The Seabright Motorsport Forum

[B1]

[The Carnographer]

Well, it feels like I've been on holiday to Venus. Yes I have been busy, so haven't been able to keep an interested eye on postings recently.

I must say congratulations to all for a lively discussion.

Name calling and personal flames are not etiquette, but they happen all to often on all forum. Sometimes, actually almost everytime, it is better to sit down over a beverage and thrash out the ideas, so the real issues are pinpointed and agreement or disagreement is clarified. Writing words where the meaning can be taken in different ways, means that they will be, and then a few you didn't realise either.

Anyone want to come over for a scotch?

So here is my take on the debate, (sticking my toe in the water).

MSNZ don't take on liability lightly, if at all. So granting a belt extension is surprising.

What you do in your own car, the belts you use, the helmet you buy, etc, etc is all to do with your own assessment of risk. If you are happy to use "expired" belts in an autocross but not at Manfeild, that is your choice now. Just the same as I decide if I want 4 or 6 point harnesses in the first place. Geoff replaces his often because he is concerned about the wear. That is his choice. MSNZ only ever establish the minimums, you can do what you want above this.

For the levels of competition that the extension applies to, what is the added risk? No I mean really? Will the belt snap in half and provide no restraint?

Before someone comes back to say, it might break, to my last comment, all I ask is where does the logic fall down or become illogical? Do all cars with cages have to have full WRC cages because that is a recognised safety level?

As for liability, I see where the concerns are coming from, however the MSNZ book provides many minimums that you scrutineer to. Some meet recognised standards, some don't. The fact that you worked to the published requirements, means that you are doing your job as scrutineer. To be silly, the wiring of sump plugs was removed some time ago, however a coroner could determine that an accident was caused by the sump plug coming off. Are you liable for a rule that was in years ago, later dropped, and then investigated?

I hope you get my meaning with this. There is marginal consistency between all aspects of the book and any investigating body can find fault
where they want to. The liability already exists, however by following the minimums published in the MSNZ book it is shows a duty of care being exercised.

The vagaries exist in observing what is an acceptable level of wear. That is the biggest problem I see, and will provide the biggest arguments at auditing for events. Bugger the coroner (who is highly unlikely to ever be involved in this discussion), it is dealing with competitors that will be the bane of your life. Your opinion on wear against theirs.

See u for now.

[Geoff]