Roll cage poll

[Rich Sweigart]

After suffering thru pages and pages of 2 little boys fighting back and forth on more than one website. I propose a poll.

Does the proposed roll cage rule affect you? And if, it does please explain why and would you stop running? List class please. Also, this is for current drivers.


Rich Sweigart

[Matt Rowe]

Rich, I assume I am one of the two little boys, but allow me to clarify what the proposed rule is, at least as explained to me.

All new cars registering (initial log book issued) on or after January 1, 2010 must meet current year roll cage specifications as listed in the GCR. If a class is not listed in the GCR, it should use the equivalent GCR class specifications- for example, Street Prepared or Street Mod cars should use the SS/IT specs, Specials should use the Production/GT specs or Formula/Sports Racer specs where applicable, etc. The only exception to this rule is the Vintage/Historic rule as listed below.

As of January 1, 2012, ALL cars running in Level 4 events must meet current year GCR specifications for Roll Cages.


And for reference the Historic/Vintage Rule as it has been for the past several years.

If a car is running in a Vintage or Historic class and prepared to those specifications, they may run only a roll bar if no cage was used at the time the car was originally raced. This applies to all the cars with cage requirements, including Formulas (cars) and Sports Racers. Competitors are encouraged to use full roll cages if at all possible. The purpose of this tolerance is to allow for original race cars to be raced in original form (or as close as possible) without devaluing the vehicle by installing a full roll cage. This shall NOT be interpreted to apply to kit cars, special constructions, replicas, or any car that has been significantly modified from its condition as originally raced. Vintage and Historic cars may upgrade to current tires, batteries, incidental items, and other unavailable items to return the car to racing condition.

[JekylandHyde]

"little boys" ... how is insulting people beneficial to anyone?
Really Rich, I wouldn't have thought that you would stoop to that level.

Regardless, polling just the members of one forum is not going to give you
an accurate view of who this will affect and how they will respond.

You can't assume that everyone this will affect is on this forum or even in this region ... this rule is going to affect a lot of people outside of the PHA.

And what is a "current driver?"

There is a father and son team that drove up to Weatherly from Maryland to check out the hillclimbs for the first time as per my posting about it on another forum. Over the winter they contacted me again because they decide to build their street car up to hillclimb spec so they could participate. They wanted to know what they need to get started.

Do they count?

[jimmyp]

No one should be competing in a high speed event without a cage. Period.
Its Club racing, not solo 2.
I dont do hills,,, just race tracks,,, but any high speed event the car should be prepared with a cage to the minnimum of the SS / IT GCR for Club Racing. Thats what the sticker on the side says these days.
Club Racing.

I instruct for BMWCCA, PCA, EMRA, NASA, PDA, SCCA, FOC and a few others I am sure I am forgetting.

I cringe getting in student cars without cages.

Two years ago after instructing at Watkins Glen a few other instructors and I saw a "waffled" 911 sitting outside the paddock fence.
Straight side impact onto something probably a tire wall.
No cage.
Massive intrusion of the door, A and B pillar into the side of the car. At the very least very serious injuries, if not death.
Made me a little queasy just looking at it, imaginging the outcome had I been riding right chair at that moment.

We asked the Glen workers about the circumstances of the wrecked car, they said it was under investigation and thats all they would say.

A cage,,, would have at the very minnimum lessened the side instrusion by a LONG shot.
Given the amount of immovable stuff there is to hit at Hills,,, I question sanity to even fight to do hills without a cage.

If you had seen just that one car,,, you would never want to go on track (let alone a hill) without a proper full cage.

I came up through Solo 2,,, when I wanted to go tracking and time trialing, I waited until I had the means & equipment to do it correctly then I did it.
Why cut corners on safety just to supposedly attract new people???
Makes no sense to me.

Just my $.05
Jimmy Pettinato
#98 BMW E30 M3 - ITE

[MikeF]

I waited until I had the means & equipment to do it correctly then I did it.
Why cut corners on safety just to supposedly attract new people???
Makes no sense to me.

