Unsubscribe From Newsletter |
| Who's Online :: Stats :: Memberlist :: Top Posters :: Search :: Lost Password |
| Start your engines |
| Welcome, Register :: Log In | Welcome to our newest member, Lemoyne_Dailey. | |
| Users active in this forum: | ||
| Users active in this thread: Guest | ||
|
2 people online in the last 15 minutes - 0 members, 0 anon and 2 guests. (Most ever was 25 at 02:03:53 Tue Aug 21 2012) |
| Pages: [ 1 ] |
| [ Notify ] | [ Print ] | [ Send To Friend ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ > ] |
|
Charlie_Friend 16:25:27 Tue Jun 26 2012 Offline 30 posts Newbie Reply |
Well, I guess the new rule isn't going to change. I better get my new helmet ordered. In case some of you may not know, the 120 class and above is now required to have a 2010 helmet. This in spite of the 100 thru the 115 classes having the very same 140 tech speed but they only require a 2005 helmet(????). Although I have asked for a reason for this rule change, no reason has been forthcoming. Makes no sense to me. I can tech for and run unlimited and run speeds well over 200 mph in the other ORR venues with my 2005 helmet. To me this is just an unnecessary expense and has no safety related basis. But...I will bow down and comply.
|
|
mrnice 18:51:30 Wed Jun 27 2012 Offline 280 posts Advanced Member Reply |
This a copy of the correspondence that outlined the reason that was never given to Charlie to explain the helmet upgrade.
Aaron Olson and me (SORC Board Members). The advisory board is comprised of Bruce Younglove, Ted Hughes, Sam Bryant, John Schmidt, Brian Chandler, and Jason Walsh. (I forgot to included Craig Loeck) Joe Joe, I can go along with the head restraint, but the 5 year helmet thing makes no sense. I can't see how much better a 5 year helmet will protect me than a 10 year helmet. Just seems to be an unnecessary expense to the racers. The NORC is the slowest ORR venue and all of the others require a 10 year helmet. Also....why does a guy running, say the 120 class, need a newer helmet and the guy running the 100 class does not when both guys have the same tech speed of 140???? I know this probably falls into the "whining" class but it just makes no sense to me. BTW, how many people on the board are ORR racers? Charlie ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Shown To: 'Charlie and Vicki Friend' Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 7:01 PM Subject: RE: New helmet rule Hello Charlie, Although I do not remember all of the details this decision was made last October, I think. I recommended to the board that we look at the helmet requirements and to require head restraints for the 120 and unlimited class. The issue was discussed with the advisory board and the decision was made to require the upgrade. So I guess you could say that I am the primary bad guy concerning the rule change. Joe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charlie and Vicki Friend [mailto:cvfriend@beyondbb.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 10:45 PM To: Joe Shown; Joe Shown Subject: New helmet rule Joe, In case I'm missing something.......can you explain to me the reason for the 2010 helmet rule for the SORC and who requested this change????? |
|
W_Kuiper 14:24:44 Fri Jun 29 2012 Offline 519 posts Advanced Member Reply |
Charlie,
You make a valid point when you ask why the 120 requires a 2010 helmet while other classes with the same 140 tech speed accept a 2005 helmet??? I love the SORC and I have the greatest respect for the way it is managed. And I too will purchase a new helmet for this year's event. But the rationale for requiring the new helmet remains unexplained. Do drivers in the 100 - 115 classes not have the same exposure as do drivers in the 120? Maybe 120 drivers have to push harder and take the corners faster? Maybe history shows that 120 drivers go off more often than others? Maybe it's just a subjective decision by those who are charged with responsibility for making the decision? (I can even accept that.) Or maybe it's something else? Whatever the reason, your question deserves an answer. Joe is a good and responsibe guy, as are all the others who contributed to this decision. But I too would simply like to know why? I will be there in 5 weeks with new helmet in hand. It won't break the bank, but there is a lot to be said for full disclosure. Bill |
|
mrnice 06:37:20 Tue Jul 3 2012 Offline 280 posts Advanced Member Reply |
(I penned most of this several days ago. However, Thursday I was hit with what I believe to be food poisoning and have not felt like doing much until today, hence the late response)
Dear Mr. Charlie, I regret that the "reason" I gave you was not satisfactory. This one will likely not be any better but it will be as good as it is going to get. One thing to keep in mind is that although you and many others are usually able to stay on the road at 200 MPH in other events it does not seem to apply to the SORC in our 120 class. Let us take a look at the examples. 