Jump to content
fieldthis

Hood Pins?

Recommended Posts

fieldthis

Don't see any mention of hood pins in the Reg's. If they are used should the latch be disabled?

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starion887

Hi Rob,

 

In short, yes.

 

The reason for hood pins is so others can get the hood open from the outside and extinguish a fire if you are disabled or trapped in the car. The same logic applies to disconnecting any interior activated hood latches.

 

Regards,

Mark Bowers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fieldthis

Shouldn't that be spelled out in the regs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wvonkessler

This is the first year for the Regs, and putting them together was a long ardous process. Obviously, per your observation, we didn't address hood pins (and I am sure we didn't address other things as well). However, as stated by Mark, its sort of common sensical.

 

I'll make a note of putting it on the list for next year's amendements.

 

Wilson (one of a number of authors/editors of the rulebook).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fieldthis

I don't doubt for a second that it was a very long process! That's part of the reason I posted the way I did. I figured it would be rude to just say "hey, you guy's f'd up and left any mention of hood pins and latches out of the reg's". Sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent.

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wvonkessler

No offense taken Rob. In fact, I keep a list of changes needed, with everything from spelling to more serious stuff that I save from folks that contact me about the book. We'll do a conforming amendment some time this year, to fix spelling and grammar. Substantive changes will wait until later this year per the amending process.

 

Thanks,

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
griswold

If it's so common sensical, can I ask why the car that I bought, which ran numerous (over 30) SCCA ProRallys and CARS National events passed all of the techs with the latch still operational including the interior release? That may have come off more rudely than I meant but I was confused by this.

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starion887

If it's so common sensical, can I ask why the car that I bought, which ran numerous (over 30) SCCA ProRallys and CARS National events passed all of the techs with the latch still operational including the interior release? That may have come off more rudely than I meant but I was confused by this.

 

-----

 

Hi Gary,

 

I don't have my rule books on hand, but the SCCA Production rules for years were based on " if it does not say you can do it here, then you can't do it to your production car". This caused a lot of confusion, and one area I remember was hood latches. I think the intent of the rules all along was 'disable' the hood latch, but I can recal more than one Production car owner telling me they could not do it per the Production rules. So maybe your car is on old SCCA P car.

 

Mark B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wvonkessler
If it's so common sensical, can I ask why the car that I bought, which ran numerous (over 30) SCCA ProRallys and CARS National events passed all of the techs with the latch still operational including the interior release? That may have come off more rudely than I meant but I was confused by this.

 

Gary

 

Gary:

 

I can't answer for SCCA or CARS. I think that Mark may have hit it on the button, as his comments are not a stretch by any means. It's like the old seam welding rules for production, which was not allowed, but which some folks did (and a lot of folks didn't) because of rules confusion with stock which is always structured "authorized mods only." Its "common sensical" in the sense of "why do they want you to disable your latch if you run hood pins? . . . but of course (hit self on forehead), so that engine fire can be accessed while I'm pinned in the car." But then why do they have a rule that you can run stock hoods and latches? Doesn't kind of make sense, does it?

 

I can promise you this though - if you show up to one of our events with a disabled hood latch and hood pins, even in stock class, we'll let you run without penalty.

 

Frankly, I am an advocate of everything available from outside the car, e.g. electrical shut off, fire system, etc. Makes a lot of sense, not a lot of $ to implement. Increase in safety.

 

But talk to Mark. He is a scrutineer.

 

Regards,

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IHBObry

The real question to me is not so much the hood pins and latch elimination being sensible, (it is) The question of authority during tech is at hand.

 

If it is not specifically addressed in the rules how much leeway does the inspector(s) have in defining what is "sensable" or not. Not to be silly but what if the inspectors perspective on what is sensible countermands the judgement of the last 20 inspectors who accepted the sensability of the vehicle owner/constructor when the vehicle was presented to them,and proceeds to reject a vehicle based not on rules but how they feel.

 

I'm not disagreeing with the latch having to be disabled/removed it is the autonomy the inspector has that I am interested in, so that if a more disagreeable issue is raised I know how to persue the issue.

 

2.6.5 iv states "Technical Judges... be judges of FACT as to the weight and measurment of competing vehicles and all parts thereof:"

 

Caps in the quote are my add on for emphisis.

 

Thanks,

 

Bernie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starion887

The question of authority during tech is at hand.

