Can we discuss safety?

Safety or calculated risk?

In reply to frenchyd :

Its about the nature of the event.  An SCCA sprint race weekend tends to be very competitive with the potential for lots of contact and more aggressive driving. 

Reading the LeMons rules, they don't require fuel cells because they recognize that more modern cars have decently mounted fuel tanks compared to a poorly mounted fuel cell that could actually be more dangerous.  They do ensure that the tanks are sealed away from the passenger compartment.  They are about getting cars on track and they work at making it approachable, so they make certain concessions to that fact.  They suggest that you run a fuel cell, but that it can't be larger than 24 gallons.  They also don't allow alternative or really nasty fuel, like some of the teams used to run in the older days, so the fuel is much harder to ignite than some of the more volatile mixtures that might have been used previously.  I suspect that if you actually attended a LeMons or Chump race, you'd see a lot more fuel cells than not.

A SVRA or similar weekend is perhaps not considered as competitive as they generally have rules around no contact or over aggressive driving, coupled with contingencies for the nature of the vehicles and their relative safety equipment versus their historical provenance.

If they were all running under current FIA regulations, then yes there would be more consistency across the board, but each series/org writes their own rules and work with the drivers/tracks/insurance companies to reach acceptable levels of risk.  Many smaller orgs piggy back off larger orgs regulations or allow exceptions for series like LeMons or Chump to run in their events.

So I'm not sure why you'd compare the two events they aren't as similar as you may think at first glance.

barefootskater said:

Couldn't get past a couple things: Race harnesses need to be 3" strapping, though I've never seen a factory seat belt that wide. Harnesses age out after 2-3 years(?) but functioning 30 year old belts are ok. 

If you think about it long enough, there's a huge liability risk in requiring someone to remove and replace their federally mandated, legal, item.  If that's not installed correctly, the organization that required that change is liable because of the required change.

Yes, it does not make sense to do that, from a safety standpoint.  But it makes all the sense in the liability standpoint.  And why there are rules IF you deviate from the federally legally required norm.

I’ve attended both Champ car and Lemons races and noted about a 50-50 split.  If the car already has a 24 gallon tank chances are it’s staying. Same if it gets decent enough mileage to run a shift the stock tank is staying. Plus there are a few who really don’t care, all they want is to do is get on the track. 

Ive raced SCCA events and like many others quit because of over regulation.  Remember the windshield visor decision?  Car put a full cage in and couldn’t put the visors back in place  so they were tie wrapped to the roll cage where they would have originally been 

.  I finished third ( and last ) in a BP race with my Corvette.  Mandatory weigh and I was too light. Disqualified.  No one else left in BP.  

Then and now SCCA  sets the rules most clubs follow.  How do we know that safety and not economics is the prime reason behind dated life?  

alfadriver said:

barefootskater said:

Couldn't get past a couple things: Race harnesses need to be 3" strapping, though I've never seen a factory seat belt that wide. Harnesses age out after 2-3 years(?) but functioning 30 year old belts are ok. 

If you think about it long enough, there's a huge liability risk in requiring someone to remove and replace their federally mandated, legal, item.  If that's not installed correctly, the organization that required that change is liable because of the required change.

Yes, it does not make sense to do that, from a safety standpoint.  But it makes all the sense in the liability standpoint.  And why there are rules IF you deviate from the federally legally required norm.

Except a race car doesn’t conform to federal regulations. 

Indy cars tube chassis cars dozens of cars that never were under any federal ruling. 

OK that’s not proof of anything but shouldn’t the person at risk make the decision rather than some rule that likely includes consideration of reasonable profit for the manufacturing company?  

In a perfect world? Yes. But this is America, where lawyers grow on trees looking to make millions for/from some poor idiot who thought his gear was "safe enough". To protect the orgaNizations interests, they hire their own lawyers and find a happy medium between "safe to use" and "safe according to manufacturer spec". That's why for autocross your helmet can be 10 years old and will be legal, happy medium between new gear and when the builders say not to trust it. 

