Landracing Forum
East Coast Timing Association => ECTA Rules Questions => Topic started by: gearheadr90s on June 27, 2007, 11:29:40 PM
-
Showed up at Maxton last weekend and found out that the leathers I'd so carefully picked out would NOT pass tech. Neat-o. We'll be attending the WOS in August, so the search is back on for race-approved leathers. Far as I understand it, we need full leather with metal zippers, one-piece, or two-piece if the zipper is 360-degree.
Naturally, cost is a concern, although I don't wanna go cheap just to be cheap (it is literally our hides on this one). However, we're not made o' cash, so if anyone has suggestions on some places we can check into for suits that'd be superfab.
I want to thank everyone who made me and Pak's rookie outing to Maxton and the world of land speed racing an absolute blast. You guys and gals are fantastic!
gh
-
Try these guys. http://www.newenough.com/
-
what was wrong with your leathers? :|
-
I am with Stainless--what was specific concern regarding your leathers--esp after you picked them to pass. Can this be remedied?
If not I have had excellent luck getting legal leathers for my son and I on both eBay and Craigslist.
-
Two problems:
1. The zipper is not metal (two-piece).
2. I didn't realize that the breathable fabric parts were not allowed, that it had to literally be FULL leather everywhere. The inside of the arms has a fabric section, and the backs of the knees and the crotch have fabric as well. It was just one of those "first-timer" mistakes, you know? I went in to the store, asked for full leathers, they showed me what they had, and a couple of weeks later I bought them. It didn't occur to me to question the exact meaning of the word "full." I just looked at the pants and verified that they are not 100% leather all over. Sucks. Spent several hundred bucks on the whole lot. I guess that's how you learn.
-
I didn't realize that the breathable fabric parts were not allowed, that it had to literally be FULL leather everywhere.
After all the discussion on this board about all cow, I can't believe this happened.
DW
-
I agree Dan, research and the search function would have found several topics, some spanning many many pages on this topic.
Jon
-
WWJD
Suitable recommendations from subject matter experts is forthcoming.
The rulers were given every chance and corrected information is available , but to no avail.
The best answer to ultimate fire protection is the carbon-x material underwear worn under suitable friction resistant materials.
Back protection and and individual wear points are not addressed in the rule as they are in every other sanction body.
The board can expect to hear from a wide range of sanction bodies, manufacturers, and equipment users that include crash and burn victims with Real World experience. :wink:
-
Two problems:
1. The zipper is not metal (two-piece).
2. I didn't realize that the breathable fabric parts were not allowed, that it had to literally be FULL leather everywhere. The inside of the arms has a fabric section, and the backs of the knees and the crotch have fabric as well. It was just one of those "first-timer" mistakes, you know? I went in to the store, asked for full leathers, they showed me what they had, and a couple of weeks later I bought them. It didn't occur to me to question the exact meaning of the word "full." I just looked at the pants and verified that they are not 100% leather all over. Sucks. Spent several hundred bucks on the whole lot. I guess that's how you learn.
GH, please feel free to call me at 540-657-8481(if it's outside business hours and/or you get the recorder, mention that it is about LSR at Maxton and I will either pick up or call you back first chance).
I was not at this last meet, but we have had an inspector or two that has not been thoroughly trained(and has apparently been mixing venues ruling interpretations), but have been there as a big help to try and ease the uneven ratio of entrants:inspectors.
I do hope that you got to run(that is always our number one goal after safety), and if you will call me I would like to help you with your dilemma and to better gain a full understanding of the "ECTA" stance regarding these two issues and most likely save you quite a bit of $ at the same time.
Todd
-
GH and Todd
I think it would be great if the conclusion you reached could be posted here......I am still trying to understand whether my alpinestar 2 piece fits the rules at Maxton
Thanks
Mark
-
I don't think this is really a general technical discussion, but if you would instead post your concerns
in the ECTA rules section at http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/board,18.0.html (http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/board,18.0.html) as a new topic, I would be glad to share my views if it helps Mark.
Todd
-
NArider,
You are correct, this is a Maxton post, and I will move it over to the Maxton Tech...
