Interesting news for sprinters/hillclimbers and rallyists

[djroadboy]

News from the MSA regarding FHRs.

https://www.msauk.org/MSA-confirms-Motor-Sports-Co...

Dan

[velocemitch]

A very divisive subject judging by the comments on the various facebook groups.

[Cyder]

I bought a HANS at the start of the year to go with my 2 year old helmet which I bought with the pegs fitted on the assumption that eventually it would become mandatory for rallying.

So whilst I'm alright Jack, I do disagree with 2 parts of this new ruling.

1. In my opinion 6 months is unfair on competitors some of whom may have just bought a new hat with no pegs (I know on some you can retrofit HANS).

2. It makes it yet another step harder for a newbie to have a go. I'd have preferred a distinction in the ruling to state that for airfield single venues it is advisory but not compulsory. And for all other events (Forest, Tarmac, 'dangerous' single venues like Epynt, Otterburn) it is compulsory.

In the long run however I'm sure it's a good thing for the safety of the sport.

[Vocal Minority]

Can I confirm my understanding of the ruling is correct?

If I wish to compete in a road-going production class, whilst it is recommended to have HANS it is not mandatory?

[Mark A S]

Vocal Minority said:

Can I confirm my understanding of the ruling is correct?

If I wish to compete in a road-going production class, whilst it is recommended to have HANS it is not mandatory?

Correct.

[jimbobs]

I'm very glad they've allowed the exception for road-going cars in sprinting / hilclimbing. I'm not aware that a HANS device has yet been developed for use with standard seatbelts!

I've got increasingly annoyed over the years at the way extra equipment keeps getting added to what's required for sprinting - especially in the roadgoing classes. The whole idea of sprinting is that it's entry level motorsport that can be done in your road car without too much hassle.

All of this just makes starting off in motorsport more expensive and most of all confusing...

[velocemitch]

The wierdist anomoly in these new rules is that it applies to all stage rally cars, but not catagory 1 (pre67) historics. It's either necessary or it isn't why have that exclusion.
I can well understand the exclusion of road going classes on sprints and hillclimbs though.

Of course us road rallyists only go at 30mph, so we don't need even a helmet...... Not allowed one in fact.

[Mark A S]

velocemitch said:

Of course us road rallyists only go at 30mph, so we don't need even a helmet...... Not allowed one in fact.

Of course you do old boy

[Drumroll]

Sorry don't see the problem. Anybody who has been involved in motorsport for the last few years could see FHR was likely to become compulsary so why not by a helmet at the time with the pins or have pins added.

Mind you I don't understand why people aren't wearing them now.

[Trev450]

There's a kind of irony here in relation to speed events isomuch as on the one hand they are making FHR's compulsory on the grounds of safety, yet on the other hand are proposing a ban on list 1b tyres for production classes. In turn, by enforcing the use of 1a's which will never reach optimum operating temps due to the short nature of speed events, consequently are proposing a situation which will introduce less predictable handling due to the 'road going' nature of the tyres.

[majordad]

Hans have been compulsory here in Ireland for a good few years, a company has sprung up that rent them on a day to day basis.

[jeffw]

They are getting cheaper and I would expect the price to come down further. Certainly if you have 4/5/6 strap belts and a ROPS you should be using a FHR

[onomatopoeia]

Trev450 said:

There's a kind of irony here in relation to speed events isomuch as on the one hand they are making FHR's compulsory on the grounds of safety, yet on the other hand are proposing a ban on list 1b tyres for production classes. In turn, by enforcing the use of 1a's which will never reach optimum operating temps due to the short nature of speed events, consequently are proposing a situation which will introduce less predictable handling due to the 'road going' nature of the tyres.

I hope you've responded to the consultation on tyre lists. I certainly have, and have hopes that this particular proposal will make no further progress.

Do you think the proposal for the change to helmets originated in speed events committee / sprint & hill sub-committee, or are you using "they" to indicate the entirity of the dozen or more disicipline specific and other committees that meet at the MSA?

[Trev450]

onomatopoeia said:

Trev450 said:

There's a kind of irony here in relation to speed events isomuch as on the one hand they are making FHR's compulsory on the grounds of safety, yet on the other hand are proposing a ban on list 1b tyres for production classes. In turn, by enforcing the use of 1a's which will never reach optimum operating temps due to the short nature of speed events, consequently are proposing a situation which will introduce less predictable handling due to the 'road going' nature of the tyres.

I hope you've responded to the consultation on tyre lists. I certainly have, and have hopes that this particular proposal will make no further progress.

Do you think the proposal for the change to helmets originated in speed events committee / sprint & hill sub-committee, or are you using "they" to indicate the entirity of the dozen or more disicipline specific and other committees that meet at the MSA?

