How Fast is Too Fast

[Matt Rowe]

For those who aren't yet tired of the debate going on about roll cages let me ask the question in what is hopefully a more constructive manner. If we can all agree that somewhere between a GT1 car and a tricylce a point exists where a cage is required -

How do we determine how fast is too fast to have only a roll bar?

Let me be clear that for this proposal to be practical it needs to have a clear, repeatable and defendable standard. We must be able to apply it not just to current hills in our area but to hillclimb sites all over the country, both current and future.

I'm open to any suggestion as long as you can reasonably defend it and we can enforce it. That means if you think it should be based on class fine, potential of a particular model great, horsepower to weight, okay. But you have to be able to explain why XXX.5 is safe but XXX.0 is not.

Also, for enforcement keep in mind that we are concerned about maximum vehicle speed, not an average. So if you want to use elapsed time as the gauge you'll have to explain how we control peak speeds.

It's not an easy task so put your heads together and let's see what we can come up with.

[JekylandHyde]

If we can all agree that somewhere between a GT1 car and a tricylce a point exists where a cage is required.

Do we all sincerely agree with that?
It seems as that your mind is already made up that every vehicle in a hillclimb should have a full cage.
If not, then I suggest that you start the discussion by throwing out a car or class that you feel does not need a full cage.

Thank you,

[dspgti]

I think it would be pretty simple. Exempt only the follwong classes: SSB, SSC, FSP period. That rules out V8's, turbos and slicks. An alternate would be considering DSP or CSP but again exclude turbos.

Why do I have this hangup about turbos? If SCCA has given up trying to figure out how to control them and remain stock, we'll never figure it out. Too many tricks out there that produce huge HP gains.

That leaves plenty of entry level street driven cars to participate.

Dave Y.

[Matt Rowe]

If we can all agree that somewhere between a GT1 car and a tricylce a point exists where a cage is required.

Do we all sincerely agree with that?

Yes you bring a tricycle and I wouldn't even say we need a harness. Now oxygen maybe.

It seems as that your mind is already made up that every vehicle in a hillclimb should have a full cage.
If not, then I suggest that you start the discussion by throwing out a car or class that you feel does not need a full cage.

For someone who wants to have a discussion you don't seem willing to talk. You said the decision is made, that other opinions don't matter. I am asking people to indicate what is too fast and why and help to write a rule to use.

No I can't come up with a standard that I think we can enforce and that is why I don't think any car should be allowed without a cage. That is why I am asking for input from people to help come up with one. If someone thinks they can come up with even part of a better solution I am all ears.

[Matt Rowe]

I think it would be pretty simple. Exempt only the follwong classes: SSB, SSC, FSP period. That rules out V8's, turbos and slicks. An alternate would be considering DSP or CSP but again exclude turbos.
....
That leaves plenty of entry level street driven cars to participate.

Dave Y.

Okay that is a list to start with but why do you believe those classes are safe enough? Is there some standard that we apply here. If a new class comes along or the SS classes continue to get faster when is it too much?

[JekylandHyde]

Dave, I think that is a brilliant start.

Matt, you indicated in the other thread that you do not feel the roll bar allowed rule should have ever been allowed. That sure sounds like your miind is made up on the conversation so what dialogue is there to have?

I think Dave already stated why he thinks they are safe enough ... no turbos ... no V8 ... no slicks.

I sincerely think is going down a nice road of thinking for truly finding an acceptable compromise.

Well done Dave.

[Matt Rowe]

Dave,

Let me clarify, why is a V8 more risky than a I4 or V6? I don't think you are worried about the extra mass of the motor or having two extra cylinders means the chances are higher one of them is going to pop out and hit the driver. Forgive me if I assume that you are basing this on performance potentail, right? If so look at this comparison:

Car A - 190 hp, 2790 lbs (14.7 lb/hp), top speed 134 mph
Car B - 210 hp, 3100 lbs (14.7 lb/hp), top speed 135 mph

Both are based on published data and there are variations that would swing the power to weight ratio a half point either way. Preparation rules would vary, one would likely handle better, the other would be torquier so while they are unlikely to hit top speed, they would both probably approach a similar max speed for a given course, i.e. the car with better handling will come off the corner better while the other car will accelerate faster. Net result similar speeds heding into a braking zone.

