+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 247
Like Tree297Likes

Thread: Fatality at Buttonwillow

  1. #221
    Senior Member e5pr1t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    219
    Liked
    80 times

    Default

    Yes, I meant the video when he was driving the GC Subaru. I don't know how the harness was set up in the E46 so I can't comment. I simply meant the belts were too long from shoulder/seat to the anchors. Also it's possible that the earlier video (drivibg the GC) was because he didn't have a cage at the time. I do see some people at the track mounting the shoulder belts like his GC videos though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pure EvoIX View Post
    Alan, when you say you looked at his previous videos, you mean when he was driving the GC Subaru correct (Bullet point #6). The car Ivo was driving was a friend's car (E46). When you mention the belts, were you referring to his GC Racecar or the E36 M3.
    Last edited by e5pr1t; 12-13-2015 at 09:36 PM.
    Pure EvoIX likes this.
    2017 Dodge Charger Daytona 392 - Daily
    2017 Ram 2500 4X4 Cummins - Tow Truck
    2017 Shelby GT350 - Track Car / Weekend Cruiser
    1999 SuperMiata Super - W2W Race Car

  2. #222
    Senior Member ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    2" off your rear desk
    Posts
    632
    Liked
    59 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackbird View Post
    This means auto-ban for any of the faster cars w/o full race gear.
    A good driver will easily go well under 2:00 at BRP in a Z06 while driving at grandma pace, but to drive a 120 HP Miata or Civic at sub-2 you need to drive the wheels off the car.
    Yeah, but you could then make the argument that the relative speeds are the same, therefore "insert safety gear here".

  3. #223
    Junior Member cajun129's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    14
    Liked
    7 times

    Default

    Tragic event, my condolences to the families and hope for full recovery to the passenger who was injured.

    Some very frank discussion regarding both personal safety preparation and track design here. I appreciate everyone's input and some I agree with more than others. I am not sure improved personal safety measures would have made a difference in this particular incident considering the speeds and direction at impact. I do tend to lean on the side of safety-first for drivers, event organizers, and race track owners though. There is a big piece missing in the logic that says "everyone should be responsible for themselves." Unfortunately, car safety preparation does not just affect a driver in an incident but potentially a passenger, another driver, and the HPDE sport as a whole.

    Many of you were probably too young to remember the golden age of Motocross in the 70s and 80s. We had a dozen great race tracks all over SoCal and were producing top riders that went on to become international champions. Entry fees were low and barriers to entry were low. Essentially anyone with a bike and a helmet could race. A lot of guys got hurt and some died. In the 90s lawyers and insurance companies saw this as a huge gold mine. The encouraged every injured rider to sue, promising big payouts. Insurance cos settled to avoid litigation and promptly raised their rates to track owners and organizers or anyone who might have exposure. A race track that use to pay $10k/year for liability ins now was facing an annual bill of $500k. It was a deal breaker and over a 5 year period it caused nearly every track in SoCal to close. End of cheap and easy MX racing as a sport.

    These days the MX sport has opened up again but the cost is 10x what it once was and there are a lot fewer tracks around. That is the risk we take in HPDE when we say "Let the driver decide for himself". It puts affordable access to racetracks in CA at risk.

    My suggested response is to adopt reasonable HPDE safety standards and enforce them in every event. I believe there should always be room for a stock car with stock seats and belts if they are in good condition. A car from the last 20 years with airbags, crumple zones, passenger protective zones, offers a lot of protection and is probably suitable for a novice driver. Any mods to safety gear probably should be signed-off by a race prep shop who understands all the interrelated issues. I see no value in allowing a non-ASM 4pt harness at any HPDE event. Novice drivers are installing 4pt death traps in their cars with no knowledge or supervision and it benefits no one. Once airbags are removed, a seat/harness/hans/roll bar probably needs to replace them as a complete safety system upgrade. Leaving out any of these elements arguably makes the car less safe than stock.

    Race tracks also need to consider track safety and design if they wish to avoid the lawsuit gauntlet. Safe runoff areas and filling potholes and water channeling near the track don't cost very much and serve to keep insurance costs down by avoiding incidents that result in injury. A well maintained track with few incidents and low insurance costs is less expensive to rent than one with high costs due to litigation. Welcome to California.

    Organizers need to consider better enforcement of personal safety devices, keep things on track reeled-in, and eject drivers who regularly take too much risk. If you never go off you probably have not discovered your limits. If you go off every session, you are missing your marks and driving over your head. Reel it in.

    I have driven and/or instructed with SV, HOD, PCA Z7, PCA Z8 over the last 10 years and I also run a lot of driver safety meetings and novice ground schools. No one has all the answers but hopefully we can work together to keep safety standards high primarily to protect drivers, and also this HPDE sport that we all love.

