NEW PCA Best Practices for DE (Rant!)
12-10-2018, 06:13 PM
#271
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 13,370
Received 4,555 Likes
on
2,588 Posts
Further info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HANS_device
And this is why it needs to be mandatory (top drivers don't necessarily know much about safety, and sometimes make bad decisions on safety):
https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/03...device-at-roc/
Last edited by Manifold; 12-10-2018 at 06:42 PM.
12-10-2018, 06:33 PM
#272
The Penguin King
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Yes, it's mandatory in all three. Example: https://www.indycar.com/Fan-Info/IND...rs/HANS-Device
Further info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HANS_device
Further info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HANS_device
12-10-2018, 07:27 PM
#273
Rennlist Member
It's a very slippery slope to get involved in regulating personal safety equipment. It not only exposes the venue and organizers to liability, it progresses. Next you'll be required to wrap yourself in flameproof bubble pack with a closed circuit O2 supply and intravenous nutrition. Then we'll pack the entire cockpit in steel re-enforced concrete. It doesn't end here. Once you start "protecting" people for their own good, it goes on forever.
It's none of my business what contraptions you use in your car to protect you against injury as long as they have no effect on me. Do what you want. For my part, I use a HANS and HALO to keep my head in its traditional relation to my shoulders, but that's just me.
PS: You are right about the windows up thing. I'd support that and shift to using turn signals rather than point bys. Lots of groups do it.
12-10-2018, 07:53 PM
#274
Rennlist Member
Hmm... Otto, I think I'm getting what you're after, maybe.
Otto, is your fundamental question "While I believe it helps in an impact event, what other new risks am I introducing, specifically with regards to emergency egress, by wearing HANS? And how well studied is this question?"
If that's what you're after, by framing it like the above I think you'll receive responses that are more constructive and informative. I initially was under the impression that your requests for tests and data were to address doubts as to whether or not HANS actually worked as intended in an impact event. Others appeared to have had the same impression. Your additional focuses on details such as posters' technical background and the right or lack of the right to not use HANS were admittedly distractions.
Otto, is your fundamental question "While I believe it helps in an impact event, what other new risks am I introducing, specifically with regards to emergency egress, by wearing HANS? And how well studied is this question?"
If that's what you're after, by framing it like the above I think you'll receive responses that are more constructive and informative. I initially was under the impression that your requests for tests and data were to address doubts as to whether or not HANS actually worked as intended in an impact event. Others appeared to have had the same impression. Your additional focuses on details such as posters' technical background and the right or lack of the right to not use HANS were admittedly distractions.
As I said, I'm convinced at this point, but I may become unconvinced in the future. I'd like to preserve the right to change my mind on something I can't see being anyone else's business.
In the end, it's my *** out there.
12-10-2018, 08:25 PM
#275
Rennlist Member
I read the above and let me give a summary answer - sometimes you can learn from others and the level of trust you have can be relative to their stature. F1 is considered the pinnacle of motor racing and they have implemented HANS devices. I'm going to trust they know what they are talking about.
That's really my only concern.
12-10-2018, 09:17 PM
#277
WRONGLY ACCUSED!
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Very similar to my conclusions. The exception I'll make is open vs. closed cockpits; F1 is open cockpit and so emergency egress, while still a concern, is a lesser one than it would be in the closed cockpit training and racing we do at PCA events.
That's really my only concern.
That's really my only concern.
Consider that in my 944 I have a half cage so it is much easier to get in and out of the car so perhaps it is safer than my fully caged Cayman? But in an accident the Cayman provides much more protection because of its full cage so the Cayman is perhaps safer than the 944?
Before I installed my HALO seat I had a little more vision left and right so perhaps it was safer with my old non-HALO seat? But with my HALO seat if I am in an impact my head will be protected so perhaps I am safer with the HALO seat?
Is the F1 car safer because it is an open cockpit as you suggest for egress? What happens if you flip it over, now with the F1 HALO system which creates a cage around the cockpit? Is it really safer?
You can go on and on like this but at the end of the day these are the little trade offs we all make in the name of safety. You have to make these decisions and move on otherwise your debating in the alternative seems pedantic. It would be nice if there could be zero risk, but that is not reality, we can only mitigate risk.
Lastly, I will state that if anyone here is looking for a sanctioning body, whether it is PCA, NASA, or SCCA, to be the final arbiter of the minimum safety you should drive with, than you should rethink your own personal safety. Most organizations are years behind what everyone else has figured out to be safe already. This thread is testament to that fact.
12-10-2018, 09:41 PM
#278
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 13,370
Received 4,555 Likes
on
2,588 Posts
Let's be clear about one thing. Head/neck restraint (HNR) devices are NOT new technology.
These devices were extensively tested during their development decades ago, and we now have decades of experience indicating how they perform in real crashes in real cars with real drivers in a wide variety of open and closed cockpit cars in everything from the most elite racing series to DEs.
There's no need to speculate about the results of using HNRs, we already KNOW the answer from all of that testing and real world experience, and the answer is that the safety benefits far outweigh any potential downsides, hence the widespread adoption of mandatory use of HNRs in pro racing.
People posting uninformed speculations about the effects of using HNRs need to do their homework and catch up with the rest of the world. Use of HNRs when using harnesses is just as mandatory as use of 3-pt seatbelts when driving on the road (I believe big brother has mandated the latter also).
These devices were extensively tested during their development decades ago, and we now have decades of experience indicating how they perform in real crashes in real cars with real drivers in a wide variety of open and closed cockpit cars in everything from the most elite racing series to DEs.
There's no need to speculate about the results of using HNRs, we already KNOW the answer from all of that testing and real world experience, and the answer is that the safety benefits far outweigh any potential downsides, hence the widespread adoption of mandatory use of HNRs in pro racing.
People posting uninformed speculations about the effects of using HNRs need to do their homework and catch up with the rest of the world. Use of HNRs when using harnesses is just as mandatory as use of 3-pt seatbelts when driving on the road (I believe big brother has mandated the latter also).
12-10-2018, 09:49 PM
#279
Rennlist Member
Otto, you can take all these arguments to the extreme so I think it is best to consider the "greater good".
Consider that in my 944 I have a half cage so it is much easier to get in and out of the car so perhaps it is safer than my fully caged Cayman? But in an accident the Cayman provides much more protection because of its full cage so the Cayman is perhaps safer than the 944?
Consider that in my 944 I have a half cage so it is much easier to get in and out of the car so perhaps it is safer than my fully caged Cayman? But in an accident the Cayman provides much more protection because of its full cage so the Cayman is perhaps safer than the 944?
I like it because it looks like I can take the front cage out for street use. If you have experience with it I'd appreciate your opinion. The alternative is a half cage as you suggest. Like you perhaps, I have a desire to build a mixed use car and, as you say, it's a compromise. I don't intend to be the fastest car on the track with this build, but I do intend to take my girlfriend to town in it once in awhile.
(BTW, I'm old enough and well enough heeled that I no longer need a functional back seat when I'm taking girls out to dinner).In the end, these choices are based on intended use. There aren't any globally applicable rules and as a governing body we need to keep that in mind. If I want to join IMSA I will; they have a different goal from the PCA, which is largely made up (something like 99%) of folks who like to drive their cars on the street and race them a few times a year on the track. Most of us don't own dedicated track cars. The vast majority of us don't.
Egress is much more difficult for us. It would be suicidal to ignore that I think.
You can go on and on like this but at the end of the day these are the little trade offs we all make in the name of safety. You have to make these decisions and move on otherwise your debating in the alternative seems pedantic. It would be nice if there could be zero risk, but that is not reality, we can only mitigate risk.
Lastly, I will state that if anyone here is looking for a sanctioning body, whether it is PCA, NASA, or SCCA, to be the final arbiter of the minimum safety you should drive with, than you should rethink your own personal safety. Most organizations are years behind what everyone else has figured out to be safe already. This thread is testament to that fact.
Lastly, I will state that if anyone here is looking for a sanctioning body, whether it is PCA, NASA, or SCCA, to be the final arbiter of the minimum safety you should drive with, than you should rethink your own personal safety. Most organizations are years behind what everyone else has figured out to be safe already. This thread is testament to that fact.
Best Regards,
Last edited by Otto Mechanic; 12-10-2018 at 10:09 PM.
12-10-2018, 09:57 PM
#280
WRONGLY ACCUSED!
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I'm on a train going from Philly to Connecticut and am pretty bored so in the few remaining moments I have before I can escape to my car I will respond succinctly.
There is zero need to qualify every statement. We are talking about risk mitigation, not risk elimination.
That was the point of my above post.
There is zero need to qualify every statement. We are talking about risk mitigation, not risk elimination.
That was the point of my above post.
12-10-2018, 10:01 PM
#281
Rennlist Member
Pardon me Streak, but I don't think the question was addressed to you? I'm pretty sure I'm the final authority on the subject of what I think though. Damned sure. It's an argument you're absolutely guaranteed to lose.
12-10-2018, 10:12 PM
#283
Rennlist Member
Best Regards,
12-10-2018, 10:52 PM
#284
Rennlist Member
There's no need to speculate about the results of using HNRs, we already KNOW the answer from all of that testing and real world experience, and the answer is that the safety benefits far outweigh any potential downsides, hence the widespread adoption of mandatory use of HNRs in pro racing.
12-10-2018, 11:00 PM
#285
Rennlist Member
Get up there in front of the line. You've earned it.