CASC Ontario Region Message Forums  

Go Back   CASC Ontario Region Message Forums > CASC-OR Divisions > Time Attack Specific Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-26-2017, 10:23 PM
Dave Barker's Avatar
Dave Barker Dave Barker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Whitby
Posts: 1,900
Proposed Rule Changes for 2018

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.
__________________
Mobil 1 Time-Attack # 4, CCC Member
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-26-2017, 11:53 PM
dubya_rx's Avatar
dubya_rx dubya_rx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Speyside
Posts: 424
Re: Proposed Rule Changes for 2018

Quote:
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?
__________________
'11 Red STI #373


Keep right except to pass.
www.aircombatzone.com
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-27-2017, 12:38 AM
Slowpoke's Avatar
Slowpoke Slowpoke is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,628
Re: Proposed Rule Changes for 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by dubya_rx View Post
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.
__________________


Stephen, SPDA VP, OTA Director, CCC Member
OTA: MOD? -=- CSCS: SSA #842
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-27-2017, 12:01 PM
Snizzoop Snizzoop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Barrie, ON
Posts: 924
Re: Proposed Rule Changes for 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Barker View Post
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.
__________________
TLMC Autoslalom Co-Director
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-27-2017, 12:20 PM
10gt61's Avatar
10gt61 10gt61 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Newmarket ON
Posts: 515
Re: Proposed Rule Changes for 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snizzoop View Post
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.
__________________
Kelly B. GT Class Competitor 2011 - 2014
OTA Director 2015
ASN/FIA Committee 2015
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-27-2017, 01:30 PM
kmorris's Avatar
kmorris kmorris is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Whitby
Posts: 418
Re: Proposed Rule Changes for 2018

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?
__________________
Another quality post from Black Dwarf Racing
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-27-2017, 01:42 PM
Saj5DJ's Avatar
Saj5DJ Saj5DJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 1,536
Re: Proposed Rule Changes for 2018

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.
__________________
Barry

Citizen Cone Dodger
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-27-2017, 02:51 PM
Grant Galloway Grant Galloway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 176
Re: Proposed Rule Changes for 2018

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!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-28-2017, 02:55 PM
ONdriver's Avatar
ONdriver ONdriver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Pickering
Posts: 528
Re: Proposed Rule Changes for 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10gt61 View Post
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
__________________
#25 summer & winter
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-28-2017, 04:20 PM
racecartech's Avatar
racecartech racecartech is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Millgrove
Posts: 976
Re: Proposed Rule Changes for 2018

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
__________________


http://www.can-alignment.com http://trackmart.com
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-28-2017, 05:59 PM
Dave Barker's Avatar
Dave Barker Dave Barker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Whitby
Posts: 1,900
Re: Proposed Rule Changes for 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by racecartech View Post
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.
__________________
Mobil 1 Time-Attack # 4, CCC Member
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-29-2017, 05:31 PM
10gt61's Avatar
10gt61 10gt61 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Newmarket ON
Posts: 515
Re: Proposed Rule Changes for 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by ONdriver View Post
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.
__________________
Kelly B. GT Class Competitor 2011 - 2014
OTA Director 2015
ASN/FIA Committee 2015
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-29-2017, 08:38 PM
Dave Barker's Avatar
Dave Barker Dave Barker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Whitby
Posts: 1,900
Re: Proposed Rule Changes for 2018

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?
__________________
Mobil 1 Time-Attack # 4, CCC Member
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-27-2017, 05:55 PM
Carguy's Avatar
Carguy Carguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,427
Re: Proposed Rule Changes for 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Barker View Post
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?
__________________
CarGuy - Subaru BRZ #57

Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting. Steve McQueen
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-28-2017, 11:44 AM
Slowpoke's Avatar
Slowpoke Slowpoke is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,628
Re: Proposed Rule Changes for 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carguy View Post
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time Attack Rules
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schroth
"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/F...List-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.
__________________


Stephen, SPDA VP, OTA Director, CCC Member
OTA: MOD? -=- CSCS: SSA #842

Last edited by Slowpoke; 10-28-2017 at 06:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.