    Just my 2c. Others will surely disagree.
    Last edited by cajun129; 12-19-2015 at 07:14 PM.

  4. #224
    Track Whore Pure EvoIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Fullerton, CA
    Posts
    1,728
    Liked
    299 times

    Default

    It is the lesser of 2 evils. We better regulate ourselves properly and safely, mitigate as much risk as possible (individual, organization, track owners) or else lawyers, regulators, government, public officials will do it for us.
    That is not what we want. Make sure the person, car, track runoff, track surfaces, walls, immovable hard objects, etc is as safe as reasonably possible. So if there are obvious or known places that concerns safety, it should be addressed and voiced by the individuals, organization to track management.

    Example: letting people with harness bars on track, people with bolt in rollbars, people with shorts and t-shirt, barriers not being covered and high chance of impact zone, random big holes/ditches on high speed runoff area or lack of run off area where it is VERY likely people will go off, No ambulances on standby. Etc.....

    If something isn't right, speak up. We have an obligation to ourselves and to this sport to fix it and not turn a blind eye to known and preventable issue because of money. If they refuse to fix, we should boycott that track or organization or refuse entry of participant because something was not up to standard.
    You may lose some business on the short term with a customer or organization, but long term, you will risk to lose alot more. It is just 1-2 lawsuits away from shutting down an organization or track if there was known preventable issues, but chose not to fix the problem.
    Not worth it. If they chose to ignore, its a big gamble with big consequences. It is the cost of doing business and no sport is worth losing lives over. If you can't pay to play then maybe for the safety and future of the sport, they need to be shut down.

    At the end of the day, we do the best we can, but we will never 100% eliminate all possible risk, things can still happen, but people cannot say we never tried to improve the safety as best as possible given the information and knowledge they have at the time.
    Protect our motorsport by protecting ourselves and each other. Don't wait for something tragic to happen before action is taken. Don't wait for regulators and lawyers to force us (individuals, organizations, track owners) to make changes, to tell us what to do, and then comply or risk getting shut down.
    We owe it to each other, to the people we lost, to the families they left behind, new beginning future drivers, to our families to do what we can to keep ourselves safe.

    As i said earlier, **** can still happen. But if the next time someone loses their life and lawyers are involved, they won't have a case as to why they died. Everything in the individual's, organization's, track's power was done and nothing else could have been done at the time of incident could prevent it from happening.
    Lawyers and regulators, and legislatures sees that we are responsible and this was an unavoidable freak accident. On the flip side, if we don't make changes, they will point 10 fingers and 10 different things we could have done, but didn't. It could have saved the person's life however small or big the factor may be, we leave ourselves open for blame, gross negligence, and responsibility.

    This affects everyone in the sport, not those who lost their lives and their families. Think bigger picture instead of how it just affects you and only you.
    This isn't fear mongering. This is real life where people live and die. These things do happen. So don't sugar coat it and think you live in fantasy land where no one can get hurt and nothing is wrong and safety is perfect.
    Last edited by Pure EvoIX; 12-19-2015 at 07:54 PM.
    fiftyunofifty likes this.
    Zhong (Evo IX) | Angry Panda Racing

    1:53.396 @ BRP CW13 - 11/14/13
    1:47.2xx @ Laguna Seca - 11/28/10
    2:03.026 @ Thill CCW Bypass - 12/20/14
    2:05.100 @ CVR CCW - 1/16/11
    1:58.151 @ CVR CW - 5/5/13
    1:25.56x @ WSIR - 10/13/13
    1:23.128 @ SOW CW - 7/27/14
    1:22.2xx @ SOW CCW - 7/26/14
    1:46.0xx @ ACS Roval - 11/23/14
    1:11.299 @ ACS Infield - 5/18/14

    Fastest Limited/Mod Class Evo in Time Attack at WSIR
    2nd Fastest Limited/Mod Class Evo in Time Attack at BRP 13CW

  5. #225
    Not Certified Slow SDSUsnowboards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    1,835
    Liked
    817 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pure EvoIX View Post
    It is the lesser of 2 evils. We better regulate ourselves properly and safely, mitigate as much risk as possible (individual, organization, track owners) or else lawyers, regulators, government, public officials will do it for us.

    This is your first premise, but I want to see a historical precedent where this happened to an activity that caused equally as few deaths, and where the intervention cannot be attributed to non-death related causes.

    That is not what we want. Make sure the person, car, track runoff, track surfaces, walls, immovable hard objects, etc is as safe as reasonably possible. So if there are obvious or known places that concerns safety, it should be addressed and voiced by the individuals, organization to track management.