2009 brought us a legend driver who said "This road is nothing" when told that he should not be in the 120 class. After all, he had run, and won, dozens of times in Nevada and Texas in the 150 MPH class. Not once had he ever been in a ditch until his entry in the SORC. Of course it was not his fault as he had a preexisting crack in a suspension part that was responsible for his crash. So maybe we should not count that one. By the way, I have some lake front property at the "Y" for sale. 2010 brought us another "very experienced" driver who wanted to run the unlimited and strongly objected when told 110 would have to do. Just like the “Legend” in 2009 he had run dozens of other events at 150 or more with no problems. Wanting to prove us wrong he let it be known that he would average 120 just to show he knew better than us. He must have also had a cracked suspension part as his car bounced like a pinball off the guard rails at the top of "Devil's Den." 2011 brought us once again another very experienced driver who even won the 2012 150 class at Big Bend. He has run the other events many times at very high speeds so I am not sure why he didn't make it through a turn here. To his credit I didn't hear any excuses from him for exiting the road in the 120 class. All of these drivers have had no problem staying on course at other events. I wonder why they were unable to do the same here. All of this probably does not make any more sense than my last "reason" for the decision to upgrade helmets. I guess my only point of contention is that comparing the course at Arnold to Big Bend and Silver State is the proverbial apples and oranges argument. The reason we don’t mandate the helmet upgrade for all the classes that have a 140 tech is that with the exception of the “Pinball Wizard” the major crashes that we have had have all been in the 120, and with “very experienced drivers.” Since our event is the slowest ORR why did these folks crash? This situation gave me enough pause to make my recommendation. So it comes down to this. I made the recommendation to the board and it was accepted. Like I said earlier I am the bad guy in this equation. If you want a better reason than this you will have to look elsewhere as I am not going to spend any additional effort in explaining myself. Mr. Nice P.S. I said in my initial email that the SORC Advisory Board was consulted. I discussed my proposal with several of the advisory board members but not the group as a whole. Bruce kindly corrected my memory. |
|
teamairhead 19:26:37 Tue Jul 3 2012 Offline 3 posts Newbie Reply |
my thoughts, you want the new stuff, on the road at high speed shit happens, if i have to update my stuff, it is what it is. but top end speed classes should be the same
|
|
teamairhead 19:29:25 Tue Jul 3 2012 Offline 3 posts Newbie Reply |
safety comes first, i have seen both sides.
 |
|
Ruslow 02:45:54 Mon Jul 23 2012 Offline 14 posts Newbie Reply |
God knows I have no dog in this debate,but I think if it is required in the 120 class w/tech speed of 140 it should be for all of the 140 tech classes.After all what is to stop someone from 'showing all of you' in the slower 140 tech speed classes?makes no sense to me.Stan
|
|
Red91Conv 21:58:45 Tue Jul 24 2012 Offline 36 posts Newbie Reply |
Well, as much as I hate to back up Mr. Nice on anything, I suspect most of you may be concentrating your thoughts in the wrong place, that being the Tech Speed of 140mph. I'm guessing that the majority of the crashes at SORC are NOT in the straighaways at 140mph, but in the curves. Anyone driving in the 120mph class (and above) is taking the curves faster than the 100-115mph class, therefore, their chances of crashing at higher speed is increased. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I suspect Mr. Nice suggested newer helmets. As for me, I could ask why on page 7 of the 2012 Rule book it says I have to have an SA2005 helmet for the 95mph class when on page 21 it says I can use an SA2000. I'm going to bring an SA2002.5 model helmet, just to be safe. Cheerio...
|
|
Charlie_Friend 03:12:53 Wed Jul 25 2012 Offline 30 posts Newbie Reply |
Well,gee!!! Using that reasoning.....it would be much safer for the guys in the 120 class and above if we just INCREASED the tech speed. Then they wouldn't have to "push the corners" since they could make up time safely on the straights.
By the way, I have also been "on both sides" of the safety issue. I took an E ticket ride at the '04 NORC running the 170 class when a tire failure put me off of the road for a car destroying end over end. It was all caught on video and can be found on youtube. |
|
W_Kuiper 11:16:00 Wed Jul 25 2012 Offline 519 posts Advanced Member Reply |
Another view: Achieving a good average speed in the 120 class requires the most driving skill of any class in the SORC. We need to stay close to 140 on the straights, and we need to drive a quality line at close to max speed through the corners. The key word is "quality". This requires that we intimately know the course, like have it totally memorized, and that we hit all our marks at the correct speed through each and every corner. On road courses a mistake usually means a simple spin through the grass. At the SORC, as we have seen, a mistake usually means a roll through the ditch and a trashed car, not to mention possible injury or death. So we don't "attack" the corners at the SORC like we do on a road course. Of course, that assumes we use mature judgement in addition to our driving skill. The SORC 120 class demands the best that we have, and it is not charitable when we mess up. Experience has shown that 120's go off more than slower classes, thus the requirement for newer helmets. It's a judgement call made by folks who are responsible for managing the event. So far they have done a pretty good job. My '05 helmet can go on the shelf next to 4 other older helmets, none of which have ever needed to save my fat head. It's a relatively small investment in equipment which I hope will never be needed. Compared to the satisfaction and pure joy of driving well north and south at the SORC, it is well worth it.
