SCCAForums.com

Steve Hoelscher:

Andy, it wasn't my intent to slam you.  I appologize if you feel I was.  That really wasn't my intent.  I was really trying to give you the opportunity to explain this.  The seats in the Miata, the seats in the Civic and your championing of this rule are a glaring contradiction to me.  Can you understand why it leaves me scratching my head?

It is quite simple.  The rules as they were allowed an advantage for those that were willing to take a safety risk, whether that be intentional or not.  Now, the rules do not provide an advantage for someone that wants to do things safely. 

Yes, I was willing to take a risk.  I knew my own driving ability and was comfortable with that.  I was also careful about where I drove the car and what kinds of courses I did so on.  The fact that I was an SEB member is irrelevant.  I was a competitor, period.

What I don't get is why anyone would purposely and unsafely skirt the *current* rules when there is no competitive advantage to be gained.  To me, *that* is where the gene pool ought to get chopped.

--Andy 

Andy Hollis:

Yes, I was willing to take a risk.  I knew my own driving ability and was comfortable with that.  I was also careful about where I drove the car and what kinds of courses I did so on. 

Then why is it OK for you to make that decision but not other people?

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
2006 DP National Champion
'98, '99, '00, '02 DSP National Champion
http://www.terriehoward.com

Steve Hoelscher:

Andy Hollis:

Yes, I was willing to take a risk.  I knew my own driving ability and was comfortable with that.  I was also careful about where I drove the car and what kinds of courses I did so on. 

Then why is it OK for you to make that decision but not other people?

I didn't say it was.

I shouldn't be able to make that decision, either ("save me from myself").  I'm not special.

I was personally greatly impacted by the rollover I witnessed and helped investigate at Packwood two years ago.  A guy almost died.  That sort of thing makes you think more clearly.

Safety issues impact all of us.  If we let everyone decide on their own level of risk, our insurance situation would be out of control  We have lots of safety rules (roll bars, seat belts, batteries, etc.).  Your argument ("let each decide for themselves") would put the entire sport at risk, since w/o insurance we don't run.  And w/o safety rules, we don't get insurance.

--Andy

PS: I gonna go for a run now... 

Andy Hollis:

I was personally greatly impacted by the rollover I witnessed and helped investigate at Packwood two years ago.  A guy almost died.  That sort of thing makes you think more clearly.

Safety issues impact all of us.  If we let everyone decide on their own level of risk, our insurance situation would be out of control  We have lots of safety rules (roll bars, seat belts, batteries, etc.).  Your argument ("let each decide for themselves") would put the entire sport at risk, since w/o insurance we don't run.  And w/o safety rules, we don't get insurance.

I was not advocating letting each competitor decide on his level of safety.  I was genuinely interested in your reasoning and was posing the alternative viewpoint to futher persue your line of thinking. 

For many years I have been a big advocate for safety.  You and I have had such disscussions.  I don't ever want to see someone hurt nor do I want our sport defunct because of excessive insurance cost.   I accept your explantion of having had an epiphany at Packwood.   I am sure I would have been similarly affected. 

 

We may dissagree on the method but I assume the desired goal is the same.

(Enjoy your run, I am off for my daily bike ride.)

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
2006 DP National Champion
'98, '99, '00, '02 DSP National Champion
http://www.terriehoward.com

Steve Hoelscher:

(Enjoy your run, I am off for my daily bike ride.)

I'm gonna eat a donut and sit on my butt. :)

Andy, the ST seat picture is exactly what I'm talking about when I argue that cost is a larger driver than weight. I'm pretty sure you could have a piece of aluminum fabricated that would bolt to all those locations (and probably another one on the slider), be perfectly strong and safe (much stronger than I assume that setup was), and weigh about the same. The reason you went with that setup is it was cheap and easy. There are two ways to remedy that seat mount in the name of safety: (1) spend more time/money, or (2) add more weight. Competitors should be mandated to make that mount safe, but free to make that choice in classes where being competitive already means spending a significant amount of money, like SP/SM/P.

---

Randy Noll

rnoll98:

Competitors should be mandated to make that mount safe, but free to make that choice in classes where being competitive already means spending a significant amount of money, like SP/SM/P.

And that's a philosophical issue.  Some people are going to cheap out regardless.  There is no way you are going to police that effectively.  So why give that person an advantage when you have spent all of that money to build something sturdy enough to save your life?  Without objective standards (see roll structures), you cannot hold that person to the same standard you are holding yourself to.

-Andy

PS: I'm outta here for now.  I have a Pro Solo to drive to.... 

What in the current rule would stop someone from using the mount Andy used on a heavy cheap seat? His seat mounted to the stock slider via his flimsy adapter, right?

