[John Vanlandingham]

Despite Mike Hurst's bombastic Every other santction organisation in the world...." statement, it seems that NO other organisation is reading the words in Appendix whatever as requireing some elaborate, and largely POINTLESS bulkhead etc...

So while soime are baffled and disappointed at the business as usual nature of rules being merely announced, and people are yapping about the latest WRC spec under the car fuel cells (part of the absurd lower the cg to the floor FAD in the last couple of years NOTHING AT ATLL TO DO WITH SAFETY and the US once again doing this in some areas at some elevated level,


WE STILL DON'T REQUIRE WHAT MOST OF THE REST OF THE CIVILISED RALLY WORLD REQUIRED OF THE LOWEST CLUB CAR FIFTEEN YEARS AGO:

PLUMBED IN ON-BOARD FIRE SUPRESSION SYSTEMS.


IF there were a real concern it would seem to some that one might being with easy to implement, proven good methods, rather than these new unproven, unclear, and judging by the lack of rally cars exploding, unneeded rules.

But why clutter the issue with reality, precedent, actual field experience, or heaven forbid
Rational thought????



John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168
www.jvab.f4.ca

janvanvurpa(at)f4(dot) ca

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat!
Vive Le Groupe F!
Rally Anarchy Rallyist BBS
- http://www.rallyanarchy.com/

 

[rallymerkur]

I kind of brought this up in one of my posts on the other thread. I am planning on installing one. I know of 2 XR's that burnt down, got one of them for free. You know, switching to diesel might be a sensable alternative. Ford did make a 2.3Diesel Sierra.

 

[Mike Hurst]

What about R-A's interpretation of the FIA's fuel tank rules, as stated in articles 254 & 255, do you find bizarre?

You'd be suprised at some of the people who say our interpretaion is spot-on.

We have a list of about a dozen safety items to impliment over the next several years. On-board fire systems are high on that list, but are hardly a substitute for a fuel cell installation considered to be un-acceptable by so many in the racing and rally industries.

An extingusiher system mandate would require every entry to comply, versus a small portion of cars with fuel cell installations we have deemed unacceptable.

John, I swear, If R-A had mandated the homologated fire system first, you would be complaining about us allowing red-neck fuel cells to be mounted where they don't belong.

 

[SagSert]

Mike,

Say all you want, you are not helping the sport and the rallyist. You are hurting both and scaring away new comers. Enough is enough already.

I am very seriously concerned that you have more of these brilliant ideas in your bag.

That's all I have to say, have a nice day.

M.Samli

 

[John Vanlandingham]

>What about R-A's interpretation of the FIA's fuel tank rules,
>as stated in articles 254 & 255, do you find bizarre?

Later.
>
>You'd be suprised at some of the people who say our
>interpretaion is spot-on.
MIke alluding to un-namedpeople does not dent or sway me.
You'd be surprised at the people who think this is absurd in the extreme
GIVEN THAT LACK OF EXPLODING RALLY CARS in the USA, Canada or anywhere else in the known world.
You seen any of those Finnish crash videos???
Lots of hatch type cars rolling crazy wicked violently.
Have's seen battalions of crispy Finns.
>
>We have a list of about a dozen safety items to impliment over
>the next several years. On-board fire systems are high on
>that list, but are hardly a substitute for a fuel cell
>installation considered to be un-acceptable by so many in the
>racing and rally industries.
>
>An extingusiher system mandate would require every entry to
>comply, versus a small portion of cars with fuel cell
>installations we have deemed unacceptable.
>
>John, I swear, If R-A had mandated the homologated fire system
>first, you would be complaining about us allowing red-neck
>fuel cells to be mounted where they don't belong.

I stated ealier, my leg was burned to a crisp, seriously roasted and consequently severly gangrene infected, I'll show you some time.
I bought my own AFF or AAF or whatever the hell it is.

IT is CLEAR and PROVEN that it works, when it is needed.

The cell within a steel or 1/32 alloy can has NOT been shown to be an ACTUAL problem in practice.

WE ARE NOT TRACK CARS, our crashes differ significantly.


John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168
www.jvab.f4.ca

janvanvurpa(at)f4(dot) ca

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat!
Vive Le Groupe F!
Rally Anarchy Rallyist BBS
- http://www.rallyanarchy.com/

 

[Kent Bedford]

>An extingusiher system mandate would require every entry to
>comply, versus a small portion of cars with fuel cell
>installations we have deemed unacceptable.

