Rule Change Proposals
- Thread starter yak
- Start date
Back Protectors
Gentlemen, on a more serious note, I'm considering to propose a rule change requiring the use of an auxiliary back protector. What got me thinking about this was a) having benefitted from the use of one, and b) discovering to my surprise, that not everyone who's racing in our club is wearing a back protector. Obviously, having experienced the benefits first hand, and knowing that the outcome would have been much worse had I not been wearing a good back protector(a CE approved protector as below), I really believe that this is a potentially crucial piece of kit for every racer to have on before going out on track. Back protectors built into the typical race suit do not (in my opinion) offer the level of coverage and energy absorption that a separate, good quality protector will. While standards do exist to which some manufacturers adhere, e.g. CE EN1621-2 (european standard), their application is anything but universal, so that raises a problem of how to define the requirement. If a standard is specified, it would limit selection, and for some, would require purchase of a new protector to meet it. On the other hand, if no standard is specified, then how do we decide what's acceptable and what's not. I'm interested in what others thoughts are on this as a proposed rule change. Are you in agreement in principle? What ideas are there around describing, or prescribing requirements? Is it reasonable to set a requirement based on a standard or standards that could require some racers to buy a new protector if theirs doesn't comply?(in my opinion, yes, we're talking in the range of $200 +/-...but I'm interested in yours).
I'm interested in your comments.
Thanks,
Juan
Gentlemen, on a more serious note, I'm considering to propose a rule change requiring the use of an auxiliary back protector. What got me thinking about this was a) having benefitted from the use of one, and b) discovering to my surprise, that not everyone who's racing in our club is wearing a back protector. Obviously, having experienced the benefits first hand, and knowing that the outcome would have been much worse had I not been wearing a good back protector(a CE approved protector as below), I really believe that this is a potentially crucial piece of kit for every racer to have on before going out on track. Back protectors built into the typical race suit do not (in my opinion) offer the level of coverage and energy absorption that a separate, good quality protector will. While standards do exist to which some manufacturers adhere, e.g. CE EN1621-2 (european standard), their application is anything but universal, so that raises a problem of how to define the requirement. If a standard is specified, it would limit selection, and for some, would require purchase of a new protector to meet it. On the other hand, if no standard is specified, then how do we decide what's acceptable and what's not. I'm interested in what others thoughts are on this as a proposed rule change. Are you in agreement in principle? What ideas are there around describing, or prescribing requirements? Is it reasonable to set a requirement based on a standard or standards that could require some racers to buy a new protector if theirs doesn't comply?(in my opinion, yes, we're talking in the range of $200 +/-...but I'm interested in yours).
I'm interested in your comments.
Thanks,
Juan
Back protector ruling
Hey Juan,
Great input on the the idea of making the back protector manditory. The EMRA monitors helmets and the SNELL rating....the back is just as important and putting the rule in place will force everyone to wear it. The chest protector should be included in this. I guess exactly what the rule should state is up to the members to vote on but I am in favour of having them in place......thanks
Rob Guy 20R
Hey Juan,
Great input on the the idea of making the back protector manditory. The EMRA monitors helmets and the SNELL rating....the back is just as important and putting the rule in place will force everyone to wear it. The chest protector should be included in this. I guess exactly what the rule should state is up to the members to vote on but I am in favour of having them in place......thanks
Rob Guy 20R
jetfixer15
Active Member
I actualy always thought a spine/back protector was mandatory and that the back pad that comes in many leather suits was unacceptable. Chapter 4.2 Rider Apparel in the 2009 EMRA rulebook states: "If the suit is not equipped with a back protector, the rider must wear a suitable back protector under the suit." I think a lot of individuals confuse the back pads with the rigid supporting spine/back protectors. The back pads, made mostly of foam with no rigid support, are simply not the same as a purpose made rigid support back protector. Perhaps a clarification of the rule stipulating that back protectors are of the independantly worn style secured to the upper torso, not the style imbedded in the leather suit. A manufacturing standard or approval rating would also clarify the requirement.
Wow, I had no idea that was not mandatory. here is the clothing section from the WMRC rulebook that we use:
Chapter 6 – Riders’ Clothing
6.1 The following apparel or equipment must be worn: all competitors in any WMRC event must wear a full-face helmet with visor. All helmets must be as new, good condition, Snell 2000 or ECE 22-04, ECE 22-05 or BS 6658 or DOT approved. All helmets and gear must pass mandatory technical inspection at the start of each race day.
