Data, facts and questions to ask yourself

[JekylandHyde]

I challenge everyone in here to read all that I have compiled below and draw your own
conclusions. It appears that this rule is going to have a decisive affect on all of you.

Obviously the roll cage rule has stirred a lot of emotions. I know I have been passionately
involved with this debate as I've truly been absorbed with hillclimbing since I started in it.
That being said, I've done what I can to prevent (probably in vain) what apparently is an inevitable rule change.

Matt R., Matt G. Morg W., Steve T., Rich S. and the rest, you can dislike me and what
I have been writing as you see fit, but I know that I've been motivated by the love of this sport.

Whether you realize it or not, I've been fighting for you and your sport.

For all of you that have sent me your support and suggestions via e-mail and phone, I thank you greatly.

Dave Y.& Tom K. thank you for your level heads and open minds.
I truly think the future success of this sport is desparately going to need the input of people like you.

It's "your sport," I wish you all well with it.

Jeff Fazio

As more people get back to me, I will update this information:

... the requested data ...

If cages are required in all cars, PHA will you lose these current drivers:
Keith Gerhard - CSP - will not cage
Gene Brown - - will not cage
Steven Sincavage - ASP - will not cage (as indicated after last PHA meeting)
Mary Vitale Sincavage - ASP - will not cage
Scott Barton - SM2 - will not cage
Dan Lascoskie - ESP - will not cage
Ross Wessner - SM - will not cage his car (would consider buying a dedicated race car later in life, but would have never started with a cage requirement)
Fabio Vlacci - SM2 - will not cage (unconfirmed, as far as I've heard he is not racing in '07)
Jeff Fazio - SM2 - will not cage
"rental/loaner" - my 91 NA MR2 - CSP - will not cage (I've had 5 different driver's lined up for this seat this year)

Keep in mind that I have not spoken to everyone ... this is just a sampling from the people I was
able to track down. This does not include and vintage or historic cars, but what if the rule brings them in to?

There were a total of 540 hillclimb entrants in 2006 and 27 of them would have been gone with this rule.
Again, that's just the folks I actually spoken with.
27 out of 540 might not sound to terrible, but that is exactly 5% ... 1 out of every in 20 drivers at each hill.

In 2006, if the drivers who would not cage were not present, PHA as a whole would have lost:
7.6% of Spring Weatherly Drivers
5.7% of Pagoda Drivers
5.7% of Duryea Drivers
4.8% of Fall Weatherly Drivers
3.7% of Rose Valley Drivers
2.9% of Giant's Despair Drivers

Using an average entry fee of $130, PHA (as a group) would have lost $3,510 in 2006.
Again, that is just the people I managed to reach and is not including historics/vintage.

Additionally, if cages are required, PHA will also lose these prospective drivers that I was bringing to the table:
Mark Lettieri - considering hills for '07 or '08
Ken Brewer - considering hills for '07 or '08
David Flores - considering hills for '07 or '08
Kevin Tulay - considering hills for '08
That is not a comprehensive list, it is just the names I have readily available.

If cages are required, SE SCCA will lose 10 of their current 12 roll bar drivers.
That is 33-42% of the entrants on their hills. This rule will kill their hills.

These are the roll barred drivers I talked to that will got to cages
Adrienne & George Vrabel - BSP (talked to Adrienne at the banquet, not sure if they would have ever started hilling if a cage was required)
Dale & George Witman - CSP
Matthew Kujat - FSP not happy about, but will concede to it
Mike Lascoskie - BSP
Mark Aubele - SM - he will reluctantly/unhappily go to a cage, but is against it being mandatory
Don Newcomer - Spec Miata - he's actually already gone to a cage, but indicated that he would have never started hillclimbing if a cage was initially required
Avent & Nathan Beck - SM

What has happened with other Hill Climb organizations:

The New England Hill Climb Association (NEHA) has been tightening up their rules
over the last several years, thinking that cages were absolutely necessary in all but the equivalent of showroom stock ....

Entry lists dwindled down from 70+ to below near 30 in 2006. Club treasuries are almost empty and we are not sure
what we should charge to make expenses. ... So we are relaxing our rules in an effort to gain back entries.