The means and equipment to go racing are constantly becoming more costly and comprehensive. At what point does the cost of safety become so cost prohibitive that it eliminates someone's ability to compete or desire to give racing a try. I know a lot of people that tell me racing is "a stupid waste of money" simply because of the cost of club fees, entry fees, safety fees and time needed to invest to figure out the class structure, just to get to the first event.

The cost of going racing continues to increase at a greater rate then mean income and the great majority of racing organizations, including the SCCA, do little to help offset these costs by attracting sponsors or incentives for competitors. The SCCA states, "Conform to this regulation" but provides ZERO incentive or aid for its members to do so, other then, "You have to pay to play..."

Maybe if the SCCA or specifically the PHA had sponsors at the hills, spectators to show off product too, vendors, something to help offset the rising costs of competing, there would not be such hostility on the part of competitors when faced with these new costs.

These steadily increasing costs certainly do put off new members. I do not know of anyone that likes the idea of compromising safety, but if you can't afford to do something to begin with then it really doesn't matter.

I've also seen a fair share of accidents, and pretty bad ones from my rally experience. There are clear examples of safety equipment doing its job for sure. But I've also seen a car roll at an autocross, and the driver ended up with a broken arm as result....well, do you honestly want full cages and window nets for auto-cross events? Because I can guarantee auto-x would disappear almost over night since fields at these events are almost exclusively driven to the event. And with Auto-X about half the SCCA's membership roster.

If there are not gateways to higher levels of competition, then people are not going to even bother trying to get started in motorsports. This is directly related to how much safety equipment you want to require for a certain level or form of racing.

I think the better question that needs to be addressed, is that if we are going to incorporate any regulations that would increase start-up cost for potential new members, then is there any way we can help offset the costs or provide information on why these new regulations are beneficial for the competitor and move away from the "Because we say so and know bettter" mentality. Not everyone can afford to do it the way you, me, him or her has done it and we all need to be more aware of that.

[Kupop]

The rule would affect me as I explained in more detail on the one other thread.

I may install a roll bar but a cage would never be installed as the car was never meant to be a dedicated race car. It is a street car that I occasionally race. Though mostly only autocross, I have been getting into other types and if I was to install a roll bar I would likely try a hillclimb to finally see what the big fuss is about and also to say that I did it.

The other only way you would ever see me racing in a hillclimb would be in an open wheel car. A car built for racing... which did not originally start out as a street car, or version of a street car. But it isn't like we all have one of these type of vehicles just laying around at our disposal to get in and try out different types of racing.

[Mwilson]

Not everyone can afford to do it the way you, me, him or her has done it and we all need to be more aware of that.

I would have loved to get into racing way before I did but I just COULDN'T AFFORD IT. I had other obligations that need taken care of. Now I can afford to go racing, but it took me awhile to get here. I also have a very understanding wife which doesn't hurt. No one said Racing was cheap and just like everything else the costs do go up from year to year. Just like gas prices, housing, food, insurance, inspections and many others. There really isn't anything we can do about it. If the prices are too great we either stop driving, don't buy a home, don't eat, drop our insurance, don't get our cars inspected and Stop Racing. "If you want to play you gotta pay," its that simple. If you are on such a tight budget that will not let you run the Hills, there is always Autocross.

Jimmyp wrote:No one should be competing in a high speed event without a cage. Period.
Its Club racing, not solo 2.

Jimmy I think you hit it right on the head. "Its not solo2" I think solo 2 was designed for those who would like to do some type of racing but don't have the funds to buy all the necessary safety equiptment, needed in Club Racing. Also they can use there everyday street car to go have fun. I think when you get to the level four events and club racing you are on a completely different level. You can still use your street cars but now you have to conform to the new levels requirments. That's just the way it is.
If you go to Vegas to see a big time show you can spend $100 dollars for a seat and still see the show. If you want to get a little closer, a diferent level, you may pay $400, and if you want to go first class, top level, you may pay upwards of $2000. All the tickets will get you in to see the show. It just depends on your funds which level you want to enjoy.