I have indeed responded and with a strong emhasis on safety as barking on about reduced performance would fall on deaf ears imo.

I'm using 'they' as the MSA collectively.

[djroadboy]

Trev450 said:

There's a kind of irony here in relation to speed events isomuch as on the one hand they are making FHR's compulsory on the grounds of safety, yet on the other hand are proposing a ban on list 1b tyres for production classes. In turn, by enforcing the use of 1a's which will never reach optimum operating temps due to the short nature of speed events, consequently are proposing a situation which will introduce less predictable handling due to the 'road going' nature of the tyres.

Could it not be argued though that 1a tyres are a LOT more progressive at the limit so although overall grip levels will be reduced, 'on the limit' handling should actually be MORE predictable, making it safer, especially for less experienced competitors. In my experience 1a tyres only become 'unpredictable' when they overheat. Obviously this is not a concern on speed events. Seems like a sensible proposal to me.

/2p

Dan

p.s. Also have to say that anyone who has bought a new helmet in the last couple of years and got one without HANS posts is an idiot and I've got no sympathy for them if they need change it now.

[keefr22]

jimbobs said:

I'm very glad they've allowed the exception for road-going cars in sprinting / hilclimbing. I'm not aware that a HANS device has yet been developed for use with standard seatbelts!

Except that you can fit a cage, competition seats & 4, 5, or 6 point harnesses & still run in roadgoing production. So someone with, say, a 400 bhp 911 GT3 RS with 4 point belts can run without a HANS, whereas my son & I with our little 100bhp stage rally prepared Mini (that we hillclimb because we can't afford to rally it!)have been given 6 months notice by the MSA that we need to find £900 or so to get new helmets & HANS thingies by January. Thanks for that, MSA, good that you're so consistent....!!

Keith

Edited by keefr22 on Sunday 14th June 21:53

[D_G]

djroadboy said:

Could it not be argued though that 1a tyres are a LOT more progressive at the limit so although overall grip levels will be reduced, 'on the limit' handling should actually be MORE predictable, making it safer, especially for less experienced competitors. In my experience 1a tyres only become 'unpredictable' when they overheat. Obviously this is not a concern on speed events. Seems like a sensible proposal to me.

/2p

Dan

No,actually. I have run the same car in roadgoing for around eight years, the car has done a huge amount of track mileage on all sorts of tyres, the list 1b tyres are by far safer on the limit than any 1a tyres, I used to run AD08s for wets before they moved to 1b, even these were much worse than 1bs even though they are very highly regarded.
The general feeling is this is a bad idea, if they push this through then I for one will look elsewhere as my car is no fun or particularly safe on road tyres on a track. The MSA seemed to naïvely believe we don't run on the limits in pursuit of our class wins and that production class cars aren't highly developed and actually need the best tyres...it's a complete joke frankly.

[keefr22]

D_G said:

...it's a complete joke frankly.

I think that actually nicely sums up the MSA as a whole...

[markbates]

Cyder said:

1. In my opinion 6 months is unfair on competitors some of whom may have just bought a new hat with no pegs (I know on some you can retrofit HANS).

6 months?? The MSA had information out about this last year so people have had well over 12 months. Equally it was introduced into single seaters as mandatory this year so if they didnt see it coming maybe a trip to spec savers as well as Demon Tweeks.
As as been pointed out about old group 1 cars I cant see why they dont make it mandatory across the board for all cars which are fitted with race belts. This would then only exclude the road going production cars and those which pre-date the seat belt requirements (although I dont see why these should be excluded from having ROPS and belts myself, its call progress and too many people get injured or killed in historics still).

[Trev450]

djroadboy said:

Trev450 said:

There's a kind of irony here in relation to speed events isomuch as on the one hand they are making FHR's compulsory on the grounds of safety, yet on the other hand are proposing a ban on list 1b tyres for production classes. In turn, by enforcing the use of 1a's which will never reach optimum operating temps due to the short nature of speed events, consequently are proposing a situation which will introduce less predictable handling due to the 'road going' nature of the tyres.

Could it not be argued though that 1a tyres are a LOT more progressive at the limit so although overall grip levels will be reduced, 'on the limit' handling should actually be MORE predictable, making it safer, especially for less experienced competitors. In my experience 1a tyres only become 'unpredictable' when they overheat. Obviously this is not a concern on speed events. Seems like a sensible proposal to me.
/2p
Dan

I disagree. Not only are 1a tyres subject to much more tread block flex, but the sidewalls are also less stiff than 1b's. These elements make for a very unstable platform and that's before you factor in the inability to generate sufficient heat as I outlined previously.