As a RE for a region that conducts a hillclimb I think that an issue like this shoould be discussed in
the open. ... After a quick look the entry level of Hillclimbs can have 1/3 of the entries in Street Prepared/SM. After getting
info from about 12 of the SP/SM drivers the reults were 10 who would not fully cage their rides and 2 would. Many
SP/SM drivers event drive their car to work and many of them drive their car in Solo events. These results were from those
who know this possible rule would be in effect in 2011.
Our events need entries to survive and it is a hard thing to watch a third of an event be lost.

In response to my inquiry ..

The Northwest Hillclimb Association (NHA) has been holding hillclimbs for over 8 years, never
had a fatality, and necessitating full cages would reduce our contestants to the point of making us extinct.

Facts:

*When this rule goes into affect and you lose drivers (and you will), that income is going to have to come from somewhere
(raised entry fees?) or the hills will severely suffer again. A poll was posted that asked who does this rule affect?
The answer is that it affects everyone.

*No one has ever been killed in a PHA event with a roll bar

*There are two organizations in the U.S. that hold more hillclimbs per year than PHA and both of them have classes that require no roll bar or roll cage.

*The only way to make sure no one ever dies hillclimbing is to stop hill climbing. There will always be
a risk of death in racing and there will always be a risk of insurance and/or attorneys closing up the sport.

*SCCA Rally was closed up after 2 deaths that a cage did not prevent.
Requiring cages in all hillclimbs is not going to protect the hills from death.

*Folks that run roll bars aren't necessarily doing it because of the expense of a cage - talk to Steven Sincavage about
his new car and how much his new bar is costing him. It's obviously not just about the expense. Look at the money
wrapped up in my car, I assure you I can afford to put a cage in my car.

*I know of only 2 accidents on the street with a cage in a car. One was a few years ago in Lancaster, PA and the guy hit his
head and died. The other was within the last month in an MRS (not and SCCA cage) and that driver was knocked into a coma.
Just because people drive a caged car on the street does not mean it is safe. People also drive motorcylces without helmets.

*I contacted 3 insurance companies, and the only regional office to get back to me with a definitive answer was State Farm.
They will insure a car with a roll bar with certain accomodations on the policy, but they will not insure a fully caged car that is street driven.

*I contacted the PA State Police. The officer that got back to me from Harrisburg indicated that he was not aware of any state
law that prevents the use of a full cage in a street car as long as it does not alter visiblity.

Here I have offered you all some data with which to make an informed choice on this subject.
That seems to be a rather stark comparison to what the proposed rule is based on:

The reason for this proposal is not a simple one, but is based on observation, judgement, and belief.
I don't have any specific data to back up what I am proposing, and honestly for that I am thankful.

Questions to ask yourself:

*at least three active PHA members that I know of indicate that they use "you only need a roll bar" to help recruit

... Some of the PHA events were near extinction just a couple of years ago due to lack of participants.
Many people including myself made a strong campaign to see it turn it around. I personnaly drove to many autocrosses and
solicited those that looked like they may close to Solo I specs promoting the roll bar only requirement. We attended
meetings, made presentations and advertised at auto flea markets and car shows. It all worked. We have set attendace
records and reached capacity at two events last year.

If the "roll bar only" requirement has been so beneficial to recruiting, how are you going to recruit and promote once that is lost?

*For those that say driving a car with a full cage on the street is safe, I recommend you talk to Ross Wessner (Street Mod) driver that had a really bad crash in his hillclimber over the winter. Luckily, he only had a roll bar. Talk to him about his injuries and his feelings on this subject. Still think it's safe to have a cage on the street?

*Folks that run roll bars are concerned about safety. I have at least 4 safety features added to my car that are not
required by SCCA. Should they be mandated for everyone else or should they remain my choice to have them?

*Which is a greater risk: doing a hill with just a bar in the dry or doing it with a cage in the rain? If we are so
concerned about liability and the appearance of putting safety first, why do we not postpone or cancel events due to rain?

*Yes, I went over board making a point with my "safety rule proposal"
threads, but in all seriousness it does seem a vast majority of incidents
on the hills involve a driver going straight off course so where is concern
about head and neck injuries? How often do we really see tumbling
cars? How often have we seen spinning cars at really great speeds at our events?

*The proposed rule excludes vintage and historic cars (currently). How does that make sense? How do these cars offer less
risk to the hills with just a bar than a modern car that has to meet national crash test criteria? Maybe they are even worse?

