Safety in Historic Racing, time for a rethink?

[Mike Bell]

The recent inquest on a fellow racer and Tenther who lost his life racing last year, plus two recent and equally tragic accidents has certainly made me think. What about you? Rather than discuss the matter on Delta's tea break thread, maybe it deserves one of it's own, so here goes.....

Compulsory HANS devices? Increased Roll Over Protection for open cars? ROPS and seat belts for Vintage cars? What else could we consider?

[Mike Harte]

Good idea, Mike.


Out of curiosity, are there any reasons, apart from costs of course, why HANS should not be introduced for all forms of 4-wheel motorsport?

And secondly, possibly for Max to answer, are the costs for the less expensive models so prohibitive that the potential safety element is worth overlooking?

[MGDavid]

Thanks Mike; still probably safer than horse riding or cycling, I'm in the 'leave it to personal choice' camp - but am open to discussion and persuasion.

[Chigley]

I for one have changed my outlook on attending races where drivers do not have seatbelts or ROP. After the incident at Silverstone this year I never again want to have the feeling of dread that at any moment a driver could be thrown from a car or the the car roll on top of him without a roll hoop. I personally won't attend meetings anymore where I knowingly am aware that the risk exists.
The risk of serious injury or fatality is always there but to have little better chance than a living crash dummy of survival is unacceptable to me.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Out of curiosity, are there any reasons, apart from costs of course, why HANS should not be introduced for all forms of 4-wheel motorsport?

They don't use them in karting and some forms of historic racing because for a HANS device to work, the driver needs to be belted into the vehicle.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Chigley

I for one have changed my outlook on attending races where drivers do not have seatbelts or ROP. After the incident at Silverstone this year I never again want to have the feeling of dread that at any moment a driver could be thrown from a car or the the car roll on top of him without a roll hoop. I personally won't attend meetings anymore where I knowingly am aware that the risk exists.
The risk of serious injury or fatality is always there but to have little better chance than a living crash dummy of survival is unacceptable to me.

+1

[SAMD]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Good idea, Mike.


Out of curiosity, are there any reasons, why HANS should not be introduced for all forms of 4-wheel motorsport

As I understand it,
if a car is rolled onto soft ground, an older single seater such as a FF1600 with a fixed hoop could dig in leaving the drivers head as the highest point and using a hans device could result in a broken neck.

[Mike Harte]

Many thanks Tim, for moving my post.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by SAMD

As I understand it,
if a car is rolled onto soft ground, an older single seater such as a FF1600 with a fixed hoop could dig in leaving the drivers head as the highest point and using a hans device could result in a broken neck.

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.

[Alan Raine]

Originally Posted by SAMD

As I understand it,
if a car is rolled onto soft ground, an older single seater such as a FF1600 with a fixed hoop could dig in leaving the drivers head as the highest point and using a hans device could result in a broken neck.

You have a point but I think in that situation your in trouble anyway. My PRS was put on it's lid at Silverstone, when Chris Reynalds owned it, which flattened the top part of the roll hoop. Luckily Chris is knee high to a grasshopper and although he ended up in hospital for a week or so made a full recovery. I witnessed Simon Frosdick's similar accident at Mallory, again in a PRS. Unfortunately Simon broke his neck and is now disabled. The first thing we did after that was add an extra hoop to our car so that if it did go over there would be a good chance of getting out unscathed.

Phil Lloyd had an accident again at Mallory where the roll hoop dug in to the earth and he ended up paralysed.

I'm not sure what difference a HANS device would have made in these accidents but as a contrast David Franklin had a head on crash into the wall at Anglesey. I'm not sure if he broke his neck but he ended up with a medical cage around his head to keep everything in position. In this case a HANS device could have saved major damage.

Every accident is different and there's not a single answer that's perfect.

Personally if and when I make any sort of return to racing which would probably be in FF1600 I would seriously consider a HANS device as I already have neck issues from previous racing accidents.

[Mike Harte]

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.

I must admit that I don't really understand SAMD point because if you roll in a FF without a roll bar your head is exposed and very likely to be severely injured, I would have thought.

