84 replies to this topic

[KW78]

Freedom ?
https://www.youtube....h?v=3b56e0u0EgQ

J~

 

I... do not fully understand the one named Kirk.... 

 

 

 

God it was so great when I thought that was the greatest show.....    

[Cnj]

I knew this was coming from someone but didn't want to write a book trying to explain myself in enough different ways to avoid it.
Cnj, I always respect your posts and this is not an angry response, but please quote exactly the words I used to give you that impression and the other things you imply so I can correct them, because that simply is not true. My main point is that I question the constant assertions by people, based almost entirely on conjecture, marketing and emotional reactions, that someone definitely avoided serious injury or death thanks to their H&N restraint. I NEVER questioned, in any way, the studies of POTENTIAL benefits of such devices, even if they may be a bit slanted or "optimized". No doubt there are real-life circumstances when they are extremely effective. And did I not say they should probably be required?
But, as I said, I'm not aware of large numbers of such injuries before these devices existed, and contrary to what some critics of our class might imply, I doubt that heavy impacts have skyrocketed, so the number of claims that they definitely made *the* difference just don't add up. But it's always tempting to make attribution that can't be disproved. At the risk of being too facetious, there is an old joke about an elaborate and expensive plan to prevent shark attacks in the Mississippi. Can't argue with the science behind it, but... I know, this is not a joke, but I'm sure you can dream up ANY NUMBER of ways to make this sport, and many other things in life, safer, but which simply would not be palatable to a lot of people. H&N devices are annoying to many, and are not without risks of their own (need I list them?) but on balance the pros outweigh the cons even for us. I didn't say otherwise, please do not suggest that I did.
So in summary, in case I wasn't clear. I don't doubt that the current H&N devices add safety and are a net plus, and even I feel a bit uncomfortable if I do a session without one now. However, I do doubt the vast majority of totally unsupported claims that they prevented serious injury or death in specific incidents. Why do I care? Pet peeve about hype and half truths mostly. That applies to policies/laws, politicians, products, etc. It can take a lot of effort to get the unvarnished truth about anything these days because someone is always certain that if we had it we would make a "bad" decision. So yea, I would like to see reliable historical stats of such injuries, and current stats for people with and without these devices. I have not had time to check if any of the links you noted provide that, but will. I doubt whether there is a lot of detail available for most amateur racing incidents even where serious injury occurred, so it would seem that a large sample of what is available would be required to be at all meaningful. Perhaps I'd be surprised by how many club racers suffer such injuries per year, but I'd expect word to get around even in the old days.
On a side-note, check the rules for other SCCA track events (PDX for one) and explain them to me. I can get in a 1000hp Viper with no medical, no cage, no fire suit, no racing harness, and no H&N device, and blast around at insane speeds that make us look like we're driving a Prius loaded with Sumo wrestlers. And be on the track with tin cans with even less protection. The obvious "mom" answer is "just because... is no reason...", but I was given a decent brain and can't just turn it off when I see glaringly obvious contradiction. Why are those safety requirements so minimal? Any claims that they are different because aren't "wheel to wheel" or whatever are bogus. It's about barriers to participation, which of course means that many people would find something else to do, which translates to $$.
But meanwhile, I agree with Chris and most others regarding cages. I'd like to see careful wording to limit the abuses, but more optional safety improvements are better than mandating everything that might even remotely be beneficial.

Steve, good reply. My first thought was "cool, a debate with a worthy adversary" In fact though we are not far apart (if at all) on the key issues of safety. We both agree that H&N should be used, we both agree that conclusions should be backed by facts, we both agree that safety standards are inconsistent in SCCA, we both agree on the Earnhart issue.

I simply take the position that the international research on H&N safety is overwhelmingly conclusive and needs no further data sets to validate the efficacy of performance. Your posts (continue) to suggest that more data is valuable. I think it's a distraction. I get why you are taking the opposing position to those who might make claims of magical performance, but I'm not In that camp and my posts don't suggest I am.

Why do I care? Like you I want the facts to drive decisions. Why did I react to your posts? I lead an engineering design team where clients regularly challenge us to prove long established facts of engineering with data sets that meet thier criteria - and it's a distraction from solving the real issues.

CNJ

[Cnj]

I learned something useful at TWS.

I travel extensively for business and as my ears are in part how I make my living, I have long traveled with noise canceling headphones. More recently I bought a set of Bose noise canceling in-ear phones which have been great. I decided to see how they would work in a racing environment and can report back that they are really very good. A tad disconcerting to start with as the mid band level of sound drops by probably 10-20db (a dramatic reduction) and I was able to hear radio calls far more clearly - and at a lower level. Once I adjusted to what I was hearing, I found them to reduce fatigue and to allow me to hear things I have not heard before. Noise canceling generally only works on steady state sound and not on impulse sound (unless it has a periodicity). Therefore I found it easier to hear anything that was aperiodic. Like tire squeals and impact noises

CNJ

[Tom Hampton]

I learned something useful at TWS.

I travel extensively for business and as my ears are in part how I make my living, I have long traveled with noise canceling headphones. More recently I bought a set of Bose noise canceling in-ear phones which have been great. I decided to see how they would work in a racing environment and can report back that they are really very good. A tad disconcerting to start with as the mid band level of sound drops by probably 10-20db (a dramatic reduction) and I was able to hear radio calls far more clearly - and at a lower level. Once I adjusted to what I was hearing, I found them to reduce fatigue and to allow me to hear things I have not heard before. Noise canceling generally only works on steady state sound and not on impulse sound (unless it has a periodicity). Therefore I found it easier to hear anything that was aperiodic. Like tire squeals and impact noises

CNJ

Interesting. You mean these?

http://www.bose.com/...sp&Variant=qc20

Like you I travel internationally regularly for work, and have the set above. Never considered using them in the racecar.

I take it they fit Ok? Any issues getting the helmet on over them? I left mine at the office, so I'll have to wait until Monday to try it.

[Cnj]

Yup, those. I had to readjust the (Velcro attached) padding in my helmet slightly to get them to fit with no pressure. Need to press my fingers against them as I place the helmet on to avoid dislodging them. Really not much different from my normal ear pieces in that regard.

CNJ

[steveracer]

Interesting...

 

Mono to stereo adapter needed?

[Cnj]

Interesting...
 
Mono to stereo adapter needed?

No. I believe the wiring Intergration in my helmet is wired mono and I imagine this is common wiring practice in helmets. If yours is stereo then it's easy to modify.

CNJ

[Steve Scheifler]

Cnj, now I understand your position better, but more details need not be a distraction. Or, a distraction is in the mind of the beholder. Or something like that. Anyway, this is different. Here's why.

Nothing should be looked at in isolation. Someone mentioned that too much emphasis is still placed on the risk of fire at the expense of increasing other risks. Perfect example. If the egress time limit rule leads me to lower the door bars, use a less supportive (less safe) seat, and toss my H&N device, then it probably isn't a very good trade. Fire isn't the fear of the day, but someone who remembers when it was might get all righteous about relaxing the rules. But others might rightly point to the statistics and make the case that fire risk is small and less devastating when it does happen, so I'd rather keep the Hans and allow a couple extra seconds to get out. Mind you, I'm aware of more fires in our ranks than BSF injuries, but no deaths from either. Anyway, relaxing the egress rules to reduce other risks seems reasonable, but only if those distracting statistics support it.

Surely the first step must be to identify whether a problem exists, and if it does then the scale/frequency, severity, contributing factors, etc. along with all the costs and potential unintended consequences of any proposed solution. While that may be completely obvious, it means that even overwhelming science proving a solution's effectiveness can't be the only consideration, especially when other people and their rights are involved. So again, I want to know how big this problem really is.

