New Time Trials Rules

[Rich Rock]

The new rules have been approved by National and have been published. You can find them at scca.com under "cars and rules" in the Club Racing area . Scroll down that page until you see "revised 2013 Time Trial rules" .

Some of the changes:
1. All cars must have a rollbar, the top of which must only be above the top of the driver's helmet. Rollcages, while recommended, are not required in ANY class.

2. There is no age restriction on safety harnesses.

3. There is no requirement for a master cutoff switch in any class.

4. Helmets are good for the two previous date codes instead of one. (SA2000 helmets are permitted)

There is much more, I encourage everyone to read the new rules. Trust me, it won't take long.

Under the new guidelines, regions are permitted to modify the rules by including specific requirements in the event supps. PHA needs to do exactly that, I believe.

[jerdeitzel]

Also remember that there are 2 documents. There is one for level 1 and 2 events and another for level 3 and 4.

I have been well aware of the changes coming and in fact have become a member of a region who is very much behind making this happen. I was also talking with 3 other members of the TTAC at Road America last weekend about the changes coming. In general, i believe they are finally heading in a better direction in terms of keeping the SCCA a current club. Its not as bad as folks seem to think it is IMO!

[Mark Aubele]

I like "loosening" up the rules to bring more to the sport.

I think the real issue is classing. It would piss a ton of regulars off, but would be better for the future. There are too many classes, they need to be cut in half. Especially the autocross based classes make absolutely no sense for TT. I honestly don't think the road race classes make much sense either. The competition would be a whole lot better if 8 car classes were the norm, not people winning a class for the year having never even competed against more than a car or two.

Of course, if the SCCA came up with TT specific classing it would be based on lap times on a road course and not hillclimb based, but it would be a step in the right direction.

[jerdeitzel]

Here is something that i think explains it a bit better. I really just want folks to be educated on what is going on and to try and see the big picture.

The few things that stick in minds are that this is the first time that we actually kno what is required by the insurance company. I hear it a bunch from folks that say "if something bad happens we are going to lose the event" Well, this is completely FALSE! We could lose the it for other reasons but not because National would make it happen. Also, the whole not needing a roll cage in any class. Well, that has been pretty well proven since one of our fastest classes over the past 10 years has been SM that dosn't require a full cage. Then there are the belts, I have seen plenty of belts that will still work fine even after the expiration date. If people are so worried about it then why didn't we require them to be replaced every 2 years like Club racers. Because we are experience and have facts to say that they are good for 5 year? Where are the facts that say they are no good after that? (and don't say because that is what the tag says. I come from the fire protection business and know all about what requirements are really all about)

National is very aware that the PHA was going to have some issues with this. I suggest you guys reach out and talk to some of the current TTAC.

FASTRACK has published the SCCA Board of Directors approved 2014 Time Trial Rules with an immediate effectivity. They are available on the SCCA website under Club Racing/Cars and Rules.

The new 2014 Time Trial Rules were developed by the TTAC under a tasking from the SCCA BOD to not only revise the current PDX rule set but to go well beyond that. The current set of convoluted rice bowls were to be broken by first determining what was essential for safety and then making the new rules simple, easy to understand, and easy to execute. That SCCA is in competition with numerous other “for profit” organizations who also run HPDEs is a fact. The TTAC took the opportunity to retool all of the 2013 TTR be it PDX, CT, TT or HC. Make it simple, keep it safe, make it fun. Remove the current Barriers to Entry.

What you will see is a radical shift from what was before. Previously, DX/CT/TT/HC drivers had to wade thru the individual PDX/CT/TT/HC TTR in order to find what might pertain to them. But could the driver actually find and understand everything he needed to know? Our experience was it was difficult at best. Many perspective and current TT drivers got confused and asked for help. The TTAC questioned every current TTR statement and/or requirement as to its basis and necessity. In this critical review, the TTAC found many “requirements” in the TTR that were said to have been required by Insurance or some other SCCA dictum. When researched and questioned, the TTAC found that most of these “myths” had been handed down for generations in the various SOLO I, TTR, and/or GCR versions but that there was no current basis of fact for the assumption that they were the “gospel”. TTAC worked with the SCCA insurance people and the Underwriter as well as the BOD to determine the true insurance requirements.

