05:29:46pm, Thursday, April 18, 2024
|
Risk Management Chapter 4: yesterday, today and tomorrow
|
.
|
I see posts wanting to roll back time and return to the glory days of pulling, back when pulling was pulling and a superstock had 1500 horsepower. By today’s standards it seemed cheaper and easier to pull at a high level but in reality it wasn’t. Many sold their livelihoods away to run another season. They still broke parts because trial and error was the only way to find the next weak link. Trying to return to a type of full load pulling using today’s technology would result in a lot more breakage. Yesterday the speed wasn’t there and speed is what sells. Today all vehicles involved in pulling are a technological engineering marvel. The sleds are expertly designed to allow a 10000 lb tractor to achieve 30mph track speed weighing 50000 lbs give or take and stop them in 320’. Not an easy task and the responsibility and liability taken on by the sled owners is tremendous. Insurance companies know this. Equally impressive is the pulling vehicle capable of achieving these track speeds and power levels. Technology has touched every single part of today’s pulling vehicles, the tenacity and no limit mentality at all levels of pulling right down to the most limited classes is downright impressive. The entire point of the sport is to push past any and all limits whether it be due to an imposed limitation or going where no one knows what the limit is. Insurance companies know this. Today some classes that merely affects the cost to compete. For others along with the cost to compete comes the growing risk of failure and for some classes that risk starts to become a when and not if it occurs. Insurance companies know this. Reducing class weights has been offered as a solution to horsepower gain. Where is this weight reduction going to come from? The rear end, and they’ll continue to figure out how to use more power. I see posts suggesting power isn’t a factor in speed generated. I suppose if power is limited this could be the case but I guess and not that I’m trying to pick on any class but if you watch a superfarm run 30 down the track and a pro run 30 down the track somebody’s gonna notice the difference. Yesterday in the 80’s or 90’s when limits were breached only those in attendance, subscribed to puller magazine or heard about it from a friend knew that anything ever happened. Those stories are today’s legend with little to no content to be found. Today with the reach of social media within seconds any form of crash, explosion, fire, etc is posted and distributed around the world. The visibility is enormous and far reaching. Insurance companies know this, lawyer’s know how to find this. In today’s sue happy society negligence is getting to be an easier case to win.
Tomorrow is going to require a little forethought to circumvent insurance mandates because they don’t care much for risk on their part. They know that offering a policy incurs them a potential claim risk however they aren’t going to issue policy’s if they believe the policyholder isn’t taking any steps to manage risk. This lands us at the conclusion of what I felt needed to be addressed. I don’t want this sport to suffer or be canceled. I’ve lived and breathed this sport for over 40 years and will continue to do so. Thanks to those who took the time to read what I had to say whether you agree with me or not. |
|
Re: Risk Management Chapter 4: yesterday, today and tomorrow
|
Paull
|
Well written thoughts. In order to make changes, and strides in the right direction of addressing safety concerns, CONCESSIONS need to happen on all sides and issues. And with all the dissenting ideas and widely diverse wants and thoughts, these issues will have to be MANDATED, or we will not agree on much meaningful. Solutions need to be fast, studious, and of necessary consequences so that tomorrow is covered sufficiently, as noted many times, we are not willing to back up hp, speed or technology. |
|
Re: Risk Management Chapter 4: yesterday, today and tomorrow
|
Registered: 02/19/2009 Posts: 526 |
After the last 2 years the word (Mandate) shouldn't be used any more. I am not trying to be an ass , but most of us are tired of it. I understand that things in a reasonable fashion should change, because of safety concerns and the money spent on tractors. The good old days are history we learn from , not go back too. Technology will keep advancing even if limits are inforced . Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2022 07:28AM by David Runkle(earls dream). |
|
Re: Risk Management Chapter 4: yesterday, today and tomorrow
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,445 |
I think when you start mandating billet blocks, component chassis
, etc, then nothing will kill certain classes any faster. Allowing those items in a class is a different story. I believe that the real issue is containing the explosion inside the vehicle. The puller/driver has excepted the risk, the spectators have not. If a puller is willing to destroy their engine then that's their choice, it's not my choice to stop the flying parts. And I know that there is risk in all motorsports however there is a difference between an accident and negligence. If there is a well known potential issue and a solution and the solution is not enacted then there's a case for negligence. Dick Morgan www.PULLOFF.com Independent Pulling News Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2022 07:40AM by Dick Morgan. |
|
Re: Risk Management Chapter 4: yesterday, today and tomorrow
|
I think sometimes you need to step back 3 steps before and step forward one. It is only a matter of time before there is a worse accident. Speed is cool but what about dragging 60000lbs at 30mph and stopping all sudden. What if the pan would drop and little sooner on the track and say a max speed of 25 mph. Most people would not see a 5mph difference. Just saying not sure there is answer. The other thing is the are so many pulling groups and every group has a different set of rules. I think it is time for all groups to get together and get the rules the same as far as safety and try and get classes in line so people could go wherever they want and pull. This can be done but people are going to have to give some and try to do like drag racers have done. Also sprint cars have done a good job on a lot of their rules so guys can run a lot of places! |
|
Re: Why 2000 BHP?
|
Registered: 01/23/2011 Posts: 241 |
Another side of this safety discussion should be to what classes do the proposed requirements apply?
