latest on PRO radio rule

[Sean Augustine]

Hi John, I wanted to address some points in your post:

My only issue regarding radios is that I don't see them as a NECESSARY safety item. I see them as just another toy that a few people want and that some have used in clearly unsafe ways.

No one is saying you "have" to get a radio - but they are neat "toys". On the contrary, the commision is saying that radios are UNECESSARILY UNSAFE. And the use of "clearly" here is really not all that clear.

And I feel that the proponents have claimed "Safety" as an issue the same way that marketers advertise deodorant by shouting that if you don't use their product you'll stink and have no social life. The folks who are pushing the radio issue are using safety as a fear marketing tool to get their way.

Couldn't we also interpret the commisions actions as using safety as a "fear marketing tool" to get their way?

No correlative evidence exists to support their argument while there seems to be abundant counter-evidence. Though my mirror fix is a little ugly, I can refine it, and because I can see everything I need to instantly and don't need to process an audio input into a response it works better than any radio at an investment of only six bucks.

On the contrary, you can't see a stalled boat/red flag at the other end of a course, or at the exit of a turn if you are in someone's chine spray. Radios might give you the benefit of audio input combined with your visual input.

My Main issue is that I felt the appeal was the wrong thing to do and it's opened a Pandora's Box destructive to our sport. Commissions are elected to govern our categories, and have powers to make emergency decisions that are necessary to regulate safety within the category. Members aren't prohibited from working out issue resolution with the commission, but we have to abide by a commission safety mandate until concerns can be addressed and resolved. The rule is there to protect us, not to stifle us.

You felt the appeal was wrong and those appealing felt it was right. That's just a difference of opinion. Those appealing, which I tend to agree with, saw no evidence of this being a "emergency decision...necessary to regulate safety...". To not allow a protest, if they are legally entitled, would be stifling.

And I do agree that the issue was about power...It was a couple guys who didn't like a decision Mickey Mousing a way to shove their agenda through regardless. If you were so certain of member support Bill, why didn't you just ask Charlie to put it to a membership vote?

Again, without the name calling, couldn't the commisions actions be seen as a way of shoving their agenda under the guise of safety?

John

I have used radios and liked them - my spotter would give me concise information that I needed. For example, during milling I could watch the traffic around me while hearing the clock position.

What I have heard, and seems to be the thrust of those disagreeing with the commission's decision, is the concern that the commission made a rule change, under an umbrella clause of "safety", which is not easily discernable as a safety issue. This would be a bad precedent and weaken the reasoning behind having the autocratic power of the safety vote.

My own opinion is that we have rules for illegal driving - enforce those and there is really no argument against radios.

Thanks,
Sean

[Composite Specialties]

Thank You Mr.Augustine

That was well stated Mr. Augustine, former radio user, from your former radio spotter. They were always very, very helpful for us and we used them for every class we raced in and even loaned them out to others, like J-Drivers.

The good ole days...............

[benf27]

(1) I'm curious to know why you seem to accept limited vision aft, and use that to justify the use of a radio and spotter which obviously were of no help to you in the crash. I'd think that vision in all directions is a priority deal and I'd want to do my best to ensure against any blind spots as a matter of course. You appear to accept blocked vision, and seem to be using it as a pseudo-safety justification for packing a radio.

LIMITED VISION OR A BROKEN NECK? I dont think thats a hard choice! I wear a head and neck restraint system like Tim and it makes it impossible to see be hind you. Thats what you spotter is for. I think its a little more important to keep you neck in one piece. You just ask my brother about that.

[sponsonhead]

LIMITED VISION OR A BROKEN NECK? I dont think thats a hard choice! I wear a head and neck restraint system like Tim and it makes it impossible to see be hind you. Thats what you spotter is for. I think its a little more important to keep you neck in one piece. You just ask my brother about that.

As a Dealer of Helmet Restraint devices, I can tell you that if you are using the typical SRP-style device, with webbing straps going to a chest band, and you have it reefed down so tight that there is no neck movement allowed AT ALL, you are not using this device properly, and in fact could cause more damage than if it were being used properly.

