Good to see item 4 - VIC item3.
The definition of 'COMPETE' being changed to having a purposeful meaning.
I see this as a direct result from the wrongful exclusions at the Vic Open of which this was one of the many areas that caused the unnecessary confusion and misenterpretations.
Also, and perhaps a delayed reaction, Item 3 - TAS item 11.
Some points;
'J class is a beginner class suiting the budget racer.'
It is also a highly competitive class raced on larger budgets.
'Anecdotal evidence in Tasmania,'
What about actual National facts to base a decision that will effect karting nationally ?
'Set of tyres for the family car.'
Where is the relevance ?
'Longevity and environmental issues.'
If these issues are to be considered, they should be done on a macro level.
The last clause eludes to proper safety and duty of care being taken in sending competition vehicles out to race in wet conditions on slicks.
Am I alone or is this some form of humour ?
The definition of 'COMPETE' being changed to having a purposeful meaning.
I see this as a direct result from the wrongful exclusions at the Vic Open of which this was one of the many areas that caused the unnecessary confusion and misenterpretations.
Also, and perhaps a delayed reaction, Item 3 - TAS item 11.
Some points;
'J class is a beginner class suiting the budget racer.'
It is also a highly competitive class raced on larger budgets.
'Anecdotal evidence in Tasmania,'
What about actual National facts to base a decision that will effect karting nationally ?
'Set of tyres for the family car.'
Where is the relevance ?
'Longevity and environmental issues.'
If these issues are to be considered, they should be done on a macro level.
The last clause eludes to proper safety and duty of care being taken in sending competition vehicles out to race in wet conditions on slicks.
Am I alone or is this some form of humour ?
Comments10
Tom,
One of the reasons wets were brought in was the slicks of the day all had the words "for use in dry conditions only" stamped on them. There was a perceived risk of litigation if we sent karts out onto a wet track with tyres that specifically said DRY conditions only!!!
But the dry tyres of today don't say that anymore so does the problem still exist?
Paul, the problem never did exist. It was purely a money making exercise - still is.
If it was a safety issue, then karts would never have been allowed onto the track on slicks in the wet once the decision to allow for wet tyres had been approved - ever. And if it rained while you were out racing, the race would have been stopped immediately if it were a safety issue.
I recall an occasion at a state championship where it looked set to rain within the next few minutes when my son was on the grid. The grid marshall would not allow anyone to leave their kart on their trolley so that they could change to the wet tyres should it rain before they went out (wets were drivers option at the time - no need to declare the track wet). In the event, the heavens opened - real cloudburst as they opened the gate - the whole field went out on slicks.
Safety or worry about being sued my a r s e!
Terry Sheedy
How about they actually ask the karters and the parents of karters if they actually want to keep wets or will it be like the cameras on kart and now us finding more money for a transponder
Terry,
The decision was always based on potential litigation.
The NKC, when considering allowing/using wet tyres, were actually leaning toward not having them. AON insurance (Jeremy Gray) highlighted to them the potential legal ramifications by not allowing wet tyres to be offered in a wet race, and that swayed the NKC to introduce the wet tyres.....nothing else.
Great to hear I'm not alone !
So, has the AKA changed insurers, or have AON changed underwriters or actuaries.
How can this issue be discussed to such a level when a precedent has already been set (by AON).
John, was this a couple of years ago when the majority of the stewards training school time was spent educating new & existing stewards on insurance risk assessment ?
John Lane said:Terry,The decision was always based on potential litigation.The NKC, when considering allowing/using wet tyres, were actually leaning toward not having them. AON insurance (Jeremy Gray) highlighted to them the potential legal ramifications by not allowing wet tyres to be offered in a wet race, and that swayed the NKC to introduce the wet tyres.....nothing else.
Tom,
Yes we have changed insurers, but I am sure the message would be the same.
A couple of years ago, the AKA (on advice from the insurer and others) made a commitment to have a risk assessment programme in place. To my knowledge it is still unfinished, but you have given me a reminder to chase it up.....
Isn't funny how some things can take years to be brought forward yet others things like banning cameras can be done overnight !
John Lane said:Tom, Yes we have changed insurers, but I am sure the message would be the same.
A couple of years ago, the AKA (on advice from the insurer and others) made a commitment to have a risk assessment programme in place. To my knowledge it is still unfinished, but you have given me a reminder to chase it up.....
John,
I still believe that if slicks in the wet was a safety issue, ALL races would be stopped immediately if the karts were on slicks and it started to rain. And we would not allow anyone on a wet track on slicks either if it was truly a safety issue.
It is either a safety issue, or it is not.
Terry Sheedy
There has to be a difference between ruling that wets can not be used or declaring a meeting wet and allowing the driver a choice - if the driver is not ready (has made the wrong decision) when the gates are opened then that's the driver's bad isnt it?
Yes Ernie.
The decision was not about safety, it was about possible litigation. In your example, the karter is making the call, but he has the option.