’m not sure where the word “training” is coming from. I’ve only said “experience.”

Well, you and Matt G. have conveyed several times that “perception” is important.
I suspect National would think it a step in the right direction to make sure that driver’s have some level of previous experience is pushing a car near it’s limits.

As for your comments about novices generally not having incidents, how do we quantify how many novices we have had that have no other racing experience? I suspect that a majority of people entering the hills have done some sort of racing previously. Your point about novices generally aren’t a problem is only relative if they are truly novices to racing, not just racing hills.

Finally, keep in mind that when the roll bar only requirement was decided and even when we relied on Solo II to recruit new people the performance of cars was somewhat different. No one envisioned what Street Mod would bring to the table certainly, but even showroom stock cars are now significantly faster.

Wonderful point, but the rule as proposed will rule out all of those cars that were “okay” when the rule was initiated and dozens and dozens of cars have come to be since then that are within those ranges of performance.

If you are debating that the current roll bar rule was ever okay,
then why is it still not okay for cars with that level of performance?

[Matt Rowe]

As I asked before at what point do we draw the line and how?

Well let’s start discussing. How is the line drawn here:

The proposal currently states that some vintage and historic vehicles are exempt based on their potential.

As I have said I don’t agree with that part of the proposal because it makes an artificial and unsubstantiated standard. More on this at the end.

And I have been to a drag strip once or twice in my life, I’ve seen plenty of guys that circumvent the cutoff rules and seen plenty of others go home upset when the track manager tells them they can’t run EVER again until they upgrade their gear.

You’ve been to a drag strip once or twice but in that time you have seen “plenty of guys” circumvent the rules and “plenty of others” upset? That sounds rather vague, sort of like "quite a few people."

Jeff do me and yourself a favor and reread my statements after realizing that once or twice was a somewhat sarcastic reference. I certainly find most of your comments funny in that light, or demeaning, insulting and beneath you. I'll try to keep my sense of humor.

While I don’t have the same amount of time at a drag strip as you, you don't have a monoply on experience outside of hillclimbs. I can assure you I have spent more than a couple days at dragstrips having watched, driven and helped run/organize club events and test and tunes and a couple competitions. I think the amateurs and newbies that show up at these are quite similar to the people that we are trying to attract. They have a car, they’ve made some changes and they want to race. And while they are happy to find out there car is fast, they aren’t to happy to be sent home early because they are too fast. Yes that is vague, you got me there. Happy?

That is how it is done all over the country. The most important part of a drag race is the first 60’ and then up to ½-track. Drivers are generally accommodating to shutting down after ½-track as very little tends to happen “up top.”

Do you honestly believe drivers are going to lift off early halfway up turn 1 to Weatherly, or to coast through 6 at Duryea? And how do we enforce this when they don’t. The fallacy in your argument is your are trying to use a elapsed time to address a problem with speed. Limiting one does not control the other. Furthermore, what driver do you know that let’s up when he is trying to win? Bracket racing sure, but should I remind you about how your own take it easy approach to hillclimbing went out the window once Scott (?) showed up and was beating you? At a test day drivers lift, in competition racers race and to hell with safety. Until someone can tell me how we decide on and enforce a max speed I do not see a workable proposal.

Unlike the NHRA our competitors can easily still hit the same speed at every point on the course and still slow down for the finish? Their times may be slower but they are still exceeding the performance envelope over most of the course. The risk isn’t their average speed, it’s speeds at specific points and there is no practical way I can see to police that.

100% agreed. Directly applying this guideline would not be simple to address.
Are we to understand that any rule change must be “simple” then?
Or is the club willing to work a bit to address recruitment & retention issues?
If we are looking for simple and easy, then continue forward and let the cards fall where they will.

Simple, no. Practical and enforceable yes. If you think you have a way I would love to hear it.

As for your comments about novices generally not having incidents, how do we quantify how many novices we have had that have no other racing experience? I suspect that a majority of people entering the hills have done some sort of racing previously. Your point about novices generally aren’t a problem is only relative if they are truly novices to racing, not just racing hills.

So again why is this relevant? If we don’t have any true “novices” what problem are you trying to fix? Novices tend to have fewer incidents than experienced drivers. If that is because of previous experience or our own novice program it doesn’t matter. Whatever the system is it appears to be working so what needs to be changed?

Finally, keep in mind that when the roll bar only requirement was decided and even when we relied on Solo II to recruit new people the performance of cars was somewhat different. No one envisioned what Street Mod would bring to the table certainly, but even showroom stock cars are now significantly faster.

Wonderful point, but the rule as proposed will rule out all of those cars that were “okay” when the rule was initiated and dozens and dozens of cars have come to be since then that are within those ranges of performance.

If you are debating that the current roll bar rule was ever okay,
then why is it still not okay for cars with that level of performance?

Well, I and other don’t think it was ever okay, it has always been a compromise as ever safety based rule must be. But my point and that of some of those that has proposed this are that a bar not only hasn’t been appropriate for a very long time but the situation has only gotten worse as cars get faster AND the perception of liability across the country has changed. People (lawyers, courts, and the average citizen) are less willing to accept risk in their lives or those of their loved ones. I may not like it, you may not like, but it is a fact we have to accept.

Now, you seem to both complain that we are arguing about the grey area of what is acceptable while at the same time using that gray area as the basis for your arguments. So, I’ll start a new topic and ask again of everyone, what is too fast, and how to we consistently determine it?

Check here