The new TTR consists of two basic groups: Driver Information (i.e., Driver’s Manuals) and Operational Information. The Driver’s Manuals are meant to provide what the driver needs to know to prepare themselves and their cars for a TT event. They are solely focused on achieving that and making it simple for the driver. The TTAC found that PDX (Level 1) and Club Trials (Level 2) were very similar as were Track Trials (Level 3) and Hill Climbs (Level 4) in what they required of the driver. Thus there is a combined PDX/CT Driver’s Manual and a combined TT/HC Driver’s Manual. Drivers do not necessarily need to know nor do they want to how a Time Trials event is organized and run. The Operational Information is one document that covers all TT Levels and is meant to provide the Region organizers with the information they need to know to run a safe TT event. Driver requirements are not repeated in the Operational Information since the three TTR documents are meant to be complementary.

In the new rules, leeway is designed in such that Regions can insert specific requirements into their Supps as needed. Similarly, Regions will have more responsibility for determining what is needed for the safe conduct of their event. Certainly, safety must be everyone’s main concern but it is recognized that individual Regions across the country may have different perspectives. For instance, some tracks have unique requirements and these can be reflected in the Supps. Other than sharing common elements (i.e., point-bys), one set of passing rules can not be applicable to every venue. Thus, passing rules unique to each venue should be put in the Supps. There are some requirements that are mandatory (the usual “shall” or “must”). There is also a lot of guidance (the usual “should” or “may”). The old standard of “If it is not specifically authorized, you cannot do it” has changed.

We hope that as drivers and Regions read the new TTR they will see that the rules are safe, simple, and easier to understand. The TTAC expects that most drivers/organizers will embrace them while some may not feel comfortable with the new rules. Some things may need more explanation or new guidance added. As usual, we solicit constructive criticism and comment. Every TTAC Representative is available to answer questions as needed.

Craig Farr
SEDIV TTAC Representative
SEDIV TT Committee
farrout@knology.net
Craig Farr
TVR SEDIV TT Comm Member
SEDIV TTAC Representative
Barber Race Committee
AMAC DSR #36

[Mark Aubele]

Thanks for posting that Jer. I agree 100%.

[Matt Rowe]

I could go on about my concerns over this approach and will be happy to discuss it with anyone offline. Instead of filling up this site with a long post I will simply say that although they apparently realized that PHA would have significant concerns with this approach they choose to not engage our event organizers and officials in the project. It makes it hard to get people bought into the concept if they aren't engaged in its development. While I am open to any plan to improve visibility of the rules that participants need to be aware of verses the rules that officials need to understand and operate an event in my opinion this swings the pendulum to far in the other way. It actually makes me reconsider if I am comfortable being an official given that almost every decision now becomes someones personal standard rather than rulebook based. I think the November PHA meeting is going to be a very interesting discussion.

[RallyKeith]

I could go on about my concerns over this approach and will be happy to discuss it with anyone offline. Instead of filling up this site with a long post I will simply say that although they apparently realized that PHA would have significant concerns with this approach they choose to not engage our event organizers and officials in the project. It makes it hard to get people bought into the concept if they aren't engaged in its development. While I am open to any plan to improve visibility of the rules that participants need to be aware of verses the rules that officials need to understand and operate an event in my opinion this swings the pendulum to far in the other way. It actually makes me reconsider if I am comfortable being an official given that almost every decision now becomes someones personal standard rather than rulebook based. I think the November PHA meeting is going to be a very interesting discussion.

Exactly what I was thinking. It's still very hard for me to accurately put into words what I'm thinking in purely constructive manner. What I can say is this. The SCCA seems to have already forgotten, and Jeremy and Craig seem to not know what happened to the rally program some years. It isn't the insurance company that takes the series away. What happens is people get hurt and killed. Then families sue. Then insurance rates go up for the club. Then the club (SCCA) drops the program because it can't afford the premiums any more.

