Roll Hoops and Side panels as they apply to safety

[jimh3063]

Folks:
I'm a 50 year old guy who loves racing. I'm lucky enough to have made a few sheckles and can afford to race. I'm never going to knock Tim off the podium. My goals are probably the same as a lot and different from some of the younger crowd. The best I've ever done in the Pro Series was 11th. I'm usually closer to the middle and back than the front. I go to race myself and enjoy learning about the cars, tracks etc. I just want to do better than I did the last time at the same track. I hope to live to a 100. I don't know how realistic that is but I am going to try. I'm more concerned about going a bit slower safely than going balls to the wall driving over my head. With that said, the minute you go on the track, you're opening yourself to an accident. It doesn't have to be your fault to hurt you.

I'd like to try to move safety aspect of the thread that got sidetracked partially by me concerning the rules change to this thread. I am truly learning a lot from Steve and Nathan, Greg and I'm sure others I haven't mentioned. Let's give the thread back it's desired meaning and pick the safety aspect here. As I've mentioned, I'm not qualified to speak on the topic but I understand most of what was said. I think there are probably a lot of people who feel the same as me and were enjoying the knowledge that was being shared on the subject.

I'm not sure how to move the safety stuff here, I'll leave it to the people who know more about the subject than me to help this along.

Jimmy

[Bob Wright]

I think this topic is pretty important going forward. As a driver and also Series owner, I don't ever want to see someone hurt in this sport- but its going to happen. To quote Master Rand at a drivers meeting a while back- "we ain't playing chess out there".

We've come a very long way in the world of safety from what I used to drive to the point I'm appalled by what I strapped myself into and sometimes wonder why I'm still here. I had a complete roll bar failure in a Crossle 50 while upside down at 100 mph- I should not have lived (my helmut didn't). I've had a side impact that shook fillings out of my teeth in a DB6, frontal impacts that destroyed a car, folded the steering wheel in half and left seat belt tatoos on my chest. I've had a rear impact that not for a properly made bead seat, I might be in a wheelchair.

In our Pro Series over the last 8 years we have seen multiple situations with intrusion into a cockpit by both suspension arm pieces and noses from a T bone crash. The side intrusion systems currently being offered for various cars can certainly help, but I think they need to be better defined (FIA standards) than what is currently in the rules. Fore and aft crush structures need to be better defined and required (FIA standards). This can all be done, and has been in certain cars. Seating minimums need to be specified and required.

What needs to be accomplished is that everyone who designs, builds, and drives one of these cars (single seat, open wheel) has to get on the same page with the safety options available. Will it add cost, yes, in some cases. The racing industry and other sanctioning bodies are fully engaged in safety, we need to make sure we are as well.

[nulrich]

Maybe we could start with a less controversial subject. I feel like one of the biggest constraints on improving safety is the current limit of 950 mm on overall width for FF and FC. That leaves very little room for absorbing side impact.

The current theory on protecting occupants is to enclose them in a rigid, strong, and impervious safety cell then surround that with "crumple zones" or impact attenuators. The same principles apply to a passenger car or a formula car, just the materials are different.

I feel like we can build excellent nose and tail crush structures within the rules. But ideally we'd be allowed wider sidepods and crush structures within those sidepods. Of course, if they aren't required (which isn't reasonable for older cars) then how do you encourage constructors to build them and prevent them from being a competitive advantage?

I know the Pro series allows the wider Euro sidepods for F1600 if I'm not mistaken. What have been the lessons learned there?

How about in FB, which allows 1300 mm (if I recall correctly)?

Nathan

[romoman]

I also think that a quality seat system should be required. It's amazing how many formula cars have people sitting on the fuel cell with no padding or a single piece of foam.

[S Lathrop]

Something like the IRL fairings in front of the rear wheels? Or the alternative body rules for FF?

[Bob Wright]

I think the alternate body rules in FF offer a possible solution. Part of what I was trying to say in my previous post was something like: There is a lot of data out there developed mostly by FIA, but also by constructors on this forum, concerning crush structures and methods of construction. Lets figure out how to use it for these cars.

For instance, the bigger the side pod, the better the protection, right? No one is going to put a bigger side pod on the car if it hurts performance unless its mandated. The task is to come up with the right balance while keeping the car competitive with older cars which don't have to comply (DB6 comes to mind as a extreme example of the lack of side protection).

And I might add, we can't be afraid of new materials, designs, and techniques to achieve it.

[S Lathrop]

Bob;

You have been running the F2000 series long enough to have a good idea of the types of accidents there are and what types of injuries you are seeing.

Why is not that data available to the people who can help make a difference in the safety of the cars they build?

I am expressing a frustration about the type of information that is not available but should be and could help make things safer.

The FAA publishes accident reports for all pilots to learn from. We should do the same in racing. And you can start the ball rolling.