Jon
-
The ECTA leathers requirements are articulated in the rulebook - 2 piece leathers require a jacket-to-pants zipper around at least 270 degrees of circumference, and entry into a class w/an established record over 175mph requires that the leathers have metal zippers.
The ECTA has not yet (and hopefully won't) adopted the Bonneville requirement of having no "non-leather" panels.
The motorcycle inspectors DID mention to those who suggested that they might be Bonneville bound that Bonneville had more "stringent" requirements.
-
Where does it state that full metal zippers are needed over 175 mph? I have reviewed the 2007 rulebook, and page 50 addresses motorcycle rider apparel.
There is absolutely no mention of metal zippers, excluding the zipper which joins a 2-piece leather. Above 175 mph a 270 degree or better metal
zipper is required around the waist. I see no text which states that metal zippers are required on a 1-piece suit. Nor do I see any rule which requires
full metal zippers.
Are there other rules in the book that I have not found? If so, can someone please elaborate on where to find the addendum to the requirements shown
on page 50? Thanks.
-
Warp12, you interpretation is correct that only the adjoining zipper for two piece suits are required to be metal. And this only true if the bike being piloted is capable of(or the current record it is running on is), 175mph or more!
Your logbook will be corrected at the next meet.
Todd
PS: This seems to have gotten more unneeded attention this year then the "required" armor that's been missing from many suits in the same category. Don't forget that it's not about "getting by tech"(slightly more difficult then impound btw)... but about being safe - It may be beneficial to all involved if we allow our spouses and/or children to read the rulebook when it comes to some safety decisions.
-
Does this metal zipper rule apply to SCTA as well?? I have looked in the rulebook and have not found anything stating anything about metal zippers.
Scott
-
The SCTA rules seem to indicate the zipper must be "all leather" also.
There is only mention of the "All Cow" requirement that is unique in all of motor sports.
That is what it says, do we think they know what it means ?
The rules should say what they mean, and say it in a way that is universally understood and with it comes enforceability.
Without clarity, it becomes subject to
:roll:
-
Hi Scott, the reasoning that ECTA may differ from SCTA here(and I can only help speak for the ECTA and believe the SCTA zipper if allowed must be made of steed as the rest of the suit), is because the ECTA is currently on a concrete surface. And with it's old joints and cracks being very pronounced, it leaves a large possibility of grabbing the jacket flap that covers the zippered seam in two piece suit during a feet forward slide and a probability of separating the two(with access to the zipper it leaves the y2k style zippers more exposed to failure via wear and/or melting).
This is why this rule may differ between the two venues and is only relative to the jacket and pants connection.
Todd
-
The SCTA rules seem to indicate the zipper must be "all leather" also.
I really thought that would be my snide remark. Nicely done Jack(I should of known :roll:).. :wink:
Todd
-
Oh, no, Todd, now you're inviting more animals into the menagerie. Must leathers be all cow, except for the zipper, which has to be made of horse?
Happy fourth on July -- and BE SAFE out there, folks.
-
:-o Nice catch Slim, our livestock patrol.
You have a great day too my friend - Happy b-day to one and all.
Deb's still outta town, so...
I'm going for a ride with my naugahyde(yeah, right).
Todd
-
Question: Only the zipper joining the jacket to pants must be metal?
If this is indeed the OFFICIAL interpretation of the requirement, than I'd like to be corrected.
My understanding was that above 175 - (determined by current record in class entered) - that the zipper must be metal - no differing standards for 1 or 2 piece leathers.
Your mention of the armor requirement for these speeds is a noteworthy reminder as well.
-
For God's sake, Todd!!! Don't you know that Naugas are an endangered species, and it takes hundreds of them to make a set of leathers? Save the endangered Nauga - ride in cowhide!
BTW - I suspect that Todd and Deb have more reason than most to take these requirements seriously. Deb's relatively minor injuries are proof that what we're doing works. I don't have a dog in this fight (as a car racer), but I'd take Todd's word for it.
Dan
:-o Nice catch Slim, our livestock patrol.
You have a great day too my friend - Happy b-day to one and all.
Deb's still outta town, so...
I'm going for a ride with my naugahyde(yeah, right).