Mike, just for info what happened down here (Australia) was that a bulletin came out saying that all cars applying for logbooks from ??/??/???? (a date about six months ahead) would require a plumbed in fire extinguisher as part of their requirements when getting their logbook inspection.

I'm still pushing for it to become a requirement that all turbo-charged cars be required to have a plumbed in system for the reasons mentioned in the other thread.

 

[jake himes]

JV the bulkhead is not meant to seal off the fuel but protect the occupants from splashing fuel.

I also feel that HANS devices and fire suppression systems would make sense. Safety and the PERCEPTION (insurance companies) of how safe we are are still the biggest issues in rally today.

 

[JC_595]

question

Mustafa & JVL-
Would you guys prefer RA toss all new rules on us at once? FOr example:

-Require AAFF (or whatever) fire systems to certain spec
-Require proper fuel cells
-Require FIA belts
-Require FIA seats
-Require door panels proper
-Require god knows what else (I cant think of anything else right this second)

This would cause most club level people to run away in panic at the absurd cost to upgrade, wouldnt it? But done gradually, it makes sense to me, and most folks I know.

So I am irritated & confused by the apparent insanity I am reading on these threads.

These people spending years & years building cars must have some understanding of rules creep when they are building, right? I mean, you cant assume the rules will stay static forever in racing, or you have never raced anything before. I mean, that's just not how it is. It is frustrating to see people over reacting to a rule mod like this. Maybe it's because our rally community is more diverse than the other types of motorsport I have been around. I dunno. But folks from the west are havin a fit about this & someone I have never met is spoutin off about midwestern knowitalls blah blah blah... man...

So, my point is; do you guys honestly think RA is intentionally trying to drive people away by making up silly rules? I doubt that's what you think, really. Is it because you dont care for how the rules are implemented, with no public inquiry period? It isnt a democracy, it's a sanctioning body, a business, with liability & insurance to deal with, so maybe that's how you feel, but you both seem rather objective guys, so maybe that's not it.

Here's my guess- is it because other countries sanctioning bodies that you are familiar with do not require this type of particular bulkhead rule, therefore you think it is unnecessary? And there is easy proof that it would be less effective than requiring fire systems in all rally cars? See- that one makes sense to me. However, the way folks are attacking Mike & RA, it is difficult at best to determine the reasoning behind what rule they are implementing first. AND, to be honest, we DONT HAVE THE RIGHT to know anyway. They hold the liability, and therefore, it is up to them to decide what rules to implement & when.

Do I think we will see a fire system mandatory rule? Yes.

Will RA say this? I doubt it. They shouldnt. It will scare people. Especially the club people on a budget, like me.

In the meantime, I think complaining about this & claiming that they are totally wrong & trying to ruin the sport is insane. But that's my opinion I suppose.

JC
#595
www.gnimotorsports.com

 

[Mike Hurst]

Other bizarre and outrageous ideas...

>Mike,
>
>Say all you want, you are not helping the sport and the
>rallyist. You are hurting both and scaring away new comers.
>Enough is enough already.
>
>I am very seriously concerned that you have more of these
>brilliant ideas in your bag.
>
>That's all I have to say, have a nice day.
>
>M.Samli

Other "brilliant" safety items that I have asked to be considered for the future:

FIA seat standards (already in place in NASA)
FIA homologated fire extinguisher systems (as John has mentioned)
Mandate unmodified doors or impact absobing panels similar to those required for Group N cars in article 254.
Require approved Head and neck restraints (will be required for all events on the FIA calender in 2009)
Require Full - Face helmets

Each of these is an outrageous concept, and uniquely my idea...not.

I don't see how any of these, with the exception of the Head & Neck device, is going to be a significant factor in chasing off new competitors.

Best wishes to you also, Mustafa.

 

[Mad Mike]

>Safety and the PERCEPTION (insurance
>companies) of how safe we are are still the biggest issues in
>rally today.

Jake is finally getting to the heart of the matter with the mention of insurance companies. Rational or not, done elsewhere or not, universally popular with the competitors or not, "affordable" or not, the fact remains that in good-ole litigious USA the rally community must maintain insurance coverage or we'll be looking for something else recreational to do. If a piece of R-A's business plan (one I pray to the Rallye Gods is of the five-year-or-more variety and not a three-year one) is to manage their relationship with the insurance industry by proactively enacting a series of safety-related mandates then more power to them. If R-A's insurance loss ratio remains low then these actions could not only help hold insurance near-term fees in check but maybe save their piece of the sport from extinction.