 

If it is not specifically addressed in the rules how much leeway does the inspector(s) have in defining what is "sensable" or not. Not to be silly but what if the inspectors perspective on what is sensible countermands the judgement of the last 20 inspectors who accepted the sensability of the vehicle owner/constructor when the vehicle was presented to them,and proceeds to reject a vehicle based not on rules but how they feel.

 

------------

 

Well, that IS a good question; I 'll share my perspective; observations over years have led to me think this perspective is pretty average:

1) Some things are clear in the rules; you have to have this or that item; eliminate something else, etc. These are easy to get right from a thorough reading of the rules, if it was good before, it should be good forever. The only exception is if an item has been wrong all along and no one else caught it. If that happens, and it was wrong per the rules; it doesn't matter if it passed 100 times before. You have no recourse if it is not right, no matter when it is caught.

2) Some things are judgement of the quality of work being adequate, or level of wear. Things like weld quality, condition of wear in a CV joint, and so on, are areas of judgement for each inspector.

3) Some of the judgement areas are per event; and many are more for annual inspections.

 

This seems like a lot of latitude, but let's look at a few reasons why, and factors as to why it tends to work this way:

a) The sanctioning body has some responsibility to themselves, the insurers, and to everyone really, to keep things safe. The techies tend to be the front line in this effort at the event level. We all take this pretty seriously, and try to look at things to be safe.

b) There are areas that can't be written into rules. How about a cracked firewall? How about a tie rod end that has become worn and could break at high speed, spinning you into the woods? These things have to be judgement calls.

c) Are there grey areas? Yes. There are more and more as we get cars from Europe, cars built to different rules, cars with cages engineered to G-loads and not to rules specs.

 

My ROT (rule-of-thumb): If it is bent or worn or cracked to where it could fail, it don't pass; that's my call. If it is a rules interpretation item, then we look at the book together to see if there is an out; but the techie gets the final call. If it's not to the rules but does not effect safety, I try to pass it with a notation in the logbook to 'fix before the next event.

 

Your best tacitc if you get in a situation with rules interpretation:

- LISTEN first. You won't make any points by jumping into 'argue mode' or get an attitude. There is ususally a good reason, based on experience more often than not. And most techies are racers too so they know what it's like.

- After you understand, and you think you have a counterpoint. bring it up politely. If you can pull out the rule book and use it to support you, that it the best thing you can do.

- The argument of 'it passed before' can only help you if you bring it up in a plea of "I don't understand"; throwing it at the techie as 'you must be wrong' only creates antagonism.

 

Well, I hope that helps. This proabably did not address your exact situation. If you want to write privately, or post it here, I'm always full of advice and opinions!

 

Regards,

Mark Bowers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IHBObry

[1) Some things are clear in the rules; you have to have this or that item; eliminate something else, etc. These are easy to get right from a thorough reading of the rules, if it was good before, it should be good forever. The only exception is if an item has been wrong all along and no one else caught it. If that happens, and it was wrong per the rules; it doesn't matter if it passed 100 times before. You have no recourse if it is not right, no matter when it is caught.

 

------------Yup

 

2) Some things are judgement of the quality of work being adequate, or level of wear. Things like weld quality, condition of wear in a CV joint, and so on, are areas of judgement for each inspector.

 

=======Yup again.

 

3) Some of the judgement areas are per event; and many are more for annual inspections.

 

=======Yup a third time.

 

a) The sanctioning body has some responsibility to themselves, the insurers, and to everyone really, to keep things safe. The techies tend to be the front line in this effort at the event level. We all take this pretty seriously, and try to look at things to be safe.

 

=======I hope so and have no problem here.

 

b) There are areas that can't be written into rules.

 

=======Ahh, we are getting closer!

 

c) Are there grey areas? Yes. There are more and more as we get cars from Europe, cars built to different rules, cars with cages engineered to G-loads and not to rules specs.

 

=======This as well as your Rule of thumb is fine with me.

 

I also know that no matter my emotional level I need to treat the Technical Judge/Scrutineer along the lines of a State Trooper, Lots of yes sir / no sir. I also know the rules( a little bit). And...

 

... to get to the point, if it's not even remotely refered to in the rules and I'm being singled out for something based on a personal preference of the Technical Judge/Scruttineer what am I supposed to do other than jump on my crew chief and driver with a fire blanket?

 

What if the tech inspector says they just do not like something. No data. No rule. Just because. Broken down that is what the hood pin issue is.

 

I can't come up with a good additional scenario but then again I'm not in line @ tech right now.

 

I understand the liability issue and I understand the rules. I do not understand what the area of personal judgment is that is allowed/ expected/undefined or to be tolerated.

 

Just asking, (and maybe forcing the issue a little)

 

Bernie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fieldthis

Hate to throw more at this hood pin thing, but having talked to a very experienced firefighter, he says opening a hood on a car with an engine fire is very dangerous. When you open the hood two things happen, the first is you give the fire more oxygen and it will flash outward. Unless you are in firefighting gear you will have a face full of flames. The second is that it will drive the fire into the passenger compartment thru various holes in the firewall. He says most fire departments have aparatus to fight the fire without opening the hood.

 

He is speaking from 15 years of experience, so I tend to believe him. He was amazed that we aren't required to have an onboard system!

 

I'm not saying that the hood pins are a bad idea, but everyone should know what to expect when the situation arises.

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian Scott

I can also list the problems with on-board systems.

 

1. Nozzle location. Most only have a nozzle for the firewall......so when you blow a rod out the front of the block and light off a turbo oil fire on the front of the engine the on-board does NOTHING.

 

2. Volume in an on-board system is fairly small.

 

After my engine boom at LSPR last year, I ripped the on-board out and replaced it with hand held units.

 

Just another perspective.

 

Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starion887

OK to force; it's important. I wrote a long reply but it dumped! Arrrrgh! Later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starion887

Hate to throw more at this hood pin thing, but having talked to a very experienced firefighter, he says opening a hood on a car with an engine fire is very dangerous.

 

-----------

 

Sorry, but long years of racing experience are to the contrary; get the fire out no matter what. With the right equipment, you're right. But where is the fire engine in a rally? The 'fire engine' is the next rally car, and the 'firemen' are the crew. Do you want to desparately claw with your hands at the hood in a vain attempt to open it to get to the fire that is about to spread to your friend inside, just because there were no hood pins? We can be trained to not open the hood if we don't have to (I know now!) but don't throw away a possible, easy to implement asset in fighting a fire.

 

Mark B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fieldthis
Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starion887

... to get to the point, if it's not even remotely refered to in the rules and I'm being singled out for something based on a personal preference of the Technical Judge/Scruttineer what am I supposed to do other than jump on my crew chief and driver with a fire blanket?

 

What if the tech inspector says they just do not like something. No data. No rule. Just because. Broken down that is what the hood pin issue is.

 

I can't come up with a good additional scenario but then again I'm not in line @ tech right now.

 

I understand the liability issue and I understand the rules. I do not understand what the area of personal judgment is that is allowed/ expected/undefined or to be tolerated.

 

Just asking, (and maybe forcing the issue a little)

 

------------------------

 

Hi Bernie,

 

If any is still paying any attention to theis thread, I'll try to retype my prior reply posting without dumping it this time.

 

Purely personal "I don't like it" (and note: I say "purely personal") doesn't really have a place. I hope we agree that some areas are clear black & white coverd by the rules. And there is judgement that covers safety realted issues. It's this area of latitude in judgement that I am guessing is your question.

 

If I have to try to boil it down (which is pretty hard), I guess judgement falls into 2 main categories. The first is a pretty obvious non-rules specified problem: if a ball joint is loose more than 1/8", it oughta be rejected. If there is a crack forming in a firewall along a stress riser on a krinkle from a prior incident, that ougtha be a reject.

 

Then there is the more marginal judgemnt case. I once found a bent cross link at an annual immediately prior to an event. It wasn't broken or badly bent, but I know that the old RWD Mitsu crosslinks just keep bending more and more once they bend at all. I would have had a very hard time letting this guy compete, but fortunately he had a spare, and I could show him how easily it flexed. But if he had not had the spare, then we would have had a (probably) emotional competitor reaction to my not letting him compete. The car was pretty good otherwise, so this would have been a very tough judgement call.

 

And, to be honest, there is the case of different levels of decision on the same thing. Take broken windshields, If you come in with 1 or 2 cracks I'll let it go. If you've rolled and the windshield is cracked all over and flexing, no way. Why? It's the possibility of getting small particles of glass in your eye, or ingesting them. I have seen cars be allowed to go out with very badly broken windshileds once or twice, that I would not allow. I expect the techies aren't thinking of the glass-in-eye or internal ingestion thing. So, that is certainly one example of different judgement calls on the same issue. (OBTW, SCCA rules used to make it clear that you could not leave service with a broken exhaust or windshield, so that gave the techies a rule to back their judgement.)

 

To add more to this judgement thing, a lot of what a techie will pass or not depends on your car in general. One problem item (book or judgement) will give you a better chance of being let go. If there are gaggle of marginal things, then sooner later the techie will finally think" Man, what else is there that I HAVEN'T seen!?", and you can end up with a reject.

 

And, honestly, there is 'preknowledge' and 'probability' of a problem that plays into a techie's thinking. If you are top car, or if you and your car have been inspected dozens of times and are known, you will get less of a look. I can remember the rules about covers on fuel pumps in the passenger compartment being regularly violated by the top 3-4 teams in the 80's; boy, did that one get me hot. (But I never PO'd the techies by bringing it up.) The likelihood is that the more prepped cars, and the cars that have been through the 'rally wringer' many times are a lot less likely to have safety issues. If you are new team with a new car, expect to get more scrutiny.

 

SO the bottom line? Yes there is judgement. And the reality is that it varies from person to person. The reality is that 99% are good folks trying to pass you so you can compete; and, we get the same jitters in the tech stall as you do! There is always some basis for the issue; in all my experience, I have never seen or experienced a scene where there was not some definite point or points of safety that are involved; it's not arbitrary in that sense.

 

Do you have any recourse? If it is something you can fix there, then just do it. If you are subject to rejection from the event, you do have the recourse to take it to the rally steward. Try to do so in a polite way, and let the techie know ahead of time that you would like to do so. (Why blindside the guy and cause more interpersonal problems? If that is the desire, then it is the competitor that is getting personal.....) There will usually be a conference with the techie, the steward, and the competitor to hash things out; don't expect to win. And realize that this procedure is not very common.

 

As you rally more and more, you will learn the areas of greyness. And you will learn to have the car in better shape all the time, to minimize any tech problems, and to be safer and finish more often. Hope this helps more than hurts.

 

Regards,

Mark B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IHBObry

There will usually be a conference with the techie, the steward, and the competitor to hash things out; don't expect to win. And realize that this procedure is not very common.

 

---------------------------------------------

 

Thanks for typing the reply twice.

 

I think I knew most of what you have said in this tread and the last reply. Common sense dictates most actions and rules.

 

The last statement I excerpted above though is part of what I'm driving at. (codriving at ) " ...don't expect to win."?

 

Anyway I do not want to beat the topic to death, but rules are rules and I really think the scope of personal judgement and the Tech Judge position needs to be better defined in the next set of rules. From a liability position alone this is important. Additionally a well defined appeals process of the tech inspection that is streamlined and definitive must be established, because although we are all reasonable, reasonable people sometimes disagree.

 

Thanks,

 

Bernie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starion887

The last statement I excerpted above though is part of what I'm driving at. (codriving at ) " ...don't expect to win."?

 

--------------------------

 

To make sure you understand the comment, I base it on the fact that almost always, the techie position is based on a rule, a rule's interpretation, or judgement, and these are ususally not subject to dispute in any real way. It's not to imply a competitor won't have a good point. I really was trying to set your expectations to a low level, so you wouldn't be even more angry if an appeal did not work out as you would like.

 

It sounds like you had a bad experience. Care to share the gist of the situation, while "changing the names to protect the innocent"?

 

As for any procedure and scope, I doubt you will ever be able to be much more specific on the scope of techie judgement than what is stated. This is not a civil or criminal law structure; it's a private organization structure, and any such organization will reserve right of final decision on issues such as tech and rules and scoring to itself. If you want more defintion in tech rules, you write more detailed tech rules. But you will never really get away from the techie being the judge of fact for tech things. This has to be delegated to someone, and the event steward cannot realistically decide and handle everything. So it gets delegated. And, like the civil law structures, judges are there to 'judge' and have the final word to a reasonable degree.

 

Regards,

Mark B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IHBObry

I really was trying to set your expectations to a low level, so you wouldn't be even more angry if an appeal did not work out as you would like.

-------------------

I don't have the personal ability to have low expectations and I would have enough respect for any official that I would not get angry. I would hope that all competitors would follow that path.

----------------------------

 

 

 

It sounds like you had a bad experience. Care to share the gist of the situation, while "changing the names to protect the innocent"?

---------------------------

It wasn't a bad experiance. I've posted on this topic from a procedural, rules based, perspective. More theoretical than actual experiance. I'm trying to get a better understanding on how to work the rule book when there is no rule for when a real issue is at hand.

 

 

 

------------------------------------

As for any procedure and scope, I doubt you will ever be able to be much more specific on the scope of techie judgement than what is stated.

-----------------------

I won't question scope, but procedure and appeals definately can be better defined. Several paragraphs can take care of it.

 

 

Thanks again,

 

Bernie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...