Todd
-
Slim forgot to tell you he is thick skinned due to living way up north. :-D
-
<SNIP>
BTW - I suspect that Todd and Deb have more reason than most to take these requirements seriously. Deb's relatively minor injuries are proof that what we're doing works. I don't have a dog in this fight (as a car racer), but I'd take Todd's word for it.
Dan
[\quote]
My personal opinion is that Todd's perspective makes sense - but, that doesn't gibe w/what I read in the book, hence the question.
I want to make certain that if I, as an ECTA Motorcycle Tech Inspector, suggest any corrections, that the basis for my suggestion is the accepted definition of the rule, and not "just what Ray thinks".
I'd hate it if I kept someone from participating because I misunderstood something, I'd hate it even more if I goofed and let someone on the track w/substandard safety equipment and they were hurt.
Seems like a trivial thing, but, I take it seriously.
-
I take this stuff seriously as well.
Looking at page 50 of the 2007 rulebook, everything is spelled out clearly in regards to metal zippers. At no point are metal zippers mentioned in relation to a 1-piece suit.
In addition, when speeds are mentioned, it is stated as "Required over 175 mph". Not "Required when the class record is over 175 mph".
If there is more to the rules than what is in the rulebook, I would just like to be directed to the documentation. Otherwise, it is a system of arbitrary rules that is being enforced.
I think everyone has the same goals in mind here. That being, clarifying the rules, and above all, maintaining safety.
-
I take this stuff seriously as well.
Looking at page 50 of the 2007 rulebook, everything is spelled out clearly in regards to metal zippers. At no point are metal zippers mentioned in relation to a 1-piece suit.
In addition, when speeds are mentioned, it is stated as "Required over 175 mph". Not "Required when the class record is over 175 mph".
If there is more to the rules than what is in the rulebook, I would just like to be directed to the documentation. Otherwise, it is a system of arbitrary rules that is being enforced.
I think everyone has the same goals in mind here. That being, clarifying the rules, and above all, maintaining safety.
I talked to a SCTA inspector this weekend and asked about the metal zipper for a two piece suit and he said I need them. I couldn't find anything in the rulebook either.
Scott
-
PLASTIC ZIPPERS MELT, just ask any rider that has had an oil fire or turbo fire at speed. Go with what Amo, Slim, or scott G. says.
-
In addition, when speeds are mentioned, it is stated as "Required over 175 mph". Not "Required when the class record is over 175 mph".
If the class record is over 175 it is anticipated that competitors will be able to go over 175, therefore the rules would apply. The fact that you scooter will only go 120 has no bearing if the record is 178.345. you must be equipped like you do over 175. Bikes or cars, doesn't matter :wink:
-
As Ray and Warp12 have shown above, there are 3 ways to decipher the rulebook.
1-the written rule
2-the interpreted rule
3-the intended rule
Like a gearbox, anytime the three don't mesh correctly there is either backlash or binding on one or more of the components(entrants), and the proper clearance should be set rather by experience.
Glen and Stainless spoke it clearly in this case, wonder where that experience came from?
Anytime an official or entrant is at all unsure of a decision they should ask at least one other official to assure(the possibility anyways) of fairness and safety.
Dan, there's few days that go by that I don't inspect or refer to Deb's leathers for our current and future use of safety gear and bike configurations.
Todd
-
Asking again - what is the official ruling w/r/t interpretation of the metal zipper requirement? Is it ONLY the waist-to-jacket zipper for 2 piece leathers, or does it mean that the "main zipper" must be metal too?
-
only the adjoining zipper for two piece suits are required to be metal. And this only true if the bike being piloted is capable of(or the current record it is running on is), 175mph or more!
-
Just a thought. If your leathers have plastic zippers they might not be the quality you want. If you're sliding down the salt what do you want under you? :wink:
-
Todd - I saw your reply - and never got confirmation that your offering was an official ECTA ruling.
Oly - I've got a metal zipper in my 1-piece leathers, had it sewn in for $35. There is a difference in interpretation between a few ECTA tech inspectors, and I want to be certain I'm enforcing the accepted interpretation of the rule, and not just my own.
-
Ray, I am stating "only the circumference zipper of a two piece race suit needs to be metal" to be an official ECTA answer.