* The exclusion for vintage and historics reads:
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.
Does that mean SCCA values those drivers less than the value of those cars?
If cages are being required because we risk losing our entire sport, does that mean this historic cars are worth more than the entire sport?

*If the proposed rule is altered to include historics and vintage, how will that affect the numbers
above for drivers that PHA will lose? How many of those cars and drivers will we lose?

*The folks that are proposing this rule claim they've done research. They claim they have talked to the drivers this would affect. Then why is it that I was the first person to call or e-mail them on this matter?

*How many stories have we heard like liek the following quote? How many of us fit this quote?

Well i have followed this debate very close. I guess i would love to comment on all my thought but, that would take way to long. I am a perfect example of everything this is about. Im a novice, with only a few years of racing under my belt. Mostly auto-x and track days. Im also very excited to try out hillclimbing. If i had needed a full cage i would not be tryiing this out.

*

... there are several things which contributed to my sponsoring of this rule (which I brought to the
committee, who unanimously agreed to send it as a proposed rule change). I am concerned that at some point, some
outside body (be it insurance, or some body within SCCA) will determine that cages are long overdue, and try to impose a
quick change upon us.

So this all started because of a concern that something might happen.
What about the concern for the things that will happen when this goes into affect?

*

I would much rather implement the cage rule over time so that all competitors see it coming and have ample time to prepare for it.

If the drivers listed above are not going to cage their cars, how is giving them more time going to benefit anyone?
If you are giving drivers 2-3 years to make this change, where's the concern about this big risk we are all taking during that time?

I will not be submitting anything in writing to SCCA as these are no longer "my" events.
Some how the "we're pushing you out, but you are welcome to write a letter to try to
convince us not to" does not sit well with me. There are too many other racing venues out
there that will be happy to have my entree fees.

Anyone who is motivated to write a formal letter is welcome to borrow what I have here,
although by a Matt Rowe's words the posts on the forums will have some consideration.

Everyone these are "your" events ... what do you think is best for your program?

I wish you all a successful and safe race season.

[Steve Tumolo]

Jeff,


I have to say that I have supported the fact you feel cages are a bad way to go for the membership as a whole. I do disagree with you. But since you seem to think I dislike you and felt the need to post that I dislike you I will do something for you. And that something is to extend my middle finger toward you and wave it in a "see ya later" kind of way.

There, now I have officially stooped down to the fifth grade maturity level you seem to be trying to drag this forum into,,see what you have done. You could have posted this thread with the figures you came up with and the people you have contacted without having to call out names of the people you like and don't like but you just need to get that last word in don't you?

To the drivers out there reading this post that oppose the rule change. PLEASE get involved with the discussion. It seems as though out of all of this Jeff is the only voice that has been heard. He has spoken for a few of you that I know check this site on a regular basis. CHIME IN tell us all what you are thinking!!!There have been a couple other people who have chimed in but not nearly enough of you.

[Ron Mann]

Of course I'll have a historical twist to this....may not mean much, but it is sorta relevant.

At one time hill climb cars (and many types of race cars) were not prepared with any type of roll bar or cage. When it was finally mandated that hill climb cars be fitted with roll bars...Did people refuse to install roll bars in their flashy sports car and stop hill climbing...you bet. Did hill climbing die...no! Hill climb racing boomed...the cars evolved and new drivers prepared their cars as the rules required. Everything is just coming around again...

Seriously, with the way the world is with insurance and liability issues....isn't it amazing we can actually do what we do at all?!!?

To me...this in another evolutionary point in the life of hill climbing. If it truly is something you (anyone) enjoy, you will evolve with it or leave it.

[Steve Tumolo]

I think that is a great point Ron. I am left wondering what the meetings must have been like when it was decided that roll bars would become mandatory. I am sure that there were people who thought Hills would die because of it.

As a matter of fact I think the lack of people stepping up and willing to help do all the work it takes to set up and operate a hillclimb will kill the events off before lack of drivers due to a rollcage rule will.

[John Pitman]

History. I am sooo old that I remember attending a hillclimb in the Poconos before the roll bar days (about 1959). The reason I remember it is because I witnessed a heated argument. The driver of an TR2 (I think) had his tonneau cover over the passenger side of the car. The officials insisted it be removed so that the driver, in the event of a rollover would have a chance to lean into the "basement". He could lean to, because there were no shoulder harnesses. He lost the argument, and the aerodynamic edge he was seeking. The officials were thinking worst case, as they should. It will never be perfect, but we strive for safety.

