What happen to the rounded off pickle fork rule

[Brian10s]

The currernt Modified Outboard Rule is unintelligible. If the rule has to be explained for people to understand it, then it is not a good rule. I think that's what Mr. Huson is indirectly suggesting with the comment about templates.

When any rule is eventually adopted, and I think it should be, that rule should be uniform across SO, MOD and PRO. Additionally, there should be an exemption from the requirement if the the pickleforks are collapsible or break-away ones.

Finally, why are runabouts not included in the rule?

Ed,
SO had just as good a chance to put something in writing - I submitted proposals to every outboard category for the last 2 yrs. Before you start pointing fingers at the ONLY category that stepped up and put something in writing, maybe you should look back into your past history as SO Chair and ask, why is this the only rule approved in any of the outboard categories?

As for a rule that crosses the categories - I would think everyone wants that. The bigger question is should one category be held back on implementing a safety rule because another category refused to act, wanting a full study and research data? And how much research is needed? Would you rather get poked by the tip of a knife or the end of a baseball bat? Yes, both will hurt but one will penetrate and the other will not.

On the complexity of the rule that is written - as you very well know, when writing a rule, you also need to look at those members that would take a rule and interput it to their advantage. Think about all the issue around boat numbers and that is a pretty much black and white rule and yet there are still some that have disputed it. If you say "Make the pickles round". Most will make a ball on the end of their pickles. There will be a couple that have the shape of a CD on the end of their pickles and say "it is round, just look from the top down".

[Brian10s]

Pictures of the aftermath

Towards the end of a straightway, boat on the outside broached and t-boned me as I tried to turn out of the way. Cockpit side was 6 mil, carbon, 5 mil, fiberglass & then 3 mil.

[3rd Chance]

What's the saying?

A picture is worth a thousand words............

[14-H]

Ed,
SO had just as good a chance to put something in writing - I submitted proposals to every outboard category for the last 2 yrs. Before you start pointing fingers at the ONLY category that stepped up and put something in writing, maybe you should look back into your past history as SO Chair and ask, why is this the only rule approved in any of the outboard categories?
***

Brian: I agree with you that a rule needs to be implemented-I have said that. I appointed a committee to meet with MOD and PRO to write rules that would be consistent across categories. Mod is not being held back. It has a very bad rule that is sure to create a lot of controversy because it needs to be explained in order to understand what it is meant to do. If it is not possible to understand the intent of a rule from the rule itself, it is a bad rule. That is a recipe for appeals and decisions about who wins or loses over the interpretation of a rule.

It is not my fault MOD implemented a bad rule. It might be my fault that SO doesn't have one at all. Don't mix the two issues. Ed.

[raceright]

Do you want to talk about your accident and how the capsule kept you protected. Or cry more about APBA's accounting? By the way you won't ruin my Christmas this is fun for me.

Really don't like to type enough to respond lets just say open boats are the least safe and APBA has plenty of resources to help expand our membership but does not know how...

Merry Christmas

Pat

[Dave M]

An Idea

Lets give Mythbusters a call and have them perform the tests. Seems everyone has a incident or idea of what will happen.

And for the record, my personal opinion on James UIM crash, the UIM saftey rules failed. The boat that impacted him should never have got penetration. I feel that should be the goal of implementing re-enforced combings and rounded sponson tips.

If you are going to implement something, do it the right way. (no reference meant to raceright).

Another personal opinion, the rule as it is written is confusing. It needs a simple explanation in lamens terms. There are a lot of people that build there own boats and might understand the rule as written. Most experienced builders will get it right, as they know to call someone for clairification.

[modhydro]

Sponson and cockpit safety

This is an open volunteering of anything I can do to help analyze the issues here and help come up with guidelines that anyone can understand. I personally thought the rule as written was pretty clear, but as an engineer, maybe my mind is wired differently???

I think that the biggest thing to look at is actually some factual data. Can we get a compiled list of accident data from headquarters so that we know which cases are the most important to address? We fill out incident forms for everything that happens. How do we go about extracting the information that will lead us to the most beneficial solution? Who do I need to contact to find this out?

I am going to build up various cockpit side constructions as well as different sponson tips and carry out impact testing on all of them. The results will hopefully help drive the direction that we move on this. This isn't the sort of testing I do day to day, but should be able to come away with some value. I've worked in a research facility for 10 years, so I've got a pretty good foundation for this sort of thing.

