Accident Data Acquisition

[saltfever]

I think there is more or less agreement that collecting the best engineering data from an accident helps everybody. SCTA already does accident analysis that is not shared. And that information may or may not result in changes or additions to rule book safety regulations. So the question is; who should be responsible for accident Data Acquisition System (DAQ) if the information is never shared.

The high cost of safety equipment has already been mentioned and a black box would be too costly a requirement for every racer. However, SCTA could create their own DAQ.  It could be installed into each car on the starting line and removed at a collecting point on the return road to be brought back to the line. It would not take many units to keep up with the flow of traffic. A simple, flat plate mounting base would cost the racer nothing to add to his cage.  With clever design the DAQ could be held in with locking DeStaco clamps or over-center devices.  Design intent would be an installation in 10-15 seconds. It would have its own self contained battery power (charged at night) and a SD or CF card. The card would be removed after an accident.

[landracing]

I really dont think we need any of it. We are an amateur sport. Generally accidents on the salt are not real hard to figure out. And you are wrong, some of the reports have been made public. You the owner are responsible, there is a risk involved in our sport and you the owner are responsbile. The organizations have given you the opportunity to build anything you want, and try your ideas within some safety guidelines they set out.

Jon

[narider]

I agree Jon. If any type of organizational data collection would be beneficial ot the organization then I think it would be some simple motion activated camera/video setups along the course to help determine initial cause and effect of the crash. Any data collection for purposes of making someone's vehicle safer then required by the rules should be on the owner.
I think some of the rider's, pilots and owners of the vehicles that have been involved in crashes are not sharing as much info as they could to help other racers that follow them, but that is just my view and their perogative.
Todd

[mkilger]

It would be better to have everyone get a head and neck support, (Has R3  ISP ) Have a sonic checker to check the size of the tubes used on the roll bars and other parts of the car. Have the bars checked in tech .I think that all roll bars sould be all DOM period.You dont want me to get started on welding and peoples fab skills. All of the above would make you alittle safer.

[saltfever]

I am in general agreement with all of the above. But even though there are risks and we are responsible; we all strap on safety equipment. Maybe some do so begrudgingly but I see people meeting the minimums and others exceeding them. The days of Rollie Fee, naked, are gone. When you buy and use a piece of safety equipment you do so with the trust that it is well engineered with the best available knowledge to protect you. Stroud, Diest, and many others provide well engineered systems based on good data. The point here is that LSR is a different venue from all others. What we are missing is a cohesive and focused effort to collect accelerometer data across all LSR activities. Therefore some of the numbers needed to engineer safety for LSR are missing. For an individual racer the cost would be prohibitive. Maybe a more "global" approach by an association or group is a consideration.

[Dean Los Angeles]

Maybe a more "global" approach by an association or group is a consideration.

Ah, excuse me, you are the group or association. There isn't any spectator money. There isn't any corporate sponsor money. Just you.

This isn't NASCAR. This isn't the International  Olymipic Committee. This isn't the FIA.

It's just more people like you. And it's your money you are spending.

The SCTA rules committee is the member clubs. We all vote on any proposed rule changes.

SCTA could create their own DAQ.  It could be installed into each car on the starting line and removed at a collecting point on the return road to be brought back to the line.

There were 530 Entries:  368 cars and 162 bikes including 62 Class Changes.  Total 468 vehicles.
There were 175 event records certified:  65 bikes and 110 cars.
There were 2,488 timed runs over the 3 courses.

Does that give you some idea of the scope of what you are requesting? There is no such thing as bad data. There is such a thing as not enough data. But there is a price tag attached to everything. Have you priced black boxes? Where are you going to find enough volunteers to do the extra work?

Even if you did, the cost to analyze the data is big money.

It would be better to have everyone get a head and neck support, (Has R3  ISP ) Have a sonic checker to check the size of the tubes used on the roll bars and other parts of the car. Have the bars checked in tech .I think that all roll bars sould be all DOM period.You dont want me to get started on welding and peoples fab skills. All of the above would make you alittle safer.

