Motorcycle leathers

[TurboCat]

All responses considered, even the lame ones, the fact still remains that if fire safety was the reasoning behind the leather ruling it was flawed and ill advised to believe it an acceptable means of protection. Any leathers will suffice for abrasion...none are protection from flame.  

Edit:  I have submitted online forms to amend the rules and recommended others to do so. If fire safety is the goal Nomex or comparable FR undergarments are clearly in the best interest of the riders and the sanctioning body. It is a false sense of security and ludicrus belief that the current rule will protect you.

[edinlr]

TurboCat, I guess I like your intent, but it might do more harm than good.  Next year they may require nomex lined, armored, 1.8mm leathers, with a fireproof coating and a breathing system.  Bikes going over 100 might need the Dainese airbag system too.  This could get real expensive.  I have had two winning cars outlawed under me in NHRA, at great expense, so my normal view on these things is "show me the rule book and I will play by that".  Unlike Nascar with millions of dollars at stake, this thing is pretty much a volunteer group.  My guess is that the SCTA's budget for a year is less than the parking budget at ONE Nascar race. I am not sure we want to go pissing these guys off, especially where safety is concerned.  Most of these rules are derived from years of experience and may not make sense to us, but one of the old timers can clearly explain the rational.  Yes, a leather suit isn't exactly fireproof, but one without perforations probably holds up better than one full of holes when it has fuel pouring on it.  The same goes for fabric.  The best compromise here might be that if you wear a perforated suit that you agree to always wear nomex underneath and the same could apply for boots too.

[TurboCat]

TurboCat, I guess I like your intent, but it might do more harm than good.  Next year they may require nomex lined, armored, 1.8mm leathers, with a fireproof coating and a breathing system.  Bikes going over 100 might need the Dainese airbag system too.  This could get real expensive.  I have had two winning cars outlawed under me in NHRA, at great expense, so my normal view on these things is "show me the rule book and I will play by that".  Unlike Nascar with millions of dollars at stake, this thing is pretty much a volunteer group.  My guess is that the SCTA's budget for a year is less than the parking budget at ONE Nascar race. I am not sure we want to go pissing these guys off, especially where safety is concerned.  Most of these rules are derived from years of experience and may not make sense to us, but one of the old timers can clearly explain the rational.  Yes, a leather suit isn't exactly fireproof, but one without perforations probably holds up better than one full of holes when it has fuel pouring on it.  The same goes for fabric.  The best compromise here might be that if you wear a perforated suit that you agree to always wear nomex underneath and the same could apply for boots too.

I can't see it doing any harm myself. The expense you speak of is already in play...it will be much less overall with my proposal. Those with existing conforming leathers would merely need to purchase FR undergarments at a cost of less than $200. The other concerns you speak of are not likely to come about and both riders and the sanctioning body come away winning with little effort or expense. I am only suggesting long sleeve shirts and pants at this juncture. My concerns stem from first hand knowledge that many potential participants plan on purchasing cheap, thin and non-perforated leathers just to get by the letter of the rules...while in appearance they may pass muster, it is a poor substitute for already superior equipment which they may already own. If the sanctioning body still wants to recognise non-perforated leathers as a fire barrier, at least give others the option to use their existing leathers combined with FR undergarments.

[saltwheels262]

but it might do more harm than good.

  potential participants plan on purchasing cheap, thin and non-perforated leathers just to get by

all cow leathers are neither cheap or thin.
most aren't off the rack. they are fit to size.
fitting under garments would be an issue with quite a few people.

franey

[BIGHORN]

SCTA has been doing meets for a long time and has seen it all. We should respect their opinon and conform to their rules even if not happy about it
Any one who wants to wear Nomex under their leathers can do so; I run Production class carrying minimal fuel so I dont consider Nomex necessary

[saltwheels262]

also, I didn't see any lame answers.

[TurboCat]

SCTA has been doing meets for a long time and has seen it all. We should respect their opinon and conform to their rules even if not happy about it
Any one who wants to wear Nomex under their leathers can do so; I run Production class carrying minimal fuel so I dont consider Nomex necessary

It is neither an issue of respect or conformity...that is the reason they offer a online form for rules amendments. By your reasoning the leather ruling makes even less sense. You can either be a sheep in life or take matters to task when the need arises...all up to the individual.