As for Peter's point about legislating for safety reasons, I was unfortunate to have witnessed a crash of an open car coming out of Paddock Hill Bend in the mid-sixties. Seat belts were mandatory in the class of car, but the driver had been late at the collecting point in the paddock and nobody checked to see if he was belted in. He then drove down to the pits, and joined the track to try to catch up with the rest of the grid who were on their warming-up lap. He lost it at Paddock, and went in, nose first, to the concrete marshalls' post that used to be on the right hand side just before the trees. The driver, still without his harness buckled up, was ejected from his car, and lost his life.

That was the day of my first race, and I watched this unfold from a seat in the competitors' stand at Paddock. Whilst waiting for for the track to be readied, I swore to myself that I would never scrimp on the safety aspects of my racing no matter how limited my resources were, and if I was racing today, I would certainly use a HANS device. I know that when I started racing, I was only one of a few drivers who wore the latest Nomex overalls plus the flame retardant full body underwear and balaclava.

I know that your point about conkers was tongue in cheek, but sometimes you do have to legislate for safety devices in activities that are potentially dangerous, to try to minimise severe injuries in the event of incidents. It must be potentially dangerous because you have to sign an indemnity form when you sign on at the start of a meeting.

[p261brm]

Very thought provoking Mike, roll over bars to be strengthend, yes good, but what about the rest of the car? no good whatsoever if the original (sic) historic structure will not withstand the stress/strain imposed by adequate destruction testing of the intended rollover cage. How many crack test wheels & suspension? They should be tested at least every 2 years? those in Master's do because the series organiser wisely requires it, and by testing I do not include magnaflux for surface imperfections, full blown x-ray the reporte complete with CD and photographs. I suspect very few, 4 wheels, and you do not have to remove the tyres, costs around 200 beer tokens. Suspension of course, but brake calipers, discs, all steering components, some of the u/j's on steering I ve seen on race cars make me cringe. Hans device? some I've seen fitted, the structure would break before the device did it's job. A fire caused by oil leak, the cable operated extingisher pulled, nowt happened, on subsequent testing it took a pull of 15kg to move the cable in the outer cable and no it was not damaged by the fire. Silverstone 72 and Zandvoort 73 taught me all I want to know about fire and race cars. Do not get me wrong, I'm all for greater safety, and not only the driver, our friends the marshals spectators etc JYS took a lot of flack when he started on his crusade, maybe just maybe perhaps we take a look at some of the antics on the circuit/pit lane in historic racing first? At least the authorities made some attempt on that at Donington. Unless 'Historic' raceing became 100% the much maligned continuation car, or completely reconstructed 'What? some have already' or adopt the American way of historic racing, the possibilities will always be there for a post mortem, is it not the aniversary of Senna's tragic demise?

[john ruston]

Most post war cars have ROB ,belts and drivers use hans devices.

The Pre War sports cars are a major problem.

How do you legislate for them as 99.9% race/rally without belts,ROB or any of this other stuff.

It must be left to the drivers to decide and guidelines are reasonable but imposition of safety measures that in most cases are not practical is plain wrong.

All those who take part in our hobby know and understand the dangers .

[midgetman]

It's something we sweep under the table, "it couldn't happen to me". In 30 years in this business very few people have asked me which is the safest FIA overall, 99.9% ask me which is the cheapest they can get away with to comply with the regulations.

Gentlemen, please take a long hard look at yourselves. I have many affluent customers who only buy the cheapest gear on price, not performance "oh these bloody stupid rules are killing motorsport". Those self same customers would only drink expensive branded wine out of price snobbery, they spend far more in the restaurant the nights around a meeting than they do on their safety equipment. Why is it a badge of status to be over-charged on wine, perfume and fancy clothing, yet not OK to spend the right money on the right product to protect you in motor sport? These are not people who have to scrimp and save.

