PHA response on roll cage issue

[Roy]

Just for the record, I also oppose cages in street classes.

Here's a list of cars in my class... ITB cars that would require cages under this mentality:

Suzuki Swift (about 100 horsepower, btw)
Volvo 240
VW Golf
BMW 2002
etc. (other smallbore, limited prep vehicles)

Here is a list of cars in BSP, which would NOT require cages under this mentality:

Most Corvettes
DeTommasso Pantera
Mazda RX-8
Subaru WRX STi
Mitsubishi Evo

And this isn't even the fastest street prepared class... consider some cars in ASP:

E46 M3
Dodge Viper
Ford GT
Lotus Elise
Porsche GT2/3/Turbo

Getting the picture yet? Restricting safety gear by street class / racing class doesn't make any sense...

[JekylandHyde]

Funny you mention the Viper.

Because of the shear power and speed of the Vipers, combined with
the fact that they pass national highway safety crash tests, NHRA
has lowered the ET requirements for roll bars.

That's right, they actually expanded the performance potential in cars
before requiring a roll bar. Why? Because they did not want to turn away
perfectly legal street cars as they rolled off the showroom floor.

As for ITB, I would agree on a performance basis they should not require a cage for a hill. However, it's a cross over class that requries cages for wheel-to-wheel racing which is a whole different ball game. That being said, making cages optional for the class would be unfair to driver's who want to compete in the class on both levels (hills & w2w).

This is just one of the big ideas that seems to be glanced over in here. The hills are comprised of a mix of different drivers, from different levels of racing with different priorities. Trying to slap a new rule blindly across the board is going to affect a lot of people in different ways.

It's not really polite, to say on one hand that you want to welcome
racers from other different venues into your sport, while you use
the other hand to push them out the door!

[dlascoskie]

Just for the record, I also oppose cages in street classes.

Getting the picture yet? Restricting safety gear by street class / racing class doesn't make any sense...

Allow me to ammend my statement Roy, as I see the confusion..........I oppose cages in street classes for street legal cars. I have a problem with requiring street legal cars to have cages in order to race. If it is a race car, don't call it a street car, it's a misnomer. Street legal cars that are driven on the street daily, like mine, deserve to be in a class that allows them to stay streetable. Make sense now?

[RX-Midget]

Just for the record, I also oppose cages in street classes.

Getting the picture yet? Restricting safety gear by street class / racing class doesn't make any sense...

Allow me to ammend my statement Roy, as I see the confusion..........I oppose cages in street classes for street legal cars. I have a problem with requiring street legal cars to have cages in order to race. If it is a race car, don't call it a street car, it's a misnomer. Street legal cars that are driven on the street daily, like mine, deserve to be in a class that allows them to stay streetable. Make sense now?

So, by your opinion I would not need a cage in my Midget?
It is registered, insured and taged for street use (Maryland) and I put several thousand miles a year on it. Remember, "streetable" is different for each state and its laws.

[RX-Midget]

...That's right, they actually expanded the performance potential in cars
before requiring a roll bar. Why? Because they did not want to turn away
perfectly legal street cars as they rolled off the showroom floor....

I'd like to believe that, but somehow the millions of dollars that Mopar uses in the marketing of their drag cars, the "performance" image, and the lobbying that only a large, large corporation can do may have been more of the real reason that the NHRA changed the rule.

Do you think they would want to piss off a major manufacture and series sponsor with 9 factory NHRA teams when they tell them there car ($$product$$) can't run because it is too fast and doesn't meet the rules? Well, let’s make the rules fit the car......

Apples and oranges. That situation is nowhere near the same.

[dlascoskie]

So, by your opinion I would not need a cage in my Midget?
It is registered, insured and taged for street use (Maryland) and I put several thousand miles a year on it. Remember, "streetable" is different for each state and its laws.

Your car isn't a hardtop coupe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the GCR already states that your car and other open top cars need a cage. But if it was a hardtop coupe, I'd be fine with leaving it in your hands to decide if you need a cage or a bar. I don't know what classes require cages and what classes do not, I just feel that requiring cages in street legal cars that run in showroom stock, street prepared and other street legal car classes will ruin participation in those classes and hurt the program overall. It neglects the fact that in many cases the owner/driver uses the car as a street car and daily driver and it runs the cost of participation up even higher in a series that offers little or no monetary return for winning. I'd like to see us as an open avenue for young aspiring drivers to bring their street cars out in an affordable manner and try their hand at our sport, much like Maple Grove and so many other dragstrips across the nation do with Grudge Nights and test and tunes, and much like autocross does with a low entry fee and few expensive safety requirements. I understand that we are not drag racing or autocross, but I feel that the safety requirements already in place are sufficient (as seen by our track record) and I haven't been shown any evidence whatsoever to make me feel otherwise, yet.