So far as the prioritization and implementation of the mandates I gotta tell you that I'm impressed with the amount of research Hurst has put into all this and the way he's handling the hassle. I have mentioned elsewhere how awesome I found Charlie Raineville, IMSA's Chief Steward when the GTU/RS circus visited Hallett Motor Racing Circuit (where I was caretaker) in the 70s, and to date Hurst has come closest to emulating that style of fairness, knowledge, empathy and common sense.

When all is said and done Hurst gets to answer to the R-A principals who, after all, have a lot more to lose implementing distasteful rule changes than anyone "forced" to add a piece of tin to their rally car.

Halley ...
http://motors.search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZrealautosport
Then, BBBBB (Bring Back Big Bend Bash)
http://www.realautosport.com

 

[Gravel Spray]

>>Safety and the PERCEPTION (insurance
>>companies) of how safe we are are still the biggest issues
>in
>>rally today.
>
>Jake is finally getting to the heart of the matter with the
>mention of insurance companies. Rational or not, done
>elsewhere or not, universally popular with the competitors or
>not, "affordable" or not, the fact remains that in good-ole
>litigious USA the rally community must maintain insurance
>coverage or we'll be looking for something else recreational
>to do. If a piece of R-A's business plan (one I pray to the
>Rallye Gods is of the five-year-or-more variety and not a
>three-year one) is to manage their relationship with the
>insurance industry by proactively enacting a series of
>safety-related mandates then more power to them. If R-A's
>insurance loss ratio remains low then these actions could not
>only help hold insurance near-term fees in check but maybe
>save their piece of the sport from extinction.
>
>So far as the prioritization and implementation of the
>mandates I gotta tell you that I'm impressed with the amount
>of research Hurst has put into all this and the way he's
>handling the hassle. I have mentioned elsewhere how awesome I
>found Charlie Raineville, IMSA's Chief Steward when the GTU/RS
>circus visited Hallett Motor Racing Circuit (where I was
>caretaker) in the 70s, and to date Hurst has come closest to
>emulating that style of fairness, knowledge, empathy and
>common sense.
>
>When all is said and done Hurst gets to answer to the R-A
>principals who, after all, have a lot more to lose
>implementing distasteful rule changes than anyone "forced" to
>add a piece of tin to their rally car.


Nobody and make a good arguement against these changes, they look good on paper for the insurance, and in reality they are good effective ways to increase safety.

However, the EXTREMELY late announcment makes inpossible for many people to accomplish this task in such a short period of time. It's not quite as easy as "add a piece of tin". Mike, many cars are built around a concept sometimes that did not account for this "tin", then to go back and add this is not possible/easy, many things have to be done to accomidate this addition in many cars, especially lower cost compeditors running hatch backs. If this type of work is to be done wham bam style(Mike Hurst, you know your going to see some real crappy work from this rule), it's worth will be far less than ideal.

We need 1 year, or many teams will simpley avoid RA events.

I cant see why an insurance company would not be happy to hear " this is what's we are working to get done in the next 1 year, 2 year etc.



Peter

 

[SagSert]

RE: Other bizarre and outrageous ideas...

Full face helmets ???? Why ? Do you know somthing he rest of the world doesn't ?

Cheers
M.Samli

 

[GB]

RE: Other bizarre and outrageous ideas...

>FIA seat standards (already in place in NASA)
>FIA homologated fire extinguisher systems (as John has
>mentioned)
>Mandate unmodified doors or impact absobing panels similar to
>those required for Group N cars in article 254.
>Require approved Head and neck restraints (will be required
>for all events on the FIA calender in 2009)
>Require Full - Face helmets


If all these become mandatory for RA events in a few years time, and CARS does not implement any of this wouldn't the Canadian competitors pose too much of a risk factor to be allowed to compete in RA events? Just a question.

