"We contended that the track was improperly designed, and that the Hutchen's device was improper because it didn't provide the protection that it claimed it would." Art, I don't know you, except as one who enjoys, but often disagrees with, your posts. I don't know anything about the legal case you mention. I don't know anything about your client(s). But, in my opinion, it should be obvious motorsports are dangerous, and NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SUE A TRACK OR SAFETY DEVICE MANUFACTURER. Everything is covered with disclaimers and warnings, including all the safety equipment. In my opinion, racing is for men, not cringing, whining crybabies who are eager to risk loss until the loss actually occurs. If you're hurt racing, it's your fault. And what the h*ll is a defective track, anyway? Come on. Is the kink at Road America defective? The big downhill turn at Mosport? The uphill, West Bend and downhill at Lime Rock? The old kink at Road Atlanta? The corkscrew at Laguna? Turn 1 at Sebring? You can get hurt by a mistake in any of these corners so, tell me, should we just race on tight, chicaned tracks with no long straights and no high speed corners, no walls and infinite run-off room, in golf carts wrapped in pillows? How can we keep the crybabies out of racing? Just my worthless, but angry, opinion.
Will, we have 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's lawyers. And most are scummy ambulance chasers as illustrated here.
Well Gee that was a bit harsh. Lawyers are my friends. When used properly the Lawyer is the 21st century equivilent of the colt .45 peacemaker. Go buy a gun! Anyway, Where are you Art! I am particularly interested in how we drivers can protect ourselves on the track and I am not talking with a HANS! Whats it going to take? Home owners policy with excess liability umbrella? How much? 1 mil 2 mil? Set your car up as an LLC get one cheesey sponcer and operate it at a loss? The family limited partnership and I'm the general partner?
This topic is very interesting to me as I have been trying to decide which system to purchase. I have resisted the HANS because of two reasons: 1) In a true closed racecar the window openings arent very big and coupled with my size I feel that it would make exiting the car extremely difficult, especially post-wreck 2) is that I am turned of by having to buy more than one HANS depending on what type of car it is to be used in. After reading more about the Isaac I am intrigued and my hunt to find a saftey device goes on. That said, any more information, discussion, real-life experiences or links on this topic would probably be helpful to all of us looking to purchase in the next few months. Thanks again
my .02c Ive used several diffferent styles of HANs devices starting in 1998. Ive used the larger bulky style as well as the smaller w/ quick release. I've used them in Formula Mazda, Porsche Club Racing, and in the Ferrari Challenge. I've crashed and over the years Ive watched alot of other people crash. And while Im not a doctor, there is at least 1 person I know from Formula Mazda that is alive today because of the HANs device. The only minor problem ive had with the newer style is a problem with the shoulder harness slipping off the HANS device. personally...and this is just me...use it..period.
I started using a HANS device a year or two again and would not give it up. First and foremost, racing is a dangerous personal choice and to blame others for the danger is a disservice to all who love the sport. Always look for improvement, but to sue a track owner or other person involved puts the sport in jeopardy for everyone; there just insn't enough money in it to pay for defense costs. As for the other devices, I have seen test reports comparing them favorably to a HANS. Problem is, I personally don't think I could keep any other device properly adjusted and get in & out of it easily enough for it to be as effective as HANS. In addition, the fact that HANS has been accepted by F1, NASCAR, IRL, and Champ Car makes me believe it is likely to be the best. Finally, if you elect not to wear a HANS device, I think that should be your choice. When compared to a set of tires for FM, it seems silly not to have a HANS instead of 1 1/2 sets of new tires, but hey, whatever your priorities are. For "cheaper" classes, the cost priority gets arguably closer, but even my cheapest racing buddies are seeing the light and getting the HANS. But even my current Spec Miata race car project has over $4000 tied up in cage, seat (latest Ultrashield with head side impact protection, something HANS does not protect against), 6- point harnesses (SCCA is now recommending 7-point), fire suppression system, latest and lightest helmet I could find (under 3 lbs), and removable steering wheel. I've been accumulating this stuff over the last year and hope to have this car ready to go in a few weeks and I don't regret the extra time and expense one bit.
Well said, Will. My thoughts EXACTLY. On the Isaac, can anyone point to any good information? Are there any head restraint devices that work independently of the harnesses? I am often on track in cars with no rollbar, and thus no harness... but not too worried about rollover... but an impact is always a possibility... thus, wouldn't mind something to help preserve my neck.
