Brock death brings call for rule change... "and here come the do-gooders"

[Chucky]

The Ferrari example you quote was a standard road going example without any sort of a cage and can't be compared (nor should be mentioned) in this discussion.

While it is unfair to call a Daytona a "kit" car, I must admit that the side impact on the two examples I've seen is pretty average and far from the standard of what a fast Targa car should be. With the high probability of a side impact into something nasty, this kind of bracing should have muchmore attention payed to it. Malcolm and Blake Lynn's Mt. Buller crash should have woken people up to that.

John Tuelan also isn't a very good "expert" in this regard. I can't see how a property developing lawyer can be held up as an expert on such matters.

[Silver 3]

Without wishing to sound crass in these cicumstances-- the wrong type of impact with a tree will put any car to the test.The integrity of the cage was preserved- it was the sudden stop that is the issue here.
The Daytona has a Cams approved cage ( and side bars) for both circuit racing and tarmac rallies.That cage must come with the relevent engineering certificates.The authorities have released the car already which would tend to indicate that they see no further issues with the matters raised here about the car itself.Hard as it may be to accept this is most likly a driver error issue that could happen to anybody on these rallies.There has been numerous deaths in rallies for one reason or another and its erves no purpose to be pointing fingers carelessly.

[valet_dave]

I seriously doubt that there are many amateur competitors fitting every available piece of safety gear into their vehicles which "could" save their life. If I ignore the extra weight in a vehicle, I think it’s basically because competitive nature dictates money should be spent on performance before safety, IF the rules let us get away with it. And lets face it, if we aren't winning, then there is ALWAYS more money to spend on performance. The question is, should the rules force competitors to implement an even wider range of safety equipment? Are some competitors not taking their safety seriously enough?

It's too simplistic for any individual to excuse a lack of safety precautions by saying "it's a risk I'm prepared to take". Even if we forget co-drivers & spectators, by default the event organisers and even motorsport community in general share the risk, because they are the ones that are forced to defend the death and deal with the subsequent costs of changes that will inevitably follow.

[Silver 3]

Originally Posted by valet_dave

I seriously doubt that there are many amateur competitors fitting every available piece of safety gear into their vehicles which "could" save their life. If I ignore the extra weight in a vehicle, I think it’s basically because competitive nature dictates money should be spent on performance before safety, IF the rules let us get away with it. And lets face it, if we aren't winning, then there is ALWAYS more money to spend on performance. The question is, should the rules force competitors to implement an even wider range of safety equipment? Are some competitors not taking their safety seriously enough?

It's too simplistic for any individual to excuse a lack of safety precautions by saying "it's a risk I'm prepared to take". Even if we forget co-drivers & spectators, by default the event organisers and even motorsport community in general share the risk, because they are the ones that are forced to defend the death and deal with the subsequent costs of changes that will inevitably follow.

You have proceeded on the basis of your opening sentence.You use the word"amateur" in a condacending way- there is no difference or distinction of such in any of the motorsport requirements .FULL STOP> Once again more ignorance sprouting opinion.

[peckstar]

geee silver ignore the rest of the post why dont you. maybe you should read what he said with an open mind

[Silver 3]

Originally Posted by peckstar

geee silver ignore the rest of the post why dont you. maybe you should read what he said with an open mind

What the inference in the post is that this"amateur" car's safety issues were flawed. The reality is that this car has had all the money required on every aspect of it- including safety. This is no half arsed concept by underresourced backyarders but by people very involved in the motor sport industry with the resources to do it properly. Any suggestion to the contrary needs to have hard facts to back up the comment.

[peckstar]

did it have a roll cage?

[Silver 3]

Sure did-- it is fully prepped log booked car eligible to race or compete anywhere.Same car used at Targa Tas, Mt Buller and Lake Mountain events in recent times.

[BlueMax]

As Silver said. I think it was the sudden stop that took Peter.

[Gaz170]

Originally Posted by DAVID PATERSON

There can be no denying that Targa roads are inherently more dangerous than racing circuits and Targa cars are held to a lower safety standard than circuit race cars, but this is because circuit racing cars are generally driven far closer to the limit than Targa cars.

Like many above, I believe this is not the time for knee jerk reactions, nor is it the time to sit on our hands and blindly accept the Status Quo. The appropriate people need to investigate the incident thoroughly, consider all the factors and then decide what actions need to be taken, if any.

Personally, that's the way I feel too.

Maybe things need to happen, like what happened in F1 after Senna's death.
People took a long hard look at everything and worked out ways things could be made safer.

I don't believe there's a quick fix, but informed and educated discussion needs to take place.

[Silver 3]

Originally Posted by Gaz170

Personally, that's the way I feel too.
r.

I don't believe there's a quick fix, but informed and educated discussion needs to take place.

With the emphasise on informed and educated.

[valet_dave]

Originally Posted by Silver 3

You have proceeded on the basis of your opening sentence.You use the word"amateur" in a condacending way- there is no difference or distinction of such in any of the motorsport requirements .FULL STOP> Once again more ignorance sprouting opinion.

Don't be ridiculous, I am an amateur competitor myself, so I think I'm more than qualified to offer my opinion. I fail to see how I deserve that kind of response, perhaps you didn't realise that I was speaking generally, rather than about the incident that killed Brock.

I'm happy to hear your opinion, but you could at LEAST respond to the points I was making rather than focus on a single word.

I made a distinction between amateur and professional car preparation because a competitors budget has significant implications for car preparation. You don't have to look very far at the club level to see this. Who wouldn't invest extra cash in putting your vehicles safety beyond a regulatory level if you had the funds to do so? I don't think it is a big claim to say that there are quite a few amateur competitors who only achieve the bare minimum safety standard. I don't believe we are leaving the governing bodies any alternative, other than to raise the bar.