You can probably guess Car B is a V8 mustang eligible for ESP, and a frequent enthusiasts choice in St Prepared. Car A is an SSB Z3.

So why if the performance potential is similar why would we require the mustang to have a cage but not the Z3. I don't think the criteria of a V8 is accurate enough and as faster 4 and 6 cylinder cars come along will that criteria continue to work?

One last comparison just for fun:
Car C - 140 hp, 2430 lbs (17.4 lb/hp), top speed 135 mph

This one is mine, ITA Shelby Charger with a 4 cylinder. Required to have a cage under your proposal.

One of the tests for a good rule is can it both consistently and fairly applied to everyone? In this case you would have 3 cars but only two require a cage? Can you/we write a rule that would explain why? I think that if you tell someone it's because they have a V8 you'll be told about all the 4 & 6 cylinder cars that are faster. This is the challenge in coming up with a cutoff point. So how do we refine this so that is fair to everyone?

Keep up the suggestions and maybe we can come up with something workable.

[Steve Tumolo]

I think Dave is on the right track. Matt, since your car is Improved Touring it HAS to have a cage anyway for roadracing. Since we have cars competing from different areas within the SCCA (SoloII, TimeTrials, Club Racing) we need to first look at what their saftey requirements are within their venue.
I don't know how it is anymore but I know in past years guys running Roadracing class cars did not require ALL the roadracing saftey items needed in order to hillclimb. If that has not changed yet would that be a good place to start? Making it mandatory for a roadracing class car meet all the GCR saftey requirements.
The SoloII cars are going to be alot tougher. It already looks like on paper you can see where the slower classes are in "street car" trim.
And if any of the faster SoloII cars need a full cage why not use a bolt-in cage that the front section can be removed while driving on the street to and from the track/hill ?

And will have to say on Matt's behalf that I have spent MANY days and nights at Maple Grove running at "Friday at the Track", Test&Tune, among other events and I have seen countless cars get sent home due to exceeding the E.T. Some guys got a warning some did not. More often than not the guy would come rolling up on his red and white scooter point and say "YOU,,OUTTA HERE!!!!". My oh my those were the days .

[JekylandHyde]

Car C = ITA = cage already

As for A vs B, you are grabbing the stats on the 6 cylinder Z3 - correct?
How about just 4 cylinder NA cars in those classes for bars?



Matt in my first post in here I asked you for an example of one car (or class) that you feel does not need a cage. You answered, "No I can't come up with a standard that I think we can enforce ..."

Forget standards ... forget having to enforce it .... just give us one car that you feel doesn't need a cage going up a hill. From that base point is where we need to look to build a standard, a way to enforce it and/or a way to expand it to other cars.

If you can't offer up one car that you are comfortable going up a hill with a bar, then how are we to feel that you are sincerely open to finding a compromise ... if you can't offer up one car, then it does appear your mind is made up ... so why are we bothering with this thread?

[dspgti]

Here is my long explanation.
First, my scenario assumes all GCR Club Racing classifications will be required to meet GCR spec cages. It has always been annoying to me that an ITC Hillclimb car could run with just a bar. That saves 100 lbs. or so. A top running ITB car is pretty fast. Probably has 130 HP at the wheels.
F/Street Prepared has very similar specs as ITB. It is on the threashold of being fast enough but since it is made up of the street driven version with full trim requirements they tend to be slower. I can tell you I ran my FSP Rabbit against real ITB cars on a road course and I can't keep up with them. That's the same car that holds some of the FSP hill class records. I didn't consider the DSP cars exemptable because Rob Deysher originally came into hillclimbs with his 323 GT as a clone. His mistake was that he chose the wrong body. The original 1992 model was actually an all wheel drive, 1.6 turbo, not the FWD. His error was pointed out and he changed to Street Mod. Had he picked the 1988 body, it would have been a different case. There were a lot of rumors regarding his turbo boost being legal, but he could have made a pretty good case in his favor. DSP has too much potential or anything else in SP.
SSB and SSC are typically small bore. Two that come to mind that wouldn't be considered small bore is the V6 Camaro and the V6 Mustang, both about 3.8 litres. Showroom Stock cars are burdened with full street trim and no allowable modifications. Neither of the V6's are ever competitive so I don't know why someone would choose them. SSA? As we say in New Jersey, "Foe ged aboudit".
You can tell it's Sunday morning and I have lots of time to sit and chat and read up on postings. If you got a lot of time you should read the 10 pages of posts on the SCCA forum regarding this matter.

