So how many have to die before they...

[Alan]

Originally Posted by jjaisli

And, unless I'm completely off base with my assumptions, I think you're seriously underestimating the real world cost of the kind of equipment you're proposing.

This.

Once you put a full cage in a car, its no longer safe on the street unless you planning on wearing a helmet everywhere you go. Plus you should probably have a halo seat at that point and there goes your visibility. Race cars are not street cars. For "young" track day folks like most of us on this forum, we are not in 75K+ performance cars. Yet, the costs to prep the car are almost the same as those in cars three times the value. That's not including the cost of a tow vehicle, a new daily driver, a trailer, a place to keep all the extra cars and trailers etc. Even for the wealthy GT3, M4 or Z06 owner, taking a street car to a track car and all the costs that come along with it may be prohibitive (especially when significant others, college tuitions etc become involved). Many owners of new GT3s or Z06s may not be content driving a Civic to work. So figure at least a BMW 3 series or something as a second car. What about a tow vehicle?

Are these excuses? Absolutely not. They are the facts.

What does that mean for me? I'm staying in a low-powered car. Knowing I won't be going any faster that 134 mph no matter how long the straight is (and usually only top out at 110-120) means there is some additional safety over the 160+ I could see in a Corvette. Nevertheless, I recognize that any accident at those kinds of speeds could be catastrophic. So I'm evaluating my options to still be able to drive to the track and also be safe on track.

A half cage lets me drive the vehicle on the street and install proper seats/harness/HANs combination. But it doesn't help side impact protection at all. That's what killed the instructor at Summit last year. So I'm still not as safe as I could be. At some point, the driver (and the instructor) needs to accept the risk of their chosen past time. Heck, you could be Michael Schumacher and risk death on the racetrack for decades then end up nearly dead and severely impaired due to a skiing accident.

I think at the end of the day, more careful instruction, more careful monitoring of promotion out of novice group and restrictions on speed-enhancing equipment for early students is necessary. While I think All-Seasons may be a bit much (and they introduce their own safety issues), a restriction on R-Comps until you are in Advanced groups seems reasonable. A restriction on after-market power adders may make sense (kills the STI/EVO/GTR crowd though). Restricted passing and exclusion of visible lap timers (or lap timers altogether) may also make sense.

I also think there might be a problem with the idea of starting novices in rental Miatas etc because a novice who is then promoted to intermediate still has a very limited skill set. Now, you are putting him a car with three times the horsepower and comparatively less cornering grip. How does that adaptation occur?

Here's another idea. Paced laps. Do a few paced lap days. Then, if you want to move on to real instruction, you must get licensed at a Skip Barber-type school. Yes, there is a substantial cost to that but its a one time cost and a lot of skills can be taught in the smaller classroom/on track environments that such schools offer. Just an idea. I'm sure there are problems with this approach too.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling post. I'm really interested in this topic and enjoy discussing. I look forward to hearing other's perspectives.

EDIT: One more thing. I think novices should be required to corner-work. Learn to see what the corner workers see. My understanding is that corner workers usually know who is about to have an incident before it happens. Sometimes well before.

[why?]

I think you are seriously overestimating the amount of money people are willing to spend to get on a track.

From what I've seen it can be hundreds of dollars for an hpde event and that is the bottom of the barrel. The safety issues you mention seem to be happening because the people running the events are barely breaking even if that. If you add all those other costs to spending a couple hundred every time you get a chance to get on the course, you will severely limit the number of people even willing to try it, which is a massive problem for events that are barely financially viable right now.

When an SCCA membership is around $80 or $90 a year and autocross is dirt cheap, people will just not go to a track at all.

And yes the hardcore racing junkie won't stop going, but that is obviously not enough to keep these events doing well cash flow wise.

