new 2011 rule changes

[RichFox]

It's good to know that the dedicated people who volunteer their time to work on the rule book and all the other things necessary, can accept a little constructive criticism. Printing the rule in the book to say what it means will save those dedicated souls lots of time in the future.

[JR529]

It's good to know that the dedicated people who volunteer their time to work on the rule book and all the other things necessary, can accept a little constructive criticism.

For criticism to be elevated to the level of "constructive" it needs to actually be submitted to the SCTA for consideration. Otherwise it's just whining.   

[LittleLiner]

For criticism to be elevated to the level of "constructive" it needs to actually be submitted to the SCTA for consideration. Otherwise it's just whining.    

True enough . . . but if you think about it,  isn't it a good idea to air some of these views/questions/observations in a forum like this as an initial step?  I post to this forum on a somewhat regular basis and often ask about or comment on the meaning of some of the rules.  Virtually every time I have put something out here other board participants with more knowledge/experience (i.e. Fox, Steele, Stan, Slim and others) chime in and either confirm my point or indicate where I am missing some facts.  I find this very helpful and maybe someone else reading the posts is also helped by the exchanges.

I can imagine the irritation that would be felt by the various SCTA rules committee folks if I sent in a letter or email to them with every little question.

It is important to try to take care in posting about rules to avoid criticizing the rule makers and rule book writers.  Admittedly sometimes the line gets blurred when we try to mix in a little humor.

[Cajun Kid]

I just checked,,, the opening between my seats lateral head restraint (side to side) is 4.09 inches wider than my helmet.

So all I have to do is add a sliver of padding to be a 2" per side max movement.

Charles

  Charles does the padding and support extend to the furthermost edge of the helmet and if it did how much room
will that leave you to get out?
  I believe that when the majority of SCTA and BNI members read this new rule and start to measure distance from
support to roll bar and realize that they will not be able to get in their vehicles with a hans device on [let alone get out]
the sh..t is going to hit the 10,000 cfm fan
 

                            JL222

JL222,

I will try to take some pics tomorrow or Saturday,,, I may even suit up and do an exit drill and show the "bail out procedure" 

However, each car and cage/seat set up will differ as will  Hans vs Hybrid Pro and other approved HNR's...

But for the sake of helping all of us car guys,, I will post the video (as long as it don't look to embarrassing (my big 370 lbs exiting the car may be amusing to you folks)

Charles

[RichFox]

It's good to know that the dedicated people who volunteer their time to work on the rule book and all the other things necessary, can accept a little constructive criticism.

For criticism to be elevated to the level of "constructive" it needs to actually be submitted to the SCTA for consideration. Otherwise it's just whining.  

Who is whining now? Apparently the criticism posted here achieved the goal desired. Changing a poorly written rule into what will hopefully be a better one. If your feelings were hurt in the process, so be it. Sometimes happens in construction.

[Bob Drury]

  Well folks, its time for a commercial pitch.
  If you appreciate this OPEN forum which is allowing us early access to the new rules, and allowing us to bitch, moan, whine, and attempt to understand and digest this information, then GET OFF YOUR Acura AND CONTRIBUTE TO LANDRACING .COM.
  Just imagine getting this info around March and how frenzied us unstable ones would be.
  I again want to laud Dan Warner for stepping up to the plate and keeping his cool (he must chug Maalox and take handfulls of anti-anxiety pills) to stay sane.
  Also, kudo's to JR (who's name I don't know) for standing up to the heat.
  Hopefully you both had SFI 20 boots on.
  Although we don't yet have the answer's, at least we know that the Rules Committee is aware of the concerns and anxiety of those affected.
  And to my co-whiners, we could probably use a class in political correctness, but heck, we have Salt in our veins and are all pashionate about our sport.  I thank you guys for stepping up to the plate.
  Let's all take Dan's advice, and see if we can come up with something better.
  Now, about those da-n lateral helmet extensions.......................@$?@&**                Bob

[jl222]

It's good to know that the dedicated people who volunteer their time to work on the rule book and all the other things necessary, can accept a little constructive criticism.