Mikef wrote:if there are not gateways to higher levels of competition, then people are not going to even bother trying to get started in motorsports. This is directly related to how much safety equipment you want to require for a certain level or form of racing.

There are gateways to all forms of motorsports if your budget is large enough. As far as how much safety equiptment is required that is a no brainer,
as much as it takes to keep our sport as safe as possible.

[Kupop]

Morg, I am sure you realize that the sport of hillclimbing was really starting to die off, at least within this area. I know I seen it first hand here at Weatherly.

Without the newer people from the solo 2 community whom only needed to basically add a rollbar to their car and then start doing hillclimbs also, who knows if these hillclimb events would even still be around at this time. I highly doubt the Weatherly hillclimb would still be going on. I think some of the events were down as low as the 30's for the number of entries.

It is almost like they relied on cars from a different form of racing to bring back their own and now that it has become larger again they are looking to push them away (not directly!) and maybe just hope that enough of them will change their cars to continue to enter the hillclimbs.

If this means anything to any of you... yesterday morning I ended up talking to someone who used to be involved with hillclimbs quite a bit some years ago. He even still holds a record at the Weatherly Hillclimb. I didn't expect to run into this guy, infact I didn't even know he did any forms of racing when I met him yesterday.

After we started to talk about racing and the hillclimb I told him that there was a purposed new rule that all cars would be required to have a full cage to enter the hillclimb and not just a roll bar, and that there was some "heated" discussion going on about it online.

He immediately replied with, "They'll kill it."

I am not going to say who this guy was. However if you wish I could talk to him more about it when I meet with him again and even ask if he wishes to voice his opinion and have him post a comment or e-mail me a letter.

From a different thread:

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?

[jimmyp]

I gotta say I find all this hubub over safety gear really laughable.

I stop in this board a couple times a season to catch up, and check in on the Jefferson Time Trials (and to see if there are any threads about track based time trials).

I really could not believe finding mutiple threads about resistance to safety gear by some people.
Its ridiculous.
This is not running around a parking lot stomping plastic cones and looking like a hero. These are high speed events.
It is safety. Its people's lives.

Make everything as safe as possible FIRST, then buy stuff like R tires, turbos, sway bars, etc.
If you have ever been to an event where a diver died,,, its a horrible sinking feeling. You never forget the day, ever.
You really never ever forget it when you revisit that corner on track at speed (well at least I dont).
Have you ever had to watch someone tow their dead friends rig home?
Watch someone make "that call" to the guys wife?

On the other side,,, there is nothing that makes you feel more relieved than if you watch one of your buddies make a slight mistake and wad up his car at 130 mph and come out with just a broken ankle,,, "because" all the safety gear worked. The cage protected him from intrusion, the harnesses dissapated the energy, the HANS kept his head attached.
I have been there and seen that side of it too and said,,, thank god for all that stuff.

Would any of you who are resistant to any elements of safety gear feel good the next day if by some freak accident some Solo 2 newbie who "just wanted to try a hillclimb" died in a crash, that might otherwise have had a chance if he had a cage, or a 3 layer suit, or a HANs, or a seat with side head protection, or a passenger side net, or a fire system.

Pull it together.
All the event entries in the world are worthless if someone gets hurt (or worse) because you were afraid "too much safety" would drop car counts. CAR COUNTS???
Cant you realize how ludicrous that sounds?
Solo 1 (Time Trials) was moved from the Solo department to the Club racing department BECAUSE of the higher speeds involved and the Club Racing departments familiarity with what is necesary to deal with high speed events.

Solo 2 isn't so much a feeder for Time Trials as Time Trials is a feeder for Club Racing. Eliminate the mental connection between Solo 2 and Time Trials. Apples and Oranges. Cones dont crush cars,,, but boulders and tire walls can.
Time Trials is part of Club Racing program and the same safety rules should apply.

What if an airline took the same chances to get passenger counts up,,, by reducing flight costs,,, via saving money on things like: we dont need all those safety checks and,,, well,,, those rivets and bolts are probably fine, one of them has not fallen out recently...

