Veloce Raptor

"It is believed"....

Yeah.

Again, I have personally witnessed roll overs in T1 of MANY tracks, some with berms, some with gravel, and some with just paved run off. Roll over are possible at ANY track, berm or not.

Again, until facts are known, this is all just whistling Dixie...

hf1

Values are subjective and whistling Dixie is neither mandatory nor prohibited.

ExMB

I have to agree with VR here. Until we know "for sure" we can talk all we want. This hobby is dangerous. Are we therefore wanting to effect change that will cover 2 or even 3+ levels down? Nothing is perfect. There will always be room for improvement. And some of it will have to tempered with a cost - benefit ratio. Of course with that in mind, in this litigious society we live in with its tort laws, we will always find a way to blame someone else instead of accepting responsibility: the track, medical, tech, manufacturer, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Al Pettee

I think the thread of the instructor bracing putting his feet up was at turn 8 (the heel) at WGI.

Al Pettee

As a physician and competitive runner, and also to deflect discussion of this depressing death-in-DE tread, I feel comfortable commenting on Jim Fixx and his running panacea. Fixx actually had significant symptomatic coronary disease (this was common public knowledge) and had angina symptoms (including chest pain) when running, and he came from a genetically cursed family history of significant coronary disease. The post-mortem explanation of his running panacea as I call it was that Fixx was in denial of his disease and tried to believe and preach to others that running would save him from death-and he died during a run.

What we do know in coronary disease is that while exercising regularly is correlated with a decreased incidence of symptomatic coronary disease, an individual exercise bout (temporarily) increases the risk of complications of that disease (including sudden death) during the exercise bout, including when that bout is brief. This indeed also applies to other physical activities that aren't formal exercise if the cardiovascular system is stressed-shoveling snow, sexual intercourse, and even watching sporting events, for instance.

I obviously don't have any specific knowledge of the possibility of a medical event (and what it was) being pertinent to the accident at RR, but one interesting point about sudden death in heart disease is that it can occur no matter how thorough the medical screening for it is, so there really is no way to completely guarantee that this won't happen at a stimulating event like driving on a racetrack.

fatbillybob

For MD's what is the minimum "cardiac exam" for a sports physical? SCCA for example just has a box says "cardiac". Cardiac exam normal or abnormal? Abnormal requires cardiac consult. That's it.

I understand if trying your hardest why you are physically taxed racing a car. I understand the benefit of good car fitness. But we can all agree that a good racer may expend much less energy than a bad racer in the same car going the same laptime. That is true in any sport. Wouldn't a goal to teach along with smoothness is calmness and learning speed instead of being on the ragged edge of capturing speed? My goal racing is to never break a sweat. I know that costs me a few places but in time I learn and gain those places and continue up the ladder. So at the HPDE level why is HPDE a cardiac workout? Just like other sporting events I'm sure there is an acceptable target heart rate per individual that maximizes performance while decision making. I think we can all agree that driving is a mental game too. Maybe we should be looking at driver data just like data from the car?

NASCAR is experimenting with monitors: <<Kurt Busch said he wore one during his Indianapolis 500-Coke 600 double in 2014. He said that the data showed his heart rate would go up right at the point he took the green on restarts and then taper back down to 110.Busch said the information was "cute" to look at, but it's how a driver can control his heart rate that is key."The biggest thing is being relaxed and being mentally focused in the car and if you can get your heart rate down," said Busch, who can get riled up in the car. "Those devices help you track that, but it's still the other preparations of working out and doing breathing exercises and mentally focus on how to keep yourself calm.">>

Al Pettee

As for other medical specialties, a screening cardiac evaluation involves a history (screening for risk factors for heart disease and cardiac events like a family history of syncope or sudden death) and physical examination of the individual (including listening for the heart sounds with a stethoscope to pick up changes that could suggest valve disease, and palpating the pulse to screen for irregularities). Laboratory and ancillary testing, such as EKG (electrical heart reading), stress tests (nuclear thallium or traditional treadmill) and echocardiograms (ultrasound to assess heart structure) are not routinely done, unless red flags arise, which in athletes are quite rare, so the history and physical when the doctor interacts with the athlete is relied on to screen for the red flags and in the absence thereof, the laboratory testing becomes unproductive.