As someone who cannot afford safety gear to run wheel to wheel, I can't help but think of all the stupidly dangerous and illegal street racing we did in our teens, and how a thousand bucks worth of roll cage and helmet could have meant the difference a death and some cool scars. Really, at 120+, what's the difference between a one vehicle accident on an empty highway or on a race track? It's going to be nasty either way. 

I know you like to wax poetic about the old days and the vintage machines, and I think with vintage racing our friends the lawyers came back into play. Somewhere between accepting the danger of the activity but preserving the character of the old vehicles. I've admittedly not watched much vintage racing, but I can't imagine old 60s machines pushing the speeds and g forces that modern vehicles do. I certainly haven't heard of any vintage series pushing speed boundaries in the last few years. 

In reply to RevRico :

Don’t fool yourself. vintage racing is real racing.  Yes a bit slower but every bit as intense.  Yes people die vintage racing. Sadly some with the same equipment SCCA requires.  

Diving into a corner at speeds in excess of 150 mph isn’t made easier or safer by 4-5 inches of treaded rubber compared to 10-12 inches of slicks.  The wide slicks will be faster but when everybody basically has the same it’s just as competitive. 

As for lawyers they exist all around the world.  Remember you can be sued by anybody at any time for any reason, not just racing. 

I'm sure that politics (and money, because it goes hand in hand with politics) play some role in the SCCA and other sanctioning bodies safety equipment rules but the fact of the mater is that belts, HANS devices and helmets do age out.  The challenge from a regulatory standpoint is that the environment does have an impact on how quickly that happens and there's no convenient, affordable way to test them in the field.  As a result the sanctioning bodies have to come up with some timeline for replacement or recertification and, if you believe that the equipment is worth having that timeline really needs to be worst case.

I hate it when I pull nice looking belts out of my closed cockpit racecar that lives in an enclosed trailer and send them off to be re-webbed just because of age but I don't know of a better way to ensure that all the cars have proper gear and the few times I've tested them my belts, HANS, helmet and cage all worked like they should and if left to my own devices I don't know that I would have had them all current.  I once had a motorcycle helmet age out and I didn't notice it until I realized that the dirt that was getting in my hair sometimes when I rode was really the dried out padding crumbling and sifting through the liner.

Personally, I think that some of the vintage safety rules are a little too lax and that arguing that you shouldn't need safety gear in a newer car because the vintage cars don't require it is really just pointing out the inadequacy of the rules for the vintage cars.  Vintage racing is real racing and some of those guys race just like they were in a spec Miata.  In come cases (like me) it's the same guys.  My vintage car has the same gear as the Miata I race and not just because the vintage car is faster.

frenchyd said:

alfadriver said:

barefootskater said:

Couldn't get past a couple things: Race harnesses need to be 3" strapping, though I've never seen a factory seat belt that wide. Harnesses age out after 2-3 years(?) but functioning 30 year old belts are ok. 

If you think about it long enough, there's a huge liability risk in requiring someone to remove and replace their federally mandated, legal, item.  If that's not installed correctly, the organization that required that change is liable because of the required change.

Yes, it does not make sense to do that, from a safety standpoint.  But it makes all the sense in the liability standpoint.  And why there are rules IF you deviate from the federally legally required norm.

Except a race car doesn’t conform to federal regulations. 

Indy cars tube chassis cars dozens of cars that never were under any federal ruling. 

Except the question was exactly about the stock 3 point harness.  Had nothing to do with specific built race cars.  

Should a helmet be discarded after it ages out, even  if it looks good, has been sparingly used, stored in a climate controlled environment, protected from UV light?

It depends; what is your head worth to you?  You can go on with your bad self on your 10 year old tires, old seatbelts or whatever, that you think are just fine because the car is kept in the garage, or whatever rationalization you use.  I can always get more money, can't buy a new head.