R-19

[benf27]

As a Dealer of Helmet Restraint devices, I can tell you that if you are using the typical SRP-style device, with webbing straps going to a chest band, and you have it reefed down so tight that there is no neck movement allowed AT ALL, you are not using this device properly, and in fact could cause more damage than if it were being used properly.

R-19

There is neck movement, but you cant turn your head to see behind. If you loosen the straps so you can see then you might as well not even wear one.
Have you done any testing on your product?

[sponsonhead]

There is neck movement, but you cant turn your head to see behind. If you loosen the straps so you can see then you might as well not even wear one.
Have you done any testing on your product?

Ummm....that's what mirrors are for.

Have I personally done any testing? No, that's not my job. The testing is done by a number of other people. And yes, they have done plenty.

Does every manufacturer of every boat or motor personally done testing? Some have, some have not. Ed Karelsen hasn't driven a boat in years but he knows what he is doing and builds a fine boat. What's your point here?

We do solicit and appreciate any feedback we get from our customers who use our products. Much of this feedback goes directly into making our products better. If you have suggestions to make them better, I'll make sure they go right to Al LaPointe.

Thanks for your interest,
R-19

[benf27]

Just a asking a question. Can you tell me why the straps should not be tight?

[sponsonhead]

Just a asking a question. Can you tell me why the straps should not be tight?

Hi Ben,

I posed your question to Scott LaPointe. Here's his response, which confirms what I have always heard:

"Look at this way. if you allow no movement of your head, then you brain will hit and bruise causing brain damage and even death. If you allow some movement then it is acting as a shock absorber allowing the head and brain to absorb and release the impact."

Hope that helps,

R-19

[Kristi Ellison]

Most neck and brain injuries are caused from the head accelerating forward and than on sudden impact snapping backward.That is why there are head rests in vehicles to stop the violent backward motion that cause the injury. The brain injury you are referring to is a deccelaration injury. When you are in forward motion at 100 MPH so are your organs and brain. If your body stops your organs will continue at 100mph until they impact on something like your chest wall or cranium. In my opinion the neck restraint needs to be snug enough to prevent a quick snapping motion to the head on sudden decceleration or sudden impact. As for preventing a brain injury it's the helmet that should absorb the energy of a head impact.
Just my 2 cents. Please don't have the restraints too loose. I think we all know the potential outcome...Ben especially.

[bill van steenwyk]

Head Restraints, Radios, and Geezers

The comments pro and con regards tightness versus slightly loose (and Kristi,
I composed this before your post) are very interesting andIwish someone with
the right answers would participate in this forum. It seems to me that head
restraints are a really good thing. I have no specific knowledge regards this
other than a basal skull fracture which I understand is caused by the head stretching forward, sideways, backwards, etc., depending on the direction
of impact, could be prevented or the concequences lessened by the use
of the restraint. If this is true it would seem to be a very good piece of safety
equipment to have and use. Before I quit driving myself I used for a short
time the "horsecollar"type which attempted to serve a similiar purpose I
believe. Problem semms to me to be that almost any type of restraint
on the market today is sold with a SEATED OR MAYBE A SEMI-RECLINING
DRIVER in mind. When you lie prone in a hydro, especially one constructed
with high reinforced cockpit sides, even with mirrors, your vision to the side
and rear is severely restricted, especially with restraints worn tight. So one
of the previous posts says loosen them some so you can more easily see to
the side or rear. I think this is a oversimpflication of how to solve the
problem. I feel much more research needs to be done on a PRONE driver
before the restraints would be worn loose as this seems to me to defeat
the purpose of wearing them to start with. Discounting any other impact,
just the act of your head sticking in the water first at 80-100 MPH is
going to exert a severe twisting/tearing motion. I understand this was the
cause of death of a 500 Hydro driver at the DePue Nationals some years
ago. In any case, just loosening the restraints in and of itself might not
give enough head movement to see to the side or rear in a boat with
high cockpit sides. Add to that the difficulty of seeing over the fin and
prop rooster tail even if you are kneeling and looking backward (don't
even count the fact that you are now looking backwards now while
traveling forwards at up to 100-110 MPH even in our non-capsule classes,
and visibility is a real problem any way you look at it, assuming you are
in a competitive situation with other boats.

