R
RICK HAYNES
Guest
Yes, here we go again. This is an old subject that's going to be boring for some people while others probably didn't even know these events took place. Nevertheless, it's an issue that's important to me and I would still like to see it resolved. Most of the information you need to know will be apparent if you read the two following letters. The first is an email I posted in 2004 in response to some misinformation (lies) that were being spread by the former director Brian Holtz. It's pretty self-explanatory, but a little background.
Back in the '90s, there were a lot of people involved in SCCA's proposed changes to the roll bar rule, a rule that I think had served the club well for 30 years. Certain people within the club decided that it needed to be changed. It's generally accepted that this was in response to the Comp Board's dislike for Dean Johnson's roll bar (which was perfectly legal at the time) in his F-Production Spitfire. So they decided to revamp all the roll bar rules to their liking. This led to 10 years plus of controversy which eliminated some production cars from competing and other drivers quitting because they didn't want to change their cars. Interestingly enough, one of the long term effects of this was smaller production car fields and ultimately class consolidation which has brought us to many of the problems we have now with too many cars of too many varying engine sizes trying to race against each other in too few classes. This truly was the beginning of all these problems. Unfortunately, changing the roll bar rule is not going to roll back the clock and correct all those problems, but one thing at a time, and back to the roll bar.
As you can see from the second letter, written to Lisa Noble and distributed to all the directors, I still would like to see the rule changed back to the way it was in the 1980s for these reasons. I think the current SCCA design is unsafe. I think it every time I sit in my SCCA car. A great many drivers in all types of racing have been injured and killed impacting their own roll cages. It's usually in a forward direction as a result of a frontal impact. Example: Dale Earnhardt, Neil Bonnet, Clifford Allison, Adam Petty, and I also have a list of SCCA production drivers (that I'll be happy to supply if anyone is interested) who have been injured in a similar way. The original reason for the forward facing bars given by the Comp Board was to protect drivers against cockpit intrusion. Despite repeatedly asking anyone and everyone at SCCA to supply the name of anyone who has been injured as a result of cockpit intrusion, there have been no examples given. There might very well be; I just don't know of any but I'm sure the number is but a small percentage of the number of drivers who have been injured impacting their own roll cages. I'm not against roll cages. I go to great lengths to build what I think is a very safe cage for all my cars.
Prior to the changes in the 1990s, drivers were allowed to design their own cages within certain general parameters. If they wished to deviate from the SCCA "recommended" design, they could submit their design with an engineering report showing it satisfied the three load criteria requirements as listed in the GCR/PCS. This seemed reasonable and worked well. It allowed me to run a design I was comfortable with and others who preferred a different cage to run their preference. I might note that the current required SCCA design will not meet the load criteria SCCA required up to the rule change in the 1990s. Ironic, isn't it? It's also odd that other classes, sports racers as an example, are still allowed to design and build their own cages, an opportunity denied production car racers; I wonder why that is. Despite numerous requests to SCCA, this has never been explained.
The letter submitted to Lisa Noble last summer is one in a long line of letters sent to SCCA presidents, directors, risk management attorneys (Pete Lyons), and others at SCCA along with phone calls and personal meetings with some of the same people. So this is nothing new to anybody. In fact, I talked to Lisa about this right after she became director many years ago. This letter is just my latest attempt. I was told when this letter was brought up during one of the director's meetings last fall that Lisa referred to me unflatteringly and said there was nothing to be concerned about. Strikes me as an unprofessional way to treat a concern of an SCCA member and an extremely cavalier attitude for the president of a company that has been successfully sued as many times as SCCA. Keep in mind, the judgments in these cases have all been kept confidential to avoid SCCA members knowing about the financial loss and the incredibly incompetent way that loss management has been handled in SCCA for the last 25 years.