I personaly do not mind any of the above suggestions, (the new car I am starting to build, a Mustang, will have an FIA plumbed in fire suppresion system) other than the full face helmets. If the full face helmet rule were to come into effect in Canada I would stop competing for sure. :+

 

[jake himes]

>However, the EXTREMELY late announcment makes inpossible for
>many people to accomplish this task in such a short period of
>time. It's not quite as easy as "add a piece of tin". Mike,
>many cars are built around a concept sometimes that did not
>account for this "tin", then to go back and add this is not
>possible/easy, many things have to be done to accomidate this
>addition in many cars, especially lower cost compeditors
>running hatch backs. If this type of work is to be done wham
>bam style(Mike Hurst, you know your going to see some real
>crappy work from this rule), it's worth will be far less than
>ideal.
>
>We need 1 year, or many teams will simpley avoid RA events.
>

I hope that you aren't speaking for Cascade Motorsports because I would expect you folks could woop up a piece of tin to meet the rule on all your cars in at most 3 days.

Other folks who have been trying hard to get a car built should either keep trying and keep reading the rules or just buy a freaking used rallycar. Just quit bitching about a simple little rule. If you can't fab up a bulkhead I would hate to see your car because it's probably a piece of crap.

>
>

 

[Gravel Spray]

>>However, the EXTREMELY late announcment makes inpossible
>for
>>many people to accomplish this task in such a short period
>of
>>time. It's not quite as easy as "add a piece of tin". Mike,
>>many cars are built around a concept sometimes that did not
>>account for this "tin", then to go back and add this is not
>>possible/easy, many things have to be done to accomidate
>this
>>addition in many cars, especially lower cost compeditors
>>running hatch backs. If this type of work is to be done wham
>>bam style(Mike Hurst, you know your going to see some real
>>crappy work from this rule), it's worth will be far less
>than
>>ideal.
>>
>>We need 1 year, or many teams will simpley avoid RA events.
>>
>
>I hope that you aren't speaking for Cascade Motorsports
>because I would expect you folks could woop up a piece of tin
>to meet the rule on all your cars in at most 3 days.


Jake, your hired!!!


Peter :7


>
>Other folks who have been trying hard to get a car built
>should either keep trying and keep reading the rules or just
>buy a freaking used rallycar. Just quit bitching about a
>simple little rule. If you can't fab up a bulkhead I would
>hate to see your car because it's probably a piece of crap.

 

[tom grossmann]

Wow......I can't believe folks are this upset. Now as JVL pointed out elsewhere as a competitor I am a road racer so all this stuff was standard a decade ago so I don't see what all the fuss is about. As for the bulkhead ok if you have a really elaborate cage you may have to weld some tabs on so you can afix some of the sheet metal and then make a panel with 4 zues fasteners........again I could do this and I suck at fabrication. It would not look pretty but it would be legal and I could do this in one day.
As for rules changes I have updated the cage in my road race car 5 tines in 16 years , 4 times it cost me a $100 the big update cost my $300.
How many people do we hear braggin about some trick manifod or suspension parts that only cost them 2K yet when we somebody wants us to spend $1500 for stuff that may save your butt and send you home to your family we get three threads of 100 posts on the horror of it all.
As for the full face helmets lots of road racers of wacked their faces on steering wheels at 50 mph and there is plenty of solid stuff to hit out on the stages me personally I always cringe when I see someone in an open face helmet not to mention all the flying debrii in a roll over and an open face helmet provides eye protection as well.

Why can't we just say hey we understand the need but can we get a little more lead time for the changes......but of course Rally does have a standing traditon of eating it's young .

Again I can't belive $100 and a Saturday afternoon upsets folks this much.

Finally JVL what would you charge for installing a bulk head.....just curious what it would cost someone who doesn't work on thier rally car.

Tom

 

[derek]

There are a lot of rules in the name of safty that I am not so fond of, like not accepting 1986 FIA fire suits but still letting SFI suits that have a lower standard than the old FIA rating. However after reading this rule and Mike's description about it and having first hand expriance playing with gas and fire (how did I make it though my early adult years?) I think this rule is not all that bad.

I read a notice about this more than 6 months ago, Mike made it clear at that time that in the future we would need to have a bulkhead so it is not a total suprise.

I have been looking at how I will meet the rule and it does not look so bad and in someways might be better than the system I would have used to shield the pumps by them selves anyway. It is also a rule that does not have a high price tag (if you are doing the work your self).

Besides the stock tank might be the best system and stay. It is lower and outside - that is cheap and easy.

Derek

 

[Glenn Wallace]

On the subject of plumbed-in fire supression systems, I have one in my car and they're a few hundred dollars if I recall.

