Challenge car Safety - we should talk about it.

mazdeuce wrote: The AX portion is way less scary to me than the drags. Maybe thst's why they AX first? To break as many sketchy cars as possible?

I agree that the drags are far more scary and dangerous to innocents who might be too close to crazy people by random circumstance.

That is not why they autox first, but you have touched on an issue. There are several reasons why the old way of drags being before the autox was a good thing and could contribute to an all around safer event.

SVreX wrote:

Huckleberry wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to Robbie and Huckleberry: Were you there?

Never.

So, what you are saying is that you are completely clueless as to what we are talking about. Your point is pointless.

Oh, yes, the ultimate discussion ender.

In reply to slantvaliant:

This thread is about some VERY specific issues with a couple of cars that were VERY FAR outside of any acceptable safety standard. It is NOT a general safety discussion. Most of us are being kind and trying to not name the car or the team by name.

Everyone who was there knows what we are talking about. Everyone who was not, does not.

Sorry if that makes you feel excluded. Maybe you should come next time!

In reply to Circuit_Motorsports:

Excellent points and very well said. Safety first is, perhaps, the way all decisions should be made even if it can be somehow decided to impact performance. I could get behind that.

I had several "engineered or under-engineered" discussions about failures in parts that were never meant to be together in the first place at the challenge. Creativity is great, but it is hard to expect something to survive (and thrive) too far beyond its designed envelope. Perhaps that is only tangential to this...

SVreX wrote: In reply to Robbie: So, you think that the teams that actually made the effort to try and abide by the current existing rules should be penalized, and the teams that said, "berkeley it, I'm gonna build whatever I want" should win trophies because they are cool?

I don't feel like that is what I said at all, nor what I believe.

But I feel slightly insulted by your assumptions, so before I get angry I'm out of this one.

In reply to Circuit_Motorsports:

You've got a PM

SVreX wrote: In reply to slantvaliant: This thread is about some VERY specific issues with a couple of cars that were VERY FAR outside of any acceptable safety standard. It is NOT a general safety discussion. Most of us are being kind and trying to not name the car or the team by name. Everyone who was there knows what we are talking about. Everyone who was not, does not. Sorry if that makes you feel excluded. Maybe you should come next time!

To be fair I think that everyone should voice their opinions and, more importantly, lend their expertise. I know that if you were not there you might feel left out when we speak of atrocities at this years challenge but lets just all try to respect each other as much as possible.

I (and I think you too, Paul) am also concerned with similar incidents in the past. Soon enough, everyone will know what went down this year and then they can talk about that in particular. For now, we I hope we can all discuss safety in a more open and productive way so I hope that we all stay open to opposing (perhaps underinformed) points.

So, it is not a general discussion, but the specifics of one car are not the entirety of this issue, I think...

I said I was going to stay out of this but here it goes...

Much of the general public does not believe that these cars are built for a $2000 budget (or even a $3,000 budget when you understand the recoup rule and the tire exemptions)
We, the competitors, vehemently defend and support that these are in-fact built within budget/rules.
What I am trying to say is that GRM faces a constant criticism on the validity of the event.

Now, when it comes to safety, GRM, the most popular magazine of multiple sanctioning bodies seems to be headed down a slippery slope of possibly having to defend that it's own events are in fact safe events.

I feel very confident and recommend that an interior/cockpit picture of some should never make a public appearance on GRM (Web/print/FB) The backlash of comments from "industry" people seeing it could be rather damning to a long earned good reputation.

As an "exhibition" entry, some are very cool to see. As an "exhibition" entry it still provides awesome artwork/photos.
Encouraging it to drive any faster than golf cart speeds seems questionable.

It would be fun to show up at your local cruise night in it. It would certainly draw a crowd. It is artwork in itself but the illusion of safety is not the same as genuine safety

Edited a bit from original to be less confrontational.

In reply to Robbie:

Please, do not leave this important discussion. It is hard to talk about this stuff without becoming emotional and angry so I think we need to cut each other some slack and try to stay on topic as much as possible.

I would never try to speak for anyone else (especially svrex!) but I think I know where his passion is coming from.

If you have to walk away, I get that. I just know that we all could wind up feeling insulted and still come up with a good enough solution in the end. This probably will not be easy to figure out and I value your opinions in the process.

Let's play nice people. I think we are all in agreement that safety is a concern, and it will be addressed. Safety is important to the survival of the Challenge, so all safety-related comments are welcome, and appreciated.

In reply to JohnRW1621:

I am holding back on the scope of what I will discuss for now but it is nice to be able to share ideas with respected friends.

Probably so really good advice and certainly some great straight talk! The more commercial aspects of this issue are of a secondary nature, I think, but still relevant and I will probably share my thoughts at some point.

I think that I would posit that perhaps "exhibition" style cars deemed too dangerous to be around only operate in a quarantined fashion if they are to be accepted at all...

SVreX wrote: In reply to slantvaliant: This thread is about some VERY specific issues with a couple of cars that were VERY FAR outside of any acceptable safety standard. It is NOT a general safety discussion. Most of us are being kind and trying to not name the car or the team by name. Everyone who was there knows what we are talking about. Everyone who was not, does not. Sorry if that makes you feel excluded. Maybe you should come next time!

I think you're hinting just enough because I think I know which car you're referring to and I was at work in Kentucky last weekend.