This roll bar issue is a simple one. Reinstate the rule that was in the GCR for 30 plus years and allow people the freedom to build roll cages that are safe and drivers can feel comfortable in. Too much to ask? It has been for 20 plus years. I can feel the yawns out there about this subject; probably not much interest. But if it resonates with anyone, please mention it in type or in person to your director and the Comp Board. Who knows? This might have a small side effect of getting some of the older production cars with roll cages that do not presently meet the rules back on the race track and even provide some crossover entries from vintage organizations whose roll bar rules are much more reasonable.
letter from 2004.
Dear Members,
I don’t make a practice of reading the H-Production website often, but I heard the disappointing news that area 2 director Brian Holtz is continuing to lie about the engineering analysis done on the SCCA roll bar design.
I’m here to set the record straight. But first a little history.
In the mid 90’s certain members of SCCA comp board Peter Quenet and Brian Holtz among them took it upon themselves to start pushing for new roll bar specifications. A lot of people were against it, I among them.
So in response, one of the things we did was to push them into submitting their preferred design to a technical analysis of the type required of members to have roll bars approved. This they did. It was done by ALTAIR Engineering in Troy, MI. (I have the report). At the runoffs that year (1997), we were told that the report would be made available to the members. It wasn’t.
We were told that it was now being treated as an internal working document. And I was told by Brian Holtz, who was on the Comp Board, George Bovis and Chuck Shapiro, who were both directors at the time, that there was nothing in the report that needs concern us and that there was nothing to hide.
The first thing you learn about people who say they have nothing to hide is that they have something to hide. And they did. The report clearly shows that the SCCA roll bar submitted for analysis failed two of the three design criteria (Vertical Crush and Horizontal Crush). Some of the quotes from that were report were, “These loads are below the SCCA specification of 7.5g. It is about this displacement that the rear hoop begins to buckle above the main hoop support braces.” … “This peak is below the minimum requirement of 5.5g (61165kN) as specified in the GCR.”
I also have an internal document written by Jim Leithauser that was sent to the BOD and the Comp Board discussing the problem so this shows they were all aware of it and continued to lie about it until Pete Hilton became director and true to his word, gave me the documents. Which I basically forced him into doing by running for director also and getting him to publicly declare that if he was elected, he would release the information.
I think Chuck Shapiro lost his job over this issue, he finished 3rd in the election with me 2nd. (I’m glad I didn’t win; the last thing I wanted was to be a director).
Now you might ask yourself why a current director would continue to lie about this putting the club into a potentially liable situation. I’m not sure, but I will speculate. I think it might just be pride. You see, Brian and others, championed this design and when it came back a failure, they just didn’t want anybody to know. Especially since in their hands at that time was an engineering study that I had had done years before on the roll bar design that I preferred and believed safer. (I still do). It had passed all three criteria with flying colors. And it was an embarrassment to them to have to admit this. It doesn’t seem to matter to them the irony that if any member had submitted the engineering study that they got from ALTAIR it would have been rejected as unsuitable. And still the basic design ended up in the GCR and they continue to push for it today.
It’s a mystery to me. I can only assume that some people that aspire to positions such as director don’t feel they are doing their job unless they are cramming their point of view down someone else’s throat.
If anyone wants copies of any of these documents, call me at 614-231-7194 or email me at: rickhaynes3@yahoo.com.
