Safety in Historic Racing, time for a rethink?

[KMacB]

I dip in here very occasionally, and I never thought I'd be doing so under these circumstances. I'm home a few hours now after a fairly huge accident. Luckily I was able to walk away, and looking forward to some aches and pains later on.
Was racing at Bishopscourt in NI. In a 'pre '55' event, which was a mix of 50's and pre war cars. For most of the race I was swapping places with a Jag XK120, me in front at the last bend to the finish line (where I was quicker) while he was able to pass me during a sequence after the first corner. So basically all I needed to do to win was pass him on the last lap.
Except, in this instance we came up behind two slower cars, and this just as we both exited the final bend. The Jag was in front of me, he went left, I went right.....seconds later I'd clipped the end of the pit wall, launched in the air, flipped over and slid almost 100m on the roof.........
I was the only entrant with a proper modern racing seat, 6 point harness, and cage. Car destroyed, me alive. None of the other entrants would have survived a similar crash without serious injury or worse.
However that was my personal choice to fit a 'historic' with non 'period' safety devices.
Another small injury I noticed later was a bruise on my eyebrow, caused by my (open face) helmet hitting my glasses. Obviously a full face would have prevented this.
Pride (and car) obviously dented, but could have been far far worse.
............Plus I 'won' the race, because it was red flagged, they went back to the previous lap placings...!!

[terence]

Originally Posted by Woolley

My understanding is that the HANS device prevents hyper-extension of the neck or basal skull fractures. It will not have an effect in crush injuries resulting from, for example, the head being the highest part in a roll-over.

Yes quite, nor is of any use in a side shunt, in some (recent) case's has made the incident worse.
We all know(?) that the safety side of things simply cannot be 'improved'to the point of ruling out any possibility of an incedent being fatal; its part of whats included.F1 is a good area to realise the developement required.Sixties/Seventies were always regarded as death traps-even when new! What did the drivers of those cars do?

[midgetman]

What did the drivers of those cars do? Many of them died, Terence. And they were pro drivers, the best in the world. We look back misty eyed at The Golden Age, but forget that many drivers did not know whether they were going back to their hotel that night. Particularly at circuits we revere.

HANS devices are part of a suite of safety equipment. They can't be used without belts or suitable seats so would not be applicable in older cars that have neither - witness my caveat earlier.

[zefarelly]

The addition of safety equipment to older cars can be done subtly. It's often done crudely. I think its equally important to check the safety of drivers. eyesight for a start.

I've spent quite some time looking at my car as I've been straightening it out and restoring the shell. Whilst no one got hurt, and everything stayed together, the impact was sufficient to bend the floor under the seat mounting. The cage did its job in protecting the occupant from a crushing car. If the impact had been 12" further forward I dare say the Driver could have been hurt as the door apperture on a Cortina is fragile to say the least. I have made several improvements in this area.

Every car is different. every driver is different, every accident is unique. as long as we continue to learn positively and sensibly from the experiences we should all be able to continue to enjoy ourselves.

[terence]

Originally Posted by midgetman

What did the drivers of those cars do? Many of them died, Terence. And they were pro drivers, the best in the world. We look back misty eyed at The Golden Age, but forget that many drivers did not know whether they were going back to their hotel that night. Particularly at circuits we revere.

HANS devices are part of a suite of safety equipment. They can't be used without belts or suitable seats so would not be applicable in older cars that have neither - witness my caveat earlier.

Thats exactly the point Max.those cars were death traps from day one! You only need to look at one to understand why.Hans certaily would have been pointless with a steering column just waiting to be knocked back into the driver.Roll hoops were sort of an afterthough, prooving on quite a few occasions what little worth they actually were.
Thing is, just how far can safety be taken in what has always been a dangerous sport? The car that most of us use are, by the period standards, a lot safer than they ever were.Cant wrap drivers in cotton wool or fit airbags all round.
Many period cars have potentialy dangerous points about them, for want of a better choice, a Mini is probably one of the worst cars in this respect simply because there is no collapsable steering column, just like period single seaters

[davyboy]

I don't think anyone's saying that all possible causes for injury or death from racing historic cars can be eliminated but surely there's a quite a bit that could be fairly easily done to reduce or eliminate some of them. There is also a school of thought that some pre war cars are just too dangerous to race today. They are from an era when premature death across all aspects of society was commonplace and safety really was non existent. It may be more appropriate to display/parade these cars.

