PDA

View Full Version : Proposed Rule Changes for 2018


Dave Barker
10-26-2017, 10:23 PM
The CCC has been actively discussing potential rule changes for next year's OTA. Here is what we are suggesting so far.


1) Propose to allow Toyo 888 , 888R and RA-1 tires as zero PIP tires

2) Propose to allow oil catch cans at zero PIPs (authorized mod)

3) Propose to allow the removal of catalytic converters as long as least 1 functioning converter is in place at zero PIPs (authorized mod)

4) Increase the HI of all cars with dual clutch transmissions by 5

5) Charge 1.5 PIPs for the addition of a sequential transmission

6) Revise the penalty section of the rule book to charge a minimum of 10 PI for every undeclared modification PIP up to expulsion from the event at the choice of the stewards.

7) Increase the HI of the 2015 and up Mustangs by 5 from 45 to 50

8) Propose requiring head and neck restraints for all cars that use a 5 or more point harness for 2019

9) Propose removing the requirement of roll over protection to be able to properly install a 5+ point harness (as per manufacturer's instructions) as long as a head and neck restraint system is used for 2018

Let the discussion begin.

dubya_rx
10-26-2017, 11:53 PM
4) Increase the HI of all cars with dual clutch transmissions by 5

5) Charge 1.5 PIPs for the addition of a sequential transmission


How does HI relate to PIPs? I know 5 PIPs is a class increase (but depends on the modification level). How does a HI increase of 5 relate to class increase?

Slowpoke
10-27-2017, 12:38 AM
How does HI relate to PIPs? I know 5 PIPs is a class increase (but depends on the modification level). How does a HI increase of 5 relate to class increase?


Since your overall PI is 70% wt:hp and 30% handling index, a 5HI change is equal to 1.5PI.

Snizzoop
10-27-2017, 12:01 PM
9)Propose removing the requirement of roll over protection to be able to properly install a 5+ point harness (as per manufacturer's instructions) as long as a head and neck restraint system is used for 2018.

Is it really okay to potentially let a 20+ year old tin can (Civic/Integra for example) rip around Mosport with a seat, harness and H&N restraint without a roll bar? Older cars just don't have the same strength greenhouse (roof structure) that the cars of today have.

Could we also remove the requirement of rollbars for convertibles? Basically the same thing.

10gt61
10-27-2017, 12:20 PM
Is it really okay to potentially let a 20+ year old tin can (Civic/Integra for example) rip around Mosport with a seat, harness and H&N restraint without a roll bar? Older cars just don't have the same strength greenhouse (roof structure) that the cars of today have.

Could we also remove the requirement of rollbars for convertibles? Basically the same thing.

Agree with this. When I went wrong side up with no cage & OEM 3-point, the vehicle structure (A pillars & B pillars) held up well (2010 Mustang), but it was tight. There was some intrusion in the centre roof & windshield areas. I needed the flexibility to move within the car. If the rollover had of been more severe (ie multiple roll or hard impact roll), there would likely have been even more intrusion into the occupant space that needed to be avoided.

To be held upright in place by a 5-point and HANS definitely requires a cage to support the roof in a rollover IMHO.

kmorris
10-27-2017, 01:30 PM
I think the proposal was for just the harness, not a race seat. A race seat would definitely be a no- go unless it could recline. But how would you attach the top of the harness anyway with no roll structure? Are there reclining race seats with harness attachment points?

Saj5DJ
10-27-2017, 01:42 PM
Should be no 5/6 pts permitted without HANS and rollbar. Pretty dangerous and most new comers won't be aware of thst danger unless you enforce it.

Grant Galloway
10-27-2017, 02:51 PM
My Thoughts..

1) Propose to allow Toyo 888 , 888R and RA-1 tires as zero PIP tires
This is okay by me, I plan to run zero PIP RE71R anyhow

2) Propose to allow oil catch cans at zero PIPs (authorized mod)
Never understood why this was a PIP

3) Propose to allow the removal of catalytic converters as long as least 1 functioning converter is in place at zero PIPs (authorized mod)
Does this mean I can keep the Cat and gut it? I already have a HFC

4) Increase the HI of all cars with dual clutch transmissions by 5
This makes no sense? Car does not handle better, make the car 2 pips higher if equipped with DCT ie the PDK from Porsche

5) Charge 1.5 PIPs for the addition of a sequential transmission
Anyone running these? They are a huge advantage

6) Revise the penalty section of the rule book to charge a minimum of 10 PI for every undeclared modification PIP up to expulsion from the event at the choice of the stewards.
I hate cheaters, so I am good with this

7) Increase the HI of the 2015 and up Mustangs by 5 from 45 to 50
John P will not like this... LOL

8) Propose requiring head and neck restraints for all cars that use a 5 or more point harness for 2019
This makes sense, if you buy a harness, scrape some money together for a HANS device.

9) Propose removing the requirement of roll over protection to be able to properly install a 5+ point harness (as per manufacturer's instructions) as long as a head and neck restraint system is used for 2018
I don't think you want a harness without ROP, I can't imagine being tightly secured in a harness and rolling over with the roof collapsing in on me!

Dave Barker
10-27-2017, 03:23 PM
I expected the harness issue to be the biggest point of discussion.

I feel that a high speed frontal impact is far more likely than a rollover in my car (Corvette) and likely the structure is indeed much stronger than a lot of other vehicles. OTOH as our rules state now, I cannot use a head and neck restraint, which I feel is important , because the rules committee insists that I have a VERY expensive roll bar installed in my car. Therefore the rules committee is dictating to me what is the safer option to me (which I thoroughly disagree with) and are preventing me from using what I believe to be the safer option i.e head and neck restraint with a 5+ harness vs OEM 3 points. Proper mounting can be done with the use of harness bar which attaches to the B pillar.

