Challenge car Safety - we should talk about it.

Huckleberry wrote: I'd wager that GRM does not want responsibility for saying a car is safe because then when you saw your fool head off with your super creative aero hood made from 100% recycled razor blades held together with magnets your family can sue the berkeley out of them. If they are smart they will do the whatever the insurance company and/or an attorney told them to do and that is it. Which is usually called "Self Tech" and "Liability Waiver Forms". At some point you have to wear your big boy pants and accept the risk you have in front of YOU and let others do the same. If you are afraid to be impaled by a rusty fence post re-purposed as a steering shaft then ... don't get in their car. Easy peasy. Otherwise, you get "THE RULES". Real racing has them out the wazoo. The rules limit creativity. They stifle it actually. They are the reason a $500 car ends up being $15k when it takes the green flag. You are racing solo, at low speed in a parking lot fer berkeleys sake. If you can't run something sketchy there then who is going to go?

Nope.

I've been the father working the course who watched a wheel come off a car and roll directly toward my young children standing on the opposite side of the track as spectators at the Challenge. Nothing I could do. Completely unacceptable.

Big boy pants or not, I am personally not anxious to watch some guy get impaled by a rusty fence post because somebody didn't feel like speaking up.

Putting on our collective big boy pants means jointly coming to acceptable standards that minimize the risks for all involved, or don't have the event at all.

SVreX wrote:

tb wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Circuit_Motorsports wrote: I think most people know where we stand, safety items should be exempt. Harness, seat, fire suppression, lighting, brakes, cage/rollbar, etc.

Do you consider a factory seat unsafe? Just curious.

FWIW, I consider factory seats to be very safe but only as part of a system with adequate mounts and restraints...

So, is a factory seat safe in most Challenge cars, assuming the mounts have not been modified? (Im really asking a budget question. If the factory seat is safe, I don't see the reason for a freebie for seats in the budget. I believe that was why it was originally considered a performance enhancement on the autocross, and weight reduction). Just curious...

I think so... but I bet someone more clever than me can make an exception to that happen!

I personally see no reason to make a budget exemption for seats at all; most cars come with seats that are over engineered by professionals to be perfectly safe.

In reply to Robbie and Huckleberry:

Were you there?

SVreX wrote: Arm restraints, neck supports...

I had extra arm restraints, neck supports and nomex gear with me. I came just short of begging some people to use them but they chose to be unsafe and I didn't have the energy to argue with them. It made me sad since really I am not trying to be a dick, I just care about my friends!

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ wrote: In reply to Woody: That isn't even the scariest part of that particular car- it gets more and more sketchy the closer you look

Quoted as an example of restrained understatement! I was appalled and I didn't even look close enough to see the true horrors of what was actually going on under the layers of deceit!

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ wrote: In reply to Huckleberry: The concerns stem more from the fact that there are workers on the autocross course, and the cars drag race next to each other- at least for me. Plus, doesn't the challenge adhere to SCCA autoX/ NHRA drag rules?

I agree with this guy, he is pretty sharp! The adherence to said rules is a huge issue here that should not be ignored. This isn't the first time the GRM has seen grounds for a disqualification and turned a blind eye...

Robbie wrote: +1 for huckleberry I am not saying safety isn't important, nor that we can't improve upon the current guidelines and status quo. But I agree that at some point it just comes down to personal responsibility, and we will never all agree on exactly what is safe and what isn't.

Personal responsibility is, ultimately, a great idea. Sadly, it is tempting (and legally tenable) to trust people in authority to uphold the guidelines that have been established and agreed to.

There will never be a perfect consensus about almost any aspect of most events in life and we must all deal with that however we all personally see fit. I just want to make sure that we are all working towards a compromise that is effective and reasonable.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Robbie and Huckleberry: Were you there?

Never. But I have been to many a tractor pull, smash up derby and figure eight race that no longer exists. Not because the participants were worried. Everyone else was worried for them. Many very cool things I used to attend have been driven to extinction by this exact conversation. Once you open that door you can never close it. No one is ever safe enough. Until no one wants to or can afford to come anymore. Then everyone is safe.