[Tim Falce]

Originally Posted by midgetman

HANS devices are part of a suite of safety equipment. They can't be used without belts or suitable seats so would not be applicable in older cars that have neither - witness my caveat earlier.

So am I wasting my time wearing one as I don't have an FIA seat?

[Rudernst]

It was mentioned during the drivers briefing at the Monaco Historic GP that in Historic Racing there is a dispropotionately high number of deadly accidents compared to other forms of racing.
The FIA is reportedly getting very concerned about this and is likely to do something.

it would not be a bad idea if historic racers came up with ideas of our own
otherwise we will get it foisted on us

I was unaware of this and for a split second pondered a move into contemporary modern amateur racing.....

My feeling is that by the vry nature of historic racing we have a tendency to stand still in certain matters such as safety.
Time seems to be moving on, there are developments that can be adopted.

I actually still race a prewar car occasionally but I am very mindful of what I do with it.

I agree that the historic context is changing.
between and after the last two wars, people had seen so much death they were numbed by it it was an everyday occurence
this explaines why racing fatalities were accepted in the 1950ies and some part of the 1960ies until Steward started his crusade to change this
and for a while he was victimised over this

Rudolf

[gt917]

[QUOTE=midgetman;3404631]On a more strategic level, Historic racing in particular is a conundrum. We take cars that were deemed too dangerous for professionals, the best drivers in the world - e.g. Porsches 917 and 956, all 70s/80s F1 cars - and put them in the hands of drivers where the only qualification is to have a deep enough wallet. Madness.

????????????????????????????????????? Max,

Professionals did drive 917s and they got on alright. Two world championships in 1970/71, and those driving them now certainly know what they are doing, even me with my humble replica, and treat them with respect.
Depth of pocket does not come into the equation. and your "madness" comment is stupid and pointless.

Try addressing that comment to Sparco for their terrible stitching, or lack of, on race wear such as gloves !!

When you look at the sheer volume of motorsport, historic included, the number of serious or fatal injuries is minute.

[Rudernst]

[QUOTE=midgetman;3404631]On a more strategic level, Historic racing in particular is a conundrum. We take cars that were deemed too dangerous for professionals, the best drivers in the world - e.g. Porsches 917 and 956, all 70s/80s F1 cars - and put them in the hands of drivers where the only qualification is to have a deep enough wallet. Madness.


thats not really as much a conundrum as You think

the circuits have changed A LOT since these cars were raced in period
there is much more room now and less hard objects to hit
apart from pit walls......

that is the ONLY REASON
why I am racing Lotus tube framed F1 cars from the 1960ies
not that quick but not very safe
1970ies f1 cars have monocoques and some have crash structures
they are quicker but safer

Historic "Superlicense" is an idea
but even now, You need an international C license to race HFO and Masters usually want to see some relevant experience on top of that
at least in Germany the C license requires experience and results to get it

Rudolf

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by gt917

When you look at the sheer volume of motorsport, historic included, the number of serious or fatal injuries is minute.

Does anyone have information on what the probability of injury / death is in historic racing as opposed to contemporary racing ?

[gt917]

I personally view many of the "so called" experienced or professional drivers as some of the worst at driving safely or having mechanical understanding of the vehicles they are driving at the time, and I do not believe an historic super licence idea would make one jot of difference to safety.

Try bringing in random drink drive breath(very serious about this) and drug testing and make ALL drivers take a compulsory days marshalling every two years, and have table thumping CoC driver briefings for EVERY race.

That will improve driving standards and improve safety.

[John Turner]

Graham, I take your points but I think that calling Max's comment 'stupid' is harsh because I do think that there is an element of truth in what he says. These cars were driven by the very best of the time, were quicker than their contemporary GP cars so anyone trying to race them now at anything like approaching their optimum really needs to be on their mettle. Fortunately, there are few capable of doing so, and that is not intended as an insult; merely a fact.