[Bob Wright]

Interesting point, Steve. Mr. Eakin might want to chime in here about how we inspect and analyze crashes.

Fingers crossed, we have had relatively few injuries over the last 8 years. We've been lucky with the cockpit intrusions by one thing or another in that with an inch here or there the results could have been much, much worst. I should say that my personal non scientific opinion is that the Van Diemen is a pretty stout car and can protect the driver quite well. Can it be better? Yes. I think the Citation is equal or better from what I've seen. RFR, Spectrum, I don't have enough information. From a crash I witnessed, I think the Piper might need some work (but I haven't seen the latest design up close).

Thats what this exercise is all about.

[S Lathrop]

Bob;

I will give you an example of what I am thinking about.

The WG race in the fall of 2012, a VD lost its nose/crush box in the last corner. It was probably knocked off when the wing hit something. Now that accident had no significant issue. Problem as I see it, a major safety item, the nose box, was no longer on the car to protect the driver. That should have raised an alarm.

I had a similar accident happen with my driver in an RT 40, a composite tub by the way. My driver spent 6 months going through reconstructive surgeries and rehab. He walks with a limp today.

I think the WG F2000 crash should have been written up so every one could have seen why the crush box did not stay in place. How many cars are running around with the same construction as that car had?

I have a collection of Citation crush boxes that I keep to see all the ways they have failed and help me make sure that they do the job they are intended to do. And yes, one accident did remove the crush box on one of my cars much as that VD had. That was in the late 1980s.

Being able to see what has worked and not worked is how I make my cars safer.

You said that there have been some close calls. Those should have been written up so we all can learn from other's experiences.

[Purple Frog]

My mentor as a scrutineer was Mr. Fred Clark. He taught me to carefully inspect the results of every crash. For seven years I did just that with camera in hand.

Fortunately, we had few injuries, and none of any seriousness. We also had few serious crashes (maybe one each year). Not to say Primus didn't sell hundreds of A-arms.

I have seen incidents like Alegra at Mosport, Amato at Lime Rock, Guibord at Watkins Glen, Willard at WGI, Grant at Summit Point, and LaRue at Mid-Ohio. Even reviewing those crashes it would be easy to conclude that the formula is pretty darn safe. Not perfect by any means. We all strive to make it even better.

Coop's off at the last Runoffs was pure scary to witness. Yet he walked away. Attenuators are a wonderful thing, especially those that don't detach on the first impact.

Today it is not like the 70s and 80s when broken feet and forelegs were not unusual. I give credit to the rules than developed out of the '86 summit meeting. That said, the new cars built since the first delivery of the 1998 Van Dieman are many many times safer than most cars earlier than that date. The quest for speed created engineering designs to create stiffer and stiffer chassis had the side effect of also creating robust driver capsules.

I do believe we have saved lives because of one piece of equipment ... the HANS device.

I ranted on my soapbox years ago to get folks using the HANS. (even though my mentor really dislikes them) With it's majority acceptance, I now have moved on to preaching about rollhoop clearances. Not every hoop lands on pavement. Mike Sauce went rollhoop plowing outside the carosel at M-O. John LaRue landed hard upside down in China Beach. Both walked away. I like the hoops with more longitudinal depth (e.g. LaRue's faired in Citation hoop) because there is more surface area to carry the load when landing on soft surfaces, thus less chance of sinking in until the driver's head is supporting the car.

Maybe my next crusade will be one to require more of the correct material on each side of the driver's helmet to slow the deceleration of the brain inside the skull during a severe side impact.

My other crusade would be to get some of the "minor" tracks to improve their safety. Tracks such as Summit Point, and Roebling Road have characteristics that are not safe at the speeds we now can achieve. "it's always been like that." or "The driver assumes the risk." are poor excuses, if you are the one that has to make the phone call to a spouse or parent.

Steve, In this legatious society scutineers and race series must me careful about what they produces as public documents. Even if I made my notes available, who would determine what the distribution list should be? Lots of people could say they have a good reason to study the gory details. Just saying.

Besides, the good engineers already know what to do. The problem lies in writing a requirement that can be measured and enforced in the field, and doesn't cost a million for the rule makers to validate, or the builders to prove they comply.

YMMV

[S Lathrop]

Steve, In this legatious society scutineers and race series must me careful about what they produces as public documents. Even if I made my notes available, who would determine what the distribution list should be? Lots of people could say they have a good reason to study the gory details. Just saying.

Besides, the good engineers already know what to do. The problem lies in writing a requirement that can be measured and enforced in the field, and doesn't cost a million for the rule makers to validate, or the builders to prove they comply.

YMMV

Mike;

Have you read an FAA/NTSB accident report? There is nothing more litigious than the ambulance chasing lawyers specializing in aviation accidents.

I appreciate that you are caught between the rock and a hard spot. And I have heard this explanation before.

