This is probably a bit early to start arguing the minutia of the future
decisions on head an neck restraints; but I couldn't help but do a little
counting of records from the 2008 rule book. My counts are probably off by
2 or 3. For Bonneville cars there are 650 records of which 386 are over 200
mph (59%). Below 200 the counts are 150-200mph, 157 records. 100-150mph,
91 records. 0 to 100 mph, 16 records. And this count has little to do with
the large number of participants in those classes (which helped provide the
impetus to open a 3rd course this year).
Arguably these guys running against under 200mph records are mostly lower
budget operations. They will be hard hit by the cost of current head-neck
restraint hardware that would produce only miniscule reductions in the risk
of injury. Especially if this hardware needs to be replaced every 2 years.
It would seem that slower speeds greatly reduce the risk of the kinds of
injuries that we expect this new safety gear to protect us from.
Also, the car type may have a big influence. An AA door slammer is a lot
more likely to get airborn or roll than an H modified roadster. Another
factor is differences in course conditions at different LSR venues.
I trust the technical committee will carefully review SCTA accident records
with that in mind (I understand that this data is far from being ready to
release for "public" consumption). Perhaps a lower level of "G's" to
protect against can be allowed for certain slower classes opening the door
to less expensive approaches to this kind of safety gear in the same manner
that we spec the ratings of tires required. Isaac's published comparative
test data is instructive in that regard. Another consideration is that for
lower risk classes the requirement for a head-neck restraint could me made
"optional unless specifically required by the technical committee" due to
individual circumstances at the time of inspection.
Ed Weldon
----- Original Message -----
From: "drmayf" <drmayf@mayfco.com>
To: "Ed Weldon" <23.weldon@comcast.net>
Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Land-speed] Hans Device and Safety
> Well, looks to me like something will be required. The rules commitee
> are skating around the issue and due to the nature of the event, they
> generally come down on the side of safety. I think air bags would work
> better. And why not?, We do not see HANS devices mandated by the
> government on street cars because that would be costly. So we have
> mandated frontal air bags. Actually, what I think is that I would
> like the rules folks to stop taking care of me because they are going to
> price me right out of racing. Whether by eventually retiring my dinky
> car because it will cost too much to keep it in spec or by forcing me to
> purchase so much personal safety equipment that I cannot afford that
> either. I suspect many of us are in that situation.
> mayf
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
Land-speed mailing list
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/land-speed
|