[JekylandHyde]

Do you think they would want to piss off a major manufacture and series sponsor with 9 factory NHRA teams when they tell them there car ($$product$$) can't run because it is too fast and doesn't meet the rules? Well, let’s make the rules fit the car......

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The rule that was changed has been in effect for decades.
Someone how I don't think a manufacturer is going to be upset that the made a vehicle that surpassed a well known and documented benchmar k of performance.

Furthermore, I don't see why a manufacturer would be upset or even care
if a purchaser of their street car was turned away from the local 1/4-mile for running quciker than 11.99. Why would they?

Apples and oranges. That situation is nowhere near the same.

True, they are very different. SCCA will probably never see the participation numbers that NHRA does.

Regardless, do you think NHRA would blindly lower the limit for a safety requirement if ... in the words of Matt Green who does "risk assessment" for the SCCA ... it was an "unexptable risk?"

Maybe, just maybe, they realized that the long-standing limit was a bit braoder than it needed to be. I wonder how many decades of data they evaluated before making the change? Or maybe, the NHRA risk assessment guy just had a "gutt feeling" it was the right thing to do?

[RX-Midget]

So, by your opinion I would not need a cage in my Midget?
It is registered, insured and taged for street use (Maryland) and I put several thousand miles a year on it. Remember, "streetable" is different for each state and its laws.

Your car isn't a hardtop coupe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the GCR already states that your car and other open top cars need a cage. But if it was a hardtop coupe, I'd be fine with leaving it in your hands to decide if you need a cage or a bar. I don't know what classes require cages and what classes do not, I just feel that requiring cages in street legal cars that run in showroom stock, street prepared and other street legal car classes will ruin participation in those classes and hurt the program overall.

I was just going by what you had written, and I do have a full cage per the GCR Production class rules. So you seem to have a limit in your proposal for rag tops that run in the classes you list. Miata's and the Solstice run in street Prep classes and are very popular. Would they be forced to cage in your opinion or is a roll bar OK?

[dlascoskie]

I was just going by what you had written, and I do have a full cage per the GCR Production class rules. So you seem to have a limit in your proposal for rag tops that run in the classes you list. Miata's and the Solstice run in street Prep classes and are very popular. Would they be forced to cage in your opinion or is a roll bar OK?

This is so frustrating. Did you read any of my previous posts on this matter? Anyway, I'm not going to keep reposting the same stuff over and over. I was generalizing. I do NOT wish to rewrite the GCR. I want things to stay the way they currently are. That's what I've been saying over and over. My comments are directed at the new proposal and are no way intended to change around any existing GCR rules, which is what you seem to be implying that I said.

[JekylandHyde]

I was just going by what you had written, and I do have a full cage per the GCR Production class rules.

Do you have a gold card or a gold seal from National?

If not, it does not seem that the cage in your car is in compliance with the GCR's production cage requirements.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that your car is using the "low front hoop design." If so, that rule in production seems reserved for open-top cars without a windshield. (9.4.6.B3)

9.4.6.B1 indicates that cars with a windshield must have the front hoop across the top of the windshield.

Regardless, the "low front hoop" rule indicates:

"9.4.6.B3b. Open cars with a low front hoop shall have two braces extending from the main hoop to the low front hoop. These braces shall be mounted no lower than six inches below the top of the main and front hoops as illustrated in Figure 11."

The RX seems to be a good foot lower.

My sincerest apologies if I am reading something wrong or if this is "new" for 2007 or you have a gold card/seal from National indicating that you are exempt. I've always been curious about your design.

If I am correct, one has to wonder why the PHA safety techs have not caught it?

http://pahillclimb.org/coppermine/displ ... m=28&pos=7

In another thread you indicated that you were planning changes to your cage. Is having a full height front bar in your plans? If so, are you going to be okay with your street use with full bars around your noggin?

Good luck,

[RX-Midget]

It meets all GCR requirements. I can't change history, but I did read the rules this winter.

"9.4.6.B3b. Open cars with a low front hoop shall have two braces extending from the main hoop to the low front hoop. These braces shall be mounted no lower than six inches below the top of the main and front hoops as illustrated in Figure 11."

These braces are removable and comply to the standards for remopvable bracing.

[JekylandHyde]

Okay good to know you are up to date on it

How different is it driving without the glass?