letter June 2014
Rick Haynes
352 National Rd. SE
Hebron, OH 43025
To: Lisa Noble at SCCA
Ms Noble:
My name is Rick Haynes. We talked a number of years ago right after you became a director. I called you one evening to discuss my concerns about the SCCA roll bar design that is required on SCCA production cars. I made it a practice back then to call all the new directors to let them know the problems with SCCA requiring a roll bar design that had documented deficiencies. We had a very cordial conversation, I said I would send you some information for you to look at, and call you back in a month to discuss the issue. Not surprisingly, you never answered the phone when I called again, nor did you return any of my calls. SCCA directors have been scared to death of this for years, and they hate talking to me about it especially after having a conversation with SCCA's risk management attorney at that time, Pete Lyons. Up until the last few years, I talked to every SCCA official and director that I thought might be able to correct this problem. I don't need to go into all the details here as I am including a note that I put on a website some years back refuting some, as typical, false claims by Brian Holtz. I think if you have time to read it, it will refresh your memory. I'm now again a member of SCCA and may be running my car once again. So I am once again faced with the situation of using a roll bar that I believe is unsafe because of requirements of SCCA. I don't expect a change at this time, but I do periodically want to make clear to SCCA and their directors that over the past 20 years I have amassed a great deal of evidence that shows clearly SCCA as a corporation, and many of the directors are aware of the deficiencies in the design they require the production cars to use. As I've stated in the past, if there is an accident that results in the injury of an SCCA driver that can be attributed to the deficiencies in the roll bar design, I will assist in any way I can to help that individual or their heirs sue SCCA corporation and SCCA directors individually for criminal negligence in this manner, criminal negligence being defined as prior knowledge and allowing a dangerous situation to continue. In the many years I have pursued this, I've consulted with a number of attorneys and the general consensus is that a very strong case could be made that SCCA and certain directors were aware of the problem and allowed it to persist. If you have any doubts about this, I suggest you call Pete Lyons. I have made the effort a number of times to meet with Pete personally to get his point of view, and he has absolutely refused to talk with me about it. Pete is scared to death of this subject. He knows the evidence that would be presented at any legal proceedings and I am convinced he wants nothing to do with defending against it. If you have any doubt about this, please feel free to call Erik Skirmants. I'm quite sure he will confirm my efforts with regards to Pete. If you have any questions or would like me to supply you with any of the information I have, including a list of drivers that have been injured, it all is documented on SCCA letterhead, feel free to contact me and I will be happy to send copies. Also, I have supplied all relevant copies to Steve Harris since he was elected.
One thing is sure: in racing, people get hurt. And I think inevitably, as in the past, someone will be injured in a production car and there is a very high likelihood that his injuries will be compounded by the deficiencies in the SCCA mandated roll bar design. Legally and practically, this problem can be solved for SCCA and I don't understand why SCCA has not addressed it properly. This letter will serve as legal notice in this matter.
Thank you for your time.
Back in the '90s, there were a lot of people involved in SCCA's proposed changes to the roll bar rule, a rule that I think had served the club well for 30 years. Certain people within the club decided that it needed to be changed. It's generally accepted that this was in response to the Comp Board's dislike for Dean Johnson's roll bar (which was perfectly legal at the time) in his F-Production Spitfire. So they decided to revamp all the roll bar rules to their liking. This led to 10 years plus of controversy which eliminated some production cars from competing and other drivers quitting because they didn't want to change their cars. Interestingly enough, one of the long term effects of this was smaller production car fields and ultimately class consolidation which has brought us to many of the problems we have now with too many cars of too many varying engine sizes trying to race against each other in too few classes. This truly was the beginning of all these problems. Unfortunately, changing the roll bar rule is not going to roll back the clock and correct all those problems, but one thing at a time, and back to the roll bar.
As you can see from the second letter, written to Lisa Noble and distributed to all the directors, I still would like to see the rule changed back to the way it was in the 1980s for these reasons. I think the current SCCA design is unsafe. I think it every time I sit in my SCCA car. A great many drivers in all types of racing have been injured and killed impacting their own roll cages. It's usually in a forward direction as a result of a frontal impact. Example: Dale Earnhardt, Neil Bonnet, Clifford Allison, Adam Petty, and I also have a list of SCCA production drivers (that I'll be happy to supply if anyone is interested) who have been injured in a similar way. The original reason for the forward facing bars given by the Comp Board was to protect drivers against cockpit intrusion. Despite repeatedly asking anyone and everyone at SCCA to supply the name of anyone who has been injured as a result of cockpit intrusion, there have been no examples given. There might very well be; I just don't know of any but I'm sure the number is but a small percentage of the number of drivers who have been injured impacting their own roll cages. I'm not against roll cages. I go to great lengths to build what I think is a very safe cage for all my cars.