    Example: letting people with harness bars on track, people with bolt in rollbars, people with shorts and t-shirt, barriers not being covered and high chance of impact zone, random big holes/ditches on high speed runoff area or lack of run off area where it is VERY likely people will go off, No ambulances on standby. Etc.....

    What is wrong with bolt-on roll bars? What organization officially allows shorts and T-shirts? Yeah, I've seen the video where people have done it, but even xtreme speed, often cited here as the least-safe organizer, requires pants and long-sleeves. Some people break the rules and wear short sleeves, true, but those are the people who will become injured. So what?

    If something isn't right, speak up. We have an obligation to ourselves and to this sport to fix it and not turn a blind eye to known and preventable issue because of money. If they refuse to fix, we should boycott that track or organization or refuse entry of participant because something was not up to standard.
    You may lose some business on the short term with a customer or organization, but long term, you will risk to lose alot more. It is just 1-2 lawsuits away from shutting down an organization or track if there was known preventable issues, but chose not to fix the problem.
    Not worth it. If they chose to ignore, its a big gamble with big consequences. It is the cost of doing business and no sport is worth losing lives over. If you can't pay to play then maybe for the safety and future of the sport, they need to be shut down.

    1 or 2 law suits from shutting down? How do you figure? [citation needed]

    At the end of the day, we do the best we can, but we will never 100% eliminate all possible risk, things can still happen, but people cannot say we never tried to improve the safety as best as possible given the information and knowledge they have at the time.

    If we need to do the best we can, then show me your fire-retarded NASCAR-style steel and foam insert between your cage, and door panel. It probably only cost $5-6,000 to design and install. Also, how many chassis were destroyed in the design of your cage, and other aftermarket crash structure? Who is the professional that designed and installed your seat and restrain systems? When was the last time your wheels were x-rayed to ensure structural integrity after use?

    I'm being facetious. Statements like "we do the best we can" and "we need to do everything possible" and other, unqualified drivel is very poorly considered. No one does everything he can. No one does the best he can do. The most safety conscious of us only do the best we can afford. Admit it, and then admit that "the best we can afford" varies from person to person. If you want to argue for a standard (which I'm sure will be a standard you can afford) then we need to discuss data, and whatever reasons we have for making the standard that particular thing.


    Protect our motorsport by protecting ourselves and each other. Don't wait for something tragic to happen before action is taken. Don't wait for regulators and lawyers to force us (individuals, organizations, track owners) to make changes, to tell us what to do, and then comply or risk getting shut down.
    We owe it to each other, to the people we lost, to the families they left behind, new beginning future drivers, to our families to do what we can to keep ourselves safe.

    Speak for yourself. I don't owe my safety to anyone, and I am positive many feel the same way, but will not say so for fear of social consequences from the mob.

    As i said earlier, **** can still happen. But if the next time someone loses their life and lawyers are involved, they won't have a case as to why they died. Everything in the individual's, organization's, track's power was done and nothing else could have been done at the time of incident could prevent it from happening.

    That's not how most law suits work. The minority of law suits are decided on their merits. Most are settled because paying someone to go away is less expensive than paying for long-term legal defense

    Lawyers and regulators, and legislatures sees that we are responsible and this was an unavoidable freak accident. On the flip side, if we don't make changes, they will point 10 fingers and 10 different things we could have done, but didn't. It could have saved the person's life however small or big the factor may be, we leave ourselves open for blame, gross negligence, and responsibility.

    This affects everyone in the sport, not those who lost their lives and their families. Think bigger picture instead of how it just affects you and only you.

    >Implying opponents to this call for action are not thinking of others, or of long-term consequences.

    This isn't fear mongering. This is real life where people live and die. These things do happen. So don't sugar coat it and think you live in fantasy land where no one can get hurt and nothing is wrong and safety is perfect.

    I'm calling out your strawman. Name the person who said or implied that no one can get hurt, or that nothing is wrong, or that safety is perfect. I think you are misrepresenting the opposing view points. Let's have a more honest conversation.
    I respect you, but I strongly disagree with you. This is fear mongering, despite your insistence otherwise. Show that your predictions have a historical precedent and you would be much more persuasive. If they do not have a historical precedent, then why should anyone believe your predictions?
    2001 MR2-Eleven
    Experience Points: 21
    Youtube Channel.

  6. #226
    Chest hair required Olitho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,236
    Liked
    2344 times

    Default

    No one is going to find "facts" on self-regulation vs. government regulation. Here is some information from a website on the topic.

    BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS OF SELF-REGULATION
    Benefits of Self-Regulation
    Self-regulation is an important mechanism for governing industry practices and has many
    benefits over government regulation for consumers, producers, the government, and the
    economy as a whole. Consumers benefit from self-regulation in multiple ways. While some
    policymakers promote regulation as a way to reduce risk to consumers, the potential for
    overregulation also poses a risk to consumers. Unnecessary or inefficient regulation raises
    production costs for businesses without any corresponding benefits and these costs are
    ultimately borne by consumers. Government regulation by its nature addresses identified
    harms, and as such can inadvertently create barriers to innovation or competitive entry
    when it establishes norms that only address current market participants and practices. Selfregulation
    can be more efficient for business, and these saving are passed on to consumers.
    Rulemaking, monitoring, enforcement and remediation processes can also be faster using
    self-regulation rather than government regulation, which means that consumers are
    protected sooner.


    http://www.itif.org/files/2011-self-...dvertising.pdf


    Basically it comes down to establishing our own reasonable rules to mitigate the risk someone else sets them for us. Seth, twice in this thread it has been pointed out by former motorcycle racers the closing of southern California's greatest racing venues in the early 1980s due to unaffordable insurance. This unaffordable insurance came from just a few serious injuries and deaths. The massive lawsuit liabilities mounted and the racing parks closed under the weight of the insurance. They were already fighting in some cases the unpopularity of having a racing venue in the encroaching neighborhood. That coupled with increasing property values and rents, they just shut down or sold to developers.

    That sure does sound a lot like some of our local tracks does it not. Irwindale becoming a shopping center. WSIR getting more homes getting built close by. What might happen to ACS as the big races are not drawing the big crowds and TV revenue? Will BRP and Chuckwalla be fighting encroaching homes and higher insurance rates?

    Legislators that are up and coming love to attach their names to sensational bill names and then push to get them passed to make a name for themselves.

    I don't suggest we become alarmist, but as driving consumers, we and the tracks, should be proactive and viewed as leading on this issue.
    Pure EvoIX and bawareca like this.
    To the right of The Sheriff. Isn't everyone?

  7. #227
    Not Certified Slow SDSUsnowboards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    1,835
    Liked
    817 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olitho View Post
    No one is going to find "facts" on self-regulation vs. government regulation. Here is some information from a website on the topic.

    BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS OF SELF-REGULATION
    Benefits of Self-Regulation
    Self-regulation is an important mechanism for governing industry practices and has many
    benefits over government regulation for consumers, producers, the government, and the
    economy as a whole. Consumers benefit from self-regulation in multiple ways. While some
    policymakers promote regulation as a way to reduce risk to consumers, the potential for
    overregulation also poses a risk to consumers. Unnecessary or inefficient regulation raises
    production costs for businesses without any corresponding benefits and these costs are
    ultimately borne by consumers. Government regulation by its nature addresses identified
    harms, and as such can inadvertently create barriers to innovation or competitive entry
    when it establishes norms that only address current market participants and practices. Selfregulation
    can be more efficient for business, and these saving are passed on to consumers.
    Rulemaking, monitoring, enforcement and remediation processes can also be faster using
    self-regulation rather than government regulation, which means that consumers are
    protected sooner.


    http://www.itif.org/files/2011-self-...dvertising.pdf


    Basically it comes down to establishing our own reasonable rules to mitigate the risk someone else sets them for us. Seth, twice in this thread it has been pointed out by former motorcycle racers the closing of southern California's greatest racing venues in the early 1980s due to unaffordable insurance. This unaffordable insurance came from just a few serious injuries and deaths. The massive lawsuit liabilities mounted and the racing parks closed under the weight of the insurance. They were already fighting in some cases the unpopularity of having a racing venue in the encroaching neighborhood. That coupled with increasing property values and rents, they just shut down or sold to developers.

    That sure does sound a lot like some of our local tracks does it not. Irwindale becoming a shopping center. WSIR getting more homes getting built close by. What might happen to ACS as the big races are not drawing the big crowds and TV revenue? Will BRP and Chuckwalla be fighting encroaching homes and higher insurance rates?

    Legislators that are up and coming love to attach their names to sensational bill names and then push to get them passed to make a name for themselves.

    I don't suggest we become alarmist, but as driving consumers, we and the tracks, should be proactive and viewed as leading on this issue.
    Oli, with respect I will repeat a question I asked previous, that must have been overlooked: how many died annually on that track you specifically mentioned earlier?[/U] I must have overlooked the posts about a rash of track closures in the 80's. Now that I am aware of those, I have another question: What was the annual number of fatalities in CA during that time period preceding those track closures?