Certainly some groups have the same rules as ours but others such as Chin motorsports, one of the largest lapping groups in the USA, do not dictate the safety rules i.e harnesses are ok in regular cars. BTW rumours are that the USA has about twice the number of lawyers per capita as Canada.

Also at this stage we allow 5+ point harnesses in old convertibles with roll bars where the descent of the A pillar is a lot MORE likely than in my car.

I would see either let the competitor decide what is the safest for him (we do let competitors declare if their car is safe with the safety check list) OR we only allow the use of a harness in a car with a full roll cage. Our present rules are quite inconsistent.

wparsons
10-27-2017, 04:22 PM
Is it really okay to potentially let a 20+ year old tin can (Civic/Integra for example) rip around Mosport with a seat, harness and H&N restraint without a roll bar? Older cars just don't have the same strength greenhouse (roof structure) that the cars of today have.

Could we also remove the requirement of rollbars for convertibles? Basically the same thing.

Unless you're arguing that a 20+ year old civic needs a rollbar in all circumstances, it's not basically the same thing. A permanent hard top has some protection in a rollover, a convertible has nothing. If you really want to get at how "safe" it is, a lot more context is required. Look at me vs Steve in his car, I doubt the roof could ever collapse enough to get near my head with how low his seats are mounted (even with no cage at all), but it could easily collapse enough to put pressure on his head.

IIRC, we don't require thorough inspection of cages/rollbars either, so it could be a bar made with too thin of tubing to be effective.

3) Propose to allow the removal of catalytic converters as long as least 1 functioning converter is in place at zero PIPs (authorized mod)
Does this mean I can keep the Cat and gut it? I already have a HFC

Nope, gutted wouldn't be functioning. I'd also suggest we adopt the SCCA rule that the cat can't be more than 6" further back than the furthest aft stock cat.

4) Increase the HI of all cars with dual clutch transmissions by 5
This makes no sense? Car does not handle better, make the car 2 pips higher if equipped with DCT ie the PDK from Porsche

Unfortunately there's no way to just add 2 pips to a base car with the current classification system. It could be added as a required "mod", but then the CCDB would need to police it.

13inches
10-27-2017, 04:40 PM
What's the premise for 6) ? It seems unduly harsh and unless undeclared mods are becoming a rampant problem, and/or you have an effective method of enforcement, what is it going to solve?

Saj5DJ
10-27-2017, 05:29 PM
5/6 point with no HANS device would, I imagine, be a larger risk than a 5/6 point + HANS with no rollbar.

Still. Mixing with 'bits' of a safety solution seems bad to me. In your scenerio Dave, I'd say you're just as likely to hit a wall sideways. Your HANS won't be doing a thing for you without a containment seat at that point and you're back to the 5pt being more dangerous than the 3pt.

Is it not the function of the rules committee to dictate safety equipment?

Saj5DJ
10-27-2017, 05:34 PM
I would have thought you need either 5/6pt + HANS +containment seat + roll over protection, or OEM.

Carguy
10-27-2017, 05:55 PM
The CCC has been actively discussing potential rule changes for next year's OTA. Here is what we are suggesting so far.


1) Propose to allow Toyo 888 , 888R and RA-1 tires as zero PIP tires - I'm guessing this is because these older tires have been caught up by the latest crop of street tires?


The rest of the proposals look very reasonable to me.

Concerning head and neck restraints without roll-over protection some 4-point belt systems, notably the Schroth Profi with ASM, can be installed using the rear seat belt anchors (provided the strap angles are within the manufacturer's limits) and are compatible with the HANS device. The way #9 is worded doesn't include 4 point belts. Maybe another proposed rule?

Snizzoop
10-27-2017, 07:00 PM
Unless you're arguing that a 20+ year old civic needs a rollbar in all circumstances, it's not basically the same thing. A permanent hard top has some protection in a rollover, a convertible has nothing. If you really want to get at how "safe" it is, a lot more context is required.

You're right, it's not the same thing. I was just making a "proposal" that is equally as ridiculous as what is being proposed here.

Dave Barker
10-27-2017, 10:23 PM
The problem with the roll bar or cage decision is that in actual fact, we have very little evidence to go by other than anecdotal evidence. Kelly feels anecdotally that having a harness would have left him with more injury following his roll over. OTOH, anecdotally Dale Earnhardt died likely because he didn't have a head and neck restraint system in a collision without a roll over. Therefore, I would like folks to "state their sources" before claiming one situation is better than the other.

As for Barry's comment that hitting a wall sideways would be safer with OEM 3 points vs a 5 point, I am not so sure. A containment seat would obviously be the only protection here but I don't see the OEM 3 points being better than the 5 points.

Another issue re the rollover protection claim of 3 point OEM belts is that if the car rolls to the left, the driver is pitched to the right and potentially out of the way. OTOH, if the car rolls to the right, the driver is pitched to the left and is just as vulnerable to crush injury as any 5 point system. No one is strong enough to resist the G forces involved and keep themselves away from the left side of the car in a right roll over.

So the concern I have is that we are IMO, not consistent. Any car with just a roll hoop is considered safe enough to use a head and neck restraint system no matter how strong the A pillar is, again, I think without empiric evidence. Meanwhile cars that have pretty good built in roll protection are not allowed to use the 5 point required for a head and neck restraint.