As always, it's Keith's or the board's prerogative to change that(should anyone like to contact them directly). It's also an inspector's prerogative to not sign off on anything(from bike to gear) that he is not comfortable in doing so(such as a zipper that he doesn't feel is up to standard integrity wise - IE: broken or missing teeth, cheaply made, bad thread sewn in, dry-rot material, etc. etc.), be it metal or Y2K either one. I've certainly seen metal ones signed off on that are in much worse shape then many vinyl ones I've come across. It also any entrants choice to go beyond the tech inspector he is dealing with if they feel there is an interpretation issue.
Ol38y, I've done some BS zipper pull tests here a while back and can tell you that the separation factor is not related to the material(metal or vinyl), but more so in the design, placement, number of the teeth used. There were more metal then "plastic" zippers that I could pull apart(at least of the ones at my disposal). The melting factor (as this is about concrete, not salt) is one to be considered also(and was discussed at length in January of 2004 and again in August of 2004 - including the possible effects of Plastic, Polyester, Nylon, Steel, Brass, Nickel & Aluminum). In a nutshell... the pants to suit connection is considered a long term contact point as when you are length wise on the concrete it could weaken the connection by heat and is the reason for metal at this point(let alone the cracks grabbing the separate pieces and pulling them apart no matter the material). On the other hand, when the body turns 90* to the track it tends to not slide much when any friction is exerted and will instead "pencil roll" the person and alleviate the heat(and tension) build up.
I know this is an interpretation question rather then a rule change question(which is able to be done by any "member" at any time by the way), but other then the legwork that went into it and the last in-depth discussion of this(in a committee meeting with PB, DL, WP, SG, and myself), Debbie and I also have finished resurrecting and assessing the suit(and gear) she was wearing in here slide and roll down the concrete. Which(in just one pertinent area to this conversation), happens to have a the wear "across" the chest(enough to wear a hole through it) and zipper(thankfully she always wears her chest protector), and still shows no an attempt in separating the zipper(which is "plastic" by the way) from itself or the suit .
Is more protection better? Normally yes to some extent.... but is it always feasible for the amount of gear being produced and continually showing the ability to protect those that have tested it in the worst of ways? My bet is 50% or more of the entries at the next meet will not be eligible to run if we would enact a all metal zipper rule today.
I think the key here(like anywhere concerning the components we use for safety or function either one)... it's more about design, integrity and condition then material.
Todd
-
Thanks VERY much for providing an answer to my question - this means that I need to correct a few entries in racers' logbooks.
The question was posed to the rules committee a couple months ago - I never got a reply. With the September event coming up soon, I wanted to be certain that I was properly enforcing ECTA's take on the rule.
To recap - I'm OK w/most of the thoughts expressed in the thread. I was called for a plastic zipper on my own leathers a few years ago. So - I swapped zippers to comply w/what I thought was the official interpretation, and applied that interpretation to my inspection activities.
I do appreciate the clarification, and will apply this interpretation going forward.
-
Once again, adult level communication is the best vehicle to level the field.
GOOD WORK
I recall 1 person that swore that if the documentation from the SCTA board meetings that were open to the public were ever published to the public that was not in attendance, they would quit.
That just created an underground network that did it anyway.
We are still waiting as we read the information that is available to anybody now for the asking. :wink:
-
The question was posed to the rules committee a couple months ago - I never got a reply. With the September event coming up soon, I wanted to be certain that I was properly enforcing ECTA's take on the rule.
For what ever reason, that question never made it to the committee. I'm the "secretary" so to speak and I never saw it come through the email channels. In the future I would suggest that if you or anyone else sends an email to the committee and doesn't at least get a response stating that it's been received and is being discussed then a follow up email should be sent. In the day and age of abundant spam it's not uncommon for something to be lost. Also take note that the committee mail as well as all ECTA mailboxes have an automatic spam filter that requires you to respond to the automatically generated response email before your original email is delivered. :roll: If any of that doesn't happen correctly then your mail doesn't get through.
You weren't ignored, your message just never got there. ;)
Deb
-
Thanks Deb - didn't think it was intentionally ignored - I figured folks had been to busy w/Bonneville prep and other things to take the time to check the inbox.