Is anyone else willing to help out with any phase of this or will it simply remain a b**ch-fest that only ends when a new set of rules is passed down that are lacking what they could be due to our lack of input? Now is the time to get involved and voice opinions (that are backed up with data) and help steer the direction that this is going.

It always seems to wind up "look what APBA is making us do." Remember that WE are APBA. Either try to be part of the solution or shut up and let those willing to try do something that may benefit everyone. Feel free to e-mail me with suggestions and facts that can help drive the design process.

Thanks

Steve Roskowski
sroskowski@arcindy.com

[14-H]

Suggestion

I think that information and data related to the distribution of force over a larger, as compared to a smaller, area would be helpful information.

I also think that information related to the likelihood that a reinforced cockpit will force an impacting boat to run over the part of the driver that is exposed above the cockpit, would be helpful as well. This technology and rule will not do any good if it will only re-direct a colliding boat from the impacted driver's torso towards the driver's head.

By the way, regarding the Mod rule: What the he11 does "in one view" mean?

[modhydro]

Rule description

Ed,

In engineering drawings there are sometimes three view of a part. For argument say front, top and right.

In hydro terms it would be:

a bird's eye view from the top (plan view)
side view as passing judges stand (profile view)
front view from bouy about to be hit (section view)

How would you like to come down to Indy and break some boat parts for fun!

Steve

[Jack Stotts]

Steve, I've been doing some measuring on my Giles with the intent of modifying the pickle forks to comply with the new requirements. I realize that my boat is grandfathered but if others are going to have rounded pickle forks to protect me, then I'll recpricate and do mine. The question I have concerns the requirement that the rounded surface at 45 degrees around the arc in both directions from the foremost point must be 3/4 inch thick from top to bottom. I'm having difficulty with that measurement on the outboard side of the arc towards the chine. The sponson, looking from the front, is a triangle coming to almost at point at the extreme outboard edge. Which ends up being at about 50 degrees of arc. At 45 degrees, I'm getting a little less than 3/4 inch in thickness. Does your boat have the 3/4 inch at the outboard side?

I can get to a point where I'm in compliance but I sure have to take a lot off the front end of the sponson. With the measurements I'm working now, I'm shortening the boat about 3 1/2 inches.

[DougMc]

Lets give Mythbusters a call and have them perform the tests. Seems everyone has a incident or idea of what will happen.

I was thinking the same thing about Myth Busters. I could see it now having them suit up their crash dummy and ramming him with a round and pointy sponson, only to then take him and suit him up in different types of Kevlar and run him over.

[modhydro]

Grandfathered boats

Jack,

You bring up a good point on the retrofits. On anything newer it is easier to maintain the 3/4" thickness by simply making the sheer line thicker.

My vote would be to maintain the 2" diameter and let it run out to whatever the thickness is on an older hull. It will be enough work to change stuff as it is without redesigning sponsons as well.

I'm glad to see you are being proactive, but like me you may get caught out if the rule winds up differently than we are approacing it. Lets hope is stays close to what the MOD guys have for now.

Steve

[JESSE74]

Steve,

I am setting up a vacuum table and planning on experimenting with different layups. I am open to suggestions as to what the sides should consist of and I would be willing to make some samples of different composite sides to be tested.

[David Weaver]

I think that information and data related to the distribution of force over a larger, as compared to a smaller, area would be helpful information.

I also think that information related to the likelihood that a reinforced cockpit will force an impacting boat to run over the part of the driver that is exposed above the cockpit, would be helpful as well. This technology and rule will not do any good if it will only re-direct a colliding boat from the impacted driver's torso towards the driver's head.

I agree with Ed (wow, I can say that). While on the PRO commission several safety proposals were made that appeared to have merit (including some in this thread), but there was no supporting data or research. My concern as a commisionser was to inadvertently place drivers in a more compromised position than when we started. And the conventional wisdom around the table was not close to being unanimous as to the direction to take, so no change was made.

[Lights]

I also think that information related to the likelihood that a reinforced cockpit will force an impacting boat to run over the part of the driver that is exposed above the cockpit, would be helpful as well. This technology and rule will not do any good if it will only re-direct a colliding boat from the impacted driver's torso towards the driver's head.

Ed, I agree with you 1000% Did I just really say that?