Dave - I do actually have an empathy with the drivers situation and after reading the newsletter - content/wording probably a bit not right - spoke with one or two colleagues but the view which I totally agree with is, having discovered potential risk to drivers and several incidents this year - in terms of HSE can you afford not to implement it immediately - When the HSE are prosecuting a promoter or whoever for a forseeable risk, delaying implementation because of workload for drivers will,let me assure you, be no mitigation.

I urge drivers to get behind it rather than view it as big brother - also concur with your BoC comment. In many ways F2 is enjoying a stunning season - drops in car numbers are justifiable in many ways - what we cannot afford is an unnecessarily negative reaction to the change and drivers politically temporarily parking up until 2010 - we need every car.

Drivers well being comes first!

What seemed a thread of doom initially has turned round to one of positives. Hopefully F2's will continue to thrive at all tracks and keep stealing the F1 only crowd.
And another shale track (re ) opening next year, I hope so.
Although still have a concern over the Superstox vs F2 thing.

It's amazing how communication can turn bad into good.

Firstly, regarding the concerns over the loss of F2 at Startrax events, hopefully minds will be put at rest that the Tooz will still feature at BV and hopefully, Owlerton.
I'm a great fan of F2, but others aren't. Much like I read Dean's comments about the Pebels being on the bill in 2010 at the Vue, you can also read fans of the Wuns or Bangers moaning about sharing the bill with Tooz on other forums. It's nothing new, post on Oval Chat and Stoxnet what support formula fans want to see and you'll get very different opinions.
A few years ago, Startrax used to run a Sunday night in July that featured V8's, Tooz, mini's and bangers. It was a great meeting, possibly my favourite, but as Steve will no doubt confirm, the crowd was less than half of that of the F1/F2/Banger meetings. It simply didn't make it pay to keep it going.
As a result, the mini's and V8's, to my memory, haven't been back to the Vue. I spoke to Steve about this at the start of last season and he explained that in order to support the F2 shale scene, he was trying to accommodate them at as many dates as possible, to the detriment of those other forumulas mention above.
We had an inquest about car numbers on the shale scene following the WQR on 31 May at Owlerton. My personal view is that the congestion of dates coupled with what is now a positive feast of shale dates for the hardcore nucleus of f2 drivers has put added presure on this group. What hasn't helped that situation has been the economy. I still believe that those drivers who race shale will increase provided the shale dates can remain stable.
The loss of a couple of dates at the Vue will allow other formulas the chance to race, and will not add to the strain on the current cop of 'shalers'.
Offset against this is Scunny, Coventry and hopefully, Stoke which I'm sure only increase the opportunities to race on the loose stuff.

As for the new rulings, I agree, if you identify a potential danger you need to act. Could you look the wife of a driver who had been seriously injured (or worse) and tell her you knew of the risk but had delayed implememnting safety measures which could have prevented the accident but chose not to, because of the inconvenience to the other drivers?

A very level headed post as usual Wolfy

Thank you Tim. I have a fair amount of sympathy for the drivers and I'm sure 10 or even 5 years ago, the changes identified would have been held back until the end of the season.
However, we live in a different age where H&S is of paramount importance and being aware of a risk and not taking action can lead to individual convictions as the very high profile case with poor old Phil Bond at Incarace showed.
A good example of which I know personally, was a member of staff at a store of a national chain being personally prosecuted for an accident that occured to a customer. The customer slipped on a wet floor. The member of staff was prosectuted for being aware of the situation and not reporting it, or cleaning the floor, or putting up a warning. It wasn't the company but the individual who was seen as the root cause of the accident.
I guess the same would now apply to promoters, personal prosecution for being aware of the possible danager but failing to act.
I feel for the drivers, but if were in a position of control within BriSCA F2, I'd implement the changes now rather than face a fine, or worse, because I let it go until November.

I have been wondering for some time the technical issues with F2's and to be honest 99% are driver caused by looking at ways to exploit and twist and push the boundaries of rules in pursuit of a fraction of a second.

National Hot Rods had this problem and Deane Wood solved the problem with all drivers agreeing to pay £10 each meeting to pay for technical scrutineers.

In F2 the spec is clear and it is down to drivers to present cars / themselves for racing in accordance with the rule book - so why do we need a scrutineer at all other than for random spot checks ????

Perhaps we could have 2/3 scrutineers to undertake more detailed forensic examinations funded by drivers

Now that should open up a debate!

I don't think paying every meeting would be wise but if a added charge on the licence was to be implemented that could help the funding on more staff for jobs like this, have to put it to the drivers at some point