And I'm sorry but As an engineer this statement just embodies pure ignorance.

Also, the whole not needing a roll cage in any class. Well, that has been pretty well proven since one of our fastest classes over the past 10 years has been SM that dosn't require a full cage.

If you don't understand why you have no right to be influencing the safety of anything.

Keith

[jerdeitzel]

I am not here to get in an argument over this. People can make up their own minds.

I also suggest you contact someone on the TTAC to talk to them about your insurance worries. You might be surprised what they have learned. (and yes i do remember SCCA rally, this is NOT rally!)

I think that a Hans device should be required before a roll cage.

[RallyKeith]

I am not here to get in an argument over this. People can make up their own minds.

I'm not either. I think some of the issue here is that time trials covers a broad range of things. While I think relaxing some things for the lower level events is fine, while relaxing them for a hillclimb is not.

this is NOT rally!

Just wondering if you knew that the Duryea hillclimb was run an SCCA club rally back in 1994 and that is why we have the allowance still today for the rally class? So I'm sorry to say that hillclimbs are very much like rallies. I've competed in both rallies and hillclimbs as a driver and the only difference outside of notes and a co-driver is that you might have some gaurd rail to go through first before getting to the trees and embankments in a hillclimb.

[Mark Aubele]

Not the best way to not want to start an argument by calling a very respected hillclimber ignorant.

What do you guys propose to draw people to the sport? Keep it the way it was?

Things needed to be changed. I won't even get started on some of these jokes that pass for cages. Not sure how some piece of garbage autopower "rollcage" is making anyone safer, in fact a cage around most is probably going to make them feel much more comfortable pushing even harder than they would without it. And when it comes down to it a bunch of these cages are little plates bolted to a paper thin sheetmetal rollpan. I have installed them in a few cars with a screwdriver, literally poked the holes in the floor by hand.

A sensible discussion would be to maybe implement a breakout time where a cage could be possibly required, but that could create its own set of problems.

99.9% of driver's that need a cage have them, and will continue to. That being said, I just can't understand what the issue is. How many cars went under 2 minutes at Duryea EVER without a cage? I can think of 4, 2 of them were mine, Dan and Jeremy. I am sure there are more, but I can't think of any off hand.

Edit: And TKlaus

[RallyKeith]

Not the best way to not want to start an argument by calling a very respected hillclimber ignorant.

I don't mean to call anyone in particular ignorant (and lets be clear I said ignorant, meaning lacking knowledge or uneducated on a topic, and not stupid) but simply that statement. Also, I think that post by Jeremy was really a copy and paste job of a statement from Craig Farr so I guess he's the target.

I think ultimately what we have here in the PHA and Hillclimbs in general is different than most of the other timetrials events in the country. I don't think for these type of events relaxing the safety requirements is a good thing becuase of the level of risk. Just for an example, going off sideway through Oh-Shit (Duryea turn 6) with out a cage at 90mph will not end well. Ultimately we have the right and ability to keep things we deem as requirements via the sups.

I think the thing to remmeber is that time trials is competing with NASA HPDE events and that is where some of these rule changes are needed.

Keith

[Ted Klaus]

to Rally Keith-
Re. your last post--I HAVE gone off at turn 6 in 2007 in a car with a legal roll cage. GOD was with me since the legal front hoop did NOT do a thing to mitigate anything!! My estimated speed based on rpm was between 100 and 110 mph. The guard rail at the time was 2 cables with broken posts from a previous incident. If it had been the present 2 steel rails I probably would have done LESS damage to the car AND myself.
In case you haven't noticed ,racing and hillclimbing are DANGEROUS. If the rule makers continue NO ONE will want to or be able to afford it except the VERY wealthy, and I haven't noticed many wealthy hillclimbers, except at Pikes Peak.
The belts in my present car and my Helmet are now out of spec. based on the old rules, but OK. based on the new rules-they are still in GOOD USABLE condition. In fact the belts are in better condition than some of the in spec. belts that I teched in the last couple years. [I still strongly suspect that the belt and helmet suppliers have too much influence on specs.]
The object Is to encourage more participants!!-safely!!
Maybe we should THANK SCCA for adjusting to more reasonable rules and concentrate on some more HELP for the chief of TECH. and keep on reviewing the courses to improve SAFETY.
Incidently, my 43 year old formula car with an SCCA LEGAL rollbar-not roll cage-broke 2 min. at Duryea this year.

