+ 1000

This is perhaps the most important responsibility that PCA National has yet their refusal to tackle this important situation does not bode well for the rest of us.

I agree that the rules should be nationalized in Black & White so that everyone knows what to do. Leaving it up the the local clubs with their wildly different levels of expertise in these matters is an invitation to...well you know what.

 

Careful what you ask for. Bureaucracies ALWAYS tend toward the more restrictive (or nothing). So if you to your wish the rules would be the most restrictive combination of all the various regions.

Full cage, 7 point harness, halo seat, center net, window net, windows up, crash axe (for windows up), fire system, drivers suit, no in-car instructors - in fact instructors would be prohibited from making observations in case the instruction could be associated with an accident - and so on.

John, as you know, I agree with you 100%.

Recent observation re the cage in street cars. It's impossible to look at a cage in a 944 and not think it intrudes into the passenger compartment. I would hate being in one on the street. OTOH, a friend stopped by with his new Spec Focus racer. Just the difference in the design and shape allows moving the cage so much farther away in all directions that I would not think anything about driving that car on the street.

 

Bad advice. That would leave the club having to defend their rules when litigation follows an incident. Welcome to the consequences of excessive litigation: I'm better off not telling you you're an idiot...

 

Nothing personal, but I call hyperbole...

What leads you to say the hobby has "a high level of risk"? What stats do you have? I have never encountered a fatality, or even an injury, in the last decade of track events I've been to. Oh sure, I've seen numerous cars get wadded up. But that's a different issue than injuries and death.

I suspect DEs and racing are less risky than scuba, skydiving, bull riding, private aviation, and driving down I-95 in Broward County at 5:00pm on a Friday. Alas, I have no figure to confirm this hunch.

Do you?

 

I truly believe driving on the track is safer than driving here on I-285 during the day. I have yet to convince my wife of that however.

 

So having rules created at a regional level by individuals with perhaps a questionable level of expertise is the better alternative?

 

Nope, don't need 'em. You missed my point.

People do get hurt, property does get damaged. It is in everyone's best interest to have rules to help minimize both. Rules are only as good as the experience, knowledge, factual data, and reason that are put into them. I believe that this is better accomplished at the national level, rather than at the regional level, and that the club as a whole would benefit from consistency.

 

Imagine how happy you would be if you hired a hauler, took six cars accross the country to a PCA event only to find out your cannot run due to this rule. This after just completing a DE weekend with your local PCA region.

I've fired this info as an FYI to a few people outside of Rennlist / PCA.

 

Of course a roll bar is safer because of the relative lack of proximity, but there are certain scenarios that could see you in proximity to it if things go right. Rear end collisions - common on the street - can send you sliding up a rearward bending seat back like a ramp right into the roof, and if the tube is there... BONK. The seat does not have to even come lose to make this happen.

You'd be surprised. Remember what you thought when you saw the violence of your first sled test video? How could the human body actually do that? It can, and it does.

Depending on the speed potential of the car, you need to think about that point. I've seen a few cars that ran tubing out past the suspension points, in an effort to assumedly stiffen an area that I feel should be left as a natural crumple zone.

For instance, tubing past the rear shock points on a 944. The DAS weld in cage kit sends its rear stays all the way back to the end of the unibody frame rail, right behind the tail lamps. Not only is that long unsupported length of tubing weak, it does not brace the suspension load points, and if it weren't so weak, it would be reducing the crumple zone that is designed to absorb energy. It makes no sense to me.

Anything in front of or behind the suspension points should be left to crumple as it was intended to.

 

As someone quite rightly mentioned, yes it is. If - as was stated - you are snugly ensconced in a solid race seat with a harness, you will not move very far. If you are on the street with a standard 3-point (and no helmet!), your projection out of the seat will be FAR greater.

While it is certainly everyones individual right to weigh the pros and cons, and make their own decisions, I just don't think you can successfully argue against the potential problems of tubing in a street car. It simply DOES have some risk involved.

I personally think you over estimate the value of the "average cage" for the type of accidents you find on the street. In my estimation, most cages do a pretty good job of protecting against roll overs. You speak of increased safety from getting boned. Frankly, I don't see a lot of cages that are all that great in this respect. Certainly not bolt-ins, which are probably far more numerous in the types of dual use cars we are talking about. Because they have a door bar does not mean they offer any substantive increase in side impact prevention.