Therefore if roll over is the rules committee biggest concern, I would think only cars with full cages should be allowed to use 5+ point harnesses. OTOH, I think most of us would agree that high speed impacts that do not involve rollovers are more common. The way the optics of the rules look now, we seem to be actively discouraging the use of head and neck restraints in cars that may actually have pretty sound structure.

Just to make it more complicated, I think all of us would agree that a harness is significantly performance enhancing yet we don't PIP it because it is considered a safety device. Unfortunately a safety device that is not easily available to all.

Slowpoke
10-28-2017, 11:08 AM
What's the premise for 6) ? It seems unduly harsh and unless undeclared mods are becoming a rampant problem, and/or you have an effective method of enforcement, what is it going to solve?

Undeclared mods are happening but the problem isn't what I would call rampant. Our change from a 5PI wide class with equal PAX to an iPAX a couple of years ago (Individual PAX system) means that even a small amount of undeclared modification can result in a different championship finishing position. This is really just one rule catching up to match others.

It's not as automatically harsh as the current/past rule which is an automatic bump to MOD1 for the event no matter what class you started in. That is what WAS in place for the last decade or more, but only if you had enough unclaimed PIP's that you should be bumped to the next class. We never updated that for the iPAX system because we missed it and protests are so rare in OTA that it went several years without being noticed. Undeclared PIP penalties right now that aren't enough to bump you a class are handled by guidelines in the GCR's which, lets be honest, most competitors DON'T read.

This proposed change would put a GUIDELINE in place for the penalty in our own rulebook which the stewards could use to guide their penalty decision. Multiple offenses or clear efforts to hide an undeclared mod may still result in a bump to MOD1 or exclusion from the results. This change would establish a starting point for stewards discussion.

Slowpoke
10-28-2017, 11:44 AM
The rest of the proposals look very reasonable to me.

Concerning head and neck restraints without roll-over protection some 4-point belt systems, notably the Schroth Profi with ASM, can be installed using the rear seat belt anchors (provided the strap angles are within the manufacturer's limits) and are compatible with the HANS device. The way #9 is worded doesn't include 4 point belts. Maybe another proposed rule?

1.1.3.3. Four Point belts must meet FMVSS209 or ECER16.04 standards, be approved by the manufacturer for the vehicle, and have an integrated Anti-Submarining Mechanism from the manufacturer. Note that some “Tuner” belts do not meet these standards. Burden of proof for validity and correct installation is on the driver of the car.

Our rules already allow the use of FMVSS 209 compliant four points, but those belts are not approved by the belt manufacturer for use in all vehicles. You will specifically notice the absence of Corvettes and BRZ/FRS vehicles from Schroth's approved list which are two very popular vehicles in our series.

From the Schroth Profi ASM documentation:

"WARNING: This product is not designed and tested to be used with HANS® or other head and neck restraints e.g. Hutchens device. Shoulder belts may slip off the HANS® and crotch straps e.g. of a Hutchens device cannot be properly attached to the lap belt. Malfunction can result in serious personal injuries or death."

https://www.schrothracing.com/docs/FE-VehRefList-Print.pdf

This rule is definitely a different philosophy in use by other established organisations. Philosophically I suppose that my views rank somewhat as a libertarian; give the individual the right to make their own choices. I believe that if there is a safety device out there that can provide greater reduction in injury in the most frequent type of collision we see in OTA, our ruleset should be open to including it. The fact that James Mewett (aerospace engineer, former CCC chair, and long time competitor and instructor) and Dave Barker, (medical doctor familiar with sports injury and the risks of motorsport, current CCC chair, long time competitor) are two of the proponents of this change have helped sway me to the side of having this discussion.

I compete in a car with a six+ point cage, I have six point belts and seats with wings, I have a Simpson Rage Pro FHR, so this rule decision is to help and/or affect others, not for me. Would a special waiver and counselling from a scrutineer cover our obligation in this regard?

In the end, we are a division of CASC-OR which has a safety committee that advises on these matters. I'll invite George McCullough to attend our meeting so that he can hear both sides of the story rather than my re-iterated versions.

10gt61
10-28-2017, 01:58 PM
Philosophically I suppose that my views rank somewhat as a libertarian

With respect, one must be very careful with libertarian views when it comes to safety issues like these. It's a slippery slope. You may have foolish individuals wanting to compete with no seatbelts or helmets! (An extreme example to make a point). I have been around long enough to remember the resistance to the seatbelt laws on the highways, and when I worked in motor vehicle accident reconstruction, the tragic loss of life as a result of the lack of use of seatbelts in a crash. Sometimes the powers that be have to exercise a little authority for the betterment of all. But I digress...

Stephen I think including George McCullogh in these discussions is a must.

ONdriver
10-28-2017, 02:55 PM
Agree with this. When I went wrong side up with no cage & OEM 3-point, the vehicle structure (A pillars & B pillars) held up well (2010 Mustang), but it was tight. There was some intrusion in the centre roof & windshield areas. I needed the flexibility to move within the car. If the rollover had of been more severe (ie multiple roll or hard impact roll), there would likely have been even more intrusion into the occupant space that needed to be avoided.

To be held upright in place by a 5-point and HANS definitely requires a cage to support the roof in a rollover IMHO.

Being one of the few witnesses to Kelly's incident I feel the need to comment here.
Kelly, I'm pretty sure your injuries were a result of the initial impact with the tire wall and not the subsequent slow speed rollover off of the tire wall. Would you not agree with this?
This would corroborate with the suggestion being put forth by Dave, in that if you had been wearing a 5 point restraint your injuries would have been minimal, it was just bad luck that your car got high enough on the tire wall to fall off to the side once the forward motion had stopped.
Again not all incidents are the same but in my years at OTA there have been many more frontal and/or side impacts than rollovers so that would suggest that enhanced seat restraints would be a benefit in the majority of cases.
Of course, nothing in life is 100% certain, just wanted to throw out some more info to add to this discussion.
Perry

racecartech
10-28-2017, 04:20 PM
The rules have to apply to all cars or be modified to specific cars.