Ted K., Reg. Tech.Insp./33 year Aerospace Mech. Engr.

[Mwilson]

My thoughts, ideas and opinions!
1. I say no helmets at all. Most Hill Climbers are "hard headed" enough.
2. No seat belts. I want to be thrown clear before I hit the tree.
3. Arm restraints are for those kinky sessions in bed.
4. Gloves are to keep your hands warm in cold weather. We race in the summer.
5. Fire bottles if set off can cause carb. problems and temporary frost bite on parts of your body.
6. Racing shoes are bad for people that have flat feet. I would prefer "AIR JORDAN'S"
7. Fire Suits will cause "Jock Itch". SFI really means "Some frequent Itching." Bermuda Shorts would be better.
8. And Finally, If you have enough down force you shouldn't need a roll bar. We all need larger Wings. But if you
really feel you need a Bar, there is usually one close to all the Hills we run.


Morg Wilson-not an engineer!

[TKnorr]

There are to be no personal attacks on this forum. Discussions should revolve around thoughts, ideas and opinions. Those who persist will loose there right to post on this forum.
Tom Knorr, PHA Forum

[mrevilracing]

I don't know much about belts and helmets regarding dates and degradation. That will be left to the experts.

I am severely conflicted with the rule change regarding roll bars/cages. While I agree on the PDX/Track trials side, I am unsure whether or not I agree with it on the hillclimb side. We are not hurting for hillclimbers. The Duryea event garners more competitors than any other hillclimb in the US and it pays $0. We even have a waiting list. I feel no reason to change a safety rule just to bring the club up to date as hillclimbing is a different animal. Those that want to do it, will find a way. The cash outlay is very small to run our events. But if you want to go really fast, or be seriously competitive, that's another story.

What should be important is attempting to bring people out to assist with the event.

[Matt Rowe]

I don't know much about belts and helmets regarding dates and degradation. That will be left to the experts.

I won't say I am an expert but the helmet rule change is interesting but I would say it didn't require the larger change. I am surprised to see the rule relaxed back from the official policy of current and previous standard, it was something that was never open for discussion before. The belt rule, as written now, actually reverts back to the 2 year (for SFI) because the SFI specification specifically states the belts are only valid for 2 years and the TT exception of 5 years has been removed. This rolls back a change I had fought hard for to make. Now it may be unintended, but that is the risk when making such a massive overhaul of the rule book. I should know, I went through this 3 times.

I am severely conflicted with the rule change regarding roll bars/cages. While I agree on the PDX/Track trials side, I am unsure whether or not I agree with it on the hillclimb side. We are not hurting for hillclimbers. The Duryea event garners more competitors than any other hillclimb in the US and it pays $0. We even have a waiting list. I feel no reason to change a safety rule just to bring the club up to date as hillclimbing is a different animal. Those that want to do it, will find a way. The cash outlay is very small to run our events. But if you want to go really fast, or be seriously competitive, that's another story.

I am all for controlling the cost barriers to entry. In my attempted discussions with the TTAC and BOD members cost control was never even mentioned as a goal. I have my own suspicions about what/who drove the changes to cage requirements but I don't believe it originated from the same place as they overall goal of making it easier to host new events.

What should be important is attempting to bring people out to assist with the event.