Then I'd like to know on average how much longer it takes to get out when using H&N because though fire risk is small, it isn't zero. Keep in mind that in a panic such things can be much trickier to execute. I'd like to know how many people now have a compromised shoulder belt angle because of the height added by the devices (shocking to me while shopping seats recently was that belt holes don't seem to have increased in height enough to accommodate H&N devices). Did that play any role in Willie's injuries? I'd wager it has in some cases or at least increased the risk. I know that because we raced several years with exactly that added risk. Belt angles aside, does a Hans directly increase the risk of ANY other types of injury? If so then surely that is relevant, as are the frequency and severity stats. How many times has someone caused an accident or a near miss because the restricted head mobility prevented them from adequately checking if they were clear to pull back on the track? (Speaking of which, we need to extend the distance a side mirror can be moved forward from stock or they are less effective with a Hans.) Sure, now we're into human error Issues, but we aren't perfect and will make mistakes. Increased likelihood of that is a relevant factor, not a distraction. It all needs to be weighed.

BSF injuries have been the hot emotional topic for awhile now, due in part to the misinformation about Earnhardt. But IF you found that not a single club racer in a production-based car had been seriously injured or killed in that way during the past 20 years, and at the same time found that the risk of other injuries or accidents went up, wouldn't that matter? How many real-world Willies plus slower egress, plus accidents related to decreased vision to equal one hypothetical death? I'm guessing that H&N still wins, but only because all those other things probably don't add up to much, which we can know only by looking at the distracting facts. Just knowing that the science proves they prevent BSF is not enough, and the egress/fire issue alone makes that point. I don't need an elaborate study to know that when the car is on fire, getting out faster is better, but where it ranks as a risk does matter.

But let's say I came out against mandatory use of H&N devices. I argued that point once long ago and got blasted. A guy even said that he once looked up to me, but not after that. Wow! Doesn't that prove how people can lose perspective? Let's step back and take an honest look at where this fits into life. Seriously, what ARE the odds that I will suffer a preventable injury if I don't wear one? Now compare that to the odds that I will shorten my life if I am obese, or smoke, or drink too much, or don't control my blood pressure, etc., etc., etc.

Why would I get a social free pass for all of those very considerable personal risks, but be treated as a pariah for suggesting that we should have a CHOICE in something like this? And why is it that the people most anxious to protect me from my own stupidity while in my street car, on my bike, in my home, whatever, and most insistent that we should penalize parents if their kids are perceived as being at some risk, are the very same people most vocal about another "choice" based almost entirely on the notion of "privacy" and that we should have control over our own body? Just exactly what neuro short circuit is necessary to rationalize and reconcile those positions?

But I digress. In the end all I'm really debating here is the assertion that in cases like this, proof of prevention effectiveness alone is enough. Not for me, this is different than your job. First give me the true scale of the problem being "fixed", and then the total cost and every potential risk that the cure entails. I'm not senile yet, I'll deal with the distraction and reach my own conclusion, even if I don't have the right to choose.

[Rob Burgoon]

BSF or no BSF, I don't want the weight of my helmeted head stopped by my neck in a crash.

[steveracer]

No. I believe the wiring Intergration in my helmet is wired mono and I imagine this is common wiring practice in helmets. If yours is stereo then it's easy to modify.

CNJ

No, mine is mono also. I expect the Bose to be stereo.

 

Do you get audio in both headphones, or just one? Last time I tried aftermarket earbuds I only had audio in 1 side.

[Ron Alan]

No, mine is mono also. I expect the Bose to be stereo.

 

Do you get audio in both headphones, or just one? Last time I tried aftermarket earbuds I only had audio in 1 side.

The mono feature seemed to be the only reason why you have to pay so freaking much for the correct earbuds! 

[Cnj]

No, mine is mono also. I expect the Bose to be stereo.
 
Do you get audio in both headphones, or just one? Last time I tried aftermarket earbuds I only had audio in 1 side.

In both - as has been the case for a variety of ear pieces that I have used - all stereo. If you are not getting this then it's the wiring in your helmet. Open it up and make sure that both (left and right) connector contacts are being fed by the mono radio signal.

cnj

[Mark McCallister]

SAFER barriers at road courses with concrete walls?  $500/ft.

 

From http://espn.go.com/r...lking-door-door :

 

Tom Gideon, who heads NASCAR's safety initiative, estimates that SAFER barriers make up roughly 25 percent of the overall safety equation for NASCAR drivers. Ten percent, he said, is the car structure. The balance, 65 percent, he said, is in the seat and head restraints drivers use.

 

"You have to factor all these things in," Gideon said. "That's demonstrated by the fact that we have SAFER barrier hits and non-SAFER barrier hits. There are some injuries. But the drivers are coming out reasonably well."

[ChrisA]

How many times has someone caused an accident or a near miss because the restricted head mobility prevented them from adequately checking if they were clear to pull back on the track? (Speaking of which, we need to extend the distance a side mirror can be moved forward from stock or they are less effective with a Hans.) 

With my HR seat all I see when looking toward the Pass. mirror is the black orb of the seat restraint. I'd probably have to move the mirror to the front fender to get a view. I installed a race mirror on the dash, but it's not as accurate or instinctual to view.

[Tom Scheifler]

With my HR seat all I see when looking toward the Pass. mirror is the black orb of the seat restraint. I'd probably have to move the mirror to the front fender to get a view. I installed a race mirror on the dash, but it's not as accurate or instinctual to view.

+1
With new halo seat I can see passenger side outside mirror with only my left eye. The seat blocks line of sight for the right eye. I'm moving the mirror forward for safety. Protests be damned.

[Rob Burgoon]

With my HR seat all I see when looking toward the Pass. mirror is the black orb of the seat restraint. I'd probably have to move the mirror to the front fender to get a view. I installed a race mirror on the dash, but it's not as accurate or instinctual to view.

 

The aluminum containment seats can be adjusted for the height of the ears.  Nice to set it so your eyes peek over the ears while your head's center of mass is still supported.

 

Haven't found a really comfortable aluminum seat yet though, haha.

[Cnj]