6.2 No open face, flip-up full face or motocross style helmet allowed.
6.3 Clothing:
1. All clothing must be made of leather and be in good repair. One-piece special purpose racing suits are recommended. Road racing approved Kevlar suits are also allowed.
2. If the leathers are two pieces, the top and bottom must be safely and securely joined together with a full-length zipper.
3. Road racing boots of at least eight (8) inches in ankle height must be worn.
4. Road racing style leather gloves must be worn.
5. No skin should be visible on the rider’s body when that rider has their equipment on and is in racing position, except at the rider’s neck.
6. A hard shell spine protector or back protector pad must be worn under the leathers.
7. All of the rider’s equipment mentioned above must be worn whenever he/she is on the track, including practice, warm-up laps, cool-down laps and any acceleration runs.
8. None of the rider’s clothing may flap at racing speeds.
6.4 All of the rider’s personal equipment must pass tech inspection before the rider can take part in any of a WMRC event. If any of clothing or machinery shows excessive damage, the Chief Technical Inspector has the right to reject that piece of gear from racing use. EXCESSIVE DAMAGE INCLUDES CRACKED OR SCRATCHED HELMETS, LONG RIPS IN VULNERABLE PARTS OF THE LEATHERS, AND PALMS/KNUCKLES TORN OUT OF GLOVES. IN THESE INSTANCES, THE RIDER MUST PROVIDE ACCEPTABLE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT.
If a rider’s equipment shows a small amount of damage, the Chief Technical Inspector may take note of that damage and give that rider one event’s grace to repair and/or replace the damaged item.
If at the next event, the same problem(s) still exist with the rider’s equipment, then the Chief Technical Inspector can refuse to allow that rider to compete until the specified repairs have been made.
Chapter 6 – Riders’ Clothing
6.1 The following apparel or equipment must be worn: all competitors in any WMRC event must wear a full-face helmet with visor. All helmets must be as new, good condition, Snell 2000 or ECE 22-04, ECE 22-05 or BS 6658 or DOT approved. All helmets and gear must pass mandatory technical inspection at the start of each race day.
6.2 No open face, flip-up full face or motocross style helmet allowed.
6.3 Clothing:
1. All clothing must be made of leather and be in good repair. One-piece special purpose racing suits are recommended. Road racing approved Kevlar suits are also allowed.
2. If the leathers are two pieces, the top and bottom must be safely and securely joined together with a full-length zipper.
3. Road racing boots of at least eight (8) inches in ankle height must be worn.
4. Road racing style leather gloves must be worn.
5. No skin should be visible on the rider’s body when that rider has their equipment on and is in racing position, except at the rider’s neck.
6. A hard shell spine protector or back protector pad must be worn under the leathers.
7. All of the rider’s equipment mentioned above must be worn whenever he/she is on the track, including practice, warm-up laps, cool-down laps and any acceleration runs.
8. None of the rider’s clothing may flap at racing speeds.
6.4 All of the rider’s personal equipment must pass tech inspection before the rider can take part in any of a WMRC event. If any of clothing or machinery shows excessive damage, the Chief Technical Inspector has the right to reject that piece of gear from racing use. EXCESSIVE DAMAGE INCLUDES CRACKED OR SCRATCHED HELMETS, LONG RIPS IN VULNERABLE PARTS OF THE LEATHERS, AND PALMS/KNUCKLES TORN OUT OF GLOVES. IN THESE INSTANCES, THE RIDER MUST PROVIDE ACCEPTABLE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT.
If a rider’s equipment shows a small amount of damage, the Chief Technical Inspector may take note of that damage and give that rider one event’s grace to repair and/or replace the damaged item.
If at the next event, the same problem(s) still exist with the rider’s equipment, then the Chief Technical Inspector can refuse to allow that rider to compete until the specified repairs have been made.
YZF1000jon
Well-Known Member
More than a back protector complying with a set standard I would like to see a requirement for coverage of the tailbone included. Some good protectors may not have been subjected to the tests for a safety rating, and some "approved" protectors come in shorty versions that stop at the waistline for street use. I like the idea for chest protectors, but a guy my size is already running out of room in his leathers!!
And they aren't as easy to find as back protectors so far.
And they aren't as easy to find as back protectors so far.YZF1000jon
Well-Known Member
I'd like to see an emergency info sheet required in a racers suit pocket similar to WMRC requirements brought to our attention after Juan returned from BC.
I agree in that a chest protector is a really good thing to wear. I think for this upcoming season, if we can get buy in to mandatory back protectors, that will be a big step. Certainly no reason we can't extend that to include a chest protector if the membership is behind the idea. Thanks Rob !