    I don't see how home building near tracks is a thing we can prevent or control by imposing proactive mandatory safety measures. How is it relevant to the discussion of safety?

    Oli, your admission that there are no facts regarding regulation seems to me to be an admission that your predictions are based on your intuition, a haunch, or feelings. Am I wrong?

    An interesting excerpt from your post serves as fair warning over voluntarily over regulating the sport: "Unnecessary or inefficient regulation raises production costs for businesses without any corresponding benefits and these costs are ultimately borne by consumers."
    2001 MR2-Eleven
    Experience Points: 21
    Youtube Channel.

  8. #228
    Senior Member fatbillybob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    by the beach
    Posts
    2,087
    Liked
    1720 times

    Default

    The answer is to take a page from the NRA playbook. Sensible self regulation always ends up with liberals who know what is better for you taking more.

  9. #229
    Chest hair required Olitho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,236
    Liked
    2344 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SDSUsnowboards View Post
    Oli, with respect I will repeat a question I asked previous, that must have been overlooked: how many died annually on that track you specifically mentioned earlier?[/U] I must have overlooked the posts about a rash of track closures in the 80's. Now that I am aware of those, I have another question: What was the annual number of fatalities in CA during that time period preceding those track closures?

    I don't see how home building near tracks is a thing we can prevent or control by imposing proactive mandatory safety measures. How is it relevant to the discussion of safety?

    Oli, your admission that there are no facts regarding regulation seems to me to be an admission that your predictions are based on your intuition, a haunch, or feelings. Am I wrong?

    An interesting excerpt from your post serves as fair warning over voluntarily over regulating the sport: "Unnecessary or inefficient regulation raises production costs for businesses without any corresponding benefits and these costs are ultimately borne by consumers."
    I don't recall how many died at Saddleback. I think that is where most of them occurred, but I could be wrong. I am going from memory and I did not race all the other tracks. For Saddleback, which was probably the most iconic track in soCal, I recall that in the years before it closed the deaths were less then one per year. I don't think there were any deaths at Escape Country and I don't know about Indian Dunes and the other tracks. But what I do know is that the insurance was provided by just a very low single digit number of firms and when it went up, it went up for all the tracks.

    Managing public relations and managing costs for a track or any business is impacted on many fronts. You ask how do homes affect tracks and this discussion. If deaths suddenly get track days into the critical eye of legislators and the public, then there is an external battle to be waged beyond the insurance issue. Now the tracks, organizers and driver groups need to hire media PR people, lawyers and others to manage what is getting said in the press and to the legislators. That brings additional costs, distraction and overall pressure to the sport. At that point it is fighting off an image that the sport is a menace to public interest and public safety. At that point, like being a gun owner or maker, etc. the battle is just to not look like the "bad guy" in the issue. Then when homes start encroaching closer to the tracks, or tracks get criticized for the fuel spills, oil, coolant laden runoff water, etc.... add-in the noise and traffic, and now the track is already fighting a public menace image. I can point to rave parties, gun ranges, concerts in parks and more that are considered nuisances.

    Do we want to be fighting those fights or driving? Do we want to spend extra money on entry fees, donations to legal battles, etc. or spending the time and effort early to prevent a possible bad image? You are right Seth. The death and injury rate is low, but it does not take many to create an issue. It can be just one person, someone famous or someone related to an important politician or newsperson. Through in some allegations that a few good safety measures were not taken or a bit of scandal about how the on-track accident happened and it could become front page news like the Paul Brown death. Only four people have died in those Porsches since 2004 to my knowledge, but Porsche is fighting a battle that the car is inherently unsafe. I paid tens of millions last time to settle. I bet they pay even more this time.
    hakeem, Pure EvoIX and bawareca like this.
    To the right of The Sheriff. Isn't everyone?

  10. #230
    Chest hair required Olitho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,236
    Liked
    2344 times

    Default

    PS. What I am sharing here is strictly opinion backed up by some opinions of others on their research sites. Facts on this whole topic are very limited. That backs up my opinion that this is a battle to shape opinions early in the process before someone else starts doing it for us.
    Pure EvoIX likes this.
    To the right of The Sheriff. Isn't everyone?

  11. #231
    Junior Member cajun129's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    14
    Liked
    7 times

    Default

    There were lots of motorcycle injuries at SoCal tracks but not many deaths. Two or three that I recall over a 10 year period which started the legal snowball resulting in $500k insurance premiums that track owners could no longer meet, so they simply closed and sold off the land. That is the point being missed. It doesn't take very many deaths in a sport for CA lawyers to smell a big payday and insurance companies to grossly overreact with astronomical insurance premiums to hedge their bets.