In reply to Toebra :

By that logic you should buy the most expensive everything.  Because they will save your life.  

Or is it your responsibility to avoid accidents as much as possible?  

I think the truth lies someplace in between.  The helmet a day past it’s expiration still affords a reasonable degree of protection.  How far past that date should be the choice of the person at risk. 

Having a aged out helmet won’t put anyone else at risk will it?  If you are worried about the law suit remember, anybody can sue anyone at any time over anything. 

Expensive does not mean better.  

Aged out safety equipment puts me at risk, and that could potentially impact not only me, but everyone I care about.  I would say we have a fundamentally different outlook on life.  I care about me and mine, not lawsuits.

You are being hyperbolic and ridiculous, again.

In reply to alfadriver   ? How do I keep failing to find the three point seat belt mentioned?  

Racing isn’t governed by federal mandates, to the best of my knowledge.  

In reply to Toebra :

Fair enough, what criteria determines the best?  Is there a consumers report for helmets that will provide that? Then there is the whole question of what sort of accident are we talking about?  Upside down at Indy at 230 mph? Off track in a barrel roll on fire?  With or without HANS device?  

 I mean I know about Snell but that merely tells you if something complied or not, not which is best.  

For me, I decide what is best. 

What would be best for me would obviously not be the same as you, given what you have posted in this thread and in others.  I think you will have to do your own research to decide what would be best for you.

Again, hyperbolic and ridiculous, I am never going to go 230 in an Indy Car, neither are you.

In reply to Toebra :

something something wrestling with a pig something something

In reply to Toebra :

You do make a very valid point.  Each person needs to decide what is best for their needs.    A professional racer who needs to push the absolute limit simply to retain a ride has higher demands than the hobbiest  out for his annual high speed event with his well known buddy as his prime competition. 

A carefully kept pair of seatbelts used once or twice a season is not subjected to the same stress and wear that a set used several times a week.  

Mind you, I’m not telling anyone what to do.  If they want a regulation that highly recommends a new helmet or seatbelt, then fine.  Just allow the person at risk to use their own judgement. 

But is that considered when replacement is called for?   How would safety inspectors know? Isn’t that something the person at risk would be in the best  place to decide?  

We all sign a waiver.  Releasing the organization from liability.  And like I keep repeating, anybody can sue anyone at any time over anything. 

Just because I chose a helmet that maybe less than 2 years old doesn’t mean someone someplace can’t sue someone over something.  

frenchyd said:

In reply to Toebra :

By that logic you should buy the most expensive everything.  Because they will save your life.  

Or is it your responsibility to avoid accidents as much as possible?  

I think the truth lies someplace in between.  The helmet a day past it’s expiration still affords a reasonable degree of protection.  How far past that date should be the choice of the person at risk. 

Having a aged out helmet won’t put anyone else at risk will it?  If you are worried about the law suit remember, anybody can sue anyone at any time over anything. 

 

Its like talking to a wall with you. 

We get it, you hate having to pay for new equipment, but thems the brakes.  Don't like it?  Take your ball and go home, change the rules or create your own racing series/sanctioning body.

frenchyd said:

As for lawyers they exist all around the world.  Remember you can be sued by anybody at any time for any reason, not just racing. 

Laws vary greatly worldwide and so do what lawyers/barristers, etc do with those laws and courts.

For example:  The Italian court tried Williams for the death of Senna.  Not something likely to happen here due to the way the different laws work across the world.

Just because you CAN be sued, doesn't mean you have to go out of your way to INVITE lawsuits.

frenchyd said:

In reply to slantvaliant :

Really?  A totally unused helmet needs replacement based on the date stamp?  Is a new one that much better? 

Some things do not age well.  Some identical items made on the same day will age differently, depending on how they are used or stored.  The racing bodies have to try to ensure safety, but have no practical way of testing safety equipment nondestructively, and no way of telling how or how well it was stored over the years.  So, they look at the tags,dates, and the general condition.  Not an unreasonable approach.