Cnj, now I understand your position better, but more details need not be a distraction. Or, a distraction is in the mind of the beholder. Or something like that. Anyway, this is different. Here's why.
Nothing should be looked at in isolation. Someone mentioned that too much emphasis is still placed on the risk of fire at the expense of increasing other risks. Perfect example. If the egress time limit rule leads me to lower the door bars, use a less supportive (less safe) seat, and toss my H&N device, then it probably isn't a very good trade. Fire isn't the fear of the day, but someone who remembers when it was might get all righteous about relaxing the rules. But others might rightly point to the statistics and make the case that fire risk is small and less devastating when it does happen, so I'd rather keep the Hans and allow a couple extra seconds to get out. Mind you, I'm aware of more fires in our ranks than BSF injuries, but no deaths from either. Anyway, relaxing the egress rules to reduce other risks seems reasonable, but only if those distracting statistics support it.
Surely the first step must be to identify whether a problem exists, and if it does then the scale/frequency, severity, contributing factors, etc. along with all the costs and potential unintended consequences of any proposed solution. While that may be completely obvious, it means that even overwhelming science proving a solution's effectiveness can't be the only consideration, especially when other people and their rights are involved. So again, I want to know how big this problem really is.
Then I'd like to know on average how much longer it takes to get out when using H&N because though fire risk is small, it isn't zero. Keep in mind that in a panic such things can be much trickier to execute. I'd like to know how many people now have a compromised shoulder belt angle because of the height added by the devices (shocking to me while shopping seats recently was that belt holes don't seem to have increased in height enough to accommodate H&N devices). Did that play any role in Willie's injuries? I'd wager it has in some cases or at least increased the risk. I know that because we raced several years with exactly that added risk. Belt angles aside, does a Hans directly increase the risk of ANY other types of injury? If so then surely that is relevant, as are the frequency and severity stats. How many times has someone caused an accident or a near miss because the restricted head mobility prevented them from adequately checking if they were clear to pull back on the track? (Speaking of which, we need to extend the distance a side mirror can be moved forward from stock or they are less effective with a Hans.) Sure, now we're into human error Issues, but we aren't perfect and will make mistakes. Increased likelihood of that is a relevant factor, not a distraction. It all needs to be weighed.
BSF injuries have been the hot emotional topic for awhile now, due in part to the misinformation about Earnhardt. But IF you found that not a single club racer in a production-based car had been seriously injured or killed in that way during the past 20 years, and at the same time found that the risk of other injuries or accidents went up, wouldn't that matter? How many real-world Willies plus slower egress, plus accidents related to decreased vision to equal one hypothetical death? I'm guessing that H&N still wins, but only because all those other things probably don't add up to much, which we can know only by looking at the distracting facts. Just knowing that the science proves they prevent BSF is not enough, and the egress/fire issue alone makes that point. I don't need an elaborate study to know that when the car is on fire, getting out faster is better, but where it ranks as a risk does matter.
But let's say I came out against mandatory use of H&N devices. I argued that point once long ago and got blasted. A guy even said that he once looked up to me, but not after that. Wow! Doesn't that prove how people can lose perspective? Let's step back and take an honest look at where this fits into life. Seriously, what ARE the odds that I will suffer a preventable injury if I don't wear one? Now compare that to the odds that I will shorten my life if I am obese, or smoke, or drink too much, or don't control my blood pressure, etc., etc., etc.
Why would I get a social free pass for all of those very considerable personal risks, but be treated as a pariah for suggesting that we should have a CHOICE in something like this? And why is it that the people most anxious to protect me from my own stupidity while in my street car, on my bike, in my home, whatever, and most insistent that we should penalize parents if their kids are perceived as being at some risk, are the very same people most vocal about another "choice" based almost entirely on the notion of "privacy" and that we should have control over our own body? Just exactly what neuro short circuit is necessary to rationalize and reconcile those positions?
But I digress. In the end all I'm really debating here is the assertion that in cases like this, proof of prevention effectiveness alone is enough. Not for me, this is different than your job. First give me the true scale of the problem being "fixed", and then the total cost and every potential risk that the cure entails. I'm not senile yet, I'll deal with the distraction and reach my own conclusion, even if I don't have the right to choose.

Steve,

I agree that decisions should be based on all relevant data. I also recognize that lab sled tests - although repeatable and consistent - don't reflect the complex dynamics of a racing incident.

If good data existed I would use it to generate conclusions. However club racing incident data sets are often irrelevant (unconnected to safety changes), commonly incorrect (gathered inaccurately), typically inconsistent (varied methodologies of collation) and indubitably incomplete (insufficient data points). Therefore when I say this (non existent?) data is a "distraction" - a less charitable description would be "a waste of time reviewing".

But it's not my place to tell you what to do with your "not yet senile" time.

CNJ

[Steve Scheifler]

OK, but I'm pretty sure someone will know something about any serious injury or death in club races over the last 10 years before the Hans. Even if when in doubt you assume H&N restraint would have helped, how many? Or were these rules passed litterrally in the absence of any such data?

[Tom Sager]

OK, but I'm pretty sure someone will know something about any serious injury or death in club races over the last 10 years before the Hans. Even if when in doubt you assume H&N restraint would have helped, how many? Or were these rules passed litterrally in the absence of any such data?

I wouldn't doubt the influence of insurance companies and legal risk on mandating H&N restraints.  I for one am glad they were designed and required.  Had they not been required I may not have owned one as soon as I did. Had a nasty head-on crash with a spun and stopped car at Road America a few years ago and I feel certain that the HANS saved me from a severe neck injury and I believe the other driver also very happy he was wearing one.  

[Cnj]

OK, but I'm pretty sure someone will know something about any serious injury or death in club races over the last 10 years before the Hans. Even if when in doubt you assume H&N restraint would have helped, how many? Or were these rules passed litterrally in the absence of any such data?

Steve,

My logic is not swaying you. That's OK.
Time for some good wine.

CNJ