    Carlsbad, Escape Country, Ascot, Corona, De Anza, Irwindale, Indian Dunes, Saddleback, Claud Osteen and a few others were all forced out of the MX racing business by skyrocketing insurance premiums to cover a perceived exposure to risk, not a pile of dead riders. Reducing our exposure to risk is what keeps our entry fees low and our tracks open. It may also save a few lives of drivers or instructors along the way.

    Some folks will never understand that the risks they take potentially affect all of us, and the HPDE sport as a whole. I lived through the closing out of my preferred motorsport once, I suppose I will live if it happens again. I will continue to drive with, instruct, and recommend only those organizations who hold the highest safety standards for HPDE.
    Last edited by cajun129; 12-21-2015 at 12:51 AM.
    Porsche Cayman 2.9L

  12. #232
    Senior Member Silversprint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    844
    Liked
    150 times

    Default

    Nothing will change.

    The organizers will keep selling $99 slots to Buttonwillow because they can get insurance. Drivers will show up in short and t-shirts oblivious to the dangers. Everyone will get a lap timer. Someone will get hurt. We will be back here having the same discussion.

    Nothing will change until the insurance companies make it happen.

    For example if you rent Willow Springs and get insurance directly from Willow Springs it specifically says their insurance now requires a Rollbar AND 5 point harness for all convertibles (no OEM belts). The big track day organizers get their own separate policies and allow convertibles with OEM belts on track. What would if all the insurance companies required 5 point harnees?
    MR2 Spyder 2zz turbo
    Mazda RX7 FD
    Porsche 911E

  13. #233
    Senior Member fatbillybob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    by the beach
    Posts
    2,087
    Liked
    1720 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olitho View Post
    I don't recall how many died at Saddleback. I think that is where most of them occurred, but I could be wrong. I am going from memory and I did not race all the other tracks. For Saddleback, which was probably the most iconic track in soCal, I recall that in the years before it closed the deaths were less then one per year. I don't think there were any deaths at Escape Country and I don't know about Indian Dunes and the other tracks. But what I do know is that the insurance was provided by just a very low single digit number of firms and when it went up, it went up for all the tracks.

    Managing public relations and managing costs for a track or any business is impacted on many fronts. You ask how do homes affect tracks and this discussion. If deaths suddenly get track days into the critical eye of legislators and the public, then there is an external battle to be waged beyond the insurance issue. Now the tracks, organizers and driver groups need to hire media PR people, lawyers and others to manage what is getting said in the press and to the legislators. That brings additional costs, distraction and overall pressure to the sport. At that point it is fighting off an image that the sport is a menace to public interest and public safety. At that point, like being a gun owner or maker, etc. the battle is just to not look like the "bad guy" in the issue. Then when homes start encroaching closer to the tracks, or tracks get criticized for the fuel spills, oil, coolant laden runoff water, etc.... add-in the noise and traffic, and now the track is already fighting a public menace image. I can point to rave parties, gun ranges, concerts in parks and more that are considered nuisances.

    Do we want to be fighting those fights or driving? e.

    While I understand and hear you loud and clear the reality is the liberals who know what is best for you will not be satisfied until every gun is gone. There is no reason to own any more performance than a prius! Then when there are nothing but prius left they will lobby for mass transit because there is no reason to own a prius. That is how it works. In California we have 10 round magazines for guns. Liberals like lt gov newsom wants to make those illegal and have backround checks for ammo! Once that is achieved more kumbuya legislation will follow. Man fun is under attack from all sides. Kid has got in trouble for eating his pozza in the shape of a gun! When will a Z06 corvette be just as politically incorrect as an AR 15?
    bawareca likes this.

  14. #234
    Not Certified Slow SDSUsnowboards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    1,835
    Liked
    817 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olitho View Post
    I don't recall how many died at Saddleback. I think that is where most of them occurred, but I could be wrong. I am going from memory and I did not race all the other tracks. For Saddleback, which was probably the most iconic track in soCal, I recall that in the years before it closed the deaths were less then one per year. I don't think there were any deaths at Escape Country and I don't know about Indian Dunes and the other tracks. But what I do know is that the insurance was provided by just a very low single digit number of firms and when it went up, it went up for all the tracks.

    If we take your recollection as fact for the purpose of the argument--and I'm willing to--then it appears deaths back in the 80's was comparable to deaths presently, which is to say that there are fewer than 1 deaths per year. It also appears that the insurance suddenly went up, which is what caused tracks to close. Do you know why it suddenly went up? Greedy investors? Updated actuaries? What is your explanation for why we are not presently seeing track closures as we did in the 80's if the fatality rate is comparable?