Prior to the changes in the 1990s, drivers were allowed to design their own cages within certain general parameters. If they wished to deviate from the SCCA "recommended" design, they could submit their design with an engineering report showing it satisfied the three load criteria requirements as listed in the GCR/PCS. This seemed reasonable and worked well. It allowed me to run a design I was comfortable with and others who preferred a different cage to run their preference. I might note that the current required SCCA design will not meet the load criteria SCCA required up to the rule change in the 1990s. Ironic, isn't it? It's also odd that other classes, sports racers as an example, are still allowed to design and build their own cages, an opportunity denied production car racers; I wonder why that is. Despite numerous requests to SCCA, this has never been explained.
The letter submitted to Lisa Noble last summer is one in a long line of letters sent to SCCA presidents, directors, risk management attorneys (Pete Lyons), and others at SCCA along with phone calls and personal meetings with some of the same people. So this is nothing new to anybody. In fact, I talked to Lisa about this right after she became director many years ago. This letter is just my latest attempt. I was told when this letter was brought up during one of the director's meetings last fall that Lisa referred to me unflatteringly and said there was nothing to be concerned about. Strikes me as an unprofessional way to treat a concern of an SCCA member and an extremely cavalier attitude for the president of a company that has been successfully sued as many times as SCCA. Keep in mind, the judgments in these cases have all been kept confidential to avoid SCCA members knowing about the financial loss and the incredibly incompetent way that loss management has been handled in SCCA for the last 25 years.
This roll bar issue is a simple one. Reinstate the rule that was in the GCR for 30 plus years and allow people the freedom to build roll cages that are safe and drivers can feel comfortable in. Too much to ask? It has been for 20 plus years. I can feel the yawns out there about this subject; probably not much interest. But if it resonates with anyone, please mention it in type or in person to your director and the Comp Board. Who knows? This might have a small side effect of getting some of the older production cars with roll cages that do not presently meet the rules back on the race track and even provide some crossover entries from vintage organizations whose roll bar rules are much more reasonable.
letter from 2004.
Dear Members,
I don’t make a practice of reading the H-Production website often, but I heard the disappointing news that area 2 director Brian Holtz is continuing to lie about the engineering analysis done on the SCCA roll bar design.
I’m here to set the record straight. But first a little history.
In the mid 90’s certain members of SCCA comp board Peter Quenet and Brian Holtz among them took it upon themselves to start pushing for new roll bar specifications. A lot of people were against it, I among them.
So in response, one of the things we did was to push them into submitting their preferred design to a technical analysis of the type required of members to have roll bars approved. This they did. It was done by ALTAIR Engineering in Troy, MI. (I have the report). At the runoffs that year (1997), we were told that the report would be made available to the members. It wasn’t.
We were told that it was now being treated as an internal working document. And I was told by Brian Holtz, who was on the Comp Board, George Bovis and Chuck Shapiro, who were both directors at the time, that there was nothing in the report that needs concern us and that there was nothing to hide.
The first thing you learn about people who say they have nothing to hide is that they have something to hide. And they did. The report clearly shows that the SCCA roll bar submitted for analysis failed two of the three design criteria (Vertical Crush and Horizontal Crush). Some of the quotes from that were report were, “These loads are below the SCCA specification of 7.5g. It is about this displacement that the rear hoop begins to buckle above the main hoop support braces.” … “This peak is below the minimum requirement of 5.5g (61165kN) as specified in the GCR.”
I also have an internal document written by Jim Leithauser that was sent to the BOD and the Comp Board discussing the problem so this shows they were all aware of it and continued to lie about it until Pete Hilton became director and true to his word, gave me the documents. Which I basically forced him into doing by running for director also and getting him to publicly declare that if he was elected, he would release the information.
