If you are not yet using a HANS device.....

Greg,

Any car disabled on the course where your view would be impeded would be a chance for this type of injury. Especially so in our cars as we are so low that our viewing range is very limited (Spokane Back Straight over the rises). That or a pick situation like the one that happened at Daytona in the Grand Am/ALMS race pretty sure Memo was happy to be wearing one.

So i say that every track as a chance to cause the type of injury that the HANS tries to prevent as a t-bone is going to hurt about the same as a concrete barrier.

And if its to hard to get out of your car with a HANS on then you need a bigger opening in your car. Or do as we do and race without those silly roofs.

Roger
 
I don't know the statistics on Basal Skull fractures in ICSCC racing. BUT, I do know Steve Pfeiffer "probably' owes his life to the HANS device he had on during his crash at Pacific. If you see the gyrations that car went through and the hits it/he took, you'd make sure you had your HANs on more. It isn't just hitting walls that can kill you.. Steve had decades of racing experience and he learned something along the way about safety.

I do a agree some of the 'rules' surrounding other safety items such as suits and belts are really stupid. But that's up to sensible people in the sanctioning body to fix. I firmly believe in FIA reg's as opposed to SFI which never was geared to road racing.
 
Last edited:
greg_coffin said:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-physics-of-how-the-hans-device-saves-lives-feature

It is all about strength of materials and physics.

The HANS is designed to prevent a very specific injury that occurs when there is a rapid high g deceleration event like hitting a cement wall when every thing but your head is strapped in. They work.

However, I would point out that a more effective way of preventing basilar skull fractures is to avoid placing drivers in a situation were they are likely to occur. Simple

Proper placement of cement barriers and tire bundles, plus adequate run off zones, and/or gravel traps greatly reduce the likely hood of rapid, high g, deceleration events. I cannot speak for all the tracks that we race at, but at the ones that I do run at I really have to pick my mind to come up with a place that could result in the type of injury that the HANS is designed to prevent.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the surprise moments at full speed such as Memo Gidley experienced at the 24 hours of Daytona this year. Something similar could easily happen at Portland and has happened in the past. Example: During a NASCAR West event a few years ago, a driver was limping to the pits with a broken panhard rod. The car was near undrivable. As he we going down the back straight at Portland, the car suddenly turn hard left in front of the lead pack which was coming full tilt. The leader T-boned that limping car with a speed difference of more than 100 mph. The object being hit doesn't have to be a ditch or a wall. How do I know about this? I was there and ran to the car that was T-boned. Steve Bibby from Canada ran to the other car. The front of the limping car and nearly torn off from the impact. Tire walls and well-placed barriers are great, but not all of the hazards are immovable objects.
 
I have a head and neck device. Bought it on my own. Didn't need any body to tell me I had to. I've also replaced my perfectly safe harness and helmet because I was told I HAD to even though they showed no fraying, no discoloration, no stretch, etc.

The question of IF someone will sue the ICSCC is less pertinent and important to me than IF someone could be seriously injured or die. But mandating anything should be well thought out and presented before it becomes mandatory.
 
kyle_nickels said:
I have a head and neck device. Bought it on my own. Didn't need any body to tell me I had to. I've also replaced my perfectly safe harness and helmet because I was told I HAD to even though they showed no fraying, no discoloration, no stretch, etc.

The question of IF someone will sue the ICSCC is less pertinent and important to me than IF someone could be seriously injured or die. But mandating anything should be well thought out and presented before it becomes mandatory.
Click to expand...

I agree (surprise). I just want to make sure that the drivers making the choice know that they can very easily end up in an impact that the HANS is designed to mitigate. Too many people seem to think that ICSCC is some how immune to those types of impacts. They can and do happen, as I can testify. More than 40 years trying to be there for drivers in their moment of need. I've had to help a few injured drivers (including that NASCAR driver I wrote about), but thankfully no fatalities so far, though I have been at the track when such things have happened elsewhere. One reason I haven't tried driving in Chump Car is that I doubt I could get out of the car very quickly due to my 2XL size and creaky joints. I'll settle for joining the cars on track in a Safety Truck when someone is in need. Play safe and please everyone, make sure you are making your decision on head and neck use on facts. They can and have made a difference in club level racing. They will again in the future. Try to make sure you are ready should your number come up.
 
Ah the disabled car argument.......really no one can do better than that? Hitting a moveable object, capable of absorbing energy upon impact (i.e. via deformation) is significantly different than going head on/perpendicular into a pinned or poured cement wall.

As for injuries that were prevented by the HANS device, unless the car was equipped with a linear accelerometer capable of measuring the g's experienced during the deceleration event then it really is just speculation.

The back straight at Portland is one of the more dangerous places we race. I personally have had 3 near misses there since 1988. Two involved slow moving vehicles on the race line and one a vehicle that decided to actually park there. All three could have resulted in nasty accidents, but not the type of rapid deceleration event that the HANS is designed for. I would suggest a root cause analysis of both incidents and near misses be conducted. In the incident above a disabled car is on track, flags are out and closing speeds are still 100 mph......really ? A HANS device is not going to fix over driving under a yellow flag. Mine did not come with a poor judgement tether....sometimes I wish it did.
 