Get a grip and realise this sport needs to be as safe as it can be.
Even if all first timers cant afford to run anything other than a SSC car on street tires,,, but they have ALL the needed safety gear, so be it.
The same newbies you are so desperatley trying to attract from the "street scene" or Solo 2, or drag racing with reduced safety requirements are the most likely to get themselves hurt when they wad up their car because they were "just trying it out".

This whole debate leaves me shaking my head.

[MikeF]

[/quote]
There are gateways to all forms of motorsports if your budget is large enough. As far as how much safety equiptment is required that is a no brainer,
as much as it takes to keep our sport as safe as possible.[/quote]

This is exactly the concern I am trying to convey. There is to much willingness to throw more money at it then look for other solutions.
Eventually no one (except maybe a select few) is going to have the budget, because club fees, event fees, safety equipment/car preparation are going to be out of more and more people's reach. Because costs go up and there are no offsets for this cost.

Because of my background, there is far more an incentive for me to grow the sport of hillclimb and carefully consider what any rule changes would do to the cost of competing

My race-car was fully caged, and anything I bring to the hills in the future wold have a cage most likely anyway. So my concern has nothing to do with if I have to put a cage in my car. My concern is, does increased safety regulations lead to half a field of cars, which leads to half the entry fees, which effects the operating budget...which leads to what? Increased entry fees at the hills? Does that combine with another club fee hike from the SCCA when national decides their current fee isn't profitable enough?

If you want to make the sport as safe as possible, then integrate F1 style or NASCAR regulations into the PHA rules. Because SCCA club racing rule arn't the strictest set of rules on the planet. Why arn't they? Because they'd eliminate most of the field if everyone had to provide the SCCA with cars to crash test.

http://www.formula1.com/insight/rulesan ... 4/483.html

I am not trying to argue against safety, I am trying to make the point that if you want to increase the cost of getting involved then you need to find ways to offset this cost. Else wise you end up with either of two situations.

You decline interest to the point its no longer economically feasible to put the event on. Or the sport continues, but with a select few who can afford it.

There is only so much I am willing to pay to race on a hill I can drive on every day and that is exactly how many of the people I have talked about hillclimb events already feel, because of club fees, entry fees and car prep fees. In some cases, they are individuals excited and interest until I begin to explain the process of getting involved. Hell, most of them are even with me through the safety regulations, because they can see the value in safety,...then I mention club fees/entry fees on top of that and they stop listening.

Maybe people have a problem understanding a position like mine, in that if you are going to increase costs in anyway, there needs to be an assessment of how this can be offset. Because a lot of you don't realize that and want to focus on a black and white issue of "These guys are against safety" and "these guys are for safety".

As far as keeping "newbie" drivers from hurting themselves, this has way more to do with properly educating them on the dangers of the sport and car control then putting more safety gear in the car.

Maybe the SCCA should require some kind of licensing process for competing in Hill climb events, instead of just paying a license fee. What qualifies any of us to be out on these hills hauling ass? Our little card that says TT license holder that required no actual course or exam? Well, how much would that cost and how much are you willing to pay for it?

From what I've seen in other threads, nothing else can be accomplished other then bickering over different points of view. I have tried to be as comprehensive about my points of view as possible in this communication medium, so there it is then.

[Kupop]

Jimmy, I can understand why you might disagree with some people being more willing to race a car with less safety equipment than you are comfortable with, but let me ask you this. How did you first get involved with racing?

If I never went out and "just tried" autocrossing because I only need a helmet, I wouldn't of spent the last 2 years autocrossing my car...

My point is that I am not going to rip my car apart, spend lots of money installing a roll cage and getting other equipment just to try something out that I may or may not like. All forms of racing are different so even if you are into racing that does not mean you will like hill climbing.

I honestly do not feel the sport of hillclimbing would be around right now, or anywhere near as popular if it wasn't for recruiting solo 2 people. I am not saying that solo 2 is a feeder for solo nor am I comparing the two.

I am saying that if it wasn't for those solo 2 folks who were willing to "just try" a hillclimb, you might not be racing the hillclimbs.