[TurboCat]

also, I didn't see any lame answers.

"Rules are da rules, are da rules, are da rules..."  

Much of what I am seeing here is not based on fact. In an alternate universe leathers may be an acceptable fire barrier, but nowhere else on this planet. As stated before, at least give us other options.

[Nortonist 592]

Those with existing conforming leathers would merely need to purchase FR undergarments at a cost of less than $200.

Run this by me again TC.  Why should I, despite the fact that I have SCTA legal leathers, have to shell out another $200?   I PMed you an solution to your problem.  It can be done for around $30. 

[TurboCat]

Those with existing conforming leathers would merely need to purchase FR undergarments at a cost of less than $200.

Run this by me again TC.  Why should I, despite the fact that I have SCTA legal leathers, have to shell out another $200?   I PMed you an solution to your problem.  It can be done for around $30.  

If you read through the entire thread you will see where I suggested that if SCTA wanted to continue to recognize non-perforated leathers as an acceptable fire barrier at least give others an alternative. Whether you continue to believe you are protected or not is entirely up to you and your family. The alternative I suggest costs SCTA nor you anything additional...it merely provides others a cheaper and ultimately safer route. Your solution, while somewhat feasible, does not address the actual problem...a futile bandaide at best. Btw, have you considered what that "leather glue" will do when flame is introduced? As stated previously, I have some experience with FR clothing...working with 7200 volts daily has it's hazards as well.

[Nortonist 592]

I was merely offering you a inexpensive solution the problem of meeting the rules.  Nothing more.  How well it would work I have no idea having never tested it in a real life scenario.  Much the same as I have never tested leathers with nylon at the elbows, crotch, and knees and FR underwear.  And I hope I never have to find out.

[TurboCat]

I was merely offering you a inexpensive solution the problem of meeting the rules.  Nothing more.  How well it would work I have no idea having never tested it in a real life scenario.  Much the same as I have never tested leathers with nylon at the elbows, crotch, and knees and FR underwear.  And I hope I never have to find out.

I understand and appreciate the offering Norton, but by your own admission you have no idea of it's effectiveness or safety. Leather never has been nor ever will be fire retardent. FR clothing however has been extensively tested and proven effective...I have witnessed this first hand as well. Tests as to the durability of perforated/cloth panel race suits have been tested on the track time and time again with acceptable service as to abrasion...which is the only function they were ever designed to accomplish.

[Nortonist 592]

My leathers have been successfully passed abrasion tests.  I have never had to give them the fire test.  I have witnessed a couple of bike fires where the rider, in all leather, was able to stop with no injury.  But we are straying.  You have your beliefs and The SCTA theirs.  Put the rule change proposal to them and see what happens.

[Seldom Seen Slim]

I've got a minute between laser runs, so will mention my feelings on the matter.

Nancy and I wear SCTA-legal leathers that we had made for us by Z Custom.  No issues, and therefore not really a cat in this fight.  The leathers are made for "regular" fit (Z will make them for loose, regular, or snug).  We'd had them for a year or two when we elected to add 100% kevlar underwear to our safety garb.  Note - it's kevlar, there for abrasion resistance, not for fireproofing.   Nonetheless, we wear the kevlar undies -- and even though they're pretty supple, it still makes donning the leather suit and moving once wearing it - a bit tougher.  I'd think the Nomex - even the thinnest, which would be a -1, right? -- would be thicker and therefore bulkier.  And to add nomex now would require us to buy all new suits.  Which we'd do in a minute if that's what the rules required.  We haven't felt the need to go to the fire resistant garb, but do feel there's good justification for the abrasion resistance of the kevlar.

The above is just for further input as you folks consider the need for specific safety wear.  We are subscribers to the thought that rules are minimums -- and we like being one notch safer (or so we hope).

[TurboCat]

My leathers have been successfully passed abrasion tests.  I have never had to give them the fire test.  I have witnessed a couple of bike fires where the rider, in all leather, was able to stop with no injury.  But we are straying.  You have your beliefs and The SCTA theirs.  Put the rule change proposal to them and see what happens.

It's not a belief Norton, but a scientific fact. I have already submitted the proposal.