Brian, There is nothing that works without a harness. The OEM's have carefully engineered the 3 point seatbelt and airbag systems for streetcar speeds. Also, most non-harnessed drivers on track DE's really do not have the skill to go fast and usually leave the track at much lower speeds that a race group driver. Also the the OEM systems are questionable when you change the dynamic like wear a helmet. Search for SCCA's issue with helmets and airbags in converted street cars. Also, IMO I just don't get in cars witout the proper safety gear on race tracks. I do not understand the reasoning behind DE events allowing no harness but it is someone elses A. I think if you do a track once in OEM gear and want to do it more people owe it to themselves to get the right gear. I just got off the track today and it is amazing what I see pass tech. I saw a very expensive car with a proper harness bar used in DE's but the belt anchors went through one point on the bar and at angle so that in a shunt the belt adjusters can slip and the belt anchors where not on the grip of the bolt so that shear forces were right through the threads! Add that to a nylock nut where the lock portion was not engaged on the threads because two belt anchors were stacked on top of each other! Some say there are money issues here...well yes. but some items are cheap. In my race group only myself and one other car had side head nets. Mine cost 20 bucks from racerwholesale. The experts like Dr. Melvin say that these simple side nets are just as if not more important that the lateral stabilizing effect of an Isaac HNR. Aso to one device with minimal safety gear the Isaac is my pick. With a true safety system the HANS has it because it is sanctioned by all the big boys. When I say safety system that means side nets window nets full containment seat proper cage etc...
IOW, we just shouldn't run our Ferraris hard?!?! Or we all should gut them and put a full roll cage in?!? Please! I'm happy to spend $2K on safety equipment; but I'm not happy to trash my $200K street car. Huh? You can't have side window nets in a DE... you have to be able to stick your arm out the window to signal passing. DE's are way different than head-to-head racing... and the appropriate safety equipment is correspondingly different. To assert that people taking their street cars to DE's should convert them into full race cars is ludicrous... worse, it gives an impression to those thinking of trying DE's that they don't belong there with their street car. Fact of the matter is: If you're going to drive your Ferrari hard, do it on a track... much MUCH safer than on a street... especially a street with curbs. And if you do a DE, don't come in like you're in a racing series. You're not racing! You may be trying to go as fast as the "other guy", but passing is via gentleman's rules. Finally, roll cages are NOT needed for DE's. A rollbar is nice for safety and allows you to use harnesses, which are not really needed safety-wise, but are great for driving comfortably in hard-G's. Without a rollbar, harnesses can be dangerous. Better to stick with 3-point for safety and perhaps a torso strap for stability under G's. Given that is the scenario I'm talking about... I'd be happy to pay some bucks for some neck-saving safety equipment. But it cannot require a harness as my car has no rollbar; and many of the other cars I'd ride in at a DE have no rollbar. No rollbar means no harnesses, generally. No harnesses, means no option for the existing neck-saving equipment. (And no rollbar means that neck-saving equipment could actually compound the problem with harnesses sans rollbar and actually be VERY dangerous to your neck.) Hence my query... for us safety-minded DE'ers... as opposed to racers.
Brian C. Stradale wrote" IOW, we just shouldn't run our Ferraris hard?!?! Or we all should gut them and put a full roll cage in?!? Please! I'm happy to spend $2K on safety equipment; but I'm not happy to trash my $200K street car." Well then leave it on the street! Just kidding.... we need more people taking these cars to the track. But it you read my previous post it is not quaite as it seems. Like I said if you want to do more DE you will increase your speeds as you learn. Leaving a track at 90mph is way different from leaving at 120mph. The 360 for example with near 400hp is hugely fast for the uninitiated and has tricky aerodynamics that does not like to be upset by driver error. See the early 360C races before the drivers figured out they werenot driving 355's with big wings! "Huh? You can't have side window nets in a DE... you have to be able to stick your arm out the window to signal passing." No that is not true. You can signal out of window nets. We racers do it all the time. It is easier and more clear without them yes. However, see my post it is about passenger side head nets that capture your head and shoulder in a lateral hit. The widownet ans roll cage protect the driver side. "DE's are way different than head-to-head racing... and the appropriate safety equipment is correspondingly different. To assert that people taking their street cars to DE's should convert them into full race cars is ludicrous... worse, it gives an impression to those thinking of trying DE's that they don't belong there with their street car." We often times are at lower speeds than a DE guiy will get all by himself. In racing we are going off the racing line and making and trying to trap others in traffic. It is not about always just going fast for example. The trick to wheel to wheel is that