So where's the March FasTrack?

-Again, I'm going to have to continue to wait to buy a H&N restraint system (stupid, I know). I want an Isaac, but I don't want to spend that much money on something for it to be found illegal less than a year later. So I guess I'll continue to wait.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Kevin, do I think your stupid? I think NOT. In WW2 the chances of being killed or wounded was 16:1 in Korea & Vietnam it went up to 17:1 the 1st Gulf it went to 500:1 and the 2nd is 750:1. Unless you drive GT World Challange or up, I wouldn't worry my little head off about it. IMO.
dj
 
Are enough people including those Friday and Saturday night racers wearing ANY head restraint device for the statistics to start changing yet? [/b]
Click to expand...

I did a season on a small circle track. Not once did they inspect any of the safety equipment. And it wasn't like I was in the mini stock class. Never checked my helmet, belts or inspected the cage. It was crazy!! Even after major crashes there was no inspections or documentation.
 
Antonio,

The summary article, written in 2000 or 2001 IIRC, is archived at the newspaper's web site. You must purchase access to it. We have a hardcopy somewhere, but the numbers you mention sound about right.

The most recent article is here, but only mentions the 2005 data in passing. Someone, somewhere has assembled a database of the Observer's data and posted it online. Unfortunately, the bookmark has been lost on our end and the search engines aren't being very helpful. Perhaps the site is down.

Road racers are less than 10% of racers by headcount, and most of the injuries are found on oval tracks where safety does not rank high on the priority list.

The SCCA's issue is that the problem doesn't go away in road racing, and the numbers stay fairly consistent: ~20 deaths per year X half of fatal injuries are H&N injuries = 10 H&N fatalities/year. The statistics imply that a road racer is going to suffer one of these injuries every year (I can think of two in the past four months), and I'm sure the Club is not eager to go to court every year and tell a jury that H&N restraints are unproven and too expensive.

And that gets to the practical problem. In order to protect from frontal and side impacts to the level seen in pro racing a driver is going to need to drop ~$1K on a H&N restraint and ~$1-$2K on a seat if an "SFI certified" H&N restraint is mandated. If you tell budget racers they must spend $2-$3K on safety gear so one life can be saved you will start a stampede out the door. This isn't a simple decision for the club.

On the other hand, if we get the thumbs up from Topeka to demonstrate performance and skip the SFI sticker, we'll test the $295 Link model at Delphi. If it works--and we are 90% confident it will--the driver will then have a choice: $3,000 or $300.
 
I did a season on a small circle track. Not once did they inspect any of the safety equipment. And it wasn't like I was in the mini stock class. Never checked my helmet, belts or inspected the cage. It was crazy!! Even after major crashes there was no inspections or documentation.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Why does this surprise you Jeff? Go race Pro, for inspection they walk by the car and put a tech sticker on it and walk away without looking at anything. This is the way it should be. If your stupid enought to go out on the track without proper safe car or equipment, do it. That's why you sign a waiver and they make rules. If you die maybe it GODS way of shrugging his/ or Hers shoulders and saying "natural selection". The choise is ours to make. I just suggest you choose wisely.
 
Having crewed for a friend who ran an asphalt short-track car, I'm amazed at the lack of safety equipment. I saw more than one guy running in single-layer suits w/ nothing but a Hanes T-shirt and a pair of skivies underneath. I've seen guys running in 2-piece pro-ban cotton drag racing suits. I've seen guys wearing sneakers when they drive. Hell, I've even seen guys running moto-cross helmets! Tech inspection? Yeah, right! There were no tech stickers, no log book, no nothing! The top-5 got run across the scales after the race. Another friend ran a dirt Modified. Again, same deal, safety equipment was all over the map, and tech was non-existent. They would check your car before you went out on the track to make sure you had at least 8# of air in your Right Rear tire. Other than that, it was across the scales at the end of the race. End of story.

The whole SFI mandate smacks of colusion w/ certain mfgs.
 