Today. My son Eric may one day campaign a '67 MGB. If he wants any support from dear ol' Dad, he WILL have a cage in it. Just my feelings on the issue.

[JekylandHyde]

Initial post edited to:

*add Avent & Nathan Beck to the list of people that will upgrade to a roll cage if the rule goes through

*to correct the spelling of Scott Barton's name

--------------------------------

Steve, apparently my opening graphs were not conveyed the way I intended them to be. Unfortunately the typed word lacks inflection and tone which can really alter the intent greatly. My sincerest apologies if what you heard when you read it sounds very different than I what I meant to say.

Ron, thanks for the insight and I really hope you are right. The main difference between your "then and now" comparison is that adding a roll bar does not drastically affect the streetability of a car like a roll cage does.

And I agree, with the way the world is today, it is amazing that people are allowed to hillclimb at all.

[dlascoskie]

To the drivers out there reading this post that oppose the rule change. PLEASE get involved with the discussion. It seems as though out of all of this Jeff is the only voice that has been heard. He has spoken for a few of you that I know check this site on a regular basis. CHIME IN tell us all what you are thinking!!!There have been a couple other people who have chimed in but not nearly enough of you.

I resisted the urge to chime in on this until now because I see it as a losing battle. It seems to me that anytime anyone goes against the grain they get blasted by some "official" or "veteran" of the hills, for thinking outside the box or simply stating their belief on a subject. However, I'm not afraid to stand up and be counted as one of the many who are not happy about the cage rule that seems eminent. I run in street prepared, which as the name implies, is a class consisting of street cars. I have insurance on my mustang and enjoy driving it on the street, at the dragstrip and on the hills. The only reason that I began hillclimbing is because it is a relatively affordable (and that's a stretch) form of road racing. It only required me to install a roll bar into my car. It would not take the "streetability" away from my mustang. I wouldn't have to climb over a bar everytime I jump in and out of it. I wouldn't have to make my girlfriend climb over a bar everytime she jumps in and out of it. Or my dogs. Or my Mother or Father. I wouldn't have to spend hours bolting in and un-bolting a cage every other weekend so I can race a couple times a summer.
Without belaboring the point any further, I don't see the reason for any street classes if a roll cage is required. It is a complete contradiction in my opinion.

As a matter of fact I think the lack of people stepping up and willing to help do all the work it takes to set up and operate a hillclimb will kill the events off before lack of drivers due to a rollcage rule will.

Steve, I think the way certain "officials" deal with any mistake, misunderstanding, miscommunication, difference of opinion and general dealing with the public, especially with the new drivers, is the reason that no one wants to help them do all the work it takes to set up and operate a hillclimb. Some times you reap what you sow.

[Steve Tumolo]

Dan,

Would you feel slightly different about the cage rule if the front half of the cage would be bolt in? I am talking about the halo,door bars, and down tubes. As I said before, removing the bolt on parts is really quick. All you do is unbolt the two bolts going through the sleeve, slide the sleeve back and thats it. When you are ready to go roadracing all you would have to do then is weld the sleeves. And add a few more bars. My Autopower cage is what my roadracing cage started as. We just added the required bars.

And as far as the "officials" go. They are voted in once a year and you have a voice and a vote. So maybe either the person or people you had a problem with are no longer in a official position. If they are you still have the right as a member to voice your problem with that person through the right channels. This is your club too you have every right to speak loud and clear.

[brandonl]

Just out of curiosity, if the cage rule does pass, will bolt in cages be allowed?

[aventbeck]

Jeff is correct that I would install a full cage in my VW if the rules for SM stipulated this. After kissing a tree at Weatherly last autumn I thought about how much I'd enjoyed the hillclimbing and how much I wanted to balance that with safety and how much I wanted to spend during the course of repairs and upgrades in order to realize any hypotheticals.

Suffice to say that the car is repaired, and ready for hillclimbing in SM, but without the installation of a cage.

The costs involved in trying to make the VW competitive in SM would have spooked me away initially; I would have 'd looked only at track days and, if ambitious, autocross. Cost is definitely a powerful factor.