I am not a big fan or endorser of obsessive heart rate monitoring, even for endurance athletes like myself, and especially for race car drivers since a heart rate increase is often (but not persistently) a productive and beneficial thing for them (it reflects adrenaline and brain activation when the driver needs to focus). While it is true that the heart rate can go up and correlate with negative attributes of the driver (such as when Kurt Busch goes bonkers), certainly we don't need a heart rate monitor to figure out that this is happening and that it doesn't necessarily predict racing success....

T&T Racing

Al, your medical insight was extremely helpful and a previous post showing the cause of death pie chart triangulate the data for me, 12 % of the track deaths were medical-related.

There is a common sense rule that spend your time and resources on solving 80% of the causes and set aside the 20% of the causes.

If RRR has a high incident of issues at a particular corner(s), then use the 80/20 rule to make it safer. Use data not anecdotal opinions to drive corrective action.

Manifold

How "dangerous" is the hobby? If it was very dangerous, few of us would do it. Danger is a matter of degree, and I would argue that the risk management measures in place in DE are such that the overall level of danger, in terms of absolute risk, is relatively low. Combining this relatively low absolute risk with the perception of danger is part of what makes the sport both viable and appealing.

A practical approach is to look at the incidents which do occur and see what they tell us about gaps in our risk management. By addressing those gaps, we can reduce the risk level even further, thereby saving some lives, and this can sometimes be done with a high benefit/cost ratio. Specifically for safety of tracks, there's no justification for not fixing the more obvious problems, such as trees in runoff areas, inadequately protected ends of barriers, grossly inadequate tire walls, grossly inadequate guardrails, slopes which roll cars, reliance on earth berms to serve as barriers for relatively frontal impact, etc. All of these problems currently exist at tracks, and the responsibility to address them rests with track owners, not event participants.

Here's a proposal. At designated reasonable times, track owners should allow access for track inspection by event participants and organizers when the tracks aren't in use, say a week or two before events. If the safety of a track is adequate, the owner will have nothing to hide, the confirmation that the track is safe will be good for business, and the owner can strongly support the claim that event participants and organizers "knew the risks" and gave "informed consent." On the other hand, if the safety of a track has serious problems, word would spread quickly and I bet those problems would be fixed fairly promptly, because otherwise the track could lose business or go out of business.

hf1

Great proposal! I'd add: How about a Snell-type certification for tracks by a recognized (for-profit or non-profit) organization? Track owners would have an incentive to certify their tracks (perhaps even for a few different levels/grades of safety, just like helmet and other gear manufacturers have the same incentive to certify their products) as they: 1) would be able to charge more for a track certified at a higher degree of safety, and 2) would pay lower liability/insurance premiums to the insurers. Track users/sponsors/clubs would also enjoy lower insurance premiums for events at tracks certified at higher levels, which would allow them to pay the higher rents, as well.

Actually, I think this would be a great for-profit business idea satisfying unmet demand for track transparency and safety. Drivers and clubs don't have to become experts in track safety. They would delegate this expertise to the certifying body/organization instead.

Matt Romanowski

The FIA rates tracks. You can find their system and tracks ratings with a Google. SCCA also signs off on track safety before they insure an event there.

hf1

I knew FIA rated them, just wasn't sure how widely used FIA-ratings are in the USA. I also thought they mostly rated "top" (expensive, F1-level) tracks (like COTA). Didn't know about SCCA. Thx!

LuigiVampa

Don't we all make decisions on track safety ourselves all the time? Do we really need an expert to tell us things?

I went to Palmer in MA a few years ago the second day the track was in operation and I said to myself "it's not ready yet." I didn't go back until they added a whole bunch of tire walls and other safety measures. Its the same when people decide not to drive or race in the rain. The risk went up so they sit it out. No shame in that - it's a decision some make.

I'm pretty certain I don't need an independent body to tell me how much runoff there is or if there is enough tire wall. I'll see all of this on my out-lap and make my own decisions.

hf1

There are levels/degrees of expertise in everything. Of course, you don't need to consult/pay a doctor on whether drinking Clorox may be beneficial to your health. That doesn't make doctors (and consulting/paying them for some more nuanced situations) obsolete. I'm sure it's the same with law and many other fields.

thebishman

I'm with you; if I drive on a track that appears to be taking liberties with safety aspects that could be easily and cheaply addressed, I won't return.

RRR seems to have an issue with a 'Berm' at the end of the long straight with a row of trees behind it from my reading; I haven't driven there of course. But how much is a gravel trap and an extensive array of tyres in front of Armco in front of the trees going to cost after removing the berm?

Bish