    Managing public relations and managing costs for a track or any business is impacted on many fronts. You ask how do homes affect tracks and this discussion. If deaths suddenly get track days into the critical eye of legislators and the public, then there is an external battle to be waged beyond the insurance issue. Now the tracks, organizers and driver groups need to hire media PR people, lawyers and others to manage what is getting said in the press and to the legislators. That brings additional costs, distraction and overall pressure to the sport. At that point it is fighting off an image that the sport is a menace to public interest and public safety. At that point, like being a gun owner or maker, etc. the battle is just to not look like the "bad guy" in the issue. Then when homes start encroaching closer to the tracks, or tracks get criticized for the fuel spills, oil, coolant laden runoff water, etc.... add-in the noise and traffic, and now the track is already fighting a public menace image. I can point to rave parties, gun ranges, concerts in parks and more that are considered nuisances.

    If I understand your argument correctly, you are asserting that deaths in the sport will bring attention from the media, politicians, and community to other issues, such as environmental contamination. To support that assertion, you reference some examples where activities have received attention from those same sources because they were nuisances. This is a non-sequitur. The fact that some activities received attention because they were a nuisance is not evidence that another activity will receive attention because of a certain number of deaths. There are a lot of activities which cause more deaths that auto racing, which fly under the public radar. Why do you feel less than one death per year is likely to bring media, political, and community attention to the sport now, if it hasn't before?

    Do we want to be fighting those fights or driving? Do we want to spend extra money on entry fees, donations to legal battles, etc. or spending the time and effort early to prevent a possible bad image? You are right Seth. The death and injury rate is low, but it does not take many to create an issue. It can be just one person, someone famous or someone related to an important politician or newsperson. Through in some allegations that a few good safety measures were not taken or a bit of scandal about how the on-track accident happened and it could become front page news like the Paul Brown death. Only four people have died in those Porsches since 2004 to my knowledge, but Porsche is fighting a battle that the car is inherently unsafe. I paid tens of millions last time to settle. I bet they pay even more this time.
    You make a good point about the possibility of a famous person dying while enjoying the sport. You meant Paul Walker, right? Unfortunately, there is no way to ensure no one will ever die in partaking in HPDE. Agree? Therefore, nothing can be done to ensure a famous person, or the kid of influential parents, will never die, causing attention to fall into our sport. Therefore, the discussion must be about degrees of prevention. Correct? So, let's talk degrees of prevention.

    How many deaths per year would indicate we've reached an acceptable degree of prevention? We're currently at 0.5 deaths per year.
    Quote Originally Posted by cajun129 View Post
    There were lots of motorcycle injuries at SoCal tracks but not many deaths. Two or three that I recall over a 10 year period which started the legal snowball resulting in $500k insurance premiums that track owners could no longer meet, so they simply closed and sold off the land. That is the point being missed. It doesn't take very many deaths in a sport for CA lawyers to smell a big payday and insurance companies to grossly overreact with astronomical insurance premiums to hedge their bets.

    Carlsbad, Escape Country, Ascot, Corona, De Anza, Irwindale, Indian Dunes, Saddleback, Claud Osteen and a few others were all forced out of the MX racing business by skyrocketing insurance premiums to cover a perceived exposure to risk, not a pile of dead riders. Reducing our exposure to risk is what keeps our entry fees low and our tracks open. It may also save a few lives of drivers or instructors along the way.

    Some folks will never understand that the risks they take potentially affect all of us, and the HPDE sport as a whole. I lived through the closing out of my preferred motorsport once, I suppose I will live if it happens again. I will continue to drive with, instruct, and recommend only those organizations who hold the highest safety standards for HPDE.
    Good point. So, are injuries decreasing, increasing, or staying the same?

    Quote Originally Posted by fatbillybob View Post
    While I understand and hear you loud and clear the reality is the liberals who know what is best for you will not be satisfied until every gun is gone. There is no reason to own any more performance than a prius! Then when there are nothing but prius left they will lobby for mass transit because there is no reason to own a prius. That is how it works. In California we have 10 round magazines for guns. Liberals like lt gov newsom wants to make those illegal and have backround checks for ammo! Once that is achieved more kumbuya legislation will follow. Man fun is under attack from all sides. Kid has got in trouble for eating his pozza in the shape of a gun! When will a Z06 corvette be just as politically incorrect as an AR 15?
    I agree with your disdain, but I am not sure we should adopt the policy of not giving an inch in this situation. That's a policy best adopted once the government actually does get it's greedy, inept hands on something.
    Last edited by SDSUsnowboards; 12-21-2015 at 11:32 AM.
    2001 MR2-Eleven
    Experience Points: 21
    Youtube Channel.