there are more opertunitys for hits but they are not neccessarily at a higher speed. It is speed that kills Newton's law F=MA. Finally, safety is never ludicrous. You can put a 6 point harness in 90% of cars without cutting anything , you can do the same for a harness bar. You rollcage is your structure of your cars roof and thicker area behind your seats. Yes, it is better to have a rolbar which can be more invasive but your chances front rear or side impact is much greater than you flipping and collapsing the roof and then your head because you are in a harness. Your mileage may vary on that one but to me "that dog don't hunt". "Finally, roll cages are NOT needed for DE's. A rollbar is nice for safety and allows you to use harnesses, which are not really needed safety-wise, but are great for driving comfortably in hard-G's. Without a rollbar, harnesses can be dangerous. Better to stick with 3-point for safety and perhaps a torso strap for stability under G's." "I'd be happy to pay some bucks for some neck-saving safety equipment. But it cannot require a harness as my car has no rollbar; and many of the other cars I'd ride in at a DE have no rollbar. No rollbar means no harnesses, generally. No harnesses, means no option for the existing neck-saving equipment. (And no rollbar means that neck-saving equipment could actually compound the problem with harnesses sans rollbar and actually be VERY dangerous to your neck.) Hence my query... for us safety-minded DE'ers... as opposed to racers." No you can have it for cheaper than that. HANS $865.00, OR Isaac $700.00, harness bar maybe $500.00 . six harness point belts formula parachute style so you can use the stock seats with no cutting $250.00. So what is so hard about that? You will be way safer and you will perform better because the harness will hold you in and you don't have to death grip the wheel to keep your place in the seat.
Well, speed doesn't kill... deceleration does... impact is much more likely in racing, and that can lead to extreme impacts. My "home" track has nothing to run into... so, while my Ferrari gets going damn fast, there is essentially no chance of a life-ending impact. I'm in far more danger driving 85mph down the expressway with a concrete wall on my left than I am doing 130mph at my home track. No way. My only real danger at my home track is going off sideways, having my tires catch a rut, and flip it. In that case, the last thing I want to do is use my head to hold up my roof because the harnesses are keeping my body upright. Doing that without a rollbar would make my car MORE dangerous to me and my neck, not less. And as for keeping myself in the seat, I use a simple lock on the lap belt that locks my pelvis in place and a simple torso strap that keeps me adequately in place at driving G's. It is not a safety device... not there for 40G collisions... but works great for driving performance/comfort. Otherwise I am relying on the standard seatbelts and airbags for safety... not ideal... but adding a rollbar is more than I'm ready to do for my home track. If I was driving regularly at Watkins Glen, I'd probably do something different.
The defect in the track was a pit exit opening in the exterior wall. It was partially in turn two and the back straightaway. The effect of that opening was that if someone got loose off of turn 2, then instead of brushing against the wall, they could go through the opening and strike the barrier, almost head on. Given that people sometimes lose it on the turns, and that they didn't use the exit, we contended that the design was improper. In fact, they realized that the opening constituted a danger, and right after our client died, they closed up the opening, thus eliminating the problem. Didn't help our guy who died when he struck the second barrier head on though. In California, those releases are indeed effective. The doctrine of assumption of risk also comes into play. However, the law is pretty clear: the track owner, etc., can do anything which makes the sport or endeavor more risky. From what I know, I'd use the Hans device if I were racing a vehicle like these. Art
Again, because I'd like to build a race track when I grow up, I'm just trying to understand the standard of negligence that might apply assuming that the participants have signed an effective waiver. In this case, they must have been running the track backwards? How else could you lose it into a pit EXIT? Regardless, I'm assuming that the track operater had knowledge or notice of the problem, but didn't do anything about it. Lacking this, I fail to see how this defect made the track liable. Hell, even with this knowledge, I don't see how the track is liable given the waivers. Hell, check out turn 10 at Moroso sometime. You have a wide sweeper that funnels into a chute. The run out is a concrete wall! But perhaps the real problem is that somebody died. Loss always trumps reality doesn't it? Dale