One suggestion was anything over 2000 BHP, how would this be decided? Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2022 11:43PM by Jake Morgan. |
|
Re: Why 2000 BHP?
|
.
|
I chose my number based off of what I’ve seen over the years. However if I was going to put a number on paper I would invite the builders along with the engine assembler/dyno shops, fuel and air providers and the major sanctioning body’s tech divisions to discuss where that threshold should be vs where we are now. Then factor in the future power potential of other classes not quite currently at the benchmark to develop a future plan if necessary to transition these classes as well.
RCP, what is your suggestion? |
|
Re: Why 2000 BHP?
|
.
|
Oh I forgot to add, the alternative will be an insurance mandate |
|
Re: Why 2000 BHP?
|
Registered: 01/23/2011 Posts: 241 |
I do not have a suggestion on how to determine what classes need additional rule restraints or how it should be determined, I was asking the question because I do not know how to make this decision. My background is engine design and failure analysis and I do not see a clear path to making this determination other than historical results. |
|
Re: Why 2000 BHP?
|
.
|
Hence the reason i chose the above list. This should provide the most accurate information available to make a determination. |
|
Re: Why 2000 BHP?
|
1066
|
So I think you have some interesting ideas and you talk about taking some very drastic actions. I understand why you wouldn't want to share your name however would you mind explaining what influence you have in pulling and how you are involved?
For all we know you are just an insurance man trying to limit risk while keeping your prices high |
|
Re: Why 2000 BHP?
|
.
|
Ok, here is my resume. Over the years I have: announced, pulled, promoted, been an officer of a sanctioning body, helped maintain and operate a sled, assembled components using oem, recast and component style parts. Aided in the design of new parts. Currently I do mostly consulting with a few builders and pullers around the country. All of these experiences have been scattered between national, regional, and local levels. At no point ever have I been affiliated with an insurance company. Last and most importantly I have always been a fan.
My goal in this was to let the content of my posts speak for itself thinking that from this content the reader would arrive at the conclusion that a reasonable amount of knowledge and experience on the subject was being conveyed. The intention of which was to bring about ideas and discussion on how to improve/solidify the future of the sport in regards to safety, economic, and durability reasons. I stand to make absolutely nothing more than I make now so financial gain isn't in the equation either. I saw a need to say what i've said so far and I said it no more no less. Hope this helps |
|
Re: Why 2000 BHP?
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 1,521 |
Setting a hp number is never gonna work,never ever !!
This is a motorsport where hp is in a daily state of increase. Classes that currently have 1500 hp will eventually reach the 2000 hp number,that's just how it works. Setting a maximum achievement bar never works in motorsports,history proves that. So come up with another idea ! Eventually open/hot farms will go past 2000 then what ?? |
|
Re: Why 2000 BHP?
|
789
|
Good point, 500 hp can blow also, but not as likely, - help to "MINIMIZE" risk here is key. |
|
Re: Why 2000 BHP?
|
.
|
"Then factor in the future power potential of other classes not quite currently at the benchmark to develop a future plan if necessary to transition these classes as well."
Patches, I think you missed this |
|
Re: Why 2000 BHP?
|
To combine the decision if a measure have to be applied or not strictly to ONE performance number across several different classes, e.g. 1500hp, and above you've to use a recast/billet engine block, seems not a bad idea, but contains one fault. It doesn't take into account the matter of fact which engine we're looking at. For instance, if we're choose an ag or industrial inline 6 diesel with roughly 7L capacity. To yield 1500hp instead of the original 150hp, it's necessary to increase some structural material stress by a quantity of lets say 60-80%. Its only an example that shall act as a reference for the next one. The other example shall be a 4L engine, or with even less capacity. To reach the 1500hp mark it's necessary to push the internal material stresses by a much higher quantity, e.g. by 90-110%.
It's easily imaginable that a particular variable maybe shall be taken into account as a secondarily criteria. And that is perhaps the power/capacity ratio, e.g. [hp/cu.in] or [kW/L] or else. If that comes to the overall equation, ONE strict number for a power level seem no longer applicable. It's just an idea, please correct me if I missed something. BR |
|
Re: Why 2000 BHP?
|
.
|
Excellent post! Currently a prostock develops approximately 6.75 hp/ci, a light pro develops 5.5 hp/ci, a 4.1 limited pro develops around 4.25 hp/ci. A 510hf is around 3.25 and a superfarm is approximately 2.65 hp/ci. Currently as far as block use in single charger diesel classes the pro’s and 4.1’s are the main users of recast/aftermarket market blocks. This should give a little insight into where we are |
|
Re: Risk Management Chapter 4: yesterday, today and tomorrow
|
pulling fan
|
Since it takes fuel and air to make hp, then just make a limit one the turbo side. 1. Diesel classes with unlimited rpm's up to 3.8 on the intake side will allow aftermarket blocks. 2. Diesel classes with unlimited rpm's 3.8 to 4.8, allow billet blocks and option to run component chassis. 3. Diesel classes 4.8 and up billet blocks and component chassis. These are for single charger classes. |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,573, Posts: 229,600, Members: 3,319.
This forum: Topics: 37,057, Posts: 225,854.
Global: Topics: 38,573, Posts: 229,600, Members: 3,319.
This forum: Topics: 37,057, Posts: 225,854.
Our newest member BadHabit2
