2005 Helmets- Door Bars...

[Mel Horn]

We need 2005 helmets and dual side bars for 2007, right?

[JekylandHyde]

As far as I know, helmets are good for 10 years ... so we should be able to use 2000 and newer helmets.

Not sure when the side bars start, but I do not think that applies to all classes.

[turbo23]

question on the bars, can you just have door bars, such as your mr2, or do you have to have front hoops?

[JekylandHyde]

As far as I know, it depends on your class.
My class does not currently require any door bars.
I have forward diagnol bars to meet NHRA's rules.

[Joe Foering]

A helmet with a SA2000 label is good until 2010 (2011). As Jeff said, it depends on your class as to whether or not you can run with a roll bar alone or up to a full cage. For now, door bars are still not required in Time Trials, but all cars built as of 2009 must meet the new cage specs and by 2011 all cars must-if I'm not mistaken.

[JekylandHyde]

... by 2011 all cars must-if I'm not mistaken.

That's news to me seeing as Matt Rowe and Matt Green are debating this very topic on the SCCA forums:
http://www.scca.org/garage/forum/forum_ ... p?TID=4463

They keep reiterating that the community will have a say on this proposed rule before it will go into affect. Are you saying something different than that?

[Joe Foering]

That's why I said if I'm not mistaken...that was the "gist" of discussions held at BMR meetings under Matt Greeen (former BMR RE and National Office aspirant). The comments made during discussion seemed to indicate that these were the anticipated-if not already enacted-changes. One observation was that, if you are building a new car, you might as well build it to these specs (double door bars, welded cages).

[JekylandHyde]

That's why I said if I'm not mistaken...that was the "gist" of discussions held at BMR meetings under Matt Greeen (former BMR RE and National Office aspirant). The comments made during discussion seemed to indicate that these were the anticipated-if not already enacted-changes.

And that is the problem.

On one hand, Matt & Matt, seem to be implying this is happening and it is coming ... on the other hand, they seem to be conveying that this is merely a proposal that might eventually be discussed and may eventualyl come to pass.

Presenting this information in two different ways does very little for building confidence that everything is being done on the up and up.

[Matt Rowe]

Jeff, the problem seems to be one of misunderstanding of the process which I have REPEATEDLY stated in the forums you have seen. The first step in that process is for the TTSC comittee to put together a proposal and send it out the TTAC. That is the stage that we are at and the stage we were at for the PHA meeting. The next step is for the TTAC to decide whether to vote, solicit member comments, or send it back to the TTSC to revised. Because of the potential impact of the issue this is not an issue that would be settled without member input, but the TTAC hasn't even had the chance to thoroughly discuss the issue to decide if it will be sent back the TTSC. The comments made at the meeting were supposed to convey that the issue was working it's way through the process and yes comments were made that there was little initial opposition. Once this reached the TTAC and discussion began additional concerns were raised and there is internal discussion that is ongoing.

Now, the fact that we are presenting this discussion, soliciting and responding to input and telling you that there is still additional consideration to be given should increase your confidence in the situation. Still, if it doesn't we could always stop talking about it openly to ensure there is no confusion. But your implications that anyone is being deceitful and underhanded are not conducive to an open dialog.

[JekylandHyde]

I'm sorry, Matt, but this is the second post that I recall that seemed to imply that the proposed cage-rule was a foregone conclusion which does undermine the feeling that this is truly out there for discussion.

I hesitate to say "second" because I searched extensively yesterday and I could not find the first refernce. I'll look some more if you like.

I do appreciate the time you have spent discussing the subject and I will be itnerested to see how it plays out when the proposal moves forward.