I came across an article once that mentioned there is no requirement to even wear a helmet in the NASCAR rules, which flows down to the Friday night dirts so it isn't all that surprising what you see there. The only reason they care at all in Craftsman, Busch and Nextel is because the drivers are like wrestlers they are part of the product and to be protected.

The only reason NASCAR cared about having 38.1 issued was because they wanted everyone wearing HANS but had no way to force it on drivers who couldn't stand HANS without the existence of the standard.

If the SCCA cared about more than a day in court they would have been more proactive in the development of 38.1 originally and consideration in adopting it now.
 
If the SCCA cared about more than a day in court they would have been more proactive in the development of 38.1 originally and consideration in adopting it now.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Ed, nascar goes 180 to 200 mph, running into each other like a demolition derby with cement barriers around the track. How fast do you go in your ITA car? If you want to wear a hans or a girdle for that matter, do it. Just don't tell me what I have to wear around my neck.
 
NASCAR is pretty funny. They blow their horns loudly about "safety" and yet they looked the other way dozens of times when Mr Earnhardt told them he would hook up and wear his straps HIS way...okie dokie Dale, can't piss off the major gate attraction...

And just this year a headline touted "New NASCAR safety standards"....and the article went on to detail the forward thinking sanctioning bodies unheard of concept of actually inspecting harnesses for proper dating and installation.

What will they think of next???

Does SCCA care? Not really....well, not about me at least, but they do care about defending legal attacks. It is hard to understand how anyone can defend the words that some grid worker may have to utter: "If you want to race, you must take off that well tested and designed device that could save your life or limit injury"

Sorry, but this is a case of less being ......less.
 
... If you want to wear a hans or a girdle for that matter, do it. Just don't tell me what I have to wear around my neck.[/b]
Click to expand...
If I thought that your demise wouldn't affect my sport at all, I'd totally support your Darwinizing yourself.

No helmet on a motorcycle? Cool - as long as I'm not subsidizing the longterm care made necessary by that pesky vegatative state. Problem is, we racers get invited to indemnification festival rules-making situations precisely because those of us willing to take advantage of technology that physics says will protect us, get risk-pooled with people who stopped thinking critically about their mortality at age 16.

It's not fair and it pisses me off that 38.1 gets jammed down my throat because of this kind of attitude.

K
 
And that gets to the practical problem. In order to protect from frontal and side impacts to the level seen in pro racing a driver is going to need to drop ~$1K on a H&N restraint and ~$1-$2K on a seat if an "SFI certified" H&N restraint is mandated. If you tell budget racers they must spend $2-$3K on safety gear so one life can be saved you will start a stampede out the door. This isn't a simple decision for the club.

On the other hand, if we get the thumbs up from Topeka to demonstrate performance and skip the SFI sticker, we'll test the $295 Link model at Delphi. If it works--and we are 90% confident it will--the driver will then have a choice: $3,000 or $300.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I don't get how 38.1 translates into a $1-2k seat.
 
I do not believe that within SCCA club racing (or NASA for that matter) it should be a requirement to wear a head and neck restraint. If I choose not to wear one, that's my choice. Currently I do not. Will I in the future? Probably. Do I believe people should at least look into it? Most certainly yes.

Racing injury and death statistics can be manipulated to prove each viewpoint. (I've done a lot of research lately on this topic.) Take for instance a person that dies on a track while racing. What the stastic doesn't tell you is that person died of a heart attach before any on-track incident. But from the multiple sources I've spoken to, that would count towards the death rate. There are many other similar examples of this.

There is a lot of interesting stuff out there; some of the info. really surprised me as to other sports that are considered to be more dangerous than W2W racing by the National Safety Council. Hey Jake G. - do any swimming lately? :unsure:

Gregg, if the time comes that you feel we need to speak up a bit more about this new proposed rule, let us know. It is just stupid that someone using one of these proven products would not be allowed to while someone who elects to wear nothing can. It just doesn't make sense. The positive news is that I'm sure your product will get a lot of publicty out of this whole thing. :D
 
Agreed - sorry, Gregg, but I thought it's been well-established that what's actually the most cost-effective is the center net, not the badash seat. The seat (a heavily buttressed one like the Butler designs) has a very limited scope of effectiveness, like the HANS, and in fact pretty much requires the use of a center net to not be a hazard to the driver in other than pure lateral hits.