I think Chuck Shapiro lost his job over this issue, he finished 3rd in the election with me 2nd. (I’m glad I didn’t win; the last thing I wanted was to be a director).
Now you might ask yourself why a current director would continue to lie about this putting the club into a potentially liable situation. I’m not sure, but I will speculate. I think it might just be pride. You see, Brian and others, championed this design and when it came back a failure, they just didn’t want anybody to know. Especially since in their hands at that time was an engineering study that I had had done years before on the roll bar design that I preferred and believed safer. (I still do). It had passed all three criteria with flying colors. And it was an embarrassment to them to have to admit this. It doesn’t seem to matter to them the irony that if any member had submitted the engineering study that they got from ALTAIR it would have been rejected as unsuitable. And still the basic design ended up in the GCR and they continue to push for it today.
It’s a mystery to me. I can only assume that some people that aspire to positions such as director don’t feel they are doing their job unless they are cramming their point of view down someone else’s throat.
If anyone wants copies of any of these documents, call me at 614-231-7194 or email me at: rickhaynes3@yahoo.com.
letter June 2014
Rick Haynes
352 National Rd. SE
Hebron, OH 43025
To: Lisa Noble at SCCA
Ms Noble:
My name is Rick Haynes. We talked a number of years ago right after you became a director. I called you one evening to discuss my concerns about the SCCA roll bar design that is required on SCCA production cars. I made it a practice back then to call all the new directors to let them know the problems with SCCA requiring a roll bar design that had documented deficiencies. We had a very cordial conversation, I said I would send you some information for you to look at, and call you back in a month to discuss the issue. Not surprisingly, you never answered the phone when I called again, nor did you return any of my calls. SCCA directors have been scared to death of this for years, and they hate talking to me about it especially after having a conversation with SCCA's risk management attorney at that time, Pete Lyons. Up until the last few years, I talked to every SCCA official and director that I thought might be able to correct this problem. I don't need to go into all the details here as I am including a note that I put on a website some years back refuting some, as typical, false claims by Brian Holtz. I think if you have time to read it, it will refresh your memory. I'm now again a member of SCCA and may be running my car once again. So I am once again faced with the situation of using a roll bar that I believe is unsafe because of requirements of SCCA. I don't expect a change at this time, but I do periodically want to make clear to SCCA and their directors that over the past 20 years I have amassed a great deal of evidence that shows clearly SCCA as a corporation, and many of the directors are aware of the deficiencies in the design they require the production cars to use. As I've stated in the past, if there is an accident that results in the injury of an SCCA driver that can be attributed to the deficiencies in the roll bar design, I will assist in any way I can to help that individual or their heirs sue SCCA corporation and SCCA directors individually for criminal negligence in this manner, criminal negligence being defined as prior knowledge and allowing a dangerous situation to continue. In the many years I have pursued this, I've consulted with a number of attorneys and the general consensus is that a very strong case could be made that SCCA and certain directors were aware of the problem and allowed it to persist. If you have any doubts about this, I suggest you call Pete Lyons. I have made the effort a number of times to meet with Pete personally to get his point of view, and he has absolutely refused to talk with me about it. Pete is scared to death of this subject. He knows the evidence that would be presented at any legal proceedings and I am convinced he wants nothing to do with defending against it. If you have any doubt about this, please feel free to call Erik Skirmants. I'm quite sure he will confirm my efforts with regards to Pete. If you have any questions or would like me to supply you with any of the information I have, including a list of drivers that have been injured, it all is documented on SCCA letterhead, feel free to contact me and I will be happy to send copies. Also, I have supplied all relevant copies to Steve Harris since he was elected.
One thing is sure: in racing, people get hurt. And I think inevitably, as in the past, someone will be injured in a production car and there is a very high likelihood that his injuries will be compounded by the deficiencies in the SCCA mandated roll bar design. Legally and practically, this problem can be solved for SCCA and I don't understand why SCCA has not addressed it properly. This letter will serve as legal notice in this matter.
Thank you for your time.