Originally Posted by rice_classic

A few points:

• Barriers to entry can affect participation but I posit it will not. It didn't happen when safety limits were imposed on drag racers years ago and it won't here. This is a drug, an addiction, a way of life for some and people are literally killing themselves (or willing to accept that risk) while enjoying it. Requiring a rollbar or a cage or a HANS isn't going to "kill the sport".
• I also oppose the speed limit. I don't want fun limited, I want safety increased.
• Bearing/hub/tire/brake/brain failure doesn't discriminate.. It cares not who's behind the wheel. Physics applies to all things (and all drivers) in a very predictable manner.
• Is this really a problem? As an instructor, to me it's definitely a problem. But it's happening too often and it's discussed more and more 'as a problem' so it appears so.
• Track safety is important but only so much can be done and even then, it isn't comprehensive enough a solution. Track owners should be doing what they can eliminate areas of excessive danger and improve safety, absolutely, but elements of danger will always persist and the laws of physics will always apply. The low-hanging fruit is addressing the drivers or the cars or both.
• Safety is too expensive?? There's 2 problems here 1) the relative cost of safety compared to cost of the activity when considering the benefit of the safety and 2) the alternative which is the cost associated with our lovely 'Murican shit-show we call a medical system.

1) If someone spends 25-100k on a car, $800-2000 tires, plus god knows how much on wings, diffusers, turbos etc etc and then complains about the cost of a roll bar or a helmet or a HANS device?. It won't break my heart if that person finds another hobby.
2) Just did a quick trip to the ER for 1 CT scan and 1 Xray (because of wreck). Total bill: $11,000, I shit you not. Lesson: if you think safety is expensive, try a visit to a hospital. Playing with cars at racetracks is expensive. Playing with our medical system is magnitudes of order more so.


I don't know what the right solution is but I do like a sliding scale of safety until I see another solution presented that is better.



Maybe power?

0-200 no bar or cage,

200-300 Roll bar with 5pt and hans,

300+ full cage, 5pt and hans.

Hmm, what about something super light with 200hp? That could be very dangerous too. Hmm...



Maybe power to weight?

18:1 or worse no bar/cage,

17.9:1 or better: rollbar,5pt,HANS and

13.9:1 or better then full cage etc etc.



Maybe Treadware or tire size? This could greatly reduce cornering/entry speeds. Same thing with TW and/or size, apply the same sliding scale.

[CSG Mike]

The reason safety equipment kills the sport is not cost. It's because it takes a street car and makes it unstreetable.

If people have a XYZ fast car, they want to be able to drive it on the street.

It's precisely the reason my S2000 is not caged.

[strat61caster]

@rice_classic
By your metric any off the shelf FI kit 86 would need a full roll cage and harness to be out on track, as pointed out by several people this makes the car nearly unstreetable. I plan on doing FI down the road and your rules would take me and thousands of others with modified cars or factory showroom cars that are quicker out of HPDE entirely.

If I need a car that can't be on the street to get on the track we go back to the old days where you buy a real racecar and go amateur racing, maybe that's not a bad thing, it would certainly remove the problem of HPDE deaths as there won't be anymore HPDE's, again as already pointed out many groups struggle to stay alive at razor thin profit margins and being in many cases mostly volunteer run.

At that point I'd have to sell my FR-S, pick up a cheap DD and spend the rest of the money buying a racecar, trailer, hauler, and finding storage space if I wanted to keep supporting my local tracks and get my thrills in a vehicle with doors. But I can't afford that so I'd likely end up karting...

Anybody paying attention to what's going on with Laguna Seca? HPDE's are one of the things that keeps that track alive, if locals couldn't hit the corkscrew for a few hundred bucks (I spent less than $200 both times this year but I am certainly willing to pay more) they'd bulldoze it for condos before the decade is out.

[Rio]

This discussion cracks me up. Let's forget about the root cause of the problem and just keep the idiots on the track and/or without proper training or guidance but now we all have roll cages do its much better.

Roll cages are NOT the solution!

[Locust]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

The reason safety equipment kills the sport is not cost. It's because it takes a street car and makes it unstreetable.

If people have a XYZ fast car, they want to be able to drive it on the street.

It's precisely the reason my S2000 is not caged.

This 100%. I want to do all the safety stuff to my Evo but the reality is I need it to drive on public roads so my options are fork over another $20-$30k for a truck/trailer and $10k for safety equipment or drive it as is. Not only that but if I were to get a truck/trailer I would then need to move or pay additional costs to store it because I live in a town home with no room for a gigantic car trailer.

If you require a full cage, etc. to allow a car on a track then you've just blocked out a significant portion of the racing population. At that point only people with a lot of money to throw at their cars, people willing to drive illegally to/from the track, or people who attend racing schools would be able to race.