And "cost" includes not only the outlays for upgrades and so on, but, as many of you have implied, also the "cost" of making a street car progressively less street-worthy. About the time I had seats and harnesses installed in the VW, I purchased a Honda Element as a consequence of turning the VW into an Street Modified VW. A second car: that's a real cost. And then a trailer . . . and then a vehicle capable of pulling the trailer and the VW . . . I hold my breath. (And I realize how odd it is to be spending my resources in this way . . . but then again, I'm at mid-life, and so why the heck not?)

This easily is an expensive sport.

My own two cents about the knotted issue -- rollbar-or-cage + attracting competitors + safety + liability -- is that safety is first dependent on a state of mind (I crashed because I made an error, a gross fundamental error, or compound of such), and a fair amount of sobering of imagination and of instinct can be achieved with a modest application of practical intimidation achieved in a setting that is not overtly humiliating.

Y'all could easily have levered an extra $100+ out of me any time by requiring an afternoon's skid-padding and accident-avoiding at some wide open parking. I would have enjoyed this, I would have profited from it, and not unlikely some deposit of humility from such an experience would have yielded value last September and kept me from being over-zealous in trying to carry momentum through Turn 1 at Weatherly.

Fresh faces might even be attracted by such an experience, required once or even more often for a first year . . . and maybe even a second year. The cars we buy off-the-shelf and drive on the streets are so much more capable then ever we rationally experience on the streets -- are we new drivers as capable as are our cars, and should we first hit the limits of either while driving flat-out up some tree-lined curvy road? Skid pads are fun, slalom courses are fun, learning to drive within one's abilities is fun and sobering. (BSR, at Summit Point, offers a Saturday safe driving course that is this, plus more that is designed for regular driving. A happy secondary effect is that insurance companies appreciate one's attendance at such a school.)

Not that it's a worthwhile statistic or anything, but my brother, who seems always to beat me while driving my car, and has NOT crashed my car, has had a lot more BSR skid pad experience than I've had.

I hesitate to broach the engineering side of the discussion, but it apears to me that cages are an artifact of car-against-car racing on tracks designed for such, with proper safety barriers and so on. The hillclimbs are not on race tracks. We don't bump into other cars and then skid into retaining walls and so on. We have trees, cliffs, abrupt stone walls, large rocks. Are cages the right or best safety response to such an environment? Maybe. I just don't know. I don't know the engineering rationales behind the advent of cages in rally cars and off-road racers. Possibly statistics drawn from highway accidents, comparing makes/models of cars, comparing those with more "cage-like" bodies against those with less, might be a place to begin substantive discussion. Too much in the "what has happened at hill climbs" is necessarily anecdotal and hypothetical.

Boiled down: (1) I agree that the cost of a full cage, and the possible ruin of the true "street" nature of a "street" category car, would drive away most normal people who want to try hillclimbing with a car that they like and own and take to the supermarket. (2) Safety concerns ought to be pursued in order of effectiveness -- state of mind of a new driver trumps the shift from roll bar to cage, I'd say. (3) Statistics in support of any side in the argument on the effectiveness of roll bar versus cage need to be really grounded in massive data, or else impressions, snatches of data, and anecdotes will cause too inclusive yet, contradictorily, too certain assertions, with the expected inter-personal consequences.

Is it possible to conduct certain discussions that are or should be pure "fact" driven on an anonymous basis? Just a thought.

. . . . .

A much belated, but sincere Thank You to PHA and those on this list, who were uniformly kind-hearted and helpful to my brother and I last year, and to me, specifically, after I crashed in Weatherly.

Avent Beck

[MikeF]

Avent brings up a point that I tried to make in a previous post. There is no safety class requirement for obtaining the TT license you need to run SCCA hillclimb. You pay a fee and you get the TT license.

If we feel full cages are only about safety, and not insurance, then I'd like to know why there is no comprehensive safety class required for hillclimb.

Would requiring the TT license to be more then just a pay to play item make the hills safer then requiring cages? (Perhaps a dedicated hillclimb license would make more sense, instead of being lumped with SCCA TT.) Perhaps we could even offer ride along instructors for first time hillclimbers as they do with track-days and other TT events. (If someone has a street car, then they should have a passenger seat.)

Would the insurance company find these to be favorable solutions? Perhaps discussing this issue with the insurance company could provide a better solution then requiring a cage. It would provide an added revenue for the club, but, cost competitors less money and time then installing a full cage. I'd be interested in helping design a safety course/class if this could be a useful solution.