It also seems to me that the people who are totally fine with this rule change and don't understand the "other view" are those who have a fully dedicated, stripped out, and prepared race car.

That is why I would like to know how most of you first got started into racing. Was a race car handed to you to go out and play around with at will? Did you just start playing around with a sporty street car and then start doing more official events? Even still, that is better than street racing! Or did you save up and set aside $10,000 to go buy a car, install all of the safety equipment available, and then "just try" various forms of racing.

[JekylandHyde]

I gotta say I find all this hubub over safety gear really laughable. I really could not believe finding mutiple threads about resistance to safety gear by some people. Its ridiculous.

As far as how much safety equiptment is required that is a no brainer, as much as it takes to keep our sport as safe as possible.

You guys are 100% correct. I agree ... see my other threads.
We need to start mandating Hans devices, 4-layer suits, fire suppression systems, soeed limiters and line the course iwith safety bubbles.

We should really evaluate "how much" of a cage is required.
I'm sure we could add more bars to make it even safer.
Sorry Jimmy, but carrying your logic to it's end is "ridiculous."

Please tell me how much we need to spend to gaurantee no one will be killed hillclimbing.

Those of you who keep saying this is just a money issue aren't reading the whole debate. You are effectively ruling out street cars from these events by requiring cages. Give me $10,000 and I will not put a cage in my car ... it has nothing to do with money.

[Steve Tumolo]

As far as start up goes, yes I did save my money untill I could afford a cage and all the other saftey gear. I also made sure that my racecar was not my only means of transportation. So go ahead and add that to the cost index.
I started out working on the hills so I saw all that can go wrong up close and personal. It was never a thought in my mind to even consider racing with only a bar in my only car.

It has been stated a couple times but there are a few drivers out there that have rides for rent. And saftey gear can be borrowed as well. So if someone really wanted to try it out without cutting their car up they can.

[jimmyp]

Jimmy, I can understand why you might disagree with some people being more willing to race a car with less safety equipment than you are comfortable with, but let me ask you this. How did you first get involved with racing?.

I started in Solo 2,,, where all I had to do was buy a helmet.
Then I started watching and flagging at Solo 1s.
I wanted to take it to the next level.
Then I realised I needed a cage to do Solo 1.

I did not want to do that to my then 40,000 mile "perfect" street M3 I was autocrossing, so I waited, bought a cheaper "rougher" M3,,, put the cage in, bought the stuff I needed then I started doing track events.

I've only ever done one hillclimb (they bore the pants off me,,, but thats another discussion),,, but since then, I have done 16 - 24 track days a year, between competitive and non competitive events and have been doing it for the last 10 years.

In fact,,, two years ago,,, after watching a very unfortunate event, I cut out the original GCR spec 6 point cage that I put in so I could to Solo 1 and put in a much more extensive 10 point cage "because" it was safer.

My progression was as normal and organic as it gets. No different than anyone.

[Mwilson]

JEFF,
I tried to understand your logic for whatever reason, but now I must disagree with what you are doing and what you are saying. For someone that says he loves hillclimbing' all you are doing is making a joke out of the whole system. It seems if things don't go your way you lash out at everyone and anything. Jeff you got alot to learn about life. Things don't always go the way you want them too, and people don't always agree with your beliefs thats just the way it is. And the sooner you learn that the better off you will be. You have lashed out at Matt Rowe, Matt Green, Rich Sweigart, and others that don't share "YOUR" views. I think Matt Rowe deserves a medal for conducting himself in a very professional manor after some of your sarcastic posts. He tried to explain to you many things about the possible ruling but you just don't get it. By all of your rediculous posts all you are doing is potentially hurting the sport that many of us love, and to that I TAKE EXCEPTION. If you are that upset with the PHA and many of its members officials and rules, maybe you should look for other venues that would better suit your personality. I have never responded to any of your posts with a sarcastic remark. All I did was stated the way that I felt about SAFETY to which you responded:

speed limiters and line the course with safety bubbles.

