PCA Club Racing Rules Proposals for 2012
09-13-2011, 01:34 PM
#1
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
PCA Club Racing Rules Proposals for 2012
I just noticed that they are published in a recent edition of the newsletter (Volume 11, Number 3) which can be downloaded from the PCA Club Racing web site.
http://www.pca.org/Activities/ClubRa...ewsletter.aspx
They provide an e-mail address for feedback right in the article. The deadline is October 1st.
http://www.pca.org/Activities/ClubRa...ewsletter.aspx
They provide an e-mail address for feedback right in the article. The deadline is October 1st.
09-13-2011, 01:51 PM
#2
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
By the way, I recently noticed PCA Club Racing had new rules for this year for some driver safety equipment. It only affects me for one race this year as my only event under PCA sanction is the upcoming Rennsport Reunion IV.
I think it is too late for a potential change for 2012 (the proposal period is closed), but I think the program may benefit from changes for 2013.
Here is an overview:
Suits:
PCA used to recommend SFI 3.2A/5 or FIA 8856 2000 ratings. In 2011, they made this a requirement. The FIA 8856 2000 standard is from somewhere around 2003-- the previous standard was apparently FIA NORME 1986. FIA NORME 1986 is still allowed by NASA, BMWCCA, POC, SCCA and likely others.
The SFI 3.2A/5 standard is from June 1984. So you can run a 25-year-old SFI 3.2A/5 suit, but a suit purchased in 2002, used only in a few races and labeled FIA NORME 1986 does not meet their requirements. Nor for that matter would a brand new (new old stock) suit labeled FIA NORME 1986. I know some vendors have such suits still in stock.
Or you can run a single layer SFI 3.2A/1 suit made out of cotton along with fire retardant underwear of dubious origin (no SFI or FIA labeling) purchased on line... you get the idea.
I am pretty sure that suits made of Nomex do not have fire retardant properties that diminish over time. Some SFI rated suits, made of some materials, do have properties that diminish with repeated cleanings.
On top of all this, some vendors, like OMP, Sparco and Stand 21, sold suits labeled FIA NORME 1986 that passed the SFI 3.2A/5 requirements. They just didn't put on the labels because it did not matter back then. My Sparco suit, which is labeled FIA NORME 1986, is such a suit, confirmed by Sparco USA. So I will run my suit at RR IV.
Some vendors, like Stand 21, may be able to help you get an SFI 3.2A/5 patch for your suit labeled FIA NORME 1986. The fee is nominal-- I think less than $50.
Gloves and Shoes:
PCA is the only major group that specifies SFI and FIA ratings. They specify an SFI rating that has likely been around a decade or more. I have a 15 year old, intact but well-worn set of el-cheapo gloves that I am pretty sure meet this SFI spec.
I have a set of 2-3 year old Sparco gloves marked ISO 6940/FIA 86. They are like new. At first glance, these would be no good for a PCA Club Race in 2011. However, again it turns out that my Sparcos also meet SFI specs... they just weren't labeled by Sparco.
Of course, PCA may have concluded that the SFI specs they have chosen are more robust over time than the FIA NORME 1986 or ISO 6940 specs. I have not studied the details of the specs. However if they have not made that conclusion, I think it might be good for them to reconsider allowing suits that meet FIA NORME 1986 specs, and shoes and gloves that meet ISO 6940/FIA 86. In some case, these items may be newer and/or in better protective shape than older products that meet the SFI specifications.
I have spoken with Sparco and with some of the safety equipment companies who sell these things to us racers, and even though they like selling us new stuff, many concur with the idea that some of the FIA NORME 1986 and ISO labeled products are not likely to have lost protective qualities simply due to their age.
I think it is too late for a potential change for 2012 (the proposal period is closed), but I think the program may benefit from changes for 2013.
Here is an overview:
Suits:
PCA used to recommend SFI 3.2A/5 or FIA 8856 2000 ratings. In 2011, they made this a requirement. The FIA 8856 2000 standard is from somewhere around 2003-- the previous standard was apparently FIA NORME 1986. FIA NORME 1986 is still allowed by NASA, BMWCCA, POC, SCCA and likely others.
The SFI 3.2A/5 standard is from June 1984. So you can run a 25-year-old SFI 3.2A/5 suit, but a suit purchased in 2002, used only in a few races and labeled FIA NORME 1986 does not meet their requirements. Nor for that matter would a brand new (new old stock) suit labeled FIA NORME 1986. I know some vendors have such suits still in stock.
Or you can run a single layer SFI 3.2A/1 suit made out of cotton along with fire retardant underwear of dubious origin (no SFI or FIA labeling) purchased on line... you get the idea.
I am pretty sure that suits made of Nomex do not have fire retardant properties that diminish over time. Some SFI rated suits, made of some materials, do have properties that diminish with repeated cleanings.