[jjaisli]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

The reason safety equipment kills the sport is not cost. It's because it takes a street car and makes it unstreetable.

If people have a XYZ fast car, they want to be able to drive it on the street.

It's precisely the reason my S2000 is not caged.

Bingo. And exactly what I thought. So thanks for clearing that up.

Originally Posted by Alan

This.

Once you put a full cage in a car, its no longer safe on the street unless you planning on wearing a helmet everywhere you go..the costs to prep the car are almost the same as those in cars three times the value. That's not including the cost of a tow vehicle, a new daily driver, a trailer, a place to keep all the extra cars and trailers etc. Even for the wealthy GT3, M4 or Z06 owner, taking a street car to a track car and all the costs that come along with it may be prohibitive (especially when significant others, college tuitions etc become involved).

A half cage lets me drive the vehicle on the street and install proper seats/harness/HANs combination. But it doesn't help side impact protection at all. That's what killed the instructor at Summit last year. So I'm still not as safe as I could be. At some point, the driver (and the instructor) needs to accept the risk of their chosen past time. Heck, you could be Michael Schumacher and risk death on the racetrack for decades then end up nearly dead and severely impaired due to a skiing accident.

I think at the end of the day, more careful instruction, more careful monitoring of promotion out of novice group and restrictions on speed-enhancing equipment for early students is necessary.

EDIT: One more thing. I think novices should be required to corner-work. Learn to see what the corner workers see. My understanding is that corner workers usually know who is about to have an incident before it happens. Sometimes well before.

Exactly, I'm in the same boat. I have a long commute (~100 miles round trip per day) so it just doesn't pay to have an expensive car as my daily. No matter what I drive it's going to have >100,000 miles in 5 years. And I have a daughter who will (hopefully) be starting university in another 7 years and a mortgage and bills, etc. So I'm weighing all these things very carefully. My FRS isn't my daily driver so I don't really NEED to keep it on the road. And if I already had a trailer and a pickup or big SUV, I would be a lot closer to making this decision. But I'm getting closer regardless. At my last two track events, somebody in the paddock next to me in a twin went off and binned the car. In one case it was an experienced driver in a higher run group who just made a mistake. And in the other it was an instructor who was very experienced and admitted he was chasing time and just over did it. Both were fine. But it was a sobering reminder of how quickly things can go wrong.

Volunteering as a flag marshall is actually a great idea. Nobody has ever suggested this at any of the events I've gone to. But I think I'm going to look into it, just as an observer at some point. I think it would be great to see things from this perspective and it would help to gain additional insight from their eyes.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Alan

I also think there might be a problem with the idea of starting novices in rental Miatas etc because a novice who is then promoted to intermediate still has a very limited skill set. Now, you are putting him a car with three times the horsepower and comparatively less cornering grip. How does that adaptation occur?

I think the adaptation occurs in going from TC/VSA off with all-season tires on the Miata to nannies in "sport" in their own cars. The Miatas will teach them car control at lower speeds, especially if they get time on a wet skidpad. Those same car control/recovery skills transfer over to faster cars.

Really though, the point in being in their own cars with nannies in "sport" is to give instructors a safe environment to show them proper throttle/brake application in their specific cars and traffic management, without the worry of spinning out. Their time in the Miatas should have given them (1) a minimum baseline of car control, in addition to (2) a decent line on the track. If the driver doesn't have those two requisite skills, he should remain in the Miata until he learns.

Originally Posted by Alan

Here's another idea. Paced laps. Do a few paced lap days. Then, if you want to move on to real instruction, you must get licensed at a Skip Barber-type school. Yes, there is a substantial cost to that but its a one time cost and a lot of skills can be taught in the smaller classroom/on track environments that such schools offer. Just an idea. I'm sure there are problems with this approach too.

I think idiots have crashed and maybe even died in paced laps, gaming the system by slowing down to create space in front of them and increasing cornering speeds. Without proper car control skills, they didn't know how to recover from oversteer.

I think we somehow need to impart a minimum threshold of car control skills in novices without putting instructors at risk.

[Ultramaroon]

I know at least one instructor here who has cut the nannies without the drivers' knowledge.

But I also remember the first time I looked back watching my dad fade in the distance. He had let go of the bike and I was on my own.

[noodleface]

I ran an HPDE a couple of weeks ago where a speed limit of 90 MPH was imposed on anyone not running a HANS device. I do not have a HANS device and so I was relegated to that speed limit.

It frankly didn't bother me. The only area of the track I would hit 90+ MPH would be the front straight. I'm there to learn to pick my lines properly and I'm not really learning much by mashing the throttle on a straight. It was the first time the organizers tried such a thing and much of the response was positive. There were some grumblings because there wasn't any advance notice but I think it makes sense as others alluded. Modern cars are becoming more and more car than many of us can handle.

Ultimately, HPDE days are about education, fun, and safety. I personally think this is a nice compromise that protects your average driver from going beyond their ability while still providing some semblance of safety and education. In the clubs I've run with, we've always been taught to go at max 7/10ths of your ability. It's not a race after all.

[smbstyle]

This is for sure getting blown out of proportion, with your thread title and opening remarks, as if HPDE participants are getting killed on a weekly basis. THEY ARE NOT. I believe you are referring to the R/T article re: speed limit at track days, in response to the Road Atlanta crash.

I work for one of the largest track day providers in the USA, and want to share a post that's been made on this subject from our GM, Mark Hicks, who has been running track events for well over a decade:

"More serious questions need to be asked by responsible people about implementing "speed limits" in the track setting. As an industry professional with a well-established relationship with Rd Atllanta mgmt , I have been debriefed on the recent incident by authorities, not by the internet. To start with, it was estimated that the incident car in the recent fatality at Road Atlanta was going less than 100mph before impact. So, a "speed limit" would have helped how? Using Road Atlanta as an example, collective data (not anecdotal opinion) conclusively shows that the most frequent incident locations are T7 and T5. How will having limits on straightaway speeds mitigate the incident frequency at those locations? There's no doubt that the overwhelming majority of on-track incidents are cornering related, usually at corner exit, in a speed range of 40-80mph. That's not a guess: I have one of the largest data sets in the country on this subject. Straightaway speed limits will reduce the severity of very rare, low-probability incidents that occur on straights, yes. But, they will have no effect on the majority of incidents, which are cornering related. The tone of the R/T article makes it sound as if there's been a rash of recent fatalities. Bullshit. In the last 5 years, I'm aware of 4 fatalities nationwide in track day/HPDE events: 2 involved running-off into trees after loss of control in a corner at tracks with inadequate safety barriers. 1 was a crash at corner exit that resulted in an injury that was exacerbated by an undisclosed medical condition (a normally healthy driver would have likely survived). And, the incident most recently at Road Atlanta. Applying a straightaway speed limit cannot be demonstrated to have a mitigating affect on a single one of the incidents described above. Even though the nationwide numbers of participants has increased in recent years, there's not a sudden spike in fatalities. In fact, fatality probability, as a factor of track miles driven, is probably at an all-time low. I'm not at all cavalier about this, it's serious business. That's why we should be looking at the data. In the R/T editorial by Baruth and commentary by Salisbury, no data or cause/effect analysis is offered. It's strictly opinion based. The uproar is an emotional response without substantive foundation. So, slowing down is "Common Sense"?. Well, if one's car is starting to spin, common sense is to lift and brake. Hmm. Sometimes, the obvious response is not necessarily the correct one. It takes more effort to TEACH safety than to make a rule. But, teaching is the more effective solution. Is it possible for us (organizers) to simply make rules that rule out the risk? No. We can minimize risk, but, we cannot remove it. The only motorsports that is free of risk is when you watch it on TV. HPDE organizers should accept and embrace the responsibility they have to educate, and adopt greater transparency about the risk. The underdeveloped operators tend to ignore it. The most effective way to reduce incidents is to teach the driver to drive. The national organization that I lead has a long novice protocol and stringent check-out requirements. Once the driver has acquired and demonstrated the appropriate skill set, then, isn't it appropriate to tell the driver what they CAN do, rather than what they CAN'T? Track operators and track event providers definitely have responsibilities to fulfill. A primary one is to ensure that participating drivers are ALREADY AWARE OF and ACKNOWLEDGE and ACCEPT the inherent risk. If the driver KNOWS IT, and ACCEPTS IT, then the responsibility is on the driver. As it should be. The data to support this hysteria DOES NOT EXIST. Fatalities have not increased, relative to total driver days/track miles driven."