In reply to SVreX:

I don't think seats should be exempt. We ran a kirkey for weight reduction but used the factory seat base and seat belt/mounting system for safety.

The problem with personal responsibility is that sometimes, the one who makes the decision to gamble comes up short and no longer has a voice. Those who are left behind may not view the role of personal responsibility through the same microscope.

I fear that we are rounding a corner that will, sadly, lead to the demise of this fantastic event.

In reply to SVreX:

I appologize for the flying wheel. If it was in 2008 it was off my rx7. Wheel bolts are dumb, one factory wheel came off when the lug bolts failed and stripped. They were properly torqued prior to the run.

This year i installed new arp wheel studs on the parking lot build prior to event. I don't want a flying wheel to endanger anyone ever again.

In reply to Huckleberry:

BTW, no one is suggesting more rules. The existing rules are not being enforced.

The old rules said cars had to meet the safety guidelines for the NHRA and the SCCA. The current ones say "Cars must meet the safety requirements of the host club and the NHRA". Unfortunately, this was an oversight- there was no host club. GRM was the host, and posted no further autocross rules, so I guess that would fall on their insurance.

But the NHRA safety rules were grossly violated, therefore the cars did not meet the Challenge rules (because the NHRA rules are included by reference).

No new rules. The rules are fine. We need a new approach, and to develop a culture that cares

In reply to pimpm3:

I forgot about that particular event but am not surprised those involved haven't! I lost a wheel once and it has happened to many others that I know of...

I have a lot of respect for you (and others like you) for publicly taking responsibility, apologizing and working towards making sure that it never happens again. That is an excellent response to an unfortunate situation; also, wheel bolts do suck!

In reply to SVreX:

I was there. I agree that I saw at least 2 cars there that I thought were quite sketchy.

But I also think that both of those cars were exceptionally awesome. And I KNOW that I have built and driven (and learned from) sketchy things before.

I'd hate to see cars like that dry up from the event. If the builders can be prodded to make them safer I'm all about it, but my fear is that if we treat them like idiots they stop coming with their awesomely twisted builds altogether.

Let me reiterate that I do not disagree with a higher level of safety. I am just trying to temper the tendency for the board to get 'mightier-than-thou' and scare some people away.

Huckleberry wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to Robbie and Huckleberry: Were you there?

Never.

So, what you are saying is that you are completely clueless as to what we are talking about.

Your point is pointless.

tb wrote: In reply to pimpm3: I forgot about that particular event but am not surprised those involved haven't! I lost a wheel once and it has happened to many others that I know of...

I've lost one as well. Didn't do anything dumb or unsafe unless you count installing some shiny new suspiciously cheap extended wheel lugs (and I bought them for their physical attributes, had a full set of more expensive ones with less ideal dimensions sitting at home which I subsequently installed).

SVreX wrote: BTW, no one is suggesting more rules. The existing rules are not being enforced. ... No new rules. The rules are fine. We need a new approach, and to develop a culture that cares

We do not always agree, but I sure as hell agree with this! I hate rule creep and love keeping things simple. The 'culture' is at the core of this issue and keeping this event alive is my motivation towards working to make it better!

SVreX wrote: Do you consider a factory seat unsafe? Just curious.

My answer to that is that it depends.

With stock seat belts in an otherwise stock interior and structure, I would say that a stock seat is sufficient for autocross. If you somehow had that same setup in a car that's running in the 10's in the quarter, that's a different story. Luckily for drag racing it's pretty simple, NHRA rules apply.

Stock seats with a harness can be unsafe, but again it depends. Not all OEM seats have the structure needed to support the loads that a harness can create. A good harness is only as good as the seat that it's holding you to. Also, a harness in a car without sufficient rollover structure is unsafe as the harness will keep you upright where an OEM belt would not.

If you don't have a stock crash/rollover structure, you should really have a roll bar at minimum and a cage is better. With a roll bar, you should have a good harness to keep your head off of the roll bar. With a harness, you should have a good seat to make it effective. It's a trickle down effect.