[andrewc]

Originally Posted by gt917

Try bringing in random drink drive breath(very serious about this) and drug testing and make ALL drivers take a compulsory days marshalling every two years, and have table thumping CoC driver briefings for EVERY race.

That will improve driving standards and improve safety.

In a club paddock I see a lot of competitors whose reason for being there appears not to be racing motor vehicles but consuming alcohol, and following their last race on a Saturday afternoon, hit the beers or wine bottle, have a merry evening, possibly going out to a pub, coming back, a couple more all ready to qualify again the next morning.

If national statistics are taken into account, about 2 or 3 people on every grid would fail a drugs test as well, apart from those on legitimate medication.

[Alan Raine]

Originally Posted by andrewc

In a club paddock I see a lot of competitors whose reason for being there appears not to be racing motor vehicles but consuming alcohol, and following their last race on a Saturday afternoon, hit the beers or wine bottle, have a merry evening, possibly going out to a pub, coming back, a couple more all ready to qualify again the next morning.

If national statistics are taken into account, about 2 or 3 people on every grid would fail a drugs test as well, apart from those on legitimate medication.

I noticed on one the videos from last years Angouleme meeting that some of the drivers were being breathalised before racing. Is that common in France?

[Cliff Ryan]

I looked into HANS devices a couple of years ago & for the reasons already mentioned went for the Simpson Pro Rage as it doesn't require special belts or a seat, works no matter what type of car or angle of seat you are in & protects in a side collision.

I also came to the conclusion that spending a few hundred pounds on protecting my head & neck wasn't a bad thing, especially as they are what enables me to race anyway.

[Tel 911S]

As some people have said , every accident is different .
Having survived a very high speed head on into a tree on a rally many years ago , I have done some studying of M/Sport crashes .

Leaving out the no belts / being thrown from the car accidents , which are only relevant to very early classes , this is about the belted in types .

As found with the ENCAP testing , the majority of injuries are caused by " whiplash " effects , & the vehicle getting crushed in onto the driver is only a very small percentage .
Modern road cars have got a lot safer by the fact that the car is designed to crumple in on impact & thus absorb a lot of the energy from the crash .
But when we build in strengthening & roll cages we are reducing the energy absorbed by the car & passing more onto the occupants .

Ref. the Dale Earnhardt crash, [ I have the full accident study from that one ] he hit the wall at what was found to be only 42 MPH.
But the car was a massive roll cage built around a very strong spaceframe , & there was no give at all , leading to a Basal Skull Fracture .
After that there was no argument about the need for Hans devices in Nascar , & then in F1 & WRC .

So , especially if your car is built very strong , then there is no doubt a Hans is a good idea .
But whether they should be compulsory , that is another argument .

[retrognome]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Interesting point. I use one and although I only race touring cars or cars with a roof and roll cage, I always thought that if I were to be inverted and the helmet took my weight, the hans device would stop my neck from being crushed because it sits right below the helmet. Maybe not though.

Do we want to legislate for these things? I guess the same people who want to do so are the same who would ban conkers etc. If that seems harsh then I apologise and I do understand Chigley's point. However ultimately we must make our own choices and in matters of personal safety it is just that, personal.

Not Quite. It is the volunteer marshals who are obliged to be first on the scene and the question must be raised "Is it fair on them" . Having said that I also believe in freedom of choice. Difficult.

[Geraint Owen]

HANS devices.

I did a lot of homework before making a purchase....... I would suggest people look very hard at the Simpson Hybrid range before spending any money on a HANS device. My research showed that a HANS will only really work on a frontal impact, the side protection is meant to come from the wrap around seat. If that isn't present then the level of protection in anything but straight ahead is limited.

The Simpson units go under standard belts and provide improved performance in all directions. With significant improvement in side impacts.

That is what I found out, but you need to make your own mind up

Geraint

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

Ref. the Dale Earnhardt crash, [ I have the full accident study from that one ] he hit the wall at what was found to be only 42 MPH.
But the car was a massive roll cage built around a very strong spaceframe , & there was no give at all , leading to a Basal Skull Fracture .