Dale: Problem was that there was a 100' opening, with a wall behind it. The track is an oval. The designer they used, had never designed such a track before, and if you saw what they'd done, you'd agree, it was pretty stupid. There had been several incidents there before, and this apparently was the last straw and they fixed it. The opening was to allow people to exit the pits onto the track, but its positioning was such that they were never able to use it for that. I've been around racing for a long, long time. I've seen tracks use the release to keep from fixing obviously dangerous situation. Laguna Seca is a prime example. Before CART made them change the track, motorcycle riders were getting killed in turn 2, even though AFM people were willing to fix the problem. John Woo comes to mind, killed when testing for Honda. I agree that racing is dangerous. I also believe that the track has a duty to the people using it, not to increase their risk. The two issues are somewhat contradictory, but there should be no excuse for an obvious blunder like the one at that track. Indeed a similar track, not terribly far away was used as a design model, and it doesn't have such an opening. It's a fairly complex issue, and there are competing concepts. Without the suits, you'd have a lot more dangerous tracks. People are alive now that wouldn't be alive, had some of those tracks not been used. An example of such stupidity: the AMA refused to install airfense protection at several tracks. My friend and client, John Ulrich, editor of Roadracing World, set up a fund to do so. They almost didn't take the FREE air fence. The threat of litigaiton caused them to change their mind. Think about that for a while. Art
What did LS do at T2? Did they increase the run out. Plus, I haven't heard of the air fence. Does it work for cars? Thx, Dale
Dale: Laguna redesigned the track after turn 1 and before turn 3. Before the redesign, turn 1 was the kink in the front straight (fast way through the corner was to pick the front wheel up, and carry it until time to brake at about 130!!!, so the bike wouldn't wobble). After turn one there was a 90% turn (Turn 2) which had a little banking. If you were in a hurry, you'd go down two gears, then power your way through the turn. Problem was, that the corner didn't have much run off, and there was an embankment there, with the road on top of same. You really didn't want to fall down there. People had offered to cut more room, but they didn't want to lose the roadway. The re-design: The track turns before you get to 2, and you've got 3 corners before you're back on the old track. Totally eliminated the problem. I don't know about the airfence working for cars, but a huge safety increase for bikes. Much, much better than haybales. Art
"The threat of litigaiton caused them to change their mind. Think about that for a while." Art - I don't need to think about it at all. If you choose to race, you can hurt your car, you can hurt yourself, you can die ... and it's down to you. The risk is allocated to YOU, by all those waivers, releases and indemnities. Too many people don't understand the risks of every racing activity, from schools to track days to amateur racing. A guy takes his street Porsche to a track day and blows his engine, or hits a tire wall, and suddenly it's all someone else's fault - his insurer's, his instructor's, the track's, the shop's, the club's, another driver's, etc. BULLS++T! But it has happened in all of the marque clubs, I'm sure. And if you don't like a track, don't race on it. I've avoided ovals for years because I worry about the consequences of a minor error. IMO, having the judicial system determine what is and isn't safe on racetracks will kill the sport. In our lifetimes, I wonder if the courts will kill off high performance cars altogether; after all, why should anyone be allowed to build a street car that can go faster than, say, 80 mph? Isn't reckless to build such a car? Aren't those manufacturers really tobacco companies or gun makers in disguise? Evil, evil, evil .... I've also raced for years, and I've practiced law. I've concluded that the judicial system does not have the answer to all of life's problems. There are other ways to address the obvious safety blunders such as the one you describe. Can't we have at least one activity where folks take responsibility for their actions? Cheers, Will
Will: I started racing in 1968. I've seen my friends die. I've seen corners that with a little effort would be a whole bunch safer, yet the track refused to fix them. I've sued them for the deaths, and guess what, the corners ultimately have been changed, so that when people crash there, they live. You'd rather not force them to fix known problems. Your choice. I stopped racing in 90, but I still have friends who race, who sponsor people, etc. and making a track safer isn't a bad deal, I think its a good deal. There is no excuse for corners which are unsafe if the means are available to fix them. No excuse. These are live people, and although they assume the risk, the penalty for doing so, shouldn't be death or worse, especailly when the track ownership is aware of the problem. Interestingly enough, John Ulrich, a client and friend, who has a major race team, whose son races, has exactly the same attitude that I do, as do 90% of the competitors that I know. I don't know what level you raced at, but in the middle of my career, I ran the AMA Superbike series, and to a man, all of the competitors felt as I did, that safety was paramont, and that the tracks needed to be forced into making them safer. It might be the difference between those that play at racing (amateurs), and those that earn a living at it, but all the pros that I knew were insistant at safety. On that same note, when the 250 riders complained about safety at Pheonix in the 90s, they were threatened with suspensions if they refused to ride. Suits wouldn't be needed if the track owners were as concerned as the competitors. The only track that is that responsible to safety is Willow Springs in Southern California, where Bill Huth literally did just about everything he could to make that track safe. The balance of the track owners couldn't care less, as long as they make money. Cheers Art
