Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: TurboCat on May 31, 2012, 01:10:41 PM
-
Just found out that my roadracing leathers do not meet the letter of the law because of perforations and some stretch panels in the crotch area. Looking at some high dollar Vanson DR1 and DR2 suits, even they do not meet the rules...makes no sense that a suit used by NHRA Pro Stock riders is not legal/suitable for the Salt. What have you guys/gals been using?
-
The basic idea of the SCTA leathers rule is "all cow". You're welcome to have opinions about why those that are accepted at other venues and sanctioning organisations aren't legal here -- but they aren't. Before you buy new, though -- how 'bout having leather panels sewn onto your existing leather suit - to cover the fabric and perforations? It's a very common "fix" - and will prevent in intrusion of fluids - - and that's the major point of the "all cow" rule.
-
All cow would not even cover it...with the perforations taken into account I would be sewing a new suit. When was the last time someone burned up on a bike anyway? What I see developing here is riders are buying inferior suits with zero armour nowhere near equal to the one I already own just to comply with said rule. If fire was a major concern on a bike, where are the flame retardent clothing rules? Leather is not even close. I work for a electric utility and wear fire-rated clothing every day....I know what is involved. Also never seen a fire extinguisher mounted on a motorcycle.
-
During your times on the salt have you noticed the differences between the conditions there and the pavement races? The surface differences? The safety crew distances?
-
Going to a event on the salt with attitude will not fair well with the inspectors. There have been MC fires with injuries. The reason for the rule change. Ask John Minono who had burns on his upper legs due to perforations.
-
Vanson makes leathers that comform to SCTA rules. Aint cheap though
-
My bet is there would have been burns, perforations or not with leather as the only line of defense...it aint fireproof. I also would not go to any event with an attitude...I simply would not go if I disagreed that strongly about any current regulation.
If this had been thought out a better alternative would have been Nomex or similar undergarments if fire is the real fear here. Using leather as a fire barrier makes no sense in any scenario. Maybe someone should consider amending the rules for fire resistant clothing instead of astromical priced leathers.
-
There are riders that wear Nomax underwear
-
Everybody else has spent the money for legal leathers. Now you want us to all buy nomex as well, or change the rule so the new people don't have to spend the money for new leathers? The rule is the rule is the rule is the rule. Deal with it. Bitching here won't change it. 8-)
-
AMEN
-
I think Stan's comment is the most applicable to this issue. When you are roadracing there is usually a crew just feet away from the likely places you will spill. At Bonneville help could be minutes away. With that in mind you want things as safe as possible. I agree with you on the armor issue too, but the fire issue is probably the biggest concern at Bonneville, especially with the heavily modified bikes. I was doing a similar inquiry about boots because so many of the quality race boots have perforations and non-leather parts. I don't want to make an assumption with a $300 item, especially hundreds of miles from a supplier. Z-Custom and a few others offer suits starting around $900. There are also some drag race suppliers that have all leather suits that are cheaper. There is a lady here in Arkansas who does repairs on leathers and she can sew panels in to cover the fabric and perforated areas. Let me know if you need her name. Good luck. I don't know that we will ever get rules changed that could decrease safety.
Ed
-
the rules are the rules.
or you can go to the bub with perforations and stretch panels.
-
the rules are the rules.
or you can go to the bub with perforations and stretch panels.
( fabric ) panels.
-
Cow leathers are for sissies. Bull hide. That is the way to go.
-
Checkout Dainese leathers. I have one of their 2 piece leather suits as allowed by the SCTA they are all leather. They have a small amount of perforations in the areas allowed by the SCTA.
As for NHRA leathers etc. I have been drag racing in the UK for 22 years & I have seen several bike fires & each time the rider has suffered burns even though the fire crews are close & response was quick.
The rules are there for everyone's safety, they have come to be there I expect from the experience of what has happened in the past to riders & drivers who have been injured.
-
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. :wink:
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.
-
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, 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.
-
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
-
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
-
also, I didn't see any lame answers.
-
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.
-
also, I didn't see any lame answers.
"Rules are da rules, are da rules, are da rules..." :roll:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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).
My suggestion Slim was to amend the rule...not replace it. You would not be affected unless you chose to opt for the alternative.
-
The "all cow, minimal perforation" rule was geared toward keeping fluids out, as Slim stated. We know leather is not fire proof. I do not know if nomex will keep hot fluids off my skin or not. I have all cow leathers with nomex in them. Hopefully I don't have to test the abrasion or fire rating of them.
-
My bike was on fire at over 200 mph after my engine blew. Fire and hot oil were jetting onto my leg and chest. I just had a minor burn to my leg and was able to shrug it off. I was wearing made to order "all cow" leathers I got off eBay (made in Pakistan) for about $500. If there had been perforations where the fire was hitting me I am sure it would have burned me much more. So no perforations for me.
Here it is on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz-lIVht4Mc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz-lIVht4Mc)
Don
-
My bike was on fire at over 200 mph after my engine blew. Fire and hot oil were jetting onto my leg and chest. I just had a minor burn to my leg and was able to shrug it off. I was wearing made to order "all cow" leathers I got off eBay (made in Pakistan) for about $500. If there had been perforations where the fire was hitting me I am sure it would have burned me much more. So no perforations for me.
Here it is on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz-lIVht4Mc
Don
Was that the 500 I bought from you last year? :? I can't get it much over 125.
Ed
-
No Ed..I did not sell you a burned up bike! I WISH that CX500 went 217 mph.
The one that blowed up and caught on fire was my Hayabusa. But at last years BUB it blowed up again. This landracing stuff is hard on bikes.
Don
-
If you don't like the SCTA Leather rules......enter the BUB ALL MOTORCYCLE AND SIDECAR event......for the live of me I do not understand why a M/C racer would race at a CAR EVENT, when there is a ALL MOTORCYCLE AND SIDECAR alternative meet on the same salt..............................................
-
TC, your nomex underwear is fire resistant, not fluid resistant, your vents and panels will allow hot and burning fluids in and while your underwear might not burn up your skin surly will. I also worked in a job that required Nomex clothing, will last longer in fire than jeans and a T-shirt... it will not keep you from being burned but if you want to prove something to yourself, pour a little gas on your crotch stretch panel while wearing your nomex underwear and then set it on fire. Video it and let us all know when you have that posted on utube.
Yes I have ridden on the salt, yes I wore nomex uw under my all cow leathers.
-
I would not advise pouring gasoline in your pubic area.
A crew member didn't not secure my fuel cap on my desert bike during refueling. First whoops I hit, cap dismounts, dumps 1-2 gallons of premix in my groin.
This caused enough pain to seriously affect my mental state. Best way I could describe it would be to dip your testicles in boiling oil.
At the next checkpoint, I unzipped and screamed for them to dump their ice chest down the front of me. This brought only minor relief from the numbing effect of the ice water.
I finished the race standing up, with my zipper down.
I'm not convinced that 1mm-1.4mm of anything other than steel is going to stop a significant fire at >50mph. Hot air + gasoline = bad news. A propane torch is not as hot as gasoline, nor moving 50mph. Aim it at any fabric that is thinner than a matchbook for 10 seconds, and report back.
-
Let the guys who want to wear nomex and leave the rulebook alone