For criticism to be elevated to the level of "constructive" it needs to actually be submitted to the SCTA for consideration. Otherwise it's just whining.  

Apparently the criticism posted here achieved the goal desired. Changing a poorly written rule into what will hopefully be a better one. If your feelings were hurt in the process, so be it. Sometimes happens in construction.

  Hopefully their taking a look at the helmet support rule, I'm sure it was written with good intentions but I don't think everyone
that voted realized the problems with exit room. If you look at different cars and pickups in the rule book [you can see some helmets] one can see with the new helmet support rule that a lot of vehicles it will not work. On my Ford Ranger placing the helmet at top BACK of seat only leaves 13 1/2'' to middle edge of steering wheel and 11''to bottom 17 '' to door frame. Most of us are a bit larger than that some way larger

                                

[SPARKY]

Without a doubt this qualifies as "PROOF reading" now whether it is 86 or 100 proof remains to be seen!

[jl222]

It's good to know that the dedicated people who volunteer their time to work on the rule book and all the other things necessary, can accept a little constructive criticism.

For criticism to be elevated to the level of "constructive" it needs to actually be submitted to the SCTA for consideration. Otherwise it's just whining.  

  I have been contemplating sending an e-mail to rule various board members and committe chairs about the helmet support problem but when they get around to measuring their vehicles the rule will probably be changed. If not let them deal with it.

                             JL222


                      

[saltfever]

You need to read this in context in the rule book. It is located in section 2.0 under the heading Engine Class Break section and applies to that section only. . .

Good point, JR. Once it is part of the correct section in the rule book the format alone will add clarity. Right now we are reading paragraphs that follow in sequence but not numerically because many paragraphs don’t have any changes.

By the way, the bolding of headings and the readability of the printed layout shows that someone really did take a lot of time and care to do a nice job. It couldn’t have been done any better.

[Clay Pitkin]

Ok so I went to our local hardware store and they have lexan and such for windows. In the rule book does it say any specified thickness? They had quite a selection.

TIA
Clay

[Peter Jack]

Just a suggestion. If you're buying Lexan, Margard is the better choice for our applications. It's Lexan treated with a scratch resistant coating which leaves it usable for a much longer time. When cleaning any of the plastics it is best to flood them with soapy water first.

Pete

[JR529]

It's good to know that the dedicated people who volunteer their time to work on the rule book and all the other things necessary, can accept a little constructive criticism.

For criticism to be elevated to the level of "constructive" it needs to actually be submitted to the SCTA for consideration. Otherwise it's just whining.  

Who is whining now? Apparently the criticism posted here achieved the goal desired. Changing a poorly written rule into what will hopefully be a better one. If your feelings were hurt in the process, so be it. Sometimes happens in construction.

I can think of other easier and much more effective ways of achieving your "goal" and those methods don't have anywhere near the negative fallout but if you want to keep doing it this way then that's fine by me. And thanks for your concern about my feelings but they are just fine, not even bruised.  

[Bob Drury]

  Clay, in my opinion, I would think you would want it at least as thick as the stock glass so that it would work with you window channels in the door.
  Obviously, the thicker it is the harder it will be to form the curves, but you don't want it so thin that you have to add bracing to prevent deflection.
  You might start by physically testing the deflection of each thickness with your hand, say about 10" in from the edge............................ bob

[Stainless1]

I have a question/comment...
After the rule changes are decided by the board, do they go back to the clubs for comment on the final wording?   
While Rich seemed to pissoff JR, he had a valid point.  Vetting the wording through the folks that read them because it concerns them is not a bad idea before they are published.  The process would have left ambiguous wording in the book for the all of us that were not present to know the intent for at least a year.
I hope we can all can continue to have constructive conversations on the rules without letting the emotions driven by the thought of a possible major change cloud the issues.
While we know the board is basically trying to keep us safe, it often scares the shit out of us because we misread the intent of the changes
Dan or JR, please chime in