[dlascoskie]

Steve,
I have that same bolt-in Auto Power cage that you have. I have run events with the full cage installed. I prefer to run with the roll bar part (the back section) only. I do agree that a full cage adds structural integrity to the car in the event of an impact. I don't think it will prevent a tree limb or pole or any other object I run into from entering the driver area. I don't find it very easy to shoehorn in and out of my car and I still feel that it's a pain in the ass to take in and out everytime I run a hill. I'm sure there will be plenty of your-dumb-for-not-running-with-the-cage-in replys coming, and I'm fine with that. The basis of this whole argument is not personal choice, it's safety requirements. And I feel that making a cage a requirement in a street car class is going to kill that class. In my opinion the expense is too great, when you add it to all the other costs of hillclimbing, to foster new drivers to bring their street cars out and try our sport.

As for the officials, I have made my thoughts known to the appropriate powers that be. It's in their hands.

[Mel Horn]

As a matter of fact I think the lack of people stepping up and willing to help do all the work it takes to set up and operate a hillclimb will kill the events off before lack of drivers due to a rollcage rule will.

I remember going to Hershey and hearing grumblings about having to put roll bars in CLOSED cars (Mid '60s)

I remember hearing the same about mandatory PHA stickers. We also survived kill switches.(Early '70s)

I didn't like hearing about our insurance rising even though our events were safe just because other folks were having bad luck (although we finally got a rate DECREASE).

We need to remember:

Very few of the regulations we are compelled to implement are dreamt up by someone in our immediate organization.

What would occur if we did not implement the rule (doesn't matter what it is) and have An Impact Related Incident occur (doesn't even have to result in a fatality)?

Could we live with that?

[Steve Tumolo]

I'm sure there will be plenty of your-dumb-for-not-running-with-the-cage-in replys coming, and I'm fine with that.

As for the officials, I have made my thoughts known to the appropriate powers that be. It's in their hands.

I have never said that someone was "dumb" for not running a full cage. I do not insult peoples intellegence. You have every right to feel the way you do about running a cage vs. bar. If the rule gets passed then you will have to decide how dedicated you are to this form of racing.

The issue will soon be in the hands of the SCCA membership. I am done with talking about it. Unless someone wants to ask me something specific I am finito.


And it is good to hear that you have made your issues known to the powers that be. I hope whatever it is gets worked out.

[brandonl]

Just out of curiosity, if the cage rule does pass, will bolt in cages be allowed?

Anyone?

[Tim Royer]

HI all,

Brandon, I would assume and only can assume that bolt in will be legal. As far as I have seen bolt in wasn't talked about or specified. But if the states more then one side bar then a bolt in will not comply without modifying it with a second bar. I would doubt a second bar would be required because it would make the side to stiff for the speeds we see in that class.

Bolt in cages and roll bars were the only type allowed in those Solo2 classes up till I believe last year or the year before. Weld in bars and cage are now allowed as far as I know.

[Matt Rowe]

Tim,

I think you mean Showroom Stock was only recently allowed weld in cages. And as I understand the rule bolt in cages would still be allowed.

[Tim Royer]

HI all,

Thanks Matt I must have been tired, brain fade.

[JekylandHyde]

The proposed rule is being discussed here as well:
http://www.racepa.com/forums/index.php? ... =4480&st=0

[b yoder]

I personally think the proposed rule change is a step in the right direction, and intend to write a letter of support. For what it’s worth, I too would not have gotten involved with hillclimbing when I did, had a cage been required. When I was getting started I was still running a heavy national solo2 schedule and was bolting the bar in and out of the car (to save weight at solo2 events.) The car was trailered even at that point so "streetabilty" was a non-issue. With that said, hillclimbing was something I always wanted to do having grown up in Berks but, I just would have waited longer to get into it.

Fast forward to running the car in EPrepared (solo2) and FProduction for the hills, the attainable speeds for a bar only is too great, in my opinion, and this is only a 92hp car (1523 lbs). My very slight off in the first turn at Rose Valley in '05 was enough of a wake up call to switch to a full face helmet and, if I would have continued my hillclimb "career" passed that season it would have been w/ a full cage. The CRX is now sold and I'm basically starting over, this time in a Toyota going back for some autocross only action this year but, I know I'll be back on the hills in a year or two, but only w/ a full cage, even if the rule doesn’t go through. Just my two cents.

Brian Yoder