Reduce the min weight to 20 lbs and I think everyone would be happy. How did you come to the min weight number any how. It's just a subjective number that may or may not be correct. Looking at the majority of the posts, I would say that 25 was to conservative of a number.

Chris
 

Howdy,

CHRISFP78:

What in the current rule would stop someone from using the mount Andy used on a heavy cheap seat? His seat mounted to the stock slider via his flimsy adapter, right?

RTFT

 

Reduce the min weight to 20 lbs and I think everyone would be happy. How did you come to the min weight number any how. It's just a subjective number that may or may not be correct. Looking at the majority of the posts, I would say that 25 was to conservative of a number.

Yes, I completely agree.  I think the weight should be 20 lbs in SP.

Luckily, the good folks on the SEB agreed and they put it in the book that way.  :-)

Mark

What does RTFT mean? If the current weight is 20, then drop it to 15lbs.

Chris 

Andy Hollis:

rnoll98:

Competitors should be mandated to make that mount safe, but free to make that choice in classes where being competitive already means spending a significant amount of money, like SP/SM/P.

And that's a philosophical issue. Some people are going to cheap out regardless. There is no way you are going to police that effectively. So why give that person an advantage when you have spent all of that money to build something sturdy enough to save your life?

What advantage? In the case I described, all I did was spend more money, we weigh the same. Cost is not a competitive advantage. Weight is. I don't believe cost was ever a motivator of this rule. It was presented as a safety driven change. If that's incorrect, then someone needs to clarify/guide the SPAC as they look at it this year. If there are two motivators (cost and safety) then I'd suggest they be proposed as two different rules so the membership can weigh in on each.

I'll take a poorly policed rule that at least tries to make folks use the right equipment over something that just adds ballast and neither addresses the issue nor educates the competitor. Directly to your point, if you were the guy who really cheaped out, you'd take your ST seat pictured and bolt some lead to the slider. At least with a poorly policed but more direct rule, there's some fear somewhere that your seat might not be in compliance and you could potentially be penalized. Most people in autox don't try and blatantly cheat the letter of the rule because it's poorly policed and they don't think they'll be caught. What they do is PUSH the letter of the rule, like Bill did, that's competition.

How about we work on a rule that assumes a Tech program would be in place to enforce it. If it goes poorly enforced for 2 years while Tech gets up to speed, fine. At least it will get things moving in the right direction by directly addressing safety. In the meantime, seat height and stock mount locations can be enforced, and give Tech some guidelines on how to report blatant problems. Then, when Tech is ready to step in, we've already got the troops inline.

---

Randy Noll

Howdy,

CHRISFP78:

What does RTFT mean? If the current weight is 20, then drop it to 15lbs.

Chris 

RTFT == "Read The F*cking Thread"

Your question:

What in the current rule would stop someone from using the mount Andy used on a heavy cheap seat? His seat mounted to the stock slider via his flimsy adapter, right?

...has been asked & answered about 1 million times.

Mark

Howdy,

rnoll98:

What advantage? In the case I described, all I did was spend more money, we weigh the same. Cost is not a competitive advantage. Weight is.

Randy, you can never build a safe seat mount as light as I can make an unsafe one.  I don't care how much money you spend.

Three sheetrock screws weigh what... a couple ounces?

Mark

marka:

Howdy,

rnoll98:

What advantage? In the case I described, all I did was spend more money, we weigh the same. Cost is not a competitive advantage. Weight is.

Randy, you can never build a safe seat mount as light as I can make an unsafe one.  I don't care how much money you spend.

Three sheetrock screws weigh what... a couple ounces?

Mark

RTFR ;) Your example was taken care of before we even got to the weight portion thanks to the stock mounting points piece.

Lucky for you though, the new rule invites you to use the same sheetrock screws to attach your seat to the mounting bracket that's attached to the stock chassis points. You can also use them to attach your ballast, so don't throw them away just yet. ;)

Here's the statement that should scare you: I can build a less safe seat mount than your three sheetrock screws (and anything else you can dream up) and be LEGAL.

By your statement above, if we mandate safety, we'll be inherently mandating a minimum weight. In the current rule, we mandate weight, and just cross our fingers that folks know where to put it to help safety.

---

Randy Noll

marka:

Howdy,

CHRISFP78:

What does RTFT mean? If the current weight is 20, then drop it to 15lbs.

Chris 

RTFT == "Read The F*cking Thread"

Your question:

What in the current rule would stop someone from using the mount Andy used on a heavy cheap seat? His seat mounted to the stock slider via his flimsy adapter, right?