That's why I put in a center net (2 years ago, IIRC) and stopped sweating about my seat selection.
 
We suspect this issue of the driver sliding out from under the belts in a lateral impact will get much more attention as time goes on. The nets are good as far as they go, but I can't see them limiting upper body motion sufficiently to keep the belts in place, absent shoulder support.

Please don't interpret my comments to suggest that we believe our designs are a complete substitute for a net combined with a buffed up Butler-style seat, but when we nearly eliminate lateral head torque and keep the belts on the dummy on the bench seat at Delphi, ya gotta wonder if all this other stuff is even necessary.
 
What the stastic doesn't tell you is that person died of a heart attach before any on-track incident. But from the multiple sources I've spoken to, that would count towards the death rate. There are many other similar examples of this.


[/b]
Click to expand...

The Observer article I read (by the way, it's from 2002 Gregg) does break it down. Out of 22 average 14 are from on-track. 3 are from health issues. On track incidents include spectators, workers, etc. I suppose the other 5 are from pit accidents etc. (mentions example of youg girl getting hit in the head by a tire, etc.).
 
Antonio,

My fault. I was not making the distinction.

Just from memory, there have been two cases recently of road racers either dying of a head injury or having suffered a broken neck. Both were in race cars, both had a lateral component to the impact, and both were using an SFI 38.1 certified H&N restraint that did not capture the belts. Both had racing seats, but probably not the full containment style often round in oval racing.

So, the field experience suggests that classic H&N restraints work well in frontal impacts, but substantial lateral support of the upper body is necessary for lateral impacts where the restraint does very little. This explains why they have been successful in professional series where they are used in conjunctoin with serious racing seats--by "serious" I mean the full containment style ala NASCAR. Unfortunately, these seats are seldom found in amateur racing.

It's easy to see how this might unfold: 1) Sanctioning bodies mandate 38.1, 2) injuries are reduced, but still occur in lateral impacts, 3) sanctioning bodies mandate seat upgrades and drivers are out $2K+.

The point we are trying to make is that if you ignore this archaic single point release rule you can actually retain the belts and reduce head loads in side impacts without any additional safety components. Would a $295 Isaac Link work as well as a custom-built, big bucks NASCAR style package? Probably not, but it will go a long way toward that goal with zero extra dollars, so why not give the driver that option?

(The studies we have seen of right side nets also used pretty serious containment seats so we can't comment on the net-only set up, but, as Vaughn mentions, it makes sense.)
 
Actually, Gregg, from the other half of the restraint proposal (which I do very much like seeing), I think that SCCA is actually taking a step to head off the need for those $2k seats. By stepping right to the right-side nets for closed cars (recommended to become a recommendation, not a requirement), that should severly cut down on severe injuries from lateral impacts.

This direction comes from Tom Gideon, noting that it was by far the most significant thing to do for lateral impact (and, thankfully, the least expensive and easiest to implement, even at $80).

By contrast, I compare my last impact, which was largely lateral, with ISAAC Intermediate, Kirkey seat (no meaningful side protection), and no center net... while I didn't quite pop out of the belts, my motion to the side was pretty inconstrained. Sure, having the ISAAC meant that I didn't suffer any neck injury, I was still not at all properly positioned in the seat. As a result of this and poor cage design (I had a Petty bar), I bonked my head and scrapped my helmet. A center net would have definitely fixed all of this, keeping my upper body where it was supposed to be. I have been running a center net pretty much since that incident.
 
Vaugh,

I agree that the side net is a great safety value. I'm just not familiar with any studies that show a net-only approach. Gramling presented some testing in WRC cars at the 2004 SAE, but I believe there was shoulder support involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top