Dave Y.

[Joe B.]

It's been quite awhile since I've posted here, but this might be a solution. How about a horsepower to weight ratio formula for cages?
Decent idea? Or am I way off base. Just figured I'd throw out something.

While I agree you can never be too safe running a hill, why not just leave the rules as is? Rollbars required, cages recommended. And leave it up to the driver to decide what he or she wants to do.

[Matt Rowe]

A top running ITB car is pretty fast. Probably has 130 HP at the wheels.
F/Street Prepared has very similar specs as ITB. It is on the threashold of being fast enough ...

Dave, I think I can see the reasoning you are using but I highlighted the section above because what I am trying to get a handle on is what that threshold is that you refer to.

As a data point the NHTSA currently tests street cars for side impact protection by simulating a 38 mph impact with a broad object, they are trying to add a requirement to test a 20 mph impact with a pole. Interestingly (and disturbing as it is) they don't factor head injuries into the results, only torso injury, but that may be similar for our application as we have helmets. So, if street cars are only being tested and rated based on impacts at speeds of 38 (and only 20 mph for a concentrated impact like a pole or tree) how do we reasonably justify they are safe at a hill knowing we are going faster than that? What speeds did you reach in your FSP car on a hill? Now, I think do think the NHTSA requirements are NOT what we should base out decision on, that would be ridiculous. As I said head injuries aren't considered but neither are helmets, 5 point belts and at least a roll bar. But, what DO we use to say that car X is okay but car Y is too fast?

So far the cutoff point you have suggested are still basically arbitrary and isn't based on any repeatable or explainable data. Isn't that the complaint that started this whole argument, that we were trying to apply a standard based on gut feel? In reality that has always been the case and why this topic has never been put to bed in over two decades worth of debate.

Now Jeff is trying to bait me into saying I don't think any car should be allowed on a hill without a cage, so that he can continue to say I'm being unreasonable and shout that the decision has been made. Sorry, Jeff. As I have already said somewhere between a tricycle and GT1 car there is a cutoff, but I can't come up with a point that isn't arbitray. If we use Dave's suggested system an FSP car would require bar only but it is slower than an ITB car at Giant's and Duryea. So why is a faster car exempt from having a cage? As long as the choice in arbitrary it is an undefendable position, whether it's an internal debate or in a courtroom.

So, what's the solution? Come on, Dave, Jeff and Steve can't be the only guys interested in this. I don't have all the answers and I know we have some smart people here so help suggest a solution.

[Sue Salsburg]

Is there a point we can agree on to start? Maybe exempt ShowRoom Stock, since the original idea was to race a car as it came from the showroom. I also have a dumb question - how would a full cage effect the side curtain air bags in my Mini? Do I have to disable them? Doesn't that make my car less safe than when it left the factory? I realize my car will be in a junkyard by the time this becomes a rule, but I'm still interested.

[JekylandHyde]

Now Jeff is trying to bait me into saying I don't think any car should be allowed on a hill without a cage, so that he can continue to say I'm being unreasonable and shout that the decision has been made. Sorry, Jeff.

Sorry Matt, but you baited yourself with the "If we can all agree that somewhere between a GT1 car and a tricylce a point exists where a cage is required" line.

Are tricycles allowed to enter a hillcimb? If so, which class?
If tricycles are not allowed, then there is no point in bringing that in as an endpoint of the range because it's not.

If you can't agree that there is at least one car that does not need a cage, there is no point in carrying on this conversation. Your mind is made up and I don't need to "shout" it as it is painfully obvious to everyone reading this thread.

We would have a better luck trying to convince a blind man to just try a little harder to see.