I'm most concerned with taking a well designed modern car that will safely see its occupants through the usual fender benders, and reducing that safety by adding a solid tube structure that will brain the daylights out of somebody in what woulsd otherwise be a completely surviveable incident.

 

This is incorrect;

The upcoming '08 restraint rule is addressing the use of a "proper race seat" as part of the restraint system to help maintain the proper positioning of the belts on the body. It says nothing about tubing. Harness MOUNT bars are perfectly acceptable.

My only gripe with that rule is that it does not address the type of cradle arrangement that Steve has in his car. An arrangement that is NOT the best way, but is a perfectly acceptable compromise if it is set up properly. I plan to give it the same vetting as I have the Zone 1 rule, in due course.

(oh... that might be construed as a pun)

 

It would be a mistake to think that it had not been tried.

The reason you do not see a national dictate is politics, pure and simple. There are a lot of regions that have been doing DE programs for a long time, and have fairly refined programs, to one degree or another. Trying to get these groups - with all of their entrenched beaurocracies and networks.. oh let's be honest, their MASSIVE EGOS!!! - to agree to toss any portion of their hard work is just not going to happen without a LOT of butt kissing and cajoling.

Personally, I would draft a set of national guidelines (using the best points from ALL programs), suggest that they be adopted, and if regions didn't like it, suggest that they could start their own damn club... with their own DE insurance. That would likely solve most of the reluctance.

One thing at a time, for chrissakes! That is an utterly inane rule, by the way.

 

You are still making the assumptions that the cage will 'brain' someone worse than for example smacking their head on teh B pillar. That has been one of my points. Has there been a study to rigorously test the hypothesis that someones head will more likely be mushed with or without a cage.

My second point was does the added cost of 'possible braining' bring with it any added benefit when driving a caged car on the street. And when taking both the added costs and benefits, whatever they may be, does it make the car more or less safe. I'm fairly certain that noone on this forum has done the research to make a statement one way or the other with any certainty.

 

I have some pretty strong opinions on this subject.

1) I do not believe in so called mandatory safety rules. They imply a degree of safety which cannot be substantiated and PCA assumes liability as a result. If they imply something is safe and it turns out not to have prevented injury, a degree of responsibilty sticks with PCA. A Bad Idea in my opinion.

2) Establishing safety rules without solid science is a really bad idea. A lot of the rules I have seen are based on "conventional wisdom" which as John has observed have no substance in fact.

3) Notions of roll bars being dangerous on the street need to be tempered with the view of the system - that means the seats, the harnesses and the roll bar. An obvious example is the Club Sport Kit from Porsche. One piece seats with the proper structure and holes. Large wings on the seats to prevent any possible contact with the bar with or without a helmet. A safety SYSTEM, not a hodge podge of parts assembled by someone who has insufficient knowledge of safety systems back by science, engineering and tests. The backyard mechanics say the DAS roll bar is safer. Maybe it is, but I put way more faith in Porsche engineers than back yard mechanics. I suspect that when John builds a bar, he probably wants to know what seats are installed if the car is dual purpose. Custom builders can do that.

3) From my observation of Zone 1 DEs it would be wiser to focus on prevention. Recent events at tracks we use show an unacceptable number of spins and crashes. One region permits a driver to have two spins per day! Nonsense. I think some people have confused DE with racing and are now trying to enforce racing rules for DE. That's wrong. Fix the drivers first!

4) Drivers surrounded by a roll cage, harnesses HANS device and a harness may feel invulnerable and take risks which are unwise. The same driver in a street car with none of the above may be more inclined to drive within his limits. Again, DE is not racing and should not be used as a substitute by those who think racing is too risky. Based on the crashes at Tremblant and Calabogie in the last month ..it is pretty clear that DE with some regions is a high risk activity. DE should not be high risk. Period.

5) I am concerned that more and more race cars are showing up at DE. Is this consistent with the definition (PCA) of Driver Education? For those willing to take the risk there are plenty of races. For those who prefer a low risk activity, DE is the answer.

Regards,

 

Bob -
As a person new to DE, I agree completely with your opinion of what DE should be, and in some instances, is. If you truely have a Drivers Education event, not a racing event, then the level of risk is much lower.