Art - come now, you suggest that you are for safety, and I'm not. That the only track (in the world?) that is responsive to safety concerns is Willow Springs. That the balance of track owners don't care about safety, as long as they make money. That the best and perhaps only way to make racing safer is to drag participants into court - which, not inconveniently, enriches trial lawyers. That only an amateur, one who plays at racing - as opposed to a wise old pro like you, and of course your friend who is the owner of a major race team - would oppose the widespread use of litigation to resolve safety issues. We have a philosophical disagreement about the legal system, one that you want to disguise as an argument about whether safety is good or bad. OK, OK, I've seen the light, you win, safety is good! Now, does the racing industry have a lobbying organization to protect it from those who are "tough until the going gets tough"? I'd like to make a contribution .... Cheers, Will
Art, you state this like there is an absolute here. If you take it as an absolute, then there should be no track with walls anywhere near a runoff area. And, yes, that IS possible. Motorsport Ranch in Texas has no wall that could reasonably be reached from any reasonable off-track excursion. Thus, we have a proof-case that you can build tracks with that extreme level of safety. Thus, per your statement, there is NO EXCUSE for having a track anywhere with walls within run-off distance of the track. Right? So, we should just shut down the vast majority of tracks in the country? No? If not, then you cannot make an absolute statement like that. You have to accept that some tracks compromise safety for various reasons (like getting spectators closer to the action). And once you accept that as okay, how much safety compromise is okay? Who should decide that? 1) The court systems and a bunch of people who know nothing about racing. 2) Racers, who can choose which tracks they are willing to race on. If nobody is willing to race on your unsafe track, then you'll change your track.
I'm not a pro racer and I'm not a lawyer but I'm with Art on this one. His response is a resonable one that does not smack of agression and self-agrandizement but persuing a course based on careful evaluation. Will, don't forget we ametuers sign our rights away and really have no idea what we are doing. Brian thinks he is safe during DE's with only OEM gear. His car is federally tested with something like 35mph crash tests because those are most likely after you hit the brakes at near freeway speeds. But most ametuers spend near zero time over 100mph and just about every mondern car can do 100mph on a straight. We typically don't hear about out friends dying in crashes. A person who DE's does so maybe 6 times a year! A pro driver can be in a car 6 times in a week. We have no idea what safety really is or if a track is "safe" or if oue cars are safe. We rely mostly on sactioning bodies to tell us what we have to get. I'm with Art, I don't see why the safety bar can't be raised. Basically, businesses need lots of convincing to chance their business. Today we don't listen to many salesmen but Lawyers somehow get people's attention. You should always have one or two on speed dial. However, Art you can't just throw in the idea of the airbarier unless there is real agreement on whether it is really safe. Is the data really there? Just like You really can't say HANS over Isaac. Why? Well If I owned the track and had a long history of no deaths and good track safety...what happens to me when I put in a air barrier and someone thinks is it safer and takes the corner over their limit, crashes and dies? I think I have made an unsafe modification and encouraged that driver to take additional risk. When you make something foolproof they make a better fool! Life is not checkers it is chess. I owe Isaac and HANS so I don't really care about the arguments about these devices. However, I do have some problems with HANS. 1) the Isaac inventor will tell you anything you want o know and answer any question and will do so publically. 2) HANS will tell you nothing other than to say they are the only device IRL,CART,F1 blah blah blah approved. 3) why is SFI spec 38.1 basically writen for HANS such that to make any competing device to qualify for SFI spec 38.1 that you would have to violate a HANS patent? 4) If all that stuff sounds too heady just look at the HANS website. Can someone explain to me how in the "without HANS" picture the crash shows the dummy arms and legs out 90 degrees and the head whipping violently forward and why the "with HANS" picture shows the head being properly contained by HANS yet the arms not fully extended? That looks to me like not a full G test picture. 5) rumor has it that HANS throws out the results of when the harness slips off the device so that inflates the good results. After all HANS is only interested in how much HANS reduces G loads to the head but IF you slip off the harness the device does not work. So how often does that happen? I would like to hear why you think HANS is the clear winner. Like I said I have both devices and I would love to hear you convince me HANS is the clear choice. And I don't mean that is a pissing contest way. I am truely interested in hearing a cogent opinion.
Interesting... I cannot see anything in that statement of mine that you quoted that is even remotely disputable... I'm curious what in that you disagree with?