  15. #235
    AROSC Comp. Director Slaysman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    Posts
    302
    Liked
    231 times

    Default 4 point harness with ASM

    I keep seeing references to Schroth making the only ASM 4 point harness. Since I have never used a 4 point harness, what is different about the Schroth harness? in pictures, it appears similar or the same as other 4 point systems.
    Terry Watson
    AROSC Competition Director

  16. #236
    dirty smack talker hakeem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    3,077
    Liked
    977 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fatbillybob View Post
    While I understand and hear you loud and clear the reality is the liberals who know what is best for you will not be satisfied until every gun is gone. There is no reason to own any more performance than a prius! Then when there are nothing but prius left they will lobby for mass transit because there is no reason to own a prius. That is how it works. In California we have 10 round magazines for guns. Liberals like lt gov newsom wants to make those illegal and have backround checks for ammo! Once that is achieved more kumbuya legislation will follow. Man fun is under attack from all sides. Kid has got in trouble for eating his pozza in the shape of a gun! When will a Z06 corvette be just as politically incorrect as an AR 15?
    Red_5 likes this.

  17. #237
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    38
    Liked
    16 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slaysman View Post
    I keep seeing references to Schroth making the only ASM 4 point harness. Since I have never used a 4 point harness, what is different about the Schroth harness? in pictures, it appears similar or the same as other 4 point systems.
    it is. all 4 point harness are death traps. The engineering just isn’t there. the harness straps are anchored in the hip strap. During a crash the shoulder straps will pull the hip strap off your hips and your Gut will catch it. Your hips can take 40+ G before damage, your gut can only take 3G (3g can happen at 30mph) before internal bleeding can happen. So with the hip strap now crushing your internal organs you’ll have internal bleeding, there can be no way to fix internal bleeding, you’ll have anywhere between 60-7 min before you die.

    The schroth 4 point is offensive to me. Here is this super huge safety company (takata) and they put out a video that says “schroth 4 point is safe” in that exact video you can watch he hip strap go into the crash test dummy’s gut. The video they show you is not a survivable impact, and they voice over “it’s safe”. It’s just disgusting to me that they would stoop that low to sell a harness.

  18. #238
    Senior Member bellwilliam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    La Verne, California, United States
    Posts
    7,902
    Liked
    2531 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nine Lives Johnny View Post
    it is. all 4 point harness are death traps. The engineering just isn’t there. the harness straps are anchored in the hip strap. During a crash the shoulder straps will pull the hip strap off your hips and your Gut will catch it. Your hips can take 40+ G before damage, your gut can only take 3G (3g can happen at 30mph) before internal bleeding can happen. So with the hip strap now crushing your internal organs you’ll have internal bleeding, there can be no way to fix internal bleeding, you’ll have anywhere between 60-7 min before you die.

    The schroth 4 point is offensive to me. Here is this super huge safety company (takata) and they put out a video that says “schroth 4 point is safe” in that exact video you can watch he hip strap go into the crash test dummy’s gut. The video they show you is not a survivable impact, and they voice over “it’s safe”. It’s just disgusting to me that they would stoop that low to sell a harness.
    how about 3 point OEM ? in terms of gut damage....how is it different ?
    S1 Supermiata - 220whp
    13 Tesla, ma: no engine !!
    17 GT350R
    03 Miata Club Sport
    96 NSX
    06 EVO MR
    15 Mini Cooper S
    Beck 550 Spyder

  19. #239
    Senior Member bellwilliam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    La Verne, California, United States
    Posts
    7,902
    Liked
    2531 times

    Default

    ASM belt (inner shoulder harness only) has an extra few inches extension stitched on. so in a low G, it holds you against the seat. but in a high G crash, stitches break, so it effectively becomes a 3 point. that's the idea, anyway.


    Quote Originally Posted by Slaysman View Post
    I keep seeing references to Schroth making the only ASM 4 point harness. Since I have never used a 4 point harness, what is different about the Schroth harness? in pictures, it appears similar or the same as other 4 point systems.
    S1 Supermiata - 220whp
    13 Tesla, ma: no engine !!
    17 GT350R
    03 Miata Club Sport
    96 NSX
    06 EVO MR
    15 Mini Cooper S
    Beck 550 Spyder

  20. #240
    Senior Member robburgoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,009
    Liked
    1495 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slaysman View Post
    I keep seeing references to Schroth making the only ASM 4 point harness. Since I have never used a 4 point harness, what is different about the Schroth harness? in pictures, it appears similar or the same as other 4 point systems.
    It functions a bit like a 3 point by having one of the shouders loosen in a crash.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts