Safety on tracks.

[LuiggiSpeed]

Originally Posted by shambles

You'd rather race at Qatar than the Isle of Man?

Yeah baby!
Quatar all the way, and at night ,please...

Isle de Man collected 3 souls this year,wich is about average for later years.

Earlier years it collected anywhere from 5 to 10,including some legends that won there many times.

I take Isle de Man on a diferent league,however. It is well known that it is World's most dangerous motorcycle event and racers flock there,knowing that beforehand,I guess that's what makes us tick.

I would love to race there myself, maybe not at 100%,just to scratch that out of my bucket list,alongside with riding a Baja 1000, some skydiving and having two japanese teens for me during a whole weekend.

[matarleton]

Sorry if I rehash something from a previous thread, I am a newbie to this forum. It seems like all the posters in this forum are of a great variety and mix. Please tell me, what do you believe is the minimum distance of verge whether it be grass, gravel or asphalt from the tracks edge to the wall? We are currently designing a club track and while we are trying to maximize runoff areas we also have a few areas where the wall gets closer.

By the way, I do see the point of the other posters regarding walls in that you will be more careful knowing walls are closer to the track in certain areas but also it is a racers nature to push the envelope so there must be a balance.

Specific thoughts please.

Thanks,

Matt

[bio]

Wow, matarleton, I think you'll never get the forum population even close to each other in this

By the way, welcome here!

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Well matarleton welcome

In the straights I personally in my fantasy designs have a minimum of 2/3 track width of grass on either side...the exception to that being the pit straight where the pitwall is much closer, but usually still a couple of metres off the track.

At corners a similar amount on the inside, but for the outside, well... you've read the discussion so far, feel free to add your own thoughts

[Purist]

Sorry Werner, but when you can just about straight-line Eau Rouge with all that tarmac, it's not that daunting. When you can have wiggles the size of a Mac truck at Pouhon or Blanchimont and continue as normal, those corners have really lost something. And the same can be said of being able to thoroughly leave the track itself at La Source and rejoin virtually without consequence.

Turn 8 at Istanbul would be a real challenge if you couldn't get away with murder there. And the landscape is nice in theory, but with those run-offs, it's not that impressive from the track itself because it's so far away.

I wouldn't call Assen a cathedral of motorsport. The road courses that really fit that bill would be Monza and Mexico City. A cathedral imposes it presence and surrounds and almost engulfs you. The stands at Assen aren't that imposing, and all the scenery is kept will back by those "safety features".

I need the track to be a part of its setting, not apart from it, for me to get that full impact and experience from the track, whether I'm there in person or watching on TV. If you build it apart from its setting, it could be a ribbon of tarmac anywhere, and then, what makes it special and why should I care about the venue.

Well, for my part Matarleton, on fairly straight sections, 15 feet of verge gives you room to pull a car off and hopefully pull it behind a break in the wall. I'm not sure the stretch from the Kink to Canada Corner at Road America has any more verge than that, and it's never been a real issue in any of the races there that I've seen.

Frankly, a lot of people would call me crazy for even trying to be a fairly functional person in a sighted world, so those sorts of comments in regards to drivers/riders don't really impact/change my feelings in these matters. Anyway, I figure every one of us is a little crazy/eccentric in our own way, so what's the big deal?

Great pictures Luiggi. I can only wish to be able to stand quite that close to the action as some of those photos seem to show.

[LuiggiSpeed]

Originally Posted by matarleton

Sorry if I rehash something from a previous thread, I am a newbie to this forum. It seems like all the posters in this forum are of a great variety and mix. Please tell me, what do you believe is the minimum distance of verge whether it be grass, gravel or asphalt from the tracks edge to the wall? We are currently designing a club track and while we are trying to maximize runoff areas we also have a few areas where the wall gets closer.

By the way, I do see the point of the other posters regarding walls in that you will be more careful knowing walls are closer to the track in certain areas but also it is a racers nature to push the envelope so there must be a balance.

Specific thoughts please.

Thanks,

Matt

Welcon Matarleton.
There's a parameter regarding the proximity of a wall depending on the presumed speed of the incoming traffic, for example, if you have a 800-1000m straight you can presume motorcycles are going to hit 180mph and cars should be around 140-150 for touring cars and maybe 170-180 GT's and bigger forms of life, so to slow down an out of control car or bike you will need no less than 60-70 meters of sand,gravel or another energy absorbing material,and if there's a wall it must be protected with tire barriers or AirFence if motorcycles are to be raced there.On most corners,however, were going 2nd or 3rd gear at 50-70 mph and 15 meters of run off seems to be the smallest acceptable ,though the use of Air Fence has provided safety for bikers with maybe less than that.

However,if you are starting from scratch, the bigger the better and there's plenty of good designers around this forum,so make sure you listen to their input. I wouldn't recomend getting too romantic about endangering riders/racers for tha sake of whathever morbic desire you might feel about the beauty of death, since it's not really beauty and that belong to a distant past.Nowdays you can be a practitioner of a motorsport and minimize the risk for amateurs and club racers by using a propper enviroment,trust me,lives can be saved on a propperly designed circuit,lives can be lost on a poorly designed one, and when lives are lost, the next thing that follows are suits, and possible closures of racing facilities. Wavers don't mean nothing in this lawyer-infested enviroment, every time somebody gets killed on a track, some smart-assed lawyer will pick on the track features and the track may face a couple of years closure while things get sorted out.

The track I used to race is currently facing a 2.5 million dollars sue on oart of the widow because it didn't had 15 meters of run off in a very dangerous area,wich killed one of my friends. Even though the sue is still in process, racing there is impractical because the insurance company is charging 25,000$ fee for each event,whereas 1,500$ used to be the norm before the accident.

Those little things can get really messy,so make sure you design your track with the absolute higest safety standard possible for your terrain.

Once again welcome to the forum.

[AU N EGL]

Or the real question is,

Why do mere mortal mean race?

and the answer is, Because we can.


a number a years a go the SCCA did a survey to find out why ppl race, and the overwhelming answer was, to stretch my abilities as far as it can go.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by matarleton

Sorry if I rehash something from a previous thread, I am a newbie to this forum. It seems like all the posters in this forum are of a great variety and mix. Please tell me, what do you believe is the minimum distance of verge whether it be grass, gravel or asphalt from the tracks edge to the wall? We are currently designing a club track and while we are trying to maximize runoff areas we also have a few areas where the wall gets closer.

By the way, I do see the point of the other posters regarding walls in that you will be more careful knowing walls are closer to the track in certain areas but also it is a racers nature to push the envelope so there must be a balance.

Specific thoughts please.

Thanks,

Matt

Matt

Welcome to 10 / tenths

Dont minimize run off areas, that is what grass is for and safety. High speed corners, or the last 3/4s on the out side of the corner should have run off area.

Walls that are somehwat close to the track on high speed straights is not really a problem.

Look at many tracks, ones you like and ones you dont like. Then figure out why you like some and not others.

[matarleton]

Ok, thanks.

If you guys are interested, I will post the site plan showing the track.

The smallest runoff area we have is 20' and if we can increase that we will. Right now we have a wetlands issue in that area and may not be able to move it back much. However, 95% of the track has a minimum runoff area of 50' with some higher speed areas, like the large decreasing radius roundabout, with runoff areas of 150'.

I will start a new thread with the track design on it.

Matt

[matarleton]

Its posted. Thread is "New Track Design".

Matt

[Purist]

Luiggi, I certainly hope you do not take me as one to romanticize death.

Others as well as myself have given examples of how having barriers closer in, thus decreasing the margin or error for racers, does not prevent hard-fought competition, nor does it stop a driver/rider from pushing himself and his mount to their limits.

As to the challenge of such a scenario? If the barriers are further away and run-offs more generous and forgiving, the margin of error is increased. This leads to successful negotiation of the course being easier; you don't necessarily have to worry about being as precise because the consequences for going off aren't there. If you make the racing easier, you make it less challenging.

If I was a competitor, I would want to enjoy the competition itself, but also, try to prove myself against the best of all time. Feeling as though I'm being given favors offends my sense of fair play, and cheapens the experience of the competition. My desire is nothing more and nothing less than to try to create some of the best and most challenging road courses the world has ever seen. Morbidity and the like have absolutely nothing to do with it.

[matarleton]

As I had mentioned in a previous post, I believe there to be a good balance. I believe a course where ALL of the runoff areas are huge makes for a more "risky" driver. This is not to be confused with "daring". A daring driver is one who will push the envelope, a risky driver is one who does it with less regard for his/her safety and the safety of others.

In the track design I am currently working with, we have a variety of runoff areas ranging from 250' with no wall, to 150' to a wall, to 50' to a wall down to one fast left-to-right that has a wall 20' from the track surface. Verges are a mix or asphalt and grass and walls are a mixture of concrete and tire. The whole point is for us to maximize enjoyment and competitiveness while increasing safety and decreasing damage and injury.

Again, its a balance. The left-to-right where the wall is 20' off track is to preserve a wetlands area of cypress, pine and palms where you come through the turn through a beautiful landscape to the front stretch. The risky driver will push it and maybe do damage but the wall design is so that if a risky driver pushes it to hard, he will be deflected back to a grass verge. A daring driver will push his vehicle and reduce his lap time through the corners while still being smart and keeping consistent. I have had plenty of involvement as a driver and other posts within motorsports and I will take consistency over risky in a driver anyday.

Its a balance.

Matt

[LuiggiSpeed]

Originally Posted by Purist

Luiggi, I certainly hope you do not take me as one to romanticize death.

Others as well as myself have given examples of how having barriers closer in, thus decreasing the margin or error for racers, does not prevent hard-fought competition, nor does it stop a driver/rider from pushing himself and his mount to their limits.

As to the challenge of such a scenario? If the barriers are further away and run-offs more generous and forgiving, the margin of error is increased. This leads to successful negotiation of the course being easier; you don't necessarily have to worry about being as precise because the consequences for going off aren't there. If you make the racing easier, you make it less challenging.
.

Purist my man, I have told you before that the perception of danger from a riders perpective don't mean nothing, it's when mechanical problems show up that you need space to escape.That has nothing to do with valor, balls,courage or cavaliery, it's just common sense.

Big run off's are there to provide an escape route for faulty brakes, broken direction or suspenssion systems, or when riders just collide and both lose control. Just imagine yourself racing your little old car and being as careful as you can because you're riding at your dream track with the concrete wall in your face and some idiot lose control and hit you, make you slam the wall.
Was it your fault?
Did you were careles?
Does it matter at all?

If a racer has to reduce speed because he's afraid of a wall, he doesn't have any future in racing,somebody already said that.The "margin of error" theory doesn't hold water because if you're careless driving and you spin out,thinking you're cool and safe on the run-off,you still lose the race and that's not the purpose.

I hope now you finally understand the point. Just forget about the psycological part and start thinking about practicality.

[Purist]

To be honest, I've never felt that I had a particular talent for thinking practically, especially when I'm actually thinking about it. So I generally stick to being myself and not trying too hard to think practically.

Sure, the margin of error thing doesn't do much for the case of a spin-out, but what about Lewis Hamilton's bobbles at Magny Cours this year, and the wiggle he had in Pouhon last year? Kimi Raikkonen botched that corner/chicane at Hungary this year. So many guys just abuse the paved run-off at Eau Rouge, just as they did at the A1-Ring and at Watkins Glen now.

I've already pointed out tracks that I like that do have run-off and good energy absorbing barriers, but don't resemble a desert or parking lot. On quite a number of occasions, I've mentioned putting tire barriers in front of more solid walls.

In the end, my point is that I have confidence that advances in barriers, vehicles, and driver suits can minimize the size of run-offs, perhaps elminate some types altogether, and minimize the use of chicanes. And if need be, I'll have to be prepared to get behind the wheel or in the saddle myself for some live-action tests. After all, I cannot expect others to take risks I myself will not.

[LuiggiSpeed]

hey at least were getting somewhere!

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by matarleton

Ok, thanks.

If you guys are interested, I will post the site plan showing the track.

The smallest runoff area we have is 20' and if we can increase that we will. Right now we have a wetlands issue in that area and may not be able to move it back much. However, 95% of the track has a minimum runoff area of 50' with some higher speed areas, like the large decreasing radius roundabout, with runoff areas of 150'.

I will start a new thread with the track design on it.

Matt

Matt is this the new Stark track ?

[matarleton]

No, it is not the new Stark track. Never heard of the Stark track. Where is it supposed to be located?

Matt

[bio]

Star Trek

[werner]

Originally Posted by Purist

Sorry Werner, but when you can just about straight-line Eau Rouge with all that tarmac, it's not that daunting. When you can have wiggles the size of a Mac truck at Pouhon or Blanchimont and continue as normal, those corners have really lost something. And the same can be said of being able to thoroughly leave the track itself at La Source and rejoin virtually without consequence.
away.

It can have consequences. A driver that cuts parts of a track twice often gets a drive-throughpenalty, and you sometimes see at chicanes a very slow escaperoad when it is overshot. That can also be done at blanchimont.

Originally Posted by Purist

I wouldn't call Assen a cathedral of motorsport. The road courses that really fit that bill would be Monza and Mexico City. A cathedral imposes it presence and surrounds and almost engulfs you. The stands at Assen aren't that imposing, and all the scenery is kept will back by those "safety features".

Ever been there on MotoGP-raceday? Or watched the race on the telly? It is special!

@ Luiggi: That track is indeed pretty unsafe. If there is no alternative, well, probably a racer will race anyway. But most tracks will be safer than yours...

I have told my family that when I want to race the Manx TT, they must stop me. I may want to race it when I have braincancer and or something and die anyway. Hmmm, first get my driverslicense for motorcycles....

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by matarleton

No, it is not the new Stark track. Never heard of the Stark track. Where is it supposed to be located?

Matt

Stark FL SW of Jacksoville FL

very small narrow track opening this fall.

[atomik99]

Would it be more accurate to say instead, not that drivers are "more" cautious on tracks with walls, but instead, they are "less" cautious without walls?

There has to be something to it. I don't believe that it is all testosterone and pride and walls be damned.
Look at the 2 tracks I used in my previous example: In Edmonton this years, Indy drivers were into the grass many many times. Compare that with Belle Isle (that has walls right beside the track in nearly all areas), you don't have anywhere near the amount of cars going beyond the track (or in this case, hitting the wall) in Belle Isle as you do with Edmonton. Obviously we can't reach a conclusion only comparing 2 tracks (because other factors are involved), but for the most part, this example carries through to many other tracks I have watched as well.

I'm only going by what I have seen in races and heard from commentators and driver interviews. They don't use words demonstrating that they are "more" cautious in walled tracks, but there has to be some part of their mind and instincts that will not allow them go 5 cm closer to the wall at the end of a fast turn, versus knowing that there is no wall and pushing for that extra bit of speed, knowing that if they make a mistake they will hopefully only hit some sand and lose a bit of speed (with the latter happening way more often then the former).

[AU N EGL]

Drivers cash and they can loose their jobs.

[matarleton]

This exact thing about drivers being more cautious because of the walls was mentioned by the commentators on SPEED this morning during the GP2 race.

Matt

[matarleton]

This is an interesting thread that seemed to have died. I can tell you one thing, Scott Pruett and the track in Millville, NJ will never be the same. I would like to have known the circumstances of the accident but the armco was evidently too close to the track and without proper safety components to slow down the car. Ripped his car in half.

Matt

[Purist]

Scott hit the end of the pit wall on exit of the final corner. They added 250ft of armco such that the wall starts further from the track itself, and so that if you hit it, it will be MUCH MORE of a glancing blow. They also added barrels in front of the pit wall at critical points.