[video] bad CCR 458 crash Road America

Wow! I commend JH for allowing the public review. I think we racers learn something from every incident if we take the time to look for some good to come from the bad. Now it is time to let the appeal run its course. I think the steering trace is the smoking gun on the side of the lead driver. I've have only seen 1 angle of the incident but even with multiple angles video is unreliable but visually striking. Please watch an episode of "brain games" to see how easy are eyes are to fool. 99% would convict on video but the inelegant science of squiggly lines is absolute. I think if the data shows no steering input the fault is 100% the following driver. This thread makes me want to race with a data recorder.

 

Colin, I'm having a really hard time understanding your defense of Steven's turn in on Jim and your vitriol for John H. Video does not lie and to my eye, Steven checked his mirror and turned in. Period. I am in agreement with the panel that he should be banned.

Steven (and you) should take a deep breath and realize that there is fault here that just cannot be denied.

I'm a pilot of 30 years, I read NTSB reports monthly and the report done by the panel for CCR was as thorough as it could be. A defense of Steven's actions based on data is without sound engineering basis. The data showing steering angles is simply not accurate enough to support any argument that there was no turn in.

Again, really???

 

Why? In order to turn you need to move the wheel. If the steering trace show the wheel was straight how does lead driver "turn in" especially if this turn in was claimed to be abrupt and premeditated since lead driver sees the following car in his mirrors? What does Procoach say about data? Which is more likely to be true the video or the data?

 

Yes really. You must be the only IFR pilot who does not rely on his instruments because the data showing your steering instructions on your aircraft EFIS does not have sound engineering? Or do you use steam powered analog stuff? No wonder you don't believe data. Because if you are implying that the data is flawed, why can I not imply that you and the board have no proof whatsoever as to where Jim was when you allege that Steve turned in. A reflection in a mirror means nothing other than Jim was positioned somewhere in the rear of Steve. Without a time track and an analysis of exactly what the relative size of the reflection was to the camera lens, one cannot make the assumption that Jim was alongside Steve. In fact Jim's video shows that at no time was his nose past Steve's right rear tire let alone his wheel.

The video is supposed to show Steve turn left but his steering indicator that shows even the smallest variations in steering angle before and after, does not. So that begs the question, which I presume your NTSB expertise is being employed to evaluate, at what point does the alleged turn in on the video correspond to the time line on the steering data and Jim's data. It's a simple 3 way intersection of probable time lines. Without that information it's just a prejudiced guess. And yours shows.

Note to reader: I am not saying that the 3 way intersection will exonerate or condemn Steve. I am just saying that you are leaping to a conclusion that fits your opinion. As the sage once said...my mind is made up don't confuse me with facts.

Yes really.

 

One error that should be obvious (but maybe wasn't to everyone) is that when talking about the passing before the straight there is a typo. It refers to T4 when it should refer to T3.

 

Without commenting on the determination, I commend CCR for its' efforts to thoroughly review this matter. While I do have a vicarious connection to JB, I have no dog in this hunt, but I do know that administrating this would be hugely time consuming. But, of course, this was a major incident, so I'm glad CCR is taking it seriously. And, I agree with FBB that we ought to be trying to learn something from this.

What's interesting to me is that even with everything available (5x camera angles, data acq, expert review, etc.), the analysis of this incident doesn't appear to be entirely dispositive. If anything, it appears that there's some level of contradiction created by the data. I remember a time not long ago when this kind of scrutiny simply wasn't possible. And, it appears that not immediately turning over the data, is viewed as being suspicious in some way. It makes me wonder what the implications will be going forward.

CW

 

I was not aware that Jim had suffered any injuries. I wish him a speedy recovery!

 

Please read line one of paragraph one on page 3 of the appeal.

The data was always available.

For the record, I was not privy to any of the happenings after speaking with John directly at Road America. I was was even told by the Cheif Technical Steward some time after the event that he was under the impression the matter had been resolved.

 

I phrased it vaguely, and, thus, maybe poorly, but I meant the other driver's data and in a context beyond this single incident. The ramifications are not good, if we take this through a logical procession of "what nexts?"

CW

 

1st off I hope both drivers are ok. It sounds like there are some health issues and that's never good.

2nd this has been a useful thread to me personally. I'd been missing racing and considering taking it up again. The back and forth has helped remind me off all the things about racing I don't miss at all.

 

Honestly me too. I got far enough to get to a LOT more talent. (I went from being a young fast guy to being an old slow guy by moving to pro series.) But the politics... they are awful. And they are killing racing top to bottom.

This example isn't really bad but its a healthy reminder. I mean really there is a mention of litigation in an amateur series!?????? That has no place in ANY racing. We are (were in my case) risking our lives for a $3 trophy and THAT'S the path forward? I miss the competition, but man I don't miss the BS and drama. In this instance we have a member of the family hurt and we get this thread full of drama.

I have a really good friend dominating a pro series right now. And getting calls about how he is "embarrassing the series" because he isn't in a factory backed car. It makes me want to puke. Between that and threads like this I'll stay out for at least another year. Hopefully I'm smart enough to take up a different hobby. Doubtful though.

Best to all.