Dale Earnhardt's car got out of shape on the last lap at Daytona and he was T-boned by another car. Presumably the speed of the other car was approaching 200 mph. Although I have not read the official report I think it was this that caused the injury rather than hitting the wall.

[midgetman]

Tim - I was referring to the fact that many posters here tell me they couldn't possibly wear a HANS because their seat doesn't suit, or there's something to do with their car that prevents them wearing one...I was just trying not to get into an argument and it seemd I failed.....

Graham - cheers mate, whatever happened to "attack the post and not the poster". IIRC ( and I do RC because I Googled it) the 917 was called the Widow Maker. The 956 was in effect deemed too dangerous because the rules were changed to put the driver's feet back behind the front axle line, hence the 962 (again IIRC).

Now, to race a 917 and a 956 you need an International Historic licence (possibly an Int C) and a 5h** load of money. So, ARDS Advanced test in a Ford Focus, one day on the bank marshalling and four races in an MG Metro and voila you've got a National A. Which you can transfer to an Int Historic for handing over wedges of cash and having an ECG. Even if you have to have an Int C, there's only another half dozen races at most (or just 3 National A races) in a low powered car and you're on the grid at the Classic in a Widow Maker.

Seven races since you took your ARDS test in a family hathchback, you're out there in a car that was feared by the best drivers of the day. So the lights go green you're at the back tooling around enjoying yourself, but the leaders come round. Keen to obey the blue flags, you move onto the marbles, apply too much power, it gets away from you, and you spin into the path of the leader who is a very proficient driver, "treating his car with respect".

That's what I meant by madness.

Doesn't happen? You've only got to look at the old F1 cars at the Revival last year to see it most certainly does. There should certainly be a Historic Super Licence to drive these extremely powerful cars, a test that weeds put the incompetent on both lap time and driving ability.

What has the depth of pocket got to do with it? Well you sure as hell can't race a 917 or 956 on a TKM budget!

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by morninggents

Dale Earnhardt's car got out of shape on the last lap at Daytona and he was T-boned by another car. Presumably the speed of the other car was approaching 200 mph. Although I have not read the official report I think it was this that caused the injury rather than hitting the wall.

Perhaps because of the serious implications , the Earnhardt crash had one of the most detailed motor racing accident investigations that I have ever seen .
It runs in many many pages of studies . But the outcome [ which is what led to the compulsory use of Hans ] was that the collision with the other car [ which was only a minor impact as they were both travelling at nearly the same speed ], put his car off line & impacted the wall at an angle that would normally be very unlikely for a car by itself .
Although the cars were travelling at high speed when it started , the car went into the wall at a speed [ which they took very great care to work out ] of just 42 MPH .
The report is very detailed & thorough & comes to the conclusion that ,especially in that one accident , a Hans device would have saved his life .
Which is ironic as he was one of the most outspoken opponents of the Hans .

[terence]

Seems a bit strange as its been proven that HANS does nothing in a side on shunt, in fact it can actually do the opposite of what its supposed to do.

[gt917]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Graham, I take your points but I think that calling Max's comment 'stupid' is harsh because I do think that there is an element of truth in what he says. These cars were driven by the very best of the time, were quicker than their contemporary GP cars so anyone trying to race them now at anything like approaching their optimum really needs to be on their mettle. Fortunately, there are few capable of doing so, and that is not intended as an insult; merely a fact.

Well John,

as far as I know, no owner drivers or hired in drivers have crashed or caused a crash in 917s, other than at the LeMans Classic in 2012 when the night incident was unavoidable. No animals or humans were hurt in the making of the crash, and not too car damaging either.
Max,s comment was specific and made it seem that all the cars he mentioned were going to be the "troublemakers". I apologise for using the word stupid.

These cars are not the ones that should take the flack, but the less powerful and infinitely more common ones that give cause for concern because of their availability and affordability to the masses and much more frequent use.

[Clive Brown]

Did John Wolfe not crash his own Porsche 917 with fatal consequences at le Mans in 1969?