[why?]

wait, actually having data is legal? I swore with all the bs flying around someone outlawed actual data.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by smbstyle

This is for sure getting blown out of proportion, with your thread title and opening remarks, as if HPDE participants are getting killed on a weekly basis. THEY ARE NOT. I believe you are referring to the R/T article re: speed limit at track days, in response to the Road Atlanta crash.

I work for one of the largest track day providers in the USA, and want to share a post that's been made on this subject from our GM, Mark Hicks, who has been running track events for well over a decade:

Well, it is why I posit the question.. how many have to die. So your answer to the question is more, definitely more have to die. It also sounds like the GM of Chin Motorsports agrees with you... More have to die. To him, and apparently yourself, .8 deaths/year average isn't enough death to address this. Fair enough.

Personally I think death is a blight on this activity, on this industry as a whole. It's bad PR, it catches headlines and deters people from the activity.

Originally Posted by jjaisli

Either I have a serious misconception about how this works or you're glazing over the true cost.
Anyway, just an interesting point, in the Audi video you linked, I don't believe this car had any additional safety equipment other than what comes standard in the car and the driver walked away without any serious injury.

It's often said: "if you can't afford to leave it at the track, don't take it there." but you are taking a $25k car to the track so you've accepted the risk, that investment could be written off. Now, combine that risk with the cost of medical (unless your Canadian). For me, 1 x-ray and 1 CT scan plus the ambulance ride was $11,000. Avoiding medical expenses is a part of the "investment" in safety. Also, the reason that Audi did so well is because it's that Audi. Imagine that same thing happening to a car without 40 air bags and modern crumple zones? The crash that audi suffered was significant enough to cause great harm to the driver had it happened to most other cars.. Kudos to Audi.

Originally Posted by strat61caster

@rice_classic
By your metric any off the shelf FI kit 86 would need a full roll cage and harness to be out on track, as pointed out by several people this makes the car nearly unstreetable.

Yes, and my solutions are equivalent to thinking out loud. But if you could run without any of those burdensome safety features if you stayed NA and being on the track was your priority while keeping your car "street-able" would you still go FI? Also in many states adding a roll bar doesn't make it illegal for public roads and you can still retain the factory 3 point belt. When I started tracking my car street car I added a 4 point bolt in after just 2 events. Wasn't an inconvenience for me.. well it was less inconvenient (and less costly) than my latest trip to the ER.

Originally Posted by Rio

This discussion cracks me up. Let's forget about the root cause of the problem and just keep the idiots on the track and/or without proper training or guidance but now we all have roll cages do its much better.

Roll cages are NOT the solution!

A discussion about safety and death cracks you up, strange sense of humor you posses I suppose. I also agree that idiots shouldn't be on track, cage or no cage.

Have you ever seen a professional driver wreck a street car at the track? No?.. I have. The quality and quantity of instruction is relevant but it's not the magic bullet. Lapse of judgement, mistakes, part failures happen to everyone. It isn't just big egos in fast cars. Well trained, well disciplined folks make mistakes as well. The question is: when that mistake is made what outcome are you comfortable with?

[Locust]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

Well, it is why I posit the question.. how many have to die. So your answer to the question is more, definitely more have to die. It also sounds like the GM of Chin Motorsports agrees with you... More have to die. To him, and apparently yourself, .8 deaths/year average isn't enough death to address this. Fair enough.

Personally I think death is a blight on this activity, on this industry as a whole. It's bad PR, it catches headlines and deters people from the activity.

Making the discussion of track safety into a matter of life or death is a distortion of the argument. There are not enough track related deaths to consider any perceived lack of safety to be a life or death problem. Over 30 times more people die each year from lightning strikes.

Rather than focusing on how to make it so less people (which is essentially saying nobody in this case because the rate is already extremely low) die doing HPDEs you should be focusing on how to reduce the amount of overall accidents. And the only way you're going to do that is with better instruction, stricter rules regarding black flagging of drivers, and mandatory car control classes prior to being allowed on a track.