Walls move. Armco bends. Cars bend and slide away after impact. Everything gives to one degree or another, even dirt embankments. Walls are in known locations around a track. Cars are moving right up until they stop moving. The number on a gee meters doesn't matter until after the impact and the damage is already done. Everything gives to one degree or another, even dirt embankments. If you wait to order your HANS or put it on after you see the gee meter, then it is a bit late. I look at all these devices (cages, belts suits, hans, etc.) as insurance for the accident that is a real possibility. If you wish to skip insurance, you take the results upon yourself and your family. Please don't try to convince me that such impacts cannot happen just because it is a Conference event. As for drivers who miss flags and over drive a situation, don't get me started. I've had to literally dive out of the way from such drivers. Suffice it to say that it happens frequently.
 
rick_bostrom said:
As for you Steve - I'm probably one of the least likely people in Conference to "blow a valve". If I have a fault among those who know me well it is that I am reliably too unemotional. I take very little emotion into account when making my decisions. The reasoning and examples I offer are straightforward and logical - if you read them and disagree it's fine for me. My expectation is that you will make your own decisions on what you should do or not do to protect your personal safety and goals. We started racing around the same time and whether we have agreed or disagreed I have always had a lot of respect for you. I am pretty disappointed that rather than address specific topics that you disagree with drawing from your racing experience or known facts, you continue to make emotional arguments and personal attacks. I don't discount emotional decisions - they work for emotional people. Unfortunately they don't work for unemotional people like me - sometimes I think my life would be a lot easier if I didn't have to over-analyze everything and could just follow the conventional wisdom, which turns out to not be based in any kind of verifiable wisdom more often than not. I have extended my efforts and opinions to help my fellow racers for years but in the end I believe that within the bounds of not infringing on the rights of others they deserve to make their own decisions. You do not want to extend that same right - you think other racers cannot be trusted to make their own decisions and want to MANDATE that they have to do what YOU think is important. On that basis, I would say that I have treated both you and everyone else with a lot more respect than you have treated me with.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, Rick. I haven't used an "emotional" argument once, because I honestly couldn't give a sh*t about the topic. I have a head-and-neck device because the evidence for its value crossed my personal threshold for cost/benefit. I haven't tried to convince anyone who isn't using one that they should, nor have I EVER said that Conference SHOULD mandate their use. All I've ever done is point out the shaky logical ground some of your arguments are on. Yes, I've also poked fun at some of your points, but I haven't insulted YOU when doing so, although there are some examples even from this current thread where I don't believe you can say the same.

As I said, though, whatever: I've made my choice, I think everyone should make their own choice, but the eventual day when the E-Board and/or the drivers vote in this requirement is not the "end of the world" for Conference that you and others are trying so hard to make it out to be.
 
Since the rules of physics seem to have been temporarily suspended! let's investigate the empirical data......all the descriptions of basilar skull fractures I have found mention cement walls or earthen barriers......not other race cars.....discuss amongst yourselves.
 
Once a rule is passed, especially a Safety rule, to reverse it (if there was justification enough to do so), would be nearly impossible let alone could be considered negligence. To not pass a rule mandating a known and proven safety device can also be considered negligence. But voluntary use is called common sense. I vote for common sense.
 
Sure, Kyle. Take all the fun out of it. Like saying that if a body makes a rule, it must be enforced it. Not to would be negligence. If a body doesn't make a rule then negligence would have to be proven. Woulda-shoulda.

Pretty soon you'll have us thinking that the 'industry' recognized standards that our safety products are manufactured to comply with, have anything to do with how those manufacturors might control that product's particular use after it leaves the warehouse.

How much sense in a common, anyway?
 
Way more common sense than is in Congress right now that's for sure.

Expirey of safety equipment is arbitrary from what I have learned. Manufacturers place a date they consider "safe" (for their liability) and not based on actual wear or use data.

But then again, my experience is not important to some people because I am "not as fast as them", (Not even on track due to economics right now so maybe my opinion should be totally disregarded : not currently ICSCC licensed driver so I don't get a vote).
 
Last edited:
Lurking....

I wear a necksgen, wouldn't race without it.

Everybody else, do what you want, just don't expect me to pay for it.
 
I remember watching the race when Dale Earnhardt Sr. died, it didn't look like that bad of a crash, everyone thought he would walk away from it. Remember how shocked everyone was. The video posted here also was a pretty slow crash and look at the results from the drivers seat vs. the passenger. So it does not have to be a very high g-load to do damage. I would support a regulation to mandate them, but I also support our drivers deciding which is one of the great things about Conference. At the least we're discussing it... which is always "a good thing"
 
F= 1/2 m ( v x v) /s

Impact force F is equal to 1/2 mass times velocity squared divided by slow down distance (s)

The critical variable in an automobile impact is the slow down distance, if it is very small as in the case of hitting a cement wall the force of impact is very large......because s is in the denominator. Assuming that mass and velocity remain constant changing s from one meter to say 10 cm increases the force of impact by a factor of 10.

The angle of impact with respect to the the driver is also critical with respect to the danger of the potential injury....biomechanics.....it is why air bags are mandatory for frontal impact.

So I will repeat, does anyone know of any existing track conditions were a high deceleration event can occur?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top