The way the rule reads, and is generally interpreted, the foam insert protector found in a typical racesuit is acceptable.
If by rigid, you mean hard shell, some of the highest rated protectors in terms of energy absorbtion are the soft type. I think a hard shell would offer greater protection from penetrating injury or impact with sharp edged objects, although this may be more important on the street than the track. There was a good article on this in Bike magazine a few years back...If I can find it I'll link it.
If by rigid, you mean hard shell, some of the highest rated protectors in terms of energy absorbtion are the soft type. I think a hard shell would offer greater protection from penetrating injury or impact with sharp edged objects, although this may be more important on the street than the track. There was a good article on this in Bike magazine a few years back...If I can find it I'll link it.
It's not yet, but I think it should be. I see that WMRC is calling for "a hard shell spine protector or back protector pad". I'm reading that to mean WMRC will not accept a soft type back protector that doesn't have a hard plastic shell on it. Is that the correct interpretation Dean? Thanks !
Agree with the tailbone coverage. It would probably be a bit subjective given the variations in design, and individual torso length etc. Good comment, something we ought to consider in a rule proposal.
Also, I agree with the medical form requirement...another rule change proposal.
Also, I agree with the medical form requirement...another rule change proposal.
More than a back protector complying with a set standard I would like to see a requirement for coverage of the tailbone included. Some good protectors may not have been subjected to the tests for a safety rating, and some "approved" protectors come in shorty versions that stop at the waistline for street use. I like the idea for chest protectors, but a guy my size is already running out of room in his leathers!!
I'd like to see an emergency info sheet required in a racers suit pocket similar to WMRC requirements brought to our attention after Juan returned from BC.
Here's a link I recall reading some years ago, when I bought my first back protector. I ended up buying the Joe Rocket Speedmaster which is actually the T-Pro Forcefield, rebadged.
It's one poster's opinions, but I think he has some good thoughts. There are also, lots of good information links included in the post.
http://www.r6messagenet.com/forums/safety-equipment/1785-back-protectors-testing-ce-standards.html
It's one poster's opinions, but I think he has some good thoughts. There are also, lots of good information links included in the post.
http://www.r6messagenet.com/forums/safety-equipment/1785-back-protectors-testing-ce-standards.html
jetfixer15
Active Member
The medical form on the racers person when on the track is a good idea. When I first got into racing with OMRRA in 93 we had the medical froms in our leather suit innner pockets. WMRRA did the same thing at the time so I'm sure WMRC followed suit. It's a good idea, especially if the person is knocked unconscious, like that ever happens.........oh wait, that was me.
kawasaki
Member
Back Protector
I agree with the emergency form in your leathers pocket. I do think that back protectors should be required to cover from tailbone to neckline area and have hard shell with foam padding. Beyond that specifiying a standard may force a lot of people with servicable back prtectors to buy new ones.(not me though, mine is only from tailbone to mid back and should NOT pass any tech yet WMRC, CMRA and EMRA all pass me, and I am getting a new one.)
Requiring chest protectors may be a bit much although offically reccomended may be a good addition.
Some other really good tech things that I encountered this year that would be good additions to our tech is actually testing the kill switch by running the bike at tech and using the kill switch.
And I was fit tested for my hekmet fitting properly in Calgary.
I agree with the emergency form in your leathers pocket. I do think that back protectors should be required to cover from tailbone to neckline area and have hard shell with foam padding. Beyond that specifiying a standard may force a lot of people with servicable back prtectors to buy new ones.(not me though, mine is only from tailbone to mid back and should NOT pass any tech yet WMRC, CMRA and EMRA all pass me, and I am getting a new one.)
Requiring chest protectors may be a bit much although offically reccomended may be a good addition.
Some other really good tech things that I encountered this year that would be good additions to our tech is actually testing the kill switch by running the bike at tech and using the kill switch.
And I was fit tested for my hekmet fitting properly in Calgary.
YZF1000jon
Well-Known Member
The kill switch thing used to be part of tech in Edmonton and we'll probably be bringing it back next year. Helmet fit is a tough one, we make sure it is in good condition, but leave the fit up to the rider.
Fireman
Well-Known Member
I would really like to see reinforced engine covers mandatory. We have seen small crashes shut down our track for a hour during race day, leaving a unsafe and unpredictable surface for weeks/months afterwards. For a small amount of money you can install covers (or build them )
No, I use a soft (no plastic shell) protector and it certainly passes tech. The intent is that the built-in tiny foam pads that are in most leathers are not acceptable. It must be a separate unit.