I wasn't aware that our sup regs differed from the NCR's (should re-read them!) The question is why?  I think we should be following the NCR's as closely as possible unless we have a very good reason.  I don't think this is one of them.  The NCR's provide the specification for brackets which should be met by competitors.  Our requirement makes this confusing and unclear.  We should change it back to the NCR's.  We take a risk every time we vary from the NCR's as they represent the accepted risk management practices accepted by the insurers.

If a "metal bracket" (meeting our requirement) were to fail that didn't meet the NCR's spec then we have to justify why this is so.  Can anybody give me a good reason as to why we vary from the NCR's??

I will suggest to the committee that we review the sup regs to identify any variance from the NCR's and if there is a variance to justify why we vary.

Yes - maybe this is a catalyst to have a look at the standing regs and check them against the NCR's - will suggest to committee and get it assigned.

aaah yes, but they were tasty citroens - all the more reason that the scruts shoulda found em and eaten em instead of doing such a half arsed inspection...


 

they probably thought they were FIA approved fruit..

There is no need to change our supp regs as the clubs requirement to have only metal brackets is in addition to compling with all requirments of Schedule H of the NCR's, this means we are exceeding the CAMS requirment. With regard to weather a bracket meets the CAMS 25G load rating (your extingiushers wieght is 23KG at 25G), since no other information is give by CAMS as to how this is applied you have to take it as a load from any direction for any length of time. Since most of use don't have a suitible crash test lab to tryout our brackets just buy a Extingsher that has CAMS approved  on the packageing then bolt it down with at least 2 X 6mm grade 8 bolts and nuts with 25mm dia flat washers under the floor them spring washers under the nuts or better still self locking nuts, this is what we used to do at Perkins Engineering before the touring cars went away from 900g fire extinguishers. If this ever comes away from the floor the  extinguisher will be the least of your worries. From a scruting piont of view while the scrutineers may reject a bracket or its mounting the ownus is on the presenter of the car to ensure it is safe and complies with all the requirements set out by CAMS not the scrutineer, having said that a scutineer should always reject anything he belives to be dangerous or does not compliy with the regs. We all need to remember that the Victorian OH&S ACT applies at any event we run. so we all must take care to not place any person at risk from anything that could have been forseen, failure to complie with the ACT carries up to a $125,000 fine for individuals and any wavers signed at meetings do not protect you from this ACT only civil actions. So the next time a Scrutineer gives you a hard time about something remember it just might be his house thats on the line if he lets it by.

Teruo AASA have there own NCR's we must compliy with these, AASA's NCR's are much more blunt about the ownus of the enterant to present the a car in a safe manner thay even have it in bold capital type. you can find these on AASA website. We need to ensure the clubs supp reg reflect which ever is the higher standard for safty of cars, CAMS or AASA as a court would most likely appliy the higher of the two as the mimimum standard, but AASA standards most likely mirror CAMS any way but we should at least look at that.

I just don't want to see us varying from the NCR's - if the regs say in addition to Schedule H then maybe however I am not sure whether the message is clear enough.  I think more importantly it should clearly spell out that brackets should be a CAMS approved type.  For instance Revo have always sold a 25g bracket.  We just don't want to send the message that if it's metal its ok.  I would rather a 25g CAMS approved plastic bracket (if such a thinh exists) than a household extinguisher metal bracket.  I haven't gone and had a read of the regs in the last couple of days but I will.  Maybe we should be providing a guideance note on how to meet the regs similar to what you have just provided in your post?  This could be done for extinguishers, bonnet catches, harnesses - the major source of pain for our events.

Still it wouldn't hurt to have a look at the regs again to ensure clarity and consistancy with the NCR's.  In this increasingly risk averse environment the better the guidance the better.

Also while OHS/Workcover considerations are becoming increasingly topical/relevant they do not apply in all circumstances.  The "workplace" applies to the safety of employees and volunteers - not competitors.  It would be a stretch for a scrutineer to be fined under the workcover act in relation to competitor safety. 

As for the AASA their policies do put the onus back on the competitor to present the car in a "safe condition".   AASA NCR's only specify a couple of safety items (harnesses and helmets for racing) that's it!  They do not provide a comperable Schedule A or B for example.  -  So what constitutes safe?  It means presenting a car which meets reasonable and comparable safety standards for the intended purpose.  Presenting a car which meets the standards of the the major Motorsport regulator (ie CAMS) would be deemed "safe".  They would have trouble disputing a claim where a car met what is recognised to be "better practice"  ie meets CAMS regs.  It has yet to be tested but the underwriters are the same as CAMS and the intent of AASA was that if you met CAMS regs you met AASA although they couldn't come out and say that.

For CAMS events - our regs should follow CAMS NCR's to letter - we are not in a position to know what exceeds the CAMS specs in any case.  At AASA meetings we should use the same standard (excepting where the AASA standard is different, however that is not the case anyway) as CAMS events. 

Our best protection is to stick to the NCR's and not vary at all as these represent the standard by which the underwriters of CAMS insurance policies have accepted the risk.  We do not have the expertise to vary these specs even if we think we are exceeding the minimum standard and we do not want to be put in the position of having to justify why we varied from the standard.

If we are having any difficulty with any particular area at scrutineering or with an interpretation of the NCR's let me know and I will take it up/get clarification with State Council/Speed Events Panel/Peter Lawrence as applicable.

Lastly, this forum is great - these are conversations which may otherwise not have taken place - so good one Evan on the web site and the forums - fantastic for opening up communication!!