Joe Gearin wrote: Let's play nice people. I think we are all in agreement that safety is a concern, and it will be addressed. Safety is important to the survival of the Challenge, so all safety-related comments are welcome, and appreciated.

Well said!

Joe, and anyone else, please let me know if I get out of line or offend any of you. It is not my intention but I am aware that I can be severe and inconsiderate at times.

In reply to Chadeux:

Things move fast in today's information age!

The true scope of it all might surprise you. I was there and it took me a while until I understood the true extent of the crazy that I was actually very close to! Some of it I did not know until I was on the drive home, and I will not be surprised when more comes to light as it usually does.

BTW...

I intend to bring a car that is "not safe". I have already begun building it.

But I have also sought GRM staff approval (of the specific nature of the unsafe component), and discussed ways to make is sufficiently safe and acceptable to the insurance company from a liability standpoint.

So, cool is coming, and "unsafe" can be approached in a satisfactory manner.

But my approach was not to just blow off the existing rules. I asked BECAUSE I understand the rules very well, and the related liabilities.

SVreX wrote:

Huckleberry wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to Robbie and Huckleberry: Were you there?

Never.

So, what you are saying is that you are completely clueless as to what we are talking about. Your point is pointless.

Clearly there are no similarities to the many hundreds of open track and racing events I've attended, volunteered at, run tech, skid pad, in car instruction or classroom for.

I'm glad you got all the answers.

JohnRW1621 wrote: I said I was going to stay out of this but here it goes...

I know you wrote this with one very specific case in mind, but I would say these same points are true for at least one other car. It wasn't one single offender.

In reply to SVreX:

Note to self: park very far away from SVreX!

Oh, wait! Crap! This is what he was talking about on the pool deck and I think I already agreed to help!

n8 wrote:

JohnRW1621 wrote: I said I was going to stay out of this but here it goes...

I know you wrote this with one very specific case in mind, but I would say these same points are true for at least one other car. It wasn't one single offender.

I think that this should be made abundantly clear to everyone; we are most definitely not dealing with a single entrant! We actually need to be clear, precise and decisive about all entrants and their decisions. I am not naming names yet, but you certainly can if you like...

I am still a bit upset about a ruling (or non-ruling, more accurately) that happened last year. It was clearly a completely contradiction of the rules and completely accepted by the GRM staff, even joked about! Sadly, it involved a good friend of mine of many years but it still should have been dealt with differently...

In reply to tb:

Thanks.

on another note - have anyone else ever tried to specifically NOT click on a thread? Very hard for an idle mind...

SVreX wrote: In reply to slantvaliant: This thread is about some VERY specific issues with a couple of cars that were VERY FAR outside of any acceptable safety standard. It is NOT a general safety discussion. Most of us are being kind and trying to not name the car or the team by name. Everyone who was there knows what we are talking about. Everyone who was not, does not. Sorry if that makes you feel excluded. Maybe you should come next time!

Perhaps this should, then, be moved to a private thread or other less public area for those with the appropriate credentials, instead of being in an open forum with the title, "Challenge car Safety - we should talk about it."

Huckleberry wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Huckleberry wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to Robbie and Huckleberry: Were you there?

Never.

So, what you are saying is that you are completely clueless as to what we are talking about. Your point is pointless.

Clearly there are no similarities to the many hundreds of open track and racing events I've attended, volunteered at, run tech, skid pad, in car instruction or classroom for. I'm glad you got all the answers.

I guarantee there are no similarities to what we are discussing and the hundreds of events you've attended. I appreciate your experience, which far exceeds mine, but this was pretty big.

I do not claim to have all the answers. I'm glad I can be of some service to you, however, since you really seem to like making me the bad guy on this. I think you will find several other voices in this thread saying the same thing I am. But that's ok. I don't mind.

I wish this was a private thread only allowed to be seen by those in the know so they could say what they mean instead of saying half of what they mean. It is confusing to everyone else. Maybe this could be done via email if it can't be an actual open discussion?

slantvaliant wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to slantvaliant: This thread is about some VERY specific issues with a couple of cars that were VERY FAR outside of any acceptable safety standard. It is NOT a general safety discussion. Most of us are being kind and trying to not name the car or the team by name. Everyone who was there knows what we are talking about. Everyone who was not, does not. Sorry if that makes you feel excluded. Maybe you should come next time!

Perhaps this should, then, be moved to a private thread or other less public area for those with the appropriate credentials, instead of being in an open forum with the title, "Challenge car Safety - we should talk about it."

Right.

We all just got back from the Challenge. We started to discuss the things we saw, which were not safe. So, the thread got the title.

I see no reason why it needs to be a private conversation- your input is very valuable. It's important we all work together to maintain a cool event.

I do, however, think it should avoid personal attracks.

If I my, NHRA roll bars for 12 second cars is different than for a 10 sec. car and so is a convertable. Nascar,in their lower class's have a very good safe set of bars that become more complex as class's get faster. a company called Canadian stock car products. they offer bar sets to full cages that can't be beat in price or quality I suggest ya'll look on their site to see what i mean and then apply them to what is needed, The cars that have the roof cut off is no where as stiff a car designed to be a convertable,and should require the best rollover protection you can get. the cost of a cage is one reason mine isn't finished. Making the cost of a set of bars or cage that suffices NHRA and well kinda nascar isn't cheap but not that much and should be Exempt. P.S. my car isn't finished because of Me Not the Bars I have them already and it's a fairly Full Cage.