If we use Dave's suggested system an FSP car would require bar only but it is slower than an ITB car at Giant's and Duryea. So why is a faster car exempt from having a cage?

Let's see, by Dave's recommendation the ITB car would require a cage.
On the other hills, the FSP car would be quicker and only need a bar .... now, you want to know why that is?

You already answered that in your initial post:

Also, for enforcement keep in mind that we are concerned about maximum vehicle speed, not an average.

[JekylandHyde]

Another thing about the proposed rule that makes no sense to me:

If the series is at risk of being cut because of one bad accident,
how do you justify waiting until 2011 to initiate this rule?

I understand that you would almost have to give folks a year leeway to
get their car's situated, but why risk everything on an extra 2 years?

Matt Green told me directly that PHA has already considered the number
of drivers this rule could potentially affect and that the organization was
fine with losing them if it came down to that ... so why bother giving
people you are okay with losing extra time to get their car's done up?

Wouldn't it suck to lose the entire hillclimb program over a couple of drivers you are okay with losing?

So, how do you justify waiting 3 years to impliment this?

[Matt Rowe]

Is there a point we can agree on to start? Maybe exempt ShowRoom Stock, since the original idea was to race a car as it came from the showroom. I also have a dumb question - how would a full cage effect the side curtain air bags in my Mini? Do I have to disable them? Doesn't that make my car less safe than when it left the factory? I realize my car will be in a junkyard by the time this becomes a rule, but I'm still interested.

Sue, Solo already strongly recommends and the GCR requires that drivers disable the front airbags. In every car I am aware of it is a simple procedure to pull the fuse it takes one minute and is fully reversible in the same amount of time. I think you are right we have to look at side airbags as well, but that is true in the Touring class cars which would require a cage also. I can check with tech at national and see if they have looked at either for Club Racing or Solo. But are you concerned about this only at the hills or on the street also?

As for exempting showroom stock, we already race these cars with upgraded harnesses and a fire bottle. Modifications for safety requirements are already there. So why just a bar and not a full cage? What criteria did you use to determine what was safe enough when you only put in a bar and how do we apply that consistently?

Is there a point we can agree to start at? Sure that's why I put out the tricycle. Hell yes it's an exageration and no I don't think that is the fastest vehicle that we could allow but it's a starting point for the type of analysis where someone can defend the position that there is little risk. You can look at achievable speeds (pedal power) and physics say it is unlikely you can get going fast enough on a tricycle to kill yourself even without a cage. I can't currently think of a way to decide that for anything that can faster. It doesn't mean there isn't a way and doesn't mean I'm not open to it. I'm not saying it has to based on physics, or crash test data, or anything. But it can't be based on gut feel. So help me out here. Why is you mini safe enough with only a bar.

[Ron Mann]

Not to make light of all this....

But I think Rich Sweigart can provide a phtograph of PHA fall of fame member, Pat Enzman - Alspach attemtping to do Weatherly on a tricycle...I think she wrecked.

[Matt Rowe]

Damn it. You mean I've unwittingly agreed that there is a past hillclimb vehicle I would allow without a cage?

And I purposefully didn't say Scooter because many of us remember what happened to Cosner a couple years back at Duryea. What a safety issue that was.

Now for those who have suffered through long enough to read all of this back and forth crap, I apologize and say "now forsomething completely different."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7195969915

[JekylandHyde]

I'm not saying it has to based on physics, or crash test data, or anything. But it can't be based on gut feel.

What is the proposed rule based on? Why is the onus on us to prove that a certain car is sufficiently safe with just a bar? Why not put the onus on the other side to prove that a roll bar is NOT sufficient?

How about this for a data point:
In all of the years of the hills there hasn't been a death with just a bar.

Please prove why a bar is not enough.

[JekylandHyde]

For those who aren't yet tired of the debate going on ...

Now for those who have suffered through long enough to read all of this back and forth crap ...

Nice Matt, real nice.

It's great to know that the leader of this organization finds
it tiring and suffering to address the legitimate concerns of the members.

I bet we can really expect you to have a a fair, open mind with that kind of attitude.