I even tried to defend your right to your opinion in one of my posts. Believe it or not I even felt a little bit sorry for you. That has changed. I always thought I was a pretty good judge of character. I thought you were truly interested in our sport and also felt you were an asset to the hillclimbing program. Stand back and look at SOME of your previous posts and you must agree that they were in extremely bad taste. Posts about not having enough corner workers, force fields, fire bottles, required Hans devices, 5 and 6 layer suits and so on. I have had 5 e-mails from fellow PHA drivers asking what is your "major malfunction." Sue posted an e-mail asking you to not take "tongue in cheek", but you still persist in making a mockery of the current program.

Safety and insurance go hand in hand without the insurance we have no events. The more we can show the insurance companys that we are trying to make the hills as safe as possible for everyone the more likely they will be to continue writing the policies. The way I see it someone alot smarter than me has decided that full roll cages are alot safer than roll bars, thus the reason for the POSSIBLE change. If the change takes place we have to either conform or get out.

Jeff I truly am shocked at your un-professional approach to this discussion. I would have never guessed it in a million years.

[JekylandHyde]

JEFF,
Things don't always go the way you want them too, and people don't always agree with your beliefs thats just the way it is.

Morg, I've had plenty of things not go my way in my life, but I do not have to stoop to insulting people, being dishonest or treeating people poorly.

Yes, some of the I've posted in the last few days has been "over the top,"
but it's been in direct response to how other people have treated this situation.

You have lashed out at Matt Rowe, Matt Green, Rich Sweigart, and others that don't share "YOUR" views.

I've quoted Matt Green, not sure I've lashed out at him,

Rich Sweigart cast the first stone ... I guess his name calling was "professional" in your mind? I thought I left Junior High decades ago.

Matt Rowe changes his story every time a different point comes up.
He debates out of both sides of his mouth.

He says safety before business, but then acknowledges running events without the required number of workers?!

He makes a wonderful point as to why "we" can't use elapsed time to debate the merits of a car's potential; yet, he continually uses E.T. to discredit cars!

I think Matt Rowe deserves a medal for conducting himself in a very professional manor after some of your sarcastic posts.

If he is the type of leader you want, then good luck with this sport that you love.

By all of your rediculous posts all you are doing is potentially hurting the sport that many of us love, and to that I TAKE EXCEPTION.

If you think I am the one hurting this sport, then you are being as shorted sighted as Matt & Matt are. This rule is already costing the hills entrants and I am not just talking about me.

If you are that upset with the PHA and many of its members officials and rules, maybe you should look for other venues that would better suit your personality.

It's already been done Morg ... PHA is not the only game in town.
SCCA has been losing members to competitors for quite some time.
It's nothing new.

I have had 5 e-mails from fellow PHA drivers asking what is your "major malfunction."

Great, I've had at least twice that many supporting me.

Safety and insurance go hand in hand without the insurance we have no events.

100% agreed ... and I am sure National and the insurance would love to see some of the rules I proposed suggested.

Do you really think a 5 lb extinguisher is going to do much for people?
How about your neck Morg or your friends? Do you think they are safe going into a tree head on without a Hans device?

Remember, we can't put a price on safety!

[JekylandHyde]

By all of your rediculous posts all you are doing is potentially hurting the sport that many of us love, ...

You love it Morg? Then fight for it.
If you were immediatly at risk of losing it, how hard would you fight for it?

You are arguing with the wrong person. I'm not killing "your" sport and I'm not even fighting just for my own interest.

Talk to the folks in the SE region ... this rule will KILL their hillclimbs.
As events die around the country, do you think that will not affect you and your sport?

As more and more safety requirements become mandated, do you think that will not affect you and your sport?

Don't be blind to what is happening here ... this is only the beginning.

[Tim Royer]

HI all,

In response to this topic my class is ESP or BSP, which is a Solo2 (AutoCross) class.