...has been asked & answered about 1 million times.

Mark

That's quite rude. Sorry I don't have my finger on the pulse of the thread like you do.

Throwing the F work around does not make you right or wrong about a topic. Majorities are generally accepted. Are you in the majority on this thread.? I don't think so. 

CHRISFP78:

Majorities are generally accepted. Are you in the majority on this thread.? I don't think so. 

Actually, by default, anyone in support of this rule would be in the majority. Afterall, if we were not, then this thread wouldn't exist.

---

Nate Whipple
NER
188/88 DSP ITR

solo-x:

CHRISFP78:

Majorities are generally accepted. Are you in the majority on this thread.? I don't think so. 

Actually, by default, anyone in support of this rule would be in the majority. Afterall, if we were not, then this thread wouldn't exist.

Actually, this thread is posing a question about a rule. The majority or the posts have been negative towards the rule. The majority has been against.

CHRISFP78:

solo-x:

CHRISFP78:

Majorities are generally accepted. Are you in the majority on this thread.? I don't think so. 

Actually, by default, anyone in support of this rule would be in the majority. Afterall, if we were not, then this thread wouldn't exist.

Actually, this thread is posing a question about a rule. The majority or the posts have been negative towards the rule. The majority has been against.

You missed the point. Defenders of the rule would represent the majority, since the majority felt this rule was good for the class and supported it when it went out for member comment. So, regardless of the vocal few in this thread, supporters of the rule are the majority.

---

Nate Whipple
NER
188/88 DSP ITR

CHRISFP78:

solo-x:

CHRISFP78:

Majorities are generally accepted. Are you in the majority on this thread.? I don't think so. 

Actually, by default, anyone in support of this rule would be in the majority. Afterall, if we were not, then this thread wouldn't exist.

Actually, this thread is posing a question about a rule. The majority or the posts have been negative towards the rule. The majority has been against.

Or maybe the people who are for it simply don't care to get mixed up in this merry-go-round of 'debating'....  Some people in here aren't willing to change their mind in any way, so it's like talking to a wall...  They want it their way, or no way... they are so dead set on their they can't even admit a blatant misuse of a rule, how are they supposed to make one?

---

Jason Frank
Bridgestone / Redshift Motorsports STS prepared '89 Civic Si -- teamundercoatracing.com

Mugenlude:

Or maybe the people who are for it simply don't care to get mixed up in this merry-go-round of 'debating'....  Some people in here aren't willing to change their mind in any way, so it's like talking to a wall...  They want it their way, or no way... they are so dead set on their they can't even admit a blatant misuse of a rule, how are they supposed to make one?

I agree, you aren't willing to change your mind in any way.  You want it your way or no way.  You are so dead set on your way you can't even admit how poorly this rule is written.

How is it you get so exercised over the "missuse" of this rule but not others?  The "any induction" rule does specifically allow aftermarket ECUs and FI.  The alternate bushing material rules doesn't specifically allow offset bushings.  Are people not then "missusing" these rules?

The point is; the rule as its is written lets in Bill's seat mount and balast.  Its the "unintended consequences" of the rule.  If you didn't want that to happen, you should have written a more explicit rule.  Its the nature of competition that competitors will push the limits of the rules.  And there is no way to restrict that. 

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
2006 DP National Champion
'98, '99, '00, '02 DSP National Champion
http://www.terriehoward.com

Howdy,

rnoll98:

marka:

Howdy,

rnoll98:

What advantage? In the case I described, all I did was spend more money, we weigh the same. Cost is not a competitive advantage. Weight is.

Randy, you can never build a safe seat mount as light as I can make an unsafe one.  I don't care how much money you spend.

Three sheetrock screws weigh what... a couple ounces?

Mark

RTFR ;) Your example was taken care of before we even got to the weight portion thanks to the stock mounting points piece.

Ok then, rephrase my answer to "How much do four holes & four nuts weigh"?

 

Lucky for you though, the new rule invites you to use the same sheetrock screws to attach your seat to the mounting bracket that's attached to the stock chassis points. You can also use them to attach your ballast, so don't throw them away just yet. ;)

Here's the statement that should scare you: I can build a less safe seat mount than your three sheetrock screws (and anything else you can dream up) and be LEGAL.

By your statement above, if we mandate safety, we'll be inherently mandating a minimum weight. In the current rule, we mandate weight, and just cross our fingers that folks know where to put it to help safety.

Once again, the rule allows someone to have a safe mount, without incurring a penalty to someone that has an unsafe one.  It doesn't require the safe mount, because we don't have a reasonable way to do that without allowing for judgement and we don't have anybody trained/qualified to provide the judgement.

Mark