This year when Tim and I cross the finish hopefully within one half second of our target speed, we won't be thinking about the money spent on helmets. We'll be celebrating our good fortune to have done a quality job, to be able to do this crazy stuff, to have like minded friends from across the country, and to look forward to doing it again next year. Best to everyone. See you in two weeks. Bill Kuiper Grand Phooey Team OCA |
|
Ruslow 02:25:51 Thu Jul 26 2012 Offline 14 posts Newbie Reply |
I think most are missing the point of Charlies complaint.and I will say it again,what about the ones who 'will show you'.you all have mentioned them in other threads.And Now you expect that not to happen?I think it is to late now for this year but i would look very hard for next year to have the rules governed by tech speed more than class speed.There are vidoes on the net showing competitors going all out since this is a bucket list event.I know of atleast 4 that have vidoed their thoughts and actions.don't think it can not happen to SORC,it happend to the others so you are not above it happening to you.Stan
|
|
Chris_Bischof 02:50:56 Fri Jul 27 2012 Offline 369 posts Advanced Member Reply |
The 120 likely would be safer if the Tech speed was 160... if the same people who currently run in it, continue to run in it. What would happen is that the participation in the 120 class would triple with a 160 tech speed and crashes would likely double, not because of he 160 tech, but from people still trying to take 95 mph corners at 110 mph to maintain a 120 mph average, which has been the problem plaguing the 120 for last few years.
|
|
scottycards 11:36:29 Sun Jul 29 2012 Offline 14 posts Newbie Reply |
Charlie,
Great question. This is the best info I could find on the diff's between 2005 and 2010 helmets. http://www.snellfoundation.org/standards/m/2010/m2010_cover_10-16-2008.pdf It appears there is a difference in safety, particularly for smaller head sizes, so I'd agree with sometime around now being a good time for the ORR sanctioning bodies to make the transition. As to whether or not the rule should be equally applied to all vehicles with a 140 tech speed (which I personally would tend to think makes the most sense), I can certainly see why SORC would want to be sensitive to the costs for participants. Joe makes good points about incidents generally happening in curves, where speeds are usually under tech speed. My guess would be that SORC's primary concern is participant safety during a crash. With this in mind, the 120 peeps are pushing harder, and it would be sensible to think they're somewhat more likely to crash- hence the need for a safer helmet. SORC's ruling may not make everyone happy, but I do think it's a good way to start the implementation of a 2010 helmet requirement- people running under 120 class now know that the step up to 120 requires more (read: $$$) gear. When I first read your post, I agreed that anyone with a 140 tech should have the same helmet standard. I still think that anyone (particularly those using a smaller helmet size) should upgrade to 2010, no matter their speed class. That few hundred bucks won't mean much if something happens. But after some reading and consideration, I think the rule change is appropriate. Props to SORC, and although it's gonna ding my checkbook and put yet ANOTHER helmet in the bottom of my closet..........I think it's time for this guy to put a new bucket on my wish list. Have fun everyone! Be safe. Wish Kelly and I could be there. scotty |
|
Charlie_Friend 04:52:59 Wed Aug 1 2012 Offline 30 posts Newbie Reply |
Scotty,
Well I didn't see any huge increase in safety indicated by the 2010 standards over the 2005 standards. On the other hand if the '10 helmets are so much better, then maybe everyone should be required to have a '10 helmet. Of course the reason for the '10 helmet requirement for the faster classes is due to the rash of head injuries recently in ORR in those faster classes. Oh, wait a minute...there have been no head injuries...at least that I know of. I'm sure everyone will be glad to hear that this will be my last word on this. One last time, in my opinion, this rule was not well thought out and only increases cost unnecessarily and does absolutely nothing to increase safety. Yes I have my new '10 helmet and my bank account will never miss the funds but that is all beside the point. |
| Pages: [ 1 ] |
| [ Notify ] | [ Print ] | [ Send To Friend ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ > ] |
|
Total Members: 251, Newest Member: Lemoyne_Dailey. | Register :: Log In The time is now 09:58:06 Wed Jun 19 2013 |