Actually it's a serious point and something on which to ponder. I've said it before and I'll say it again: race clothing is not expensive when taken over its lifetime. take helmets for example. A Snell 2010 costs from £150 and we did sell some at £80 earlier this year. It will last 10 years if well looked after, that's £15 per year. Your racesuit costs around £350, many of my customers and friends are wearing suits I sold them when I start FISC in 2004 (MGDavid!!!!!!!) so that's £35 per year. Annual cost £50

At the moment my main sport is running and fitness training. My trainers cost £80 and I change them every 6-8 months to avoid injury. Performance running tops cost £10 upwards, I exercise four times per week so require four tops for different events. They are pretty manky when used every week so I change them annually. Then there are shorts, socks (last me about 3 months) and a decent track suit. Annual cost in excess of £200. Don't tell me your race gear is expensive!

Rant over. I'm sorry, I've had a long day and a couple of beers ;-) I'll post again when I've sobered up a bit LOL.

[grantp]

Max, it''s a common problem and I suspect we are all afflicted to a greater or lesser extent.

On other forums related to, in my case, photography, I see people bemoaning the fact that a commercial company with wages to pay askes people to pay money for their products - especially if they offer 2 levels of product one of which has a larger ticket for more functionality.

"I can't afford the upgrade from the [incredibly good value] $40 product to the [very reasonably value] $200 product" is a common cry.

Or "Why should I have to pay a [nominal] upgrade fee to licence the latest version just because I have bought a new camera (that the old version cannot technically support very well if at all)"?

Of course the camera they have just bought and the associated support kit is probably worth many thousands of $/£ and they can't do much with it unless they have some quality software to produce the images they mant to produce - but to may any extra to a third party, no matter how little, is always a point of contention.

But then we all do things like that in different ways for different purposes.

(You do realise that you should really change your running shoes weekly don't you Max ....? )

[midgetman]

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.

If we paid any attention to safety, there would be a Historic Superlicence. We have seen many examples of slow drivers causing accidents at Silverstone and Goodwood, never mind the minor events that don't make the news.

However, at Club level it's our own compact with the devil. Either we ban Historic racing because e.g. Pre-War cars can never be "safe" and may actually be made worse by ROPS or we accept that a number of drivers will get hurt or worse because motor racing is dangerous. I prefer the latter. We are all grown ups and we can make our own decisions.

Should HANS devices be made compulsory? I'm beginning to think "yes" *if the car is suitable*. Why? Well overalls, helmets, ROPS were all optional at one time and safety equipment should move with the times as new protection comes on the market. If you think HANS should be down to personal choice, why not the equipment we accept as "standard"?

Before you say it, yes this is a change of stance from me due to reasoned argument in the "pro-HANS" camp. Will I be wearing one in the 360 in August? Ah.........................

[midgetman]

>>>>>>You do realise that you should really change your running shoes weekly don't you Max ....? )

Hahahahahahahaha! No I won't bite because I couldn't do that as a pair of trainers has to be run in much like tyres have to be scrubbed

[PeterMorley]

A problem with HANS devices is that they are designed for modern cars - e.g. strong chassis with firmly fixed seats, belts, roll cages etc. an old car with a deformable chassis etc. crashes in a different way.
Alternatives like the rubber rings some drivers wear round their necks might be more appropriate, if not as effective in certain situations.

Looking at Monaco it seemed that the amount of scaffolding attached to cars was in inverse proportion to their speeds...

[grantp]

Originally Posted by midgetman

>>>>>>You do realise that you should really change your running shoes weekly don't you Max ....? )

Hahahahahahahaha! No I won't bite because I couldn't do that as a pair of trainers has to be run in much like tyres have to be scrubbed

Or brake shoes bedded in .....

Presumably the same with football boots and so on yet I assume the upper level players use new boots for every match? If so do they have some sort of machine (or lackey) to bed them in or are they very carefully made to an exact requirement?

More importantly, perhaps, I think the issue of safety equipment comes with a set of 'not-so-well-knowns' in tow. As Peter Morley mentioned it has always been my understanding that the HANS device was originally intended to work for a specific purpose with any associated risks being taken care of by other devices. Cosseted in an F1 cockpit and safety pod it is great for stopping the head/helmet (usually a very light helmet on a strong young neck) from "snapping forward" or whatever it might do and breaking the wearer's neck.

Outside such a controlled environment it might be less widely efficacious although no doubt further development may have made things better for use in less well (dare I say it?) "supported" situations.

One might also ask whether there should be a regulation to enforce the use of of full face helmets on the basis that they clearly ought to provide greater protection to the face and jaw than an open face helmet ever can.

But then in a road situation we might see the airbag as the nearest equivalent protection. Yet I know of someone who had one good eye and one slightly dodgy one. He was out driving some business visitors around one day and had to stop at light for some roadworks. A car coming the other way through the roadworks somehow failed to exit the section safely and hit his car a glancing blow activating the driver's air bag. Somehow the airbag or a cover or whatever hit his good eye and caused him to loose most of his sight from the good eye.

Not a great outcome and of course rare. That would have been aboiut 20 years ago now and I imagine that the technology will have improved - but something else unthought of or as yet unaddressed will have taken it place. The assessed level of "acceptable risk" will no doubt have been taken into account for the greater public good. But when it comes to specialist activities such risks are only acceptable if they involve 'fitness' or animals. Anything else will attract the heavy hand of Health and Safety if allowed to fester in the public domain.

[Clive Brown]

Did the impetus behind the development of the HANS device not arise as a result of Dale Earnhardt's fatal accident at Daytona in 2001?

[Mike E]

The HANS device was developed in the US prior to Earnhardt's crash, and in fact he refused to use one since they were not mandatory at the time. The device was developed for one specific purpose: to protect the driver from injury (usually severe) or death as a result of a basilar skull fracture. This is caused by the head continuing to move forward when the vehicle stops suddenly. This was cause of death in Earnhardt's case.
I am no expert but my understanding is that for the device to work properly the yoke needs to located under tight shoulder belts. Perhaps no good if you are in an old car without belts. As a previous poster noted, in a modern car this forms one element in a suite of safety devices. How useful it would be in an old car that crumples like a paper cup is maybe less well understood..
Is there any FIA guidance?

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Clive Brown

Did the impetus behind the development of the HANS device not arise as a result of Dale Earnhardt's fatal accident at Daytona in 2001?

Not solely it would seem. Development started somewhat earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HANS_device

[Clive Brown]

Perhaps more the impetus behind its adoption, then....

[DaveGT6]

By definition isn't motorsport supposed to be dangerous? Be careful or you will legitimise the need for legislation which will rule out historic motorsport. Would you want to see a 1950's F1 car with an exo-skeleton type ROPs like Caterhams run which could be a real possibility if the modern approach to risk mitigation is extended too far into historics.

Things like HANS are proven to be effective in very specific crash scenarios. So of the posts above allude to and also question. Be clear a HANS only works in certain impact modes.

Everyone who drives on the track has a responsibility to their own and their competitor's health and safety. If you choose to go on track without your belts affixed and tight then that should be your look out.

I think we have to be really careful how we as racers and lovers of historic cars and motorsport approach this. It is a dangerous sport but I understand that there are many more fatalities in others which are sometimes quite surprising. If you want totally sanitised and 100% safe racing then I'm afraid you need to get on your computer and use a race simulator or such like.

If you want to race a real car on a track there is always a risk. Minimise it yes, but don't restrict individual's right to do something dangerous as long as they understand the risks involved. For instance imagine Formula Junior cars having to run a full cage or a '50s C Type Jag with the same requirement. Owners just wouldn't race them any more and I would deeply regret that and I'm sure others would too.

We have a choice what cars we race and what level of protection we can adopt. You can race an open wheel car with no real ROPS or a closed saloon with very comprehensive ROPS and everything in between.

Motor sport is dangerous. Otherwise it is Scalextrix.

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by Alan Raine

I'm not sure what difference a HANS device would have made in these accidents but as a contrast David Franklin had a head on crash into the wall at Anglesey. I'm not sure if he broke his neck but he ended up with a medical cage around his head to keep everything in position. In this case a HANS device could have saved major damage..

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.