The single goal as told to me by several of the decision makers was to make it easier for people to organize events through simpler rules. I completely agree with that spirit, I disagree with the specific implementation but it is obvious that my opinion was not wanted and by their failure to consult with the officials and event organizers from PHA they did not want opinions from us. As an official I am less eager to operate under the current framework so maybe I'll either stay home or bring my car to drive.

[RallyKeith]

I don't know much about belts and helmets regarding dates and degradation. That will be left to the experts.

I've been wondering how the sun / UV degrades belts. I'm thinking along the lines of open cars where the sun is potentially hitting them all the time versus closed cars where it isn't. Don't know what kind of effect that has but I fear it makes them brittle. I'm sure there is data out there on that if I looked hard enough or asked the right people.

[jerdeitzel]

All i can say is to contact some of the other TTAC member yourselves and find out the facts about how and why some things were done. I seem to have been able to keep a pretty good tab on things this past year that have been going on, and i don't even want to know.

[tedebayer]

Guys, like many of you, I had some serious concerns about loosening of the Time Trial rules. As a hillclimb manager, I realize that one bad accident can result in the end of an event and the loss of a site and worse, interest in many of what I consider to be a GREAT sport. We do this for fun, not for a living. There is no fun in good machinery getting destroyed or people getting hurt... and "when it ceases to be fun, it ceases to be." As the SEDIV TT Divisional Administrator, I had a lot of discomfort with how new rules could be abused or "stretched" and what results could be. After studying the new rules in great detail and talking to many whom I highly respect, I would like to point out the following two points for your consideration:

#1. Yogi Berra said "If you keep on doing what you always did, you will keep on getting what you always got." Our ranks in Time Trial and Hillclimb are getting gray... and many other competing organizations are taking our members... taking young people at point of entry. THAT is the future blood of our sport. The flagging classes in road racing also show people are not following the path from solo to time trial to road racing in SCCA. We need to change some things... and some of these changes that we have deemed "outrageous and dangerous and unsafe" are being done by our competing organizations every weekend... and it has not caused the end of the world . The same insurance companies covering them are covering us and allowing them to be run with far less rigid rules and parameters than we have run under. They are obviously not increasing rates as there are not the incidents we feared. Good example : I have driven in 24 Hours of Lemons... it is crazy, chaotic, insane, competition licenses for $35?... but it is not just continuing, it is growing. And people are not experiencing the horrors we thought they would... no death, fire, famine or swarming locusts. Instead, they are enjoying racing at some scale in a price range never available before. We need to be more open minded... change made inside your comfort zone is seldom significant. It was time for a change. Sometimes, the worst answer is not to turn right or left but to do NOTHING. We did that for too long and lost a major portion of our market share.

#2. This is a major point so please consider this - the rules have changed BUT hosting regions and divisions have the right to control events through their own supplementary rules. You can refuse to allow cars to run unless they meet specifications YOU assign... you can refuse to allow classes to run. You can require belts to be dated and you can require specifics beyond the TTR. For track events, you can require passing zones if you choose too. For PDX, you can require speeds to stay under a fixed MPH. You can require a certain level of experience to compete in YOUR hillclimbs... the rules have put the decisions in the lap of hosting regions to control through supps. Will some regions/divisions of SCCA abuse this? May be... but that is not your problem. You run and host events your way... you cannot control what others do. If they do it their way and there are problems, then SCCA TTAC and National Board will re-examine and re-consider. AND your PHA safety record and success can help show them what is best.

TTAC and National Board made the changes and I was told, if there are problems, incidents, they will tweak and adjust the rules as needed. I am willing to work with new rules and make changes through supps to fit our events. Let's work with what we have and continue to keep this sport growing and keep it fun so future generations can enjoy it as well. Also thanks to Jeremy, Craig, Matt and others who worked hard to make this change, write the rules as requested by National Board and help people understand it. Thanks, Ted

[LARRY LONG]

I had already decided to back away from being an official at the hill climbs.

The amount of liability the new rules place on the officials, organizers and regions has convinced me I have taken the correct course.

larry Long