Here's a 2.25 litre AFFF system, $399.
http://www.stableenergies.com/prodinfo.asp?number=FES225MK&variation=&aitem=5&mitem=7

I would not consider driving a rally car without one.

 

[John Vanlandingham]

> Wow......I can't believe folks are this upset. Now as JVL
>pointed out elsewhere as a competitor I am a road racer so all
>this stuff was standard a decade ago so I don't see what all
>the fuss is about.

Tom, there's the operative word SEE.
Some of us know we aren't as smart as some, who aren't, think they are.

So some of us simple minded sorts KNOW from long experience that simple clear DRAWINGS can illustrate points and eliminate worries and confusion and the CONTINUED BAD FEELINGS THAT ANNOUNCEMENTS OF TECHNICAL AND DESIGN CHANGES once again unaccompanied by simple drawings CONTINUE TO ENGENDER.

A simple drawing ought to be possible for a real organisation before announcing technichal changes even if a whole big heap of you guys all think it's simple and clear.




>As for the bulkhead ok if you have a really
>elaborate cage you may have to weld some tabs on so you can
>afix some of the sheet metal and then make a panel with 4 zues
>fasteners........again I could do this and I suck at
>fabrication. It would not look pretty but it would be legal
>and I could do this in one day.
I'm glad exactly what is needed is clear Tom, but I've sold like 5-7 guys fuel cells and every one of them is for hatch cars and I really don't have a CLEAR PICTURE of exactly what needs to be covered, what is acceptable for fill for their cars.

And no idea if the ex-works Premier tank for my car is OK since it is intended to go to an outer panel for the filler.




> As for rules changes I have updated the cage in my road
>race car 5 tines in 16 years , 4 times it cost me a $100 the
>big update cost my $300.
> How many people do we hear braggin about some trick manifod
>or suspension parts that only cost them 2K yet when we
>somebody wants us to spend $1500 for stuff that may save your
>butt and send you home to your family we get three threads of
>100 posts on the horror of it all.

Yeah they must all be big pussies, huh.


> As for the full face helmets lots of road racers of wacked
>their faces on steering wheels at 50 mph and there is plenty
>of solid stuff to hit out on the stages me personally I always
>cringe when I see someone in an open face helmet not to
>mention all the flying debrii in a roll over and an open face
>helmet provides eye protection as well.

Again, just as we are not seeing constant tragic fireballs in not just the little duck pond America, but no infernos in Sweden weekly, no immolations in Finland, no auto-da-fe in Italy, no barbies in OZ, so some of us are wondering at the need, likewise we don't hear of hordes of dinded noggins from smacking the steering wheels in the HUNDREDS OF WEEKLY CRASHES elsewhere.

When I see geographic anomolies I think there's something else going on.

>
> Why can't we just say hey we understand the need but can
>we get a little more lead time for the changes......but of
>course Rally does have a standing traditon of eating it's
>young .

And maybe, just like the fawkin stupid inanely named tow hook thingies, maybe a drawing.
>
> Again I can't belive $100 and a Saturday afternoon upsets
>folks this much.
>
> Finally JVL what would you charge for installing a bulk
>head.....just curious what it would cost someone who doesn't
>work on thier rally car.

Come on Tom, how could I say, since I have no actual spec that I know will pass, so how could I charge anybody?
>
> Tom
PS 77 YZ weren't such a bad bike, except the hubs used to last less that one event in Swedish evenmts even for Juniors.
I was working as a welder and we had "exchange hub" program going for Yamaha and Suzuki hubs.
Boys would drop off their newly broken ones and pick up the set we'd just welded.If'n the knees and the left shoulder weren't all ripped to ratsheet, I'd love to have and beat a 77 250 KTM, hubba hubba, what a trannie, but what a mid-range.

 

[Kent Bedford]

>On the subject of plumbed-in fire supression systems, I have
>one in my car and they're a few hundred dollars if I recall.
>
>Here's a 2.25 litre AFFF system, $399.
>http://www.stableenergies.com/prodinfo.asp?number=FES225MK&variation=&aitem=5&mitem=7
>
>I would not consider driving a rally car without one.

Note that for a saloon/sedan car you need a 4 litre system, - the 2.25 litre ones are just for open wheelers.

And when you do install one, don't make the mistake that a lot of people make and put nozzles everywhere - the more nozzles you have - the more pipe/hose you need - therefore the more pressure loss due to friction, and you end up with nozzles that can't spray diddly.