[blackx]

Originally Posted by racer69

Exactly right, i've no idea (there may well have been), but were there calls to ban tarmac rounds of the World Championship when Henri Toivonen was killed in Corsica in 1986 (though that crash was the catalyst for the ending of Group B, and canning of Group S)

They did ban GpB as we all know but .....

Modern day WRC cars are roughly half the horsepower of the old GpB cars yet they are probably quicker now than ever.......Seems that worked out just how they imagined didnt it.....

As for Tarmac Rallies well.....

To quote someones signature on this site...

Life is dangerous......Choose where you want to take risks....

In other words.......Drivers,crew etc are all fully aware of the dangersso let them be adults and go racing/rallying if they wish...

Knee jerk reactions often spoil the sport irreperably.....

[dsg]

Originally Posted by blackx

In other words.......Drivers,crew etc are all fully aware of the dangersso let them be adults and go racing/rallying if they wish...

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, it is a bit selfish, as it does not take into consideration the people/family who are left to clean up the mess if something goes wrong.

Originally Posted by blackx

Knee jerk reactions often spoil the sport irreperably.....

Again I agree, but the sport should carefully examine a tragedy like PB’s crash as it may highlight flaws in the system. Investigation of these flaws may lead to changes that can be implemented to improve safety.

We all know racing/rallying is a compromise between speed and safety but if measures can be taken to reduce the risk but maintain the excitement, they should be considered.

[davyboy]

I don't know the full details of the Brocky's accident and frankly I don't need to know as the legend's left us and that's that. I'd just like to opinion that knee-jerk reactions are not constructive in the aftermath of things like this. That's not to say that lessons shouldn't be learned from Brocky's and Michael Park's accidents in terms of making the cars safer on rallies, and a lot can be done there. Not only that, but the safety measures could be adopted globally and help protect the lives of drivers not only in Australia. Banning tarmac rallying is a futile and counterproductive suggestion and those who made it should know better.

[jiminee]

I was beginning to get a feeling that something would change with tarmac rallies BEFORE Brocky's crash.
Whether it was brought on my calls for increased safety from the public, event organisers or insurance companies, there are a lot of factors that make these events more dangerous (compared to circuit events) in my view such as:

-Greater exposure to road side hazards like trees, stobie poles, ditches etc
-The requirement to make tyres last for long distances and the possibility of using them when they are past their best.
-A less controlled environment
-Many of these events use generic pace notes that are not optimized for each driver.
-No requirement for recce (which I did not realise till last week)
-The popularity of older style cars that although prepared to a very high standard are simply not as safe as modern cars.
-Inexperienced drivers

Now, did any of these contribute to Brock's death? Maybe, maybe not. But a number of drivers have been killed in the events in the last few years, I would think more than at track events. Where I work we have a Goal Zero target for incidents and injuries. Is it 100% achiveable - no, but it is still a goal and I see no reason why all forms of motorsports shold not be working towards a similar target.

There is no simple, workable solution to this. People in the media WERE trying to sensationalise the story because of who was involved, I totally agree with that but to just write everything off as the risks of being involved is silly. If that were the case nothing would of changed in the last 50 years. There are measures that could be brought in and will be brought and possibly should have been in place before this. Would probably not have helped Brock but may help others. As roads become more and more regulated (and rightly so) these events will continue to grow so why not take steps now?

For what it is worth, here is what I would like to see:

1. Greater regulation on the types of cars competiting
2. More events like the Dutton rally - driving tests rather than rally type stages
3. Minimum recce standards
4. Inclusion of a Touring class as used in the Classic Adelaide

Not exactly earth shattering stuff but a start. I wonder if anyone agrees with me?

[blackx]

Originally Posted by dsg

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, it is a bit selfish, as it does not take into consideration the people/family who are left to clean up the mess if something goes wrong.

I see your argument but surely family are aware and support the driver in his/her chosen path.....I know from experience (I am a rescue crew member in the UK) that wifes/girlfriends/partners are all fully aware of the risks involved and accept them....
Marshals/Rescue/Medics are all aware of whay may await them at the next incident they attend and while you may never get used to it its something you are prepared for

Originally Posted by dsg

Again I agree, but the sport should carefully examine a tragedy like PB’s crash as it may highlight flaws in the system. Investigation of these flaws may lead to changes that can be implemented to improve safety.

We all know racing/rallying is a compromise between speed and safety but if measures can be taken to reduce the risk but maintain the excitement, they should be considered.

I fully agree with that...
If anything can be learned with regards to car build standards/pace note standards/regulations then please lets learn it and make changes for the better but lets not go overboard and go down the road that one or two have spoken of and think of banning these kinds of events etc..

[Eff One]

Originally Posted by SRabbit

Utter nonsense - it's not like someone turns up to these things in a V8 or a turbo'd-whatever and goes 'what....??!! there's trees and stuff???'

They know what the risks are before they start - if someone is prepared to take a risk to do what they enjoy then so be it - it's thier (our ) choice.
If someone isn't prepared to then there are plenty of club and track days to attend.

Never seen them try and ban parachuting.....

Precisely. It's the typical knee-kerk reaction similar to that which occured when Ayrton Senna died in 1994. Jim Richards is right in his opinion on the matter. Motor Racing is inherently dangerous, especially the category that Brock died in and every racing driver knows and understands the risks involved. Every racing driver chooses their career on the understanding that death may choose them and making rule changes just becuase of this tragedy would be moronic. Risk will always be part and parcel of motor sport and the moment it is not, is the moment it will cease to be motor sport.