 

This is my first posting on F chat. I never thought it would be in this context and that is sad. I will say to all of my co-drivers in this series that we have built together, take a few minutes and watch the video. Now watch it one more time with your wife and family, which I did because they saw the look of horror on my face. Watch that video with them and tell me if they say, "yea go for it - race hard like that - love it". I would like to hear what they say. If this crash does not cause us all to take a step back and evaluate our speeds and the implications, and how we race on track and how we give eachother room on track, then we are all crazy. We are AMATURE drivers. This is supposed to be fun.

I have read the review of the crash. I was not there at the race that day, but I know I could have easily been in that mix based on where we are on track. I was extremely impressed with the review and the resume of the three professional drivers that were chosen to review the crash. I would like to hear from anyone that stands up and says they have more experience than the three professional drivers that not only wrote their review but signed their names to it. Yea - I don't think anyone has that back bone. I have watched the video and I agree 100% with the findings of pro panel. End of story.

I would leave this with I believe that John has gone over and above what I expected in a review of the most horrible crash we have ever seen in our series and I pray to God that we never have another incident like this again. After reading the review and reading all of these postings I think John deserves an apology for any implication that his motivation was anything but professional and impartial.

 

I read the entire decision and ruling as I considered running in this series with my 458C. After reading this I thought to myself, "this guy was 100% guilty of causing this crash(as decided by the panel) and was responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to the car and the track not to mention the far more important issue of the health of the driver involved, and the penalty assessed is a loss of some silly points". So this guy will racing in the next event after having been cautioned about this type of driving earlier in the season. I thought this series was to have fun, not risk your life. If you can cause this type of accident with just a loss of points what does it take to get you suspended from racing?

 

+1 ^^^

 

People don't seem interested in the steering data trace. I'm puzzled?

 

Look I realize that this is blunt but...

If you can't get your head around the fact that you are risking your life any time you get on a racetrack then you have no business being on one.

On a related note, if the car isn't disposable to you, it has no business being on a racetrack.

I'm not trying to be harsh. But the concept of risk free racing just doesn't work. Personally I think its safer than driving to work. But that's a whole different issue.

 

+1

 

Steering input is only one of many factors that can cause a car to move from right to left at that speed, is it not?

 

I SCCA clubrace. If I want to go left or right I need to steer the wheel. You are not going to throttle steer at 150 with the wheel straight. So how do you move the car without turning your wheel? Can you list me some factors I really don't know.

 

Based on what I've read here, I don't think there's a single person here that doesn't have their head around the fact that racing is risky. You present a strawman argument here.

Risk isn't binary (as you yourself point out, there's risk in driving to work). There are ranges of risk. Nobody here is expecting risk-free racing. When I read posts here talking about "safe", it's pretty clear that what they mean is racing with rules and policies set up to keep the risk level lower than it otherwise would be.

If you truly believe in your own strawman viewpoint, then I suppose you advocate there be no penalties regardless of on-track behavior and outcomes? I mean after all, everyone knows they may die or total their cars, right? I'm sure this isn't your view.

 

In the spirit of being blunt, you, my friend, are an idiot, and must have much more money than I have or are willing to have someone take $250K out of your pocket with no ramifications and think that is just the "cost of fun".

I have heard the "if you have to ask how much, you can't afford it" adage my entire life and it always comes from people who can never afford it so they are embarrassed to ask. Here is my adage, "I am willing to spend money, I don't like to waste money". If the driver who caused this accident, per the report, gets docked some points and is driving in the next race and able to cause another accident like this, then I would consider putting myself in the position to let him do that to my car as wasting money.

Of course the same applies to the life element, if this driver is in the next race able to cause an accident again, then I consider that too much risk for me to bear.

Dmundy, since you are an expert on this, what Ferrari are you racing?

Joe

 

Actually I don't think it is a strawman. Perhaps it should be but there are a lot of people who literally never contemplate the risks. For example I have met a lot of people who don't understand why a racecar is a disposable item. This alone tells me that they have not contemplated the risks of what they are doing.

Also no risk isn't binary. I've raced open cockpit/open wheel cars. They had a different risk profile than racing sedans. I'm not actually sure the risk was higher, but it was certainly different.

Penalties are the prerogative of whatever series you choose to run in, and ultimately they are part of what you sign up for. Different series have very different thoughts and methods on penalties. I don't see how that correlates with basic risk analysis at all.

For example the last time I was at a racetrack where someone died directly as a crash result, it was a vintage race event. The vintage series are (and IMO should be) "no contact" events with very high series penalties. It's not real racing, but it is a lot of fun. You might be interested to know that I haven't driven in a vintage race since I had children. Because those cars no longer fit what I think is a reasonable risk profile for me due to the simple fact that I need to be around for the. I quit riding motorcycles at the same time.

 

None. I can't afford to race a Ferrari. ;-)

Racing is converting money into noise.

With all sincerity I urge you to consider things like stuck throttles, wheel bearing failures, upright failures, rocks wedging themselves between a brake caliper and a wheel and machining a groove into the rim and splitting your wheel in half, coming over a hill and finding out there is a 3 square foot piece of pavement missing, or even something as simple as racing on a track that is half wet and half dry, thus ensuring that your tires are wrong at least half a lap or even hitting your brakes at 175 mph and realizing one of your front tries just went flat. These things have all happened to me, and to many others. And if you race enough things like that will happen to you too. So yes I race cars that I can afford to write off.