One of the reasons I have been so vocal about this (I know some think
otherwise due to my association with the PropRiders team the last few years)
is because of an incident involving myself and Jack Kugler at the DePue Nationals several years ago. Jack was thrown from his boat and was not visable as I came thru the corner right behind him. Just as he came to the surface of the water I saw a small red circle that looked like a coke can.
It was the top of his helmet coming the surface. I immediately turned to avoid
him but I struck his helmet with my sponson fin and I will never forget that
sound. It was the most sickening thing I have heard, before or since. We
were both very lucky that day, he because he is still alive, and I because
I was not responsible for killing him. I have always wished since that there
had been a way at that time I could have been warned of what happened
in the spray just ahead of me. Maybe the end result would have been the
same, BUT, at least I could have been warned. Then we have the more
recent accidents involving Deborah Galeta, Nick Thompson, and finally the
young man who lost his life in the stock race last summer. I would imagine
if you would ask all the drivers and the families impacted by these accidents if equipment to warn of hazardous conditions could have been availiable to
try to prevent them, I think everyone knows the answer. I do not want to
bring back bad memories for anyone, but REAL PEOPLE, your friends and
fellow drivers were impacted by these accidents, both emotionally and
financially, and if equipment exists that could help to eliminate these types
of accidents, I think it should be availiable to anyone who wants to use
it. That is what this has ALWAYS been about, and anyone who thinks
otherwise, or try to insinuate bad faith on my part is badly mistaken, and
does the whole PRO Catagory a disservice.

Geezer seems to think Todd Brinkman and I are the bad guy's, based on his
impassioned posts about all the good the PRO Commission and Stever Greaves
have done over the past several years. I WOULD REMIND HIM, that even though the appeal came down with Charlie Strang's name on it, the actual
decision/reccomendation made to him for his action was made by THREE
PAST PRESIDENTS OF APBA who made up the appeal committee that was
appointed to hear this appeal by Todd and I. Both Todd and I would have
MUCH preferred that the appeal of the radio rule would have been heard on
the merits of the facts that were presented to the hearing committee, but
all of the questioning was about why the commission felt they had the power
to do what they did regards banning radios without a vote of either the
PRO membership or the APBA BOD. I'm sorry if the way it was handled and
by whom, does not meet with Geezer's approval, but as previously mentioned, he will have to take that up with someone else. We used the
appeal process in effect in the rule book at the time, the same one availiable
to any APBA member and the only one, after the commission voted a
second time to continue the ban on radio use, even after being contacted by many drivers, and reccomendations to recind the ban from Apba safety committee were ignored,so we made the appeal. I might add one that required much work and an appeal fee of 1000.00, with no certainty of getting it back.

And lastly, if this commission or anyone else is concerned that they are
being portrayed in a bad light, perhaps if the drivers in the PRO division
were treated in the same manner as drivers in other catagories, insofar as
being able to use equipment for safety purposes that is available to the rest,
instead of trying to deny it based on biased reasoning (my opinion, but widely
shared) then that would be one less thing they would have to worry about
and they could get back to the work of bettering the PRO division. If you
or anyone else, does not want to use a radio, that is entirely your perogative,
and I certainly respect your opinion, BUT DON'T DENY ME OR ANYONE ELSE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO USE EQUIPMENT THAT HAS PROVED ITSELF TO ENHANCE SAFETY, no
matter claims to the contrary. Todd and I proposed as a part of our appeal
a method to monitor and penalize ANYONE caught using a radio to block,
cut off, or otherwise endanger another driver. We made this an integral
part of our appeal, so if the appeal was found in our favor based on the
evidence presented, that would be a part of the regulations governing the
proper use of radios in non-capsule boats in the PRO Division. That never
got acted on because as previously stated, the appeal committee found
that the commission went beyond the power they had when they made
the rule to start with. If you want to blame someone, look to the commission.
If they had not mishandled the matter by passing the rule as they did, and
had gotten input from a safety committee, that would have probably been in
the rule to start with. THAT PENALTY WAS ALWAYS A PART OF OUR PROPOSAL TO ALLOW RADIOS IN NON-CAPSULE BOATS IN PRO.


Bill Van Steenwyk

[pro350hydro]

I understand that the Mod and Pro commissions are 2 seperate catagories and are made up of different people taking care of each. But why are radios allowed in MOD, and not it Pro? I have never heard any issues with radios in the MOD catagory? And yes, I have seen MOD racers use radios at APBA events.


I guess I'm just trying to understand that, if Radios are a Safety Issue (not saying they are) wouldn't this apply to all open cockpit classes in APBA regardless of catagory? I could be wrong but, radios are not allowed in stock classes correct???? What's good for one, should be good for the other. Right??

And again, I have never used Radios, however I can see both sides of the stories above. And there are many good ideas. But I still can't figure out where all this is coming from. Maybe I don't have the full story on the happenings. It would be nice if some of our Pro commissioners would chime in and help clear the air for us in the fog.

As far as the helmet restraints restricting view, yes they do (as I wear one EVERY time I get in a boat). But a helmet restraint of some type is safety and it is not required?

Mike Sattler

[David Weaver]

Bill,

Thanks for sharing those thoughts. I believe that your comment regarding neck constraints are right on the money. I do not believe that the straps floppy lose would serve any purpose, but maybe a small amount of play??? Still would not be enough to turn one's head while laying down. I found that I can turn my body to see right and left by raising up on my forearms with a neck turn, but I am not wearing a neck restraint (yet).

I was also in that heat of RB Hydro (if I have the right year that Jack blew over in RB) and I wonder if a radio person could have given you sage advice from shore. It happened so quick. Even sometimes in NASCAR the spotter will only say hold and go straight. But certainly there could have been advice to slow down, which may or may not have made things worse.

First time I have heard several aspects of the great radio protest described. Very interesting. When presented in an objective manner (rather than an impassioned one) it is easier to follow. Perhaps the commission erred in their approach, but I still believe at the end of the day that we have been well served by our commissioners over the many years.

The APBA meeting is only a month away. Get your feedback to your commissioners now or better, attend in person!!

[bill van steenwyk]

More answers

Regards radio use in mod and stock:

Radio use in stock is specifically allowed by rule book. PRO to my knowledge
was the only catagory barred from their use. Which poses the obvious
question: why is equipment mandatory in some APBA catgories banned in
others. Why is a PRO drivers safety less important than someone elses
depending on the type of boat they compete in, even in the same
catagory, i.e. legal in capsules, not in open cockpit. You might be interested
in the commission viewpoint on that. Why don't you ask one of them. I
have, and the reasons given are so much B.S. in my opinion. The APBAsafety committee did not agree, nor did the insurance company. Both came out
for allowing the use of radio's.

To David Weaver:

Just as in the case of knowing how the commission is elected, your knowledge
of the accident I was involved in is lacking. How in the world can you make a
comment like you did that you don't think radio's would have been of any
assistance? You have no idea of the situation, or whether an opportunity
existed to warn me. Following that kind of thinking to it's logical end would
say nobody should boat race because it might be dangerous, or I better not
hook my trailer up to go to the race, because I might have an accident on
the way. One of the problems is your information is all coming from one side
of this discussion. I have offered MANY TIMES to provide any interested
party with all pertinent information about the cir***stances under which
this rule came to be, and the basis of the appeal. To this time, you have
never asked. To be mistaken is human, to be uninformed is dangerous.

[Composite Specialties]

Go Bill!

Well stated Bill, I agree with you 100% on this. I don't know who was the person that first started this mess with getting rid of radios but they sure did create a huge contraversy over something that can only help those that choose to use them. They are just radios, not machine guns mounted on the bow.

[Jim Porter]

Question

[QUOTE=Tim Brinkman] People like you and some other "decision makers" help me get over the fact that I'm done with the PRO division.

Tim

How's the arm? Does this mean that you're not going to be running 125 & 250 in the future? I hope this doesn't mean that you're hanging it up in the pro division as you are a hard runner and a class act! Jim P