I see it as you are withholding information from me that might help me improve safety of my cars. I think that Nathan will agree with me. We look at problems as a challenge to find a solution. Are you an impediment to that process, maybe?

I learn a lot from the aviation accidents I read about. I think they help make me and other pilots safer/better. Why aren't we doing the same thing in racing?

Hopefully we don't look back someday and say this was a stupid way to deal with accident information. What will we all say when someone looses their life because we did not disseminate accident information to the people making our toys?

[Purple Frog]

The FAA is a federal agency with associated legal protections. Little ol' me is a non-certified volunteer with no legal sense.

OK... here goes... If I were King...

1. Mandatory HANS.

2. Mandatory intrusion panels such as the Kevlar spelled out in the rules... even in 88 Reynards, Swifts, etc. (what they can't be hit in the side?) From front bulkhead to 2" behind rear plane of the fuel cell.

3. Mandatory attenuators front and rear. Attenuators that don't snap off in the first side impact and then not be available for use a tenth of a second later. (How the hell would you write that rule?)

4. Mandatory head surrounds. Even in per 86 cars. (That will fly like a lead balloon.)

5. Rollhoops with clearances like Geremy's. Otherwise black flag. Top of rollhoop have a minimum of 65 square centimeters of surface within 12 millimeters of the peak. Even on old cars. I would consider a good designed fairing in determining the surface.

6. Knuckles of the driver's hands can not be above the dash hoop at any point in the steering motion.

7. Steel cups backing up front wishbone pickup points.

8. Wheel thethers on at least the uprights.

9. Driver of the car, when seated as racing, must be able to read a eye chart that is 15" above the ground, placed no more than 15' in front of the nose of the car.

10. No A$$holes allowed to race. I get to decide who is an A$$hole. Rand would be the final judge. Appeals with a non-refundable $1,000 bond could be submitted to Kummer for a minimum three week consideration.

That's my top 10 for tonight.

Steve... you probably don't have much to do. Well... except for #10.

and yes... this would price many cars totally out of club racing, especially the cost of retrofitting older cars.


OBTW, in the late 50's and 60's I read every issue of the U.S. Navy's "Approach". Basically their monthly air accident autopsy report. Sort of know where you are coming from.

[S Lathrop]

Tethers are largely responsible for IRL requiring additional anti intrusion panels added to the sides of the cars. Tethers assure that the detached suspension components are pinned between the car and the wall the car might hit. And they tend increase the possibility that a wheel/upright assembly might joint the driver in the cockpit.

At least they keep the parts out of the way of other cars.

[Purple Frog]

...and wheels out of the fans faces.

[Wren]

Last week I sent a letter to the CRB asking them to allow 5/16" bolts and 30mm washers for attachment of side panels in the FF/FC rules. That would allow someone to show up with the FIA panels from the other thread, remove two fasteners, and run them. I didn't do any pre-calling to CRB members, but my guess is that it would have a reasonable chance of making it through.

From my observations, I think that the evidence at hand supports the idea that FF/FC are pretty safe to race in. I think that we have generally safe cars, raced on safe tracks, at pretty well run events with competent workers.

[924RACR]

I like the list, but a few comments.

#1: Mandatory head and neck restraint. But rules should never call out a specific device; this kills innovation. There are better ways to solve the head/neck protection problem that have not yet been invented; don't follow the FIA's lead and force an end to competitive development.

#3: Attenuators - tough to develop a rule; you can't simply spec out a part from a manufacturer, given the wide range of cars including homebuilts. But these can be very complex parts to design and build properly... so simply stating a list of requirements (like for sidepanels) may not be adequate. If manufacturers could make some degree of universal component that can be adapted/bolted to an existing chassis, that'd make a big difference (and probably/hopefully keep cost down by volume).

#4: Head Surrounds - also tough to implement, given that a head surround is meaningless unless there's structure to support it. That's the main reason I haven't yet gotten to retrofitting such technology to my car yet, despite a great deal of desire.

#9: Eye Chart - is this (close-in visibility) really a problem?? At a typical avg racing speed, what's the impact time to hit an object this close? Doesn't seem meaningful to me.

#10: Sphincter-Free Racing - good luck with that!

[stephen wilson]

Since you mentioned it, I have a question about adding a head surround to my RF80. It has the problem you mention, no support structure above the upper cockpit rail, which is level with the bottom of my helmet. I have a 15" span from the main hoop to the forward brace. I could use 1" tubing, but that would only leave 1.5" for padding on either side, assuming 1" helmet clearance. What is the minimum strength material required; 3/4"x.065, 1/2"x1" x .065 rectangular, or could I use 1/8"x1" flat bar ? I could have the support tubing bow out for more clearance, but then they would be the first to make contact if you slap the wall. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Steve

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/atta...8&d=1358606316