[RX-Midget]

I was just going by what you had written, and I do have a full cage per the GCR Production class rules. So you seem to have a limit in your proposal for rag tops that run in the classes you list. Miata's and the Solstice run in street Prep classes and are very popular. Would they be forced to cage in your opinion or is a roll bar OK?

This is so frustrating. Did you read any of my previous posts on this matter? Anyway, I'm not going to keep reposting the same stuff over and over. I was generalizing. I do NOT wish to rewrite the GCR. I want things to stay the way they currently are. That's what I've been saying over and over. My comments are directed at the new proposal and are no way intended to change around any existing GCR rules, which is what you seem to be implying that I said.

Your right, this is frustrating. I didn't look through the 3 different posts and a the several pages of messages before I posted. Sorry. I was not pushing your buttons, just wanted to know more about your viewpoint.

[dlascoskie]

No problem. I understand it. Can't wait for the meeting at Jefferson. Who's bringing the Stake and Fire?

[RX-Midget]

No problem. I understand it. Can't wait for the meeting at Jefferson. Who's bringing the Stake and Fire?

I may bring steaks and a grill if that counts
Stop over for a beer and whatever meat I'll be burning on the grill.

B.

[dlascoskie]

You can count on it.

[dspgti]

We have decided to take the advise of several knowledgeable people in SCCA and not send a joint response on behalf of PHA. We have been convinced that SCCA board will simply ignore a joint letter. It is important that you send your own personal comments regarding this issue.

Everyone has there own idea of what should be exempted from the rules and we hope that you comment on that. You can all help by being sure to include Vintage and Historic in your request for exemption. They will be among the hardest hit by the rules since many wish to retain the historic value of their cars.

Thanks for your help.

Dave Y.

[Matt Rowe]

Dave,

For the record, representatives from SEDIV did send in a joint letter and the responses I have seen so far indicate that it was appreciated. Although that flies in the face of what you have been told and what we have seen it is something to consider that a similar letter from NEDIV would carry some weight.

As an aside there have also been several personal letters sent from SEDIV and nothing from NEDIV so far. Still there has been no information from the south as far as how many cars had bars vs cages this year and in what classes. Joe Foering and his tech crew were a huge help in collecting that type of data at Jefferson and providing it to me to compile. We will continue doing so throughout the season so we have a better idea of the impact.

[JekylandHyde]

Still there has been no information from the south as far as how many cars had bars vs cages this year and in what classes.

Hey Matt, SE posted this information on the SCCA forum.
You have already indicated that the discussions on the forum play at least some role in the process.

We will continue doing so throughout the season so we have a better idea of the impact.

I thought you already stated on here that you did this research last year?

Regardless, better late than never. It would have been nice if research was done before it made it this far.

Good luck,

[Matt Rowe]

SE has not posted the kind of data that has been requested neither in the forums nor in their response. It was specifically requested that they perform the same survey that I asked our tech staff to assist with to determine exactly how many participants in each class would be affected. If we are to consider applying the rules to specific classes it is crucial that we have this. Joe and the rest of the tech crew were a huge help last weekend and this was done because we are still in the stage of searching for as much data as possible. Past survey's done as initial estimates on both sides of the debate were just that, general surveys and depending on which individuals and groups have done them the results and interpretations vary. So yes, an even more detailed survey is being done in PHA at this stage because this is the appropriate point in the rules process.

Research was done before to formulate a proposal but we all agree that more information, more detail is a good thing. Therefore additional information is being gathered as this is an extremely important issue. Would anyone prefer we stop and merely base assessments on old data? Information that was used only to develop a proposal and generate input from those affected. That initial proposal has led to other options to consider and the surveys done in the past were based on a total of all classes. We are now taking a closer look at the impact on a class by class basis. I fail to see how that is a bad thing?

The other piece of information requested is what the financial impact would be, including the impact of this year’s insurance restructuring that significantly reduced costs for smaller events. That would still be valuable information as it has been cited but not quantified.


Jeff,

I will only say this once, but for someone who has given up on hillclimbing you surely spend a lot of time bad mouthing the sport and those still passionately involved in it. Also, if you don’t feel able to attend events I have to wonder what your motivation is to continue to portray the sport and everyone’s efforts in a bad light? Honestly, you seem to come across as either bitter, or worse, disappointed that the remaining parties are actively trying to fully examine this and make the best possible decision for the right reasons. It sounds like you would be happier if the original rule would already be in place so you could feel justified in abandoning the sport and your fellow enthusiasts.

What I saw last weekend was a lot of the usual drivers plus some new faces enjoying themselves and friendly competition at the track. It’s a genuine shame you have decided not to be a part of that.