Since the Justang is a Mustang chassis wearing a flimsy Justy hat, we didn't feel comfortable without adding a properly boxed and welded roll bar, an effective (but cheap) seat, and harnesses to go with it.

Robbie wrote: In reply to SVreX: I was there. I agree that I saw at least 2 cars there that I thought were quite sketchy. But I also think that both of those cars were exceptionally awesome. And I KNOW that I have built and driven (and learned from) sketchy things before. I'd hate to see cars like that dry up from the event. If the builders can be prodded to make them safer I'm all about it, but my fear is that if we treat them like idiots they stop coming with their awesomely twisted builds altogether. Let me reiterate that I do not disagree with a higher level of safety. I am just trying to temper the tendency for the board to get 'mightier-than-thou' and scare some people away.

I know that you were there, and I personally really like your style!

Definitely some good reminders to not totally squash creativity; this isn't spec racing...

I like to have multiple viewpoints and think also think that it is important to not get too scary towards people on the fringe of participating. Very salient points and well said!

In reply to Robbie:

So, you think that the teams that actually made the effort to try and abide by the current existing rules should be penalized, and the teams that said, "berkeley it, I'm gonna build whatever I want" should win trophies because they are cool? I disagree.

In fact, I think that attitude keeps FAR more people away- we all know the naysayers who say Blah, blah, blah, it can't be done for $2000. Unfortunately, they are right. It can't. It devalues the event to not play by the existing rules, and makes people not want to come.

Some of the greatest cars that ever made it to the Challenge never ran (i.e.: the Batvan). Still cool.

In reply to n8:

Good answer, pretty much what I would have said if I had time to write it out so clearly!

In reply to n8:

Thanks. That helps me understand where you are coming from a bit (and I agree with you).

SVreX wrote: In reply to Robbie: So, you think that the teams that actually made the effort to try and abide by the current existing rules should be penalized, and the teams that said, "berkeley it, I'm gonna build whatever I want" should win trophies because they are cool? I disagree. In fact, I think that attitude keeps FAR more people away- we all know the naysayers who say Blah, blah, blah, it can't be done for $2000. Unfortunately, they are right. It can't. It devalues the event to not play by the existing rules, and makes people not want to come. Some of the greatest cars that ever made it to the Challenge never ran (i.e.: the Batvan). Still cool.

This! So much! This!

You have really hit upon important issues here; you're on a roll with the straight talk!

Awarding idiocy is almost as stupefying as creating it in the first place. Tacit allowance is one thing, but explicit praising it is almost unbelievably foolish... that is all I will say about that for now...

The AX portion is way less scary to me than the drags. Maybe thst's why they AX first? To break as many sketchy cars as possible?

I think a factory seat in good condition, in a modern age car, should be safe.

A lot of these cars are using ancient seats though, some are rusted, some are broken, some are in cars they weren't designed to be in.

You can argue the performance gain, I would think mostly from being able to stay in place without sliding around.

I personally think the argument of weight savings, chassis stiffening, etc. is ridiculous (concerning seats and cages). If we were talking a spec Miata or Spec E30 race, someone having a cage and someone not, all else being equal, is definitely an advantage. In an event where a V8 powered MG, a Beetle that runs 10's, and a 4g63 powered Triumph race against each other------the weight savings of a seat makes no damn difference. Neither does a cage. The cars are WAY too different to argue over that or to try and come close to proving a performance gain.

Basically, If we all had the same exact year miata, same tires, and produced a horsepower number within 1hp of each other, and only one guy had a cage - argument valid. Otherwise - ridiculous argument.

All that being said , I think we can and should all come to an agreement, with safety at the forefront, as to what should be looked at for a tech inspection and what should be considered a "free" safety item list. A list posted on the GRM Challenge site as to what the Tech inspection safety list would look like, so the competitors can prepare and be sure ahead of time they will pass is a great idea. Same for safety items that are exempt.

This event is too cool and too much darn fun to let it go to poop over arguments about cages and seats and such!

-Tristan