It's hard to argue against any safety recommendations. Again, checking tubing thickness and weld testing over hundreds of vehicles is a real burden on the sport.

The rule book and technical inspection is the safety net we currently use. It's tough to add more to the lengthy list they already have.

Do we want to get into wheel alignment, tire balance, weight distribution . . . The list is very long if you want to add things.

I didn't see Cliff Gullett's crash. I certainly hope that any pictures or video will be analyzed and some method found to prevent this sort of fatality in the future. But maybe we should wait for the results.

[mkilger]

I think that checking the roll bars would not take much longer than tech already does, once its done it would be in the log book. check all new cars too. If its too  thin, you didnt read the rule book anyway, send them home.

[willieworld]

as a chassis builder let me say a few words here---the only motorcycle that requires a roll cage is s and scs  so i will stick to that ---the rules say --minimum dia. is 1 1/4 in. with .090 in. nominal wall thickness-----------the part i want to talk about is "nominal"   what that means is ---has to do with what something is in name   and what it is in reality----that means .090 steel tube is nominal wall thickness that means that it can be as thin as mill specs. for .090 --ive sonic checked it as thin as .085--depending where you buy it---so it may say .090 on the receipt from the steel co. but in reality it may not be ---there is a solution and that is to buy d.o.m. or seamless tubing its usually within .001 of its advertised size--(much more expensive )--the NHRA has set all of there minimums for mild steel at .118 wall  ---but if you order .120 tube it can be as thin as .113 and wont pass unless you order dom ---i have a sonic checker and when i buy steel tube i check it all ----i know that all of you dont have a sonic checker but you can use a set of calipers and check ----my point is you may not be getting what you are paying for-- be carefull you may be building a vehicle thats not as safe as you think ----i think that proper bracing and gusseting is as  if not more important than tube size ---when NHRA went to the sonic checker a lot of cars failed    just some thoughts  --------------willie buchta

[edweldon]

(snip) the NHRA has set all of there minimums for mild steel at .118 wall  ---but if you order .120 tube it can be as thin as .113 and wont pass unless you order dom ---i have a sonic checker and when i buy steel tube i check it all ----i know that all of you don't have a sonic checker but you can use a set of calipers and check ----my point is you may not be getting what you are paying for-- be carefull you may be building a vehicle thats not as safe as you think ----i think that proper bracing and gusseting is as  if not more important than tube size ---when NHRA went to the sonic checker a lot of cars failed    just some thoughts  --------------willie buchta

Willie and others -- I realize we're drifting a bit from the thread topic; but I can't help but question whether we're trying to solve a problem doesn't exist.  Have we had any roll cage failures with roll cages meeting the current rule requirements even though we've had some serious crashes?  Further the rule book says "round steel tubing" and specifies "nominal wall thickness" which means within ASTM tolerances for steel tubing as such.  This is a legal and technical swamp' but suffice to say that this is the spec SCTA has successfully lived with and I'd say we don't yet have a good reason to change it regardless of what NHRA does.  I think the last thing we want to do is change the wording across the board from "nominal" to "minimum" start using ultrasonic testers and end up condemning half the entrants at Speedweek.  Of course if you want to build a car with better  or heavier wall stuff, do it. (But note it'll be a PITA to bend)
My choice is DOM tubing simply because it's better quality stuff.  Here in San Jose I've seen enough of the cheap imported resistance welded tubing sitting in scrap piles with the ends split down the resistance weld seams that I wouldn't touch the stuff for any chassis use.
Ed Weldon

[willieworld]

ed ---i wasnt suggesting that the rules be changed--(i would that with a rule change application ) im with you on the tubing --what i was trying to tell people is that you dont get what is on the reciept all the time--all the rules are minimums so you can make it bigger if you like--i know that with everyone thinking aero that bigger tubing makes for more frontal area--nhra is another world --2 cars on