On top of all this, some vendors, like OMP, Sparco and Stand 21, sold suits labeled FIA NORME 1986 that passed the SFI 3.2A/5 requirements. They just didn't put on the labels because it did not matter back then. My Sparco suit, which is labeled FIA NORME 1986, is such a suit, confirmed by Sparco USA. So I will run my suit at RR IV.
Some vendors, like Stand 21, may be able to help you get an SFI 3.2A/5 patch for your suit labeled FIA NORME 1986. The fee is nominal-- I think less than $50.
Gloves and Shoes:
PCA is the only major group that specifies SFI and FIA ratings. They specify an SFI rating that has likely been around a decade or more. I have a 15 year old, intact but well-worn set of el-cheapo gloves that I am pretty sure meet this SFI spec.
I have a set of 2-3 year old Sparco gloves marked ISO 6940/FIA 86. They are like new. At first glance, these would be no good for a PCA Club Race in 2011. However, again it turns out that my Sparcos also meet SFI specs... they just weren't labeled by Sparco.
Of course, PCA may have concluded that the SFI specs they have chosen are more robust over time than the FIA NORME 1986 or ISO 6940 specs. I have not studied the details of the specs. However if they have not made that conclusion, I think it might be good for them to reconsider allowing suits that meet FIA NORME 1986 specs, and shoes and gloves that meet ISO 6940/FIA 86. In some case, these items may be newer and/or in better protective shape than older products that meet the SFI specifications.
I have spoken with Sparco and with some of the safety equipment companies who sell these things to us racers, and even though they like selling us new stuff, many concur with the idea that some of the FIA NORME 1986 and ISO labeled products are not likely to have lost protective qualities simply due to their age.
Last edited by Mahler9th; 09-13-2011 at 02:13 PM.
09-14-2011, 05:33 AM
#3
Former Vendor
do you happen to the know the address email for sending proposals/ideas?
i know its been brought up every year but maybe if we post the address here, a lot of folk can shoot them some ideas.
every year there is a discussion about the requirement for a 2nd seat in the stock classes. I personally think its very dangerous. we go to great lengths to request and require some extensive safety measures in these cars. And yet we then require, in a race car, a 2nd seat. the seat is expensive and adds tothe cost of the car, unless of course the owner takes a cheap route in which case the seat's safety is compromised for an unsuspecting guest or instructor taken for a ride.
but most importantly, the seat seriously impedes a drives ability to exit the passenger side, or a rescue workers ability to access the car from the passenger side, if necessary during an emergency. You go off course, pin your drivers' door to a guardrail or up against another car, and need to egress quickly due to fire, etc., the lsat thing you want to do is have to climb over that shifter and deal with other seat, and the halos (if at all), and just the space it occupies.
all for what? because the car came from the factory with two seats? the car didnt come with steering wheel quick releases, and aftermarket shocks, and sway bars and Hoosier R6s, and forgeline wheels, and AIM dashes etc, I jus dont understand the policy behind that second seat.
id doesnt add but 25 lbs with rails, but i think it compromises the safety of a passenger if the seat and harnesses aren of the hightest quality, same as the driver would choose for his own seat/harnes.s..and it impedes egress by the driver in emergencies, or access by safety workers trying yank your **** out of a fire.
is there some reasonable policy for maintaining that rules? anyone else agree?
i know its been brought up every year but maybe if we post the address here, a lot of folk can shoot them some ideas.
every year there is a discussion about the requirement for a 2nd seat in the stock classes. I personally think its very dangerous. we go to great lengths to request and require some extensive safety measures in these cars. And yet we then require, in a race car, a 2nd seat. the seat is expensive and adds tothe cost of the car, unless of course the owner takes a cheap route in which case the seat's safety is compromised for an unsuspecting guest or instructor taken for a ride.
but most importantly, the seat seriously impedes a drives ability to exit the passenger side, or a rescue workers ability to access the car from the passenger side, if necessary during an emergency. You go off course, pin your drivers' door to a guardrail or up against another car, and need to egress quickly due to fire, etc., the lsat thing you want to do is have to climb over that shifter and deal with other seat, and the halos (if at all), and just the space it occupies.
all for what? because the car came from the factory with two seats? the car didnt come with steering wheel quick releases, and aftermarket shocks, and sway bars and Hoosier R6s, and forgeline wheels, and AIM dashes etc, I jus dont understand the policy behind that second seat.
id doesnt add but 25 lbs with rails, but i think it compromises the safety of a passenger if the seat and harnesses aren of the hightest quality, same as the driver would choose for his own seat/harnes.s..and it impedes egress by the driver in emergencies, or access by safety workers trying yank your **** out of a fire.
is there some reasonable policy for maintaining that rules? anyone else agree?
09-14-2011, 10:36 AM
#4
Rennlist Member
Link to Club race newsletter with proposed rule changes.
http://pca.org/portals/crn/CRN-2011-3.pdf
Send comments to:
crrules@pca.org
If you feel strongly about something you need send your comments to the link above.
http://pca.org/portals/crn/CRN-2011-3.pdf
Send comments to:
crrules@pca.org
If you feel strongly about something you need send your comments to the link above.