Topic on to having a cage should have been changed long ago in my opinion. I have driven my Mustang !!everyday!! for over 7 or 8 years with a full cage. This was the only car I had and I wanted to race. Everyone that wants to have a hobby or participate in any activity has to look at the money issue. Do I have the money to do this? That is the only question you have to answer. MONEY! I couldn’t afford to race for 3 years because I didn’t have the startup money. I also choose to install a full cage because it’s just safer and of course not cheaper then a roll bar. So if you choose not to want a cage in a street car and couldn’t afford to buy another car then you can’t afford to race.

If someone is looking to get into ANY type of recreation they have to do the numbers. Some have said about not putting in a cage, well then you would have to get a car that has a cage or put one in. If it comes down to that you don’t have the money well, then you don’t have the money. One of my life long passions is to pilot a plane. I can’t afford to fly; I can’t afford a plane or costs running one so I guess I have to work to that goal!

The type of racing we do is a passionate one. I have seen people come in from wherever other types of racing to watch or events to see what they need to have to race and they flat out said we’re nuts!! Well we are! I saw posts referring to exclusive AutoCross drivers coming into our hill climbs. This very rarely happens and if you said to them about it being a step up you would have then insulted them. For the most part people that AutoCrossers do AutoCrosses, People that Hill Climb do Hill Climbs.

Solo2 CLASSES are “offer” in Hill Climbs but still must conform to Time Trial rules. It is a cheap class to build and maintain and that is why it’s still there. A cage rule should be there for classes like this. I don’t believe it would turn anyone away it would just delay there entry time into our sport. If it turned anyone away then maybe that person shouldn’t have been racing a hill climb in the first place.



ABOVE IS A GENERAL STATEMENT ABOUT THIS TOPIC AND IS NOT DIRECTED TO ANY ONE PERSON. SO DON’T TRY AND MAKE IT A PERSONAL ONE. IT IS JUST MY ANSWER IF ANYONE WOULD ASK ME ABOUT THIS TOPIC.

[JekylandHyde]

Great, I've had at least twice that many supporting me.

Make that times 2 plus 3 more today.

A cage rule should be there for classes like this. I don’t believe it would turn anyone away it would just delay there entry time into our sport.

I can practically gaurantee that you are going to lose at 5 regular climbers when this rule goes through and you are losing at least 5-6 other potential climbers.

That's just the folks I've talked to. I can think of another 3-5 that are already running that are questionable as to if they would stay.

I suppose losing 5-10% of the participants, right off the bat, will not affect PHA much. It sure in heck will kill the southern hills when lose upwards of 30-40% of their drivers.

Tim, you bring up some great points about money ... I sure hope you all have enough of it because as you lose entrants I suspect it might affect your entry fees. Losing dedicated drivers will cost everyone of you.

Those of you with cages already that think this rule does not affect you are not considering all of the implications.

As you turn this into a sport of trailered, caged cars you are grossly increasing the start-up costs. I wonder how that will affect your turn outs?

As for driving a car on the street with a full cage, wonderful.
There are lots of people that drive motorcylces without helmets.
Just because people do it, does not mean that it is safe.

I have no doubt that insurance companies and lawyers will inevitable close the hills down, but altering the rules in fear of them is just speeding up the inevitable ... the end of the hills.

There are a lot of older drivers within PHA and I thank them very much for the shear amount of inspiration they have given me, but one has to wonder ... as they retire from racing, who will replace them? Who will carry on that torch?

Tim, your a great guy and a true asset ... I wish you and your hills a lot of luck. I sincerely appreciate all of the mentoring you have given me. Thank you.

[jimmyp]

more and more safety requirements become mandated, do you think that will not affect you and your sport?

Don't be blind to what is happening here ... this is only the beginning.

NOTHING will kill it faster than a death in todays legal climate.
Especially if it can (and would easily) be proven that all the prudent safety measures had not been mandated.
If a death occurs with all the best latest safety measure at least it can be said all the most recent measures had been taken.

With just a roll bar,,, when all other high speed events are mandated cages, H&N restraints, side impact seats, fresh harnesses, etc if a death or serious injury occurs,,, they will shutter this sport faster than a McDonalds at a Vegan convention.

The days of cowboying up a hill in a car without a cage is over and should be.
Simple common sense should dictate that, not a rules committee telling you that.