Under the proposal being suggested I could bring a older Honda, Nissan etc no cage, harness bar, harnesses and meet the proposal.
Who believes this is safe?

comparison to lapping day rules is not the same.

Rule sets from NASA, SCCA for Time Trials are the only accurate comparison.

My stand on this subject, and availale options:
No roll bar, OE belts only or DOT harness
You may install a non halo seat

Roll bar, all current options

Dave Barker
10-28-2017, 05:59 PM
comparison to lapping day rules is not the same.

Rule sets from NASA, SCCA for Time Trials are the only accurate comparison.

My stand on this subject, and availale options:
No roll bar, OE belts only or DOT harness
You may install a non halo seat

Roll bar, all current options

Actually Scott, I believe NASA TT has passing during competition, something we have repeatedly avoided. Car to Car contact risk has to be much higher. I think our rules are much closer to HPDE than NASA TT (Haven't looked into the SCCA)

On the other side of the coin, if harnesses are not safe in cars with pretty good structure, why do we allow them in convertibles with just a roll bar? My concern is that our rules are not consistent. Either allow drivers to make their own choices or mandate the toughest standards equivalent to race for use of a harness. I don't see Spec Miatas with just a bar.

Your concern re use of harnesses in old cars is perfectly valid but could be dealt with by the scrutineer. OTOH, telling someone that they cannot use a known safety device (head and neck restraint) because "we know better" sure needs some data to be substantiated particularly given what I see as the inconsistency of our rules. Not really sure which is the riskier approach.

Slowpoke
10-28-2017, 08:49 PM
With respect, one must be very careful with libertarian views when it comes to safety issues like these. It's a slippery slope. You may have foolish individuals wanting to compete with no seatbelts or helmets! (An extreme example to make a point). I have been around long enough to remember the resistance to the seatbelt laws on the highways, and when I worked in motor vehicle accident reconstruction, the tragic loss of life as a result of the lack of use of seatbelts in a crash.

There is no equivalency between experienced instructors understanding the frequency of track incidents and then wanting to spend more money on a FHR and harness because they believe it will increase their chance of survival / reduce injury in an incident and people who don't want to wear seatbelts.

Our rollbar and harness rules were written before the adoption of HANS and FHR's. We require competitors to wear helmets for their safety because that helmet reduces their risk of head injury. At the same time, that rule is increasing their risk of Basilar skull fractures in the event of a frontal collision. Now that there is a known way to reduce the likelihood or severity of Basilar skull fractures and our rules stand in the way of the competitor mitigating a type of risk, we should discuss that.

If you perceive this to be an issue of lack of authority, you are looking at this the wrong way. It is simply time to reassess safety and risk and whether this specific choice should be made for the competitors or by the individual.

Saj5DJ
10-29-2017, 10:42 AM
I know for my first couple of seasons, I had no idea of the dangers of various harness types, not running HANS etc. A lot of entrants do not understand these things, that's why the non DOT 4pts are banned for example and not in the "Well, if it makes you feel safer..." category. OTA is an entry level sport in terms of on track competition, you can't expect competitors to have the knowledge to make the best decisions on their safety gear.

I think mandating HANS for running a 5/6pt is a very sensible proposal first of all, and shouldn't wait for 2019. The risks of serious injury with multipoint harness and no HANS in even moderate frontal impacts are way high.

For the rest, I just don't see who can possibly be qualified to say "this car's structure is good enough to not worry about roof collapse, this one is not". No scrutineer can be expected to deliver that verdict.

Lastly, car structure does not matter in terms of preventing basular skull fracture in side impacts (the likes of which are very possible in solo competition), neither does HANS. Your only mitigation there is suitable containment seat and/or nets, or stock 3 pts that allow the body to move (and, if you're lucky, the side airbags that your car has).

For anecdote, I can supply a link via PM to a thread discussing a fatality at Summit Point last year. Cliff notes: Caged E46 M3, side impact on passenger side, 5 pts, HANS, no containment seat. Passenger actually survived with minor injuries, driver died on site from BSF. This was an HDPE with, by all accounts, driver experienced with competition,

Dave Barker
10-29-2017, 12:28 PM
I think mandating HANS for running a 5/6pt is a very sensible proposal first of all, and shouldn't wait for 2019. The risks of serious injury with multipoint harness and no HANS in even moderate frontal impacts are way high.

Lastly, car structure does not matter in terms of preventing basular skull fracture in side impacts (the likes of which are very possible in solo competition), neither does HANS. Your only mitigation there is suitable containment seat and/or nets, or stock 3 pts that allow the body to move (and, if you're lucky, the side airbags that your car has).

For anecdote, I can supply a link via PM to a thread discussing a fatality at Summit Point last year. Cliff notes: Caged E46 M3, side impact on passenger side, 5 pts, HANS, no containment seat. Passenger actually survived with minor injuries, driver died on site from BSF. This was an HDPE with, by all accounts, driver experienced with competition,

I think the whole issue revolves around relative risk as all motorsports carry risk. Even F1 drivers can die in competition despite the best safety devices in the racing world

I think most everyone agrees that a frontal impact is more likely than a roll over (at least for my type of car). I perceive my relative risk to be higher for an occipital bone fracture in a frontal impact than cervical spine injuries received with the use of a harness and a roll to the left. My relative risk could be mitigated by the use of a head and neck restraint. NO it does not prevent me from all injuries but to me, is an improvement in risk over the rules we have now. It is possible that the OEM airbags would save me from this but they are generally not designed for such high speed impacts. After all people still die in cars with airbags. (Just to make things more complicated, we allow the removal of airbags!!)

I think we are in agreement that using a 5+ point harness and no head and neck restraint is likely MORE dangerous than a 3 point (something that up until now we have ignored) . As for your anecdotal report re the BMW, it can be also be seen that head and neck restraints don't prevent injuries in side impacts, at least those on the passenger side. It is a bit of a stretch to say the OEM belt alone vs the head and neck restraints are the better way to go from this one incident. One could easily argue that OEM belts allow a lot of sideways movement and therefore secondary impacts of the driver/passenger inside the struck vehicle which in many cases would lead to severe internal injurys although not basal skull fractures.

So my point is either we go full out, i.e to use a 5+ point requires a cage, head and neck restraint and a containment seat i.e strictly stiffen our requirements from present or we put the responsibility back on the competitor just like we do for brake work etc. There are examples of different groups going different ways with this decision.

Now just to add an addendum to this, most everyone agrees a harness is performance enhancing. If we go to a tougher more restrictive stance than we have now, we might want to PIP the use of a harness in general (as opposed to making it available to potentially everyone)

What do you think?

S1motorsports
10-29-2017, 01:03 PM
when are these proposed rule changes going to be set in stone so I can properly set my car for next year and make my tire decision.

I for one think if you are going to run a 5pt or 6pt harness with HANS then you should run some kind of roll over protection minimum 4 point roll bar its that simple.
Also ensuring proper mounting locations and proper hardware being used when installing the 5pt and 6pt harness's is just as important, as the belts are useless if not installed according to specification.

just my humble .2 cents

- Adam Mann

Gwoody27
10-29-2017, 01:49 PM
Very good discussions and well considered opinions offered here. The problem is that none of us has the required real data needed to make a decision. For that we need to approach international safety research bodies to get the best data available for decision making.

Personally I can't accept the idea of protecting against some incidents (ie. frontal impacts) and not others (roll overs) when both are real and probable outcomes of our sport. I therefore would support the "all in" option that best protects competitors from reasonably likely outcomes.

So to me that means A: (OEM specs with upgraded seats but use of 3 point harnesses) or B: (full cage/hans/5-6 harnesses/containment seats and window nets.) The dilemma of course is cost of the latter option which would significantly reduce the field size and render the series unsustainable.

We are grassroots for sure but that certainly does not mean that we should be unsafe. As has been stated, many newcomers don't really understand the risk exposure so we need to help them, but to protect against only a subset of likely outcomes isn't right either.

This is a tough one. Now that the discussion is public we need to resolve a position on behalf of all competitors and implement in 2018. Give us the strength to do so.

Saj5DJ
10-29-2017, 02:27 PM
Now just to add an addendum to this, most everyone agrees a harness is performance enhancing. If we go to a tougher more restrictive stance than we have now, we might want to PIP the use of a harness in general (as opposed to making it available to potentially everyone)

What do you think?

I think that's very silly. Maybe should pip your track duty pads too? Unless they're not performance enhancing?

Grant Galloway
10-29-2017, 04:37 PM
I know that after my incident at mosport I feel so much safer in the car than I did in previous years! Is there an advantage with a proper seat and harness? I would say yes!

Should it be a PIP (NO)

I spent well over $6500 for my cage, seats, harnesses, HANs and fire suppression system. Then another $500 on a new full face helmet!

My car is also a dedicated track track car, so doing this on a daily driver is a little different

Don't short yourself on safety!

Grant

jimmo-san
10-29-2017, 04:50 PM
Also at this stage we allow 5+ point harnesses in old convertibles with roll bars where the descent of the A pillar is a lot MORE likely than in my car.

I would see either let the competitor decide what is the safest for him (we do let competitors declare if their car is safe with the safety check list) OR we only allow the use of a harness in a car with a full roll cage. Our present rules are quite inconsistent.


So to me that means A: (OEM specs with upgraded seats but use of 3 point harnesses) or B: (full cage/hans/5-6 harnesses/containment seats and window nets.) The dilemma of course is cost of the latter option which would significantly reduce the field size and render the series unsustainable.


To solve the dilemma I suggest the current rules remain as they are (as requirements for participation) and some guidelines be added to the rules (as recommendations only).

As Gary points out, requiring a full cage if you have a containment seat and 5/6 pt. harness would add significant cost to some competitors and may reduce participation.

Each competitor should be responsible for how much risk he or she is willing to take on. We already do so, in the amount of pre-competition inspection we perform on our cars, when we perform maintenance and how fast we are willing to push the car and ourselves.

The requirements would be the current rule set.

The recommendations would be:


if using a 5/6 pt. harness and containment seat then use of a Hans device is recommended

for convertibles, a roll bar is required (as it is already)
for convertibles, a full roll cage is recommended
for convertibles, a "permanent" hard top (as per SCCA) is recommended
for non-convertibles, either a roll bar or full cage are recommended



Or something similar to the above. The point of the recommendations is to make it explicit in the rule book for all competitors.

jimmo-san
10-29-2017, 05:11 PM
Undeclared mods are happening but the problem isn't what I would call rampant. Our change from a 5PI wide class with equal PAX to an iPAX a couple of years ago (Individual PAX system) means that even a small amount of undeclared modification can result in a different championship finishing position. This is really just one rule catching up to match others.

It's not as automatically harsh as the current/past rule which is an automatic bump to MOD1 for the event no matter what class you started in. That is what WAS in place for the last decade or more, but only if you had enough unclaimed PIP's that you should be bumped to the next class. We never updated that for the iPAX system because we missed it and protests are so rare in OTA that it went several years without being noticed. Undeclared PIP penalties right now that aren't enough to bump you a class are handled by guidelines in the GCR's which, lets be honest, most competitors DON'T read.


The following suggestion is not just in response to the rule change proposed above, but also to make the scoring clearer to all competitors. Or "transparent", using the current corporate buzz-word.

Before the introduction of iPAX in 2016 a competitor’s PAX factor was clear: if your car was in, for example, T3 then your PAX factor was 0.880 (I’m taking this from the copy of the 2013 Rules and Regs. Hopefully it’s correct).

With iPAX your iPAX factor depends on your PIP schedule submitted for the event. Your iPAX factor can vary from event to event depending on the mods you make between events. This introduces an extra bit of administrative burden to the volunteers doing the scoring but it generally seems to have worked out.

To make everything clearer to all competitors, I suggest that instead of listing the iPAX factor used for each competitor in calculating the interim results during competition, the competitor’s PI be listed.

The advantage is that it would be clear to the competitor if the PIP schedule he (or she) submitted for the event was used (or not used) to calculate the result. It might also be clearer to the competitor (and others) if undeclared mods were present on the car.

While you can also calculate your PI from your iPAX factor:

Slow tracks:

PI = (iPAX – 0.76024) / 0.0024

Fast tracks:

PI = (iPAX – 0.64036) / 0.0036

But not everyone is going to bring a calculator to the track and want to do this. So it would make everything much clearer to the competitors to just list the PI for each competitor.

I suggest the PI for each competitor be listed in both the interim results, shown on the TV during competition and in the final results published on the results archive web site. This way, if a competitor’s PI for the event was not correct, it would be immediately obvious to the competitor. It would not place any additional administrative burden on the scorers – just list the PI instead of the iPAX. But it would be clearer to the competitors which PI was being used for the event.

As Stephen points out, undeclared mods may not be rampant, but if someone made a mod before the event and inadvertently forgot to include it in his or her PIP schedule, it would be more obvious.

10gt61
10-29-2017, 05:31 PM
Being one of the few witnesses to Kelly's incident I feel the need to comment here.
Kelly, I'm pretty sure your injuries were a result of the initial impact with the tire wall and not the subsequent slow speed rollover off of the tire wall. Would you not agree with this?
This would corroborate with the suggestion being put forth by Dave, in that if you had been wearing a 5 point restraint your injuries would have been minimal, it was just bad luck that your car got high enough on the tire wall to fall off to the side once the forward motion had stopped.
Again not all incidents are the same but in my years at OTA there have been many more frontal and/or side impacts than rollovers so that would suggest that enhanced seat restraints would be a benefit in the majority of cases.
Of course, nothing in life is 100% certain, just wanted to throw out some more info to add to this discussion.
Perry

Perry, yes my injuries were as a result of the frontal impact. The speed the car hit the tire wall at was much higher than it appeared to be. I know, I was there!
I actually have no complaints with the way the car held up. It was designed by engineers to save you in case of accident and that's another reason we have to be careful about making changes to those designs. We can actually make the car less safe with certain modifications.
And my rollover was indeed a slow rollover after the initial impact with the wall. That is precisely why I feel the way I do. Even though the car rolled slowly, there was still some degree of intrusion in the front middle area of the roof where the strength is at its least. As I've said, with OEM safety equipment I was able to move around and avoid any issue with the roof. Had it have been more severe with more intrusion, it would be that much more important that I be able to avoid that intrusion.
Hence my particular point of view: if held in place with a harness and no rollover protection, that is a dangerous situation.
It seems obvious to me that in that case rollover protection is a must so that nothing comes down on your head!
I am obviously on the side of either
(A). All OEM safety equipment - or -
(B). the full Monty of modified safety equipment (harness, HANS & roll bar at a minimum).

As you know, when I was Director, the safety of competitors was my first concern. I no longer compete in OTA but I believe the research and personal experience that I can offer have merit.
I simply do not want to see unnecessary injury to anyone in the series!
And, yes I know - none of us do. But lets tread very carefully with this issue. Do the research. Find out what they do in other series. Don't rush to a conclusion. And don't let the cost factor be a concern. I've competed, so I know - this sport is expensive no matter how you look at it. One should not skimp on safety.

Dave Barker
10-29-2017, 08:38 PM
I think the issue can be expressed easily

1) most everyone agrees that a head on or frontal impact is more likely to happen than a roll over

2) head and neck restraints likely prevent occipital bone fractures in frontal impacts. Not so sure that OEM 3 points and airbags do as good a job as they are designed for slower impacts but admit I have no data. Certainly airbags are not useful in a roll over.

3) Why are we insisting that to avoid the more common type of impact that all competitors need to protect them selves from the less common type of impact first?

iamthewheelman
10-30-2017, 10:38 AM
I think the issue can be expressed easily

1) most everyone agrees that a head on or frontal impact is more likely to happen than a roll over

2) head and neck restraints likely prevent occipital bone fractures in frontal impacts. Not so sure that OEM 3 points and airbags do as good a job as they are designed for slower impacts but admit I have no data. Certainly airbags are not useful in a roll over.

3) Why are we insisting that to avoid the more common type of impact that all competitors need to protect them selves from the less common type of impact first?

The first and third statement are actually ridiculous Dave. You are implying things that are not true in the first one. You, and two others (?) are the only people that agree that a HANS and harness's should be aloud without a roll bar.

The majority of people in here are saying they do not agree that you should be aloud to run a harness and a HANS device without a roll bar. In fact, a few people are saying you should need all safety gear (HANS, harness, full cage and seat) or nothing at all and run full OEM.

The reason everyone is saying to avoid the more common type of impact (frontal) they need to protect themselves from the less common type (roll over) IS BECAUSE IT CAN STILL HAPPEN!

Safety is a system. In my opinion it should be all or nothing. But in the interest of people needing to drive the cars they compete with to the track, a happy medium of roll bar, fixed back seat, harness and HANS protects against the most common types of incidents possible at OTA, lowering the percentage of injury across the board. HANS and harnesses without a roll bar may decrease the chance of injury in one accident (frontal) but it increases it in a roll over. Again, it seems counter intuitive to me.

At the end of the day motorsports is dangerous, we all take a chance when we get behind the wheel no matter what safety gear is in place.

Dave Barker
10-30-2017, 04:44 PM
The first and third statement are actually ridiculous Dave. You are implying things that are not true in the first one. You, and two others (?) are the only people that agree that a HANS and harness's should be aloud without a roll bar.

At the end of the day motorsports is dangerous, we all take a chance when we get behind the wheel no matter what safety gear is in place.

Actually there are a lot of people both in and out of OTA that agree with statement 1. This is whole basis of why Chin motorsport does not have the restrictions that we do. Here is a quote from one of the ambassadors of the Motorsport-Safety Foundation

"Any driver in motorsports has a higher statistical probability of impacting a fixed object (barrier, tires, armco), than the probability of having a rollover."*

OTOH, I have no issue with insisting that if you are going to use a harness that you need a minimum of Hans type device, and likely a cage vs just a bar , and if you really want to be safe, a containment seat should be required. My concern is if something happens to a competitor that could have been prevented by a head and neck restraint which we told them they could not use, we are potentially liable. Just like having drivers sign their tech inspection sheets for every event. They are taking the responsibility, not the series.

Obviously driving on a track at high speed has its risks but I don't think we have enough data to say that option A is considered safer than option B or C. Right now it appears we are just guessing.

wparsons
10-30-2017, 05:39 PM
Found the article I hinted at before:

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/10/30/modp-130900-tech/modp-130900-tech.pdf

It is 4 years old at this point, but unless someone has wildly different data it's still reasonably relevant.

The interesting part is on what types of injuries are common in a rollover, and the lack of any FIA data on spinal compression injuries from rollovers.

Dave Barker
10-31-2017, 09:08 AM
Hmm.... Seems there are more than just 3 of us.

Saj5DJ
10-31-2017, 09:54 AM
That 4 pt Takata install pic is definitely a product of someone that knows what they're doing.

Brutus
11-06-2017, 02:29 PM
The CCC has been actively discussing potential rule changes for next year's OTA. Here is what we are suggesting so far.


1) Propose to allow Toyo 888 , 888R and RA-1 tires as zero PIP tires

Let the discussion begin.

I don't agree with revising the tire regulations to allow a brand a competitive advantage. If you want to lower the bar, I recommend lowering it for everyone. As previously posted, I propose the following change:

1 Installation of DOT Street legal tires with a tread wear rating (UTQG) of 100 or higher. 0 PIPs

.2 Installation of “non-Premium” R compound tires, defined as DOT legal competition tires with a UTQG tread wear rating of less than 100 and that have a molded tread pattern with non-circumferential siping. 5PIPs

.3 Installation of “Premium” race compound tires, defined as tires that only have circumferential molded grooves but also includes Continental Canadian Touring Car Championship (CCTC), Hoosier Grand Am Cup, foreign market Yokohama A048R and all full wet weather race tires. 10 PIPs

.4 Installation of Race Slicks 15 PIPs

Brutus
11-06-2017, 02:38 PM
The CCC has been actively discussing potential rule changes for next year's OTA. Here is what we are suggesting so far.

4) Increase the HI of all cars with dual clutch transmissions by 5

5) Charge 1.5 PIPs for the addition of a sequential transmission

Let the discussion begin.

I think most would agree that there is a performance advantage using either of these transmissions versus a 'Three Pedal' type of gearbox. The case could also be made for a 'Dog Box', and a multi-speed ECU controlled automatic transmission, and a paddled shifted style transmission. The lines become very blurred between all these types.

I would suggest that the 'committee' study all these versions and present some recommendations or options back to competitors. Educate us all please.

Brutus
11-06-2017, 02:56 PM
The CCC has been actively discussing potential rule changes for next year's OTA. Here is what we are suggesting so far.

6) Revise the penalty section of the rule book to charge a minimum of 10 PI for every undeclared modification PIP up to expulsion from the event at the choice of the stewards.

Let the discussion begin.

Does anyone really know if anyone has undeclared mods?

I have always been a proponent of rules enforcement. The listing of possible penalties sends a clear message to those who might circumvent rules that they will be penalized, and this in itself can be a deterrent. Take a look at the speeding over 50 k signs on the highway for reference.

In addition, I think the series needs to have random spot checks of a complete class or classes at events. Much like the Ride Program.

Carguy
11-06-2017, 08:18 PM
Our rules already allow the use of FMVSS 209 compliant four points, but those belts are not approved by the belt manufacturer for use in all vehicles. You will specifically notice the absence of Corvettes and BRZ/FRS vehicles from Schroth's approved list which are two very popular vehicles in our series.

From the Schroth Profi ASM documentation:



https://www.schrothracing.com/docs/FE-VehRefList-Print.pdf

This rule is definitely a different philosophy in use by other established organisations. Philosophically I suppose that my views rank somewhat as a libertarian; give the individual the right to make their own choices. I believe that if there is a safety device out there that can provide greater reduction in injury in the most frequent type of collision we see in OTA, our ruleset should be open to including it. The fact that James Mewett (aerospace engineer, former CCC chair, and long time competitor and instructor) and Dave Barker, (medical doctor familiar with sports injury and the risks of motorsport, current CCC chair, long time competitor) are two of the proponents of this change have helped sway me to the side of having this discussion.

I compete in a car with a six+ point cage, I have six point belts and seats with wings, I have a Simpson Rage Pro FHR, so this rule decision is to help and/or affect others, not for me. Would a special waiver and counselling from a scrutineer cover our obligation in this regard?

In the end, we are a division of CASC-OR which has a safety committee that advises on these matters. I'll invite George McCullough to attend our meeting so that he can hear both sides of the story rather than my re-iterated versions.

The absence of the BRZ in the Schroth approved list is why I'm not currently using a four-point belt, however other drivers might benefit from a new rule. Schroth actually states that two of their four-point harness products are compatible with the Hans device namely the Profi ASM II and the Quick Fit Pro.

"The Profi II ASM shoulder is only available in 3" width but is still suitable for use with a Forward Neck Restraint such as a HANS device" from the first link below.

Profi II ASM (https://www.schrothracing.com/products/profi-ii-asm)

"Schroth's revolutionary Quick Fit Pro is the world's first 4 point harness that is designed to be used with a HANS Device in your stock seats! Now the safety and peace of mind that come from driving with a HANS device is available to the Driver's School and Open track day participant."

Quick Fit Pro (https://www.schrothracing.com/products/quickfit#3317)

A driver from the Calabogie GT Challenge series uses the Schroth Quick-fit four-point with ASM and a Hans device in a BMW 1M without a roll cage. The series allows point-by passing anywhere on the track.

S1motorsports
11-06-2017, 08:41 PM
Does anyone really know if anyone has undeclared mods?

I have always been a proponent of rules enforcement. The listing of possible penalties sends a clear message to those who might circumvent rules that they will be penalized, and this in itself can be a deterrent. Take a look at the speeding over 50 k signs on the highway for reference.

In addition, I think the series needs to have random spot checks of a complete class or classes at events. Much like the Ride Program.


or set it up as a "parc ferme" style, after the event or last heat of class run, the top 3 in each class park there vehicles in a section where they cannot be tampered with and get re-scrutineered to ensure all mods were properly declared and abide by regulation.

Dave Barker
11-06-2017, 10:19 PM
Does anyone really know if anyone has undeclared mods?

In addition, I think the series needs to have random spot checks of a complete class or classes at events. Much like the Ride Program.


It all comes out in the wash when a protest is filed. Sometimes the undeclared PIPs may be internal to an engine or tranny and not easily detectable by anything other than a dyno.

The absence of the BRZ in the Schroth approved list is why I'm not currently using a four-point belt, however other drivers might benefit from a new rule. Schroth actually states that two of their four-point harness products are compatible with the Hans device namely the Profi ASM II and the Quick Fit Pro.

"The Profi II ASM shoulder is only available in 3" width but is still suitable for use with a Forward Neck Restraint such as a HANS device" from the first link below.

Profi II ASM (https://www.schrothracing.com/products/profi-ii-asm)

"Schroth's revolutionary Quick Fit Pro is the world's first 4 point harness that is designed to be used with a HANS Device in your stock seats! Now the safety and peace of mind that come from driving with a HANS device is available to the Driver's School and Open track day participant."

Quick Fit Pro (https://www.schrothracing.com/products/quickfit#3317)

.

I have 2 concerns with this system:
1 it is only available in cars with a back seat and
2 is seems that the shoulder straps are mounted too low resulting in significant seat compression in a frontal impact.

Brutus
11-06-2017, 11:30 PM
It all comes out in the wash when a protest is filed.

What comes out in the wash ? At the protest at SMP this year nothing was posted on the official notice board, nothing was posted in the results, everything was kept very hush, hush. Transparency itself goes a long way to creating a deterrent.

Slowpoke
11-07-2017, 09:49 PM
What comes out in the wash ? At the protest at SMP this year nothing was posted on the official notice board, nothing was posted in the results, everything was kept very hush, hush. Transparency itself goes a long way to creating a deterrent.

From the footnotes of the event 6 results, "Steward’s decision: Car # 982 received a four (4) second time penalty for a car classification infraction."

We can discuss at the competitor meeting if mentioning the decision and penalty without details is the best way to handle protests and penalties. Protests have been so rare in our series that I can't claim experience in the best way to document or publish them. Race publishes Stewards' report summaries of decisions, but not all the nitty gritty details. I included the result of the decision in the official results and why it was applied.

Brutus
11-08-2017, 11:08 AM
From the footnotes of the event 6 results, "Steward’s decision: Car # 982 received a four (4) second time penalty for a car classification infraction."

We can discuss at the competitor meeting if mentioning the decision and penalty without details is the best way to handle protests and penalties. Protests have been so rare in our series that I can't claim experience in the best way to document or publish them. Race publishes Stewards' report summaries of decisions, but not all the nitty gritty details. I included the result of the decision in the official results and why it was applied.

I think OTA should follow the procedure as done with Race Ontario. Let's lean on their wealth of experience in such matters.