Page 4 of 4

Re: Proposed Rule changes 1/26/09

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:48 pm
by SigNuSi
1 & 2 - Necessary. Double bales keep the buggy from ducking under and striking the curb, which is what caused Melissa's injuries (that was a scary morning).
3. Worthless - chairmen will still be predatorial about how the situation is handled and it usually works out fine.
4. Sweepstakes doesn't keep up with wheel testing from team to team, there's no way it's gonna be enforceable. Nor does it show any sort of safety, it's all about the mechanics - not to mention most teams pass this by rolling...whatev.
5. One person from each org drives the car, just end it there.
6. No matter how much clearer and concise the rules get, it doesn't really change the application.

Re: Proposed Rule changes 1/26/09

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:48 pm
by amyr
I'm not sure why wearing a mouthguard is a huge deal; i've driven for 2 different orgs, and for each, a mouthguard has been "standard" gear. Except for being able to talk coherently, there's really no downside to them.

Re: Proposed Rule changes 1/26/09

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:05 am
by ipmcc
No one cares what I think, but:

1) Why not? I agree that with enough force, it's irrelevant, but as someone who's knocked out two teeth and paid for the ensuing lifetime of dental pain, I'll say that if it saves even ONE tooth EVER, it's worth it.
2) Double bales on the outside? Sure. Inside? Eh. Isn't that how it is on race day anyway?
3) Needs to be said, but will be practically irrelevant, as people are in panic mode at that point.
4) Waste of time - all these things change day to day if not roll to roll.
5) Shrug - the only "real" solution would be for Sweepstakes to provide the vehicle and the sanctioned drivers. Absent that... whatever.
6) Yay.

Re: Proposed Rule changes 1/26/09

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:37 pm
by lemuroid
2. Required double bales at all times.
Is the narrower road that would result safer than full width and one row of bales? One could argue that it is better to avoid the bale than to meet 2 of them. Is there an alternative that would take less width and still meet the goal?

5. Follow Car Certification Program, needed for at least one person in any active follow car. (Similar to the required driver meetings)

The safest change for follow cars is to eliminate them. Have one on more vehicles capable of retreiving a buggy on standby in key locations and only allow them on the course when buggys are not rolling. There are other safer alternatives to observing a driver or retreiving a spun buggy that do not pose the potential of also crushing the driver in the process.

Re: Proposed Rule changes 1/26/09

Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 5:09 pm
by the cook
I have advocated for the elimination of cars on the course for years. The follow car is patently stupid - it can't be justified. I have seen a few follow cars not see spun buggies at all, and go by them. Running over one is possible, even likely eventually.

Also have seen quite a few cars go up on two wheels around the chute turn.

Lead cars are nearly as foolish but not as likely to squash a buggy. A lead car can force other objects off the road, but with the the jumbotrons on race day, you are not nearly as likely to be completely surprised that buggies are coming down, as in the days of old.

Re: Proposed Rule changes 1/26/09

Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:47 pm
by shafeeq
Aside from providing revenue for the BAA, I can't see why the lead car has to be within easy sight of the lead buggy. That does assume that the judges can review all CMUtv's camera angles afterwards, which is not currently the case. The lead car does have the useful function of forcing non-buggy-aware people off the course, but the incident with the bike in the chute in 2008 or 9 shows the flaw with that plan: Either the lead car runs over the idiot cyclist, or the car stops and gets rear-ended by the buggy. Either outcome is terminal to sweepstakes.

As I see it, double bales have two benefits :

1) If properly staggered, a buggy can't go between them and hit the curb directly.
2) If you hit them square on, the buggy has twice the distance to go 35 to 0 in.

They don't prevent a buggy going under both rows of bales and hitting the curb without slowing down much. It seems like there are parts of the chute that benefit from both 1 & 2, and parts than need only #1.

Re: Proposed Rule changes 1/26/09

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 1:59 pm
by lemuroid
Out here in ca where erosion control is taken seriously (steep hills and when it rains it pours), they use straw wattles, long tube-like structures of hay rolled into a ~8 inch tube surrounded by some sort of retaining new. This strand is run along the edges of a project to catch the silt from runoff. Running one of these on the buggy-side of a single row of bales could be a better solution vs. a double row. I imagine such stuff is available elsewhere. Using it would cover the seams between the bales up to a height that is higher than a buggy nose, discourage a buggy from tunneling under the bales, and yet give about 1 more foot of road to use on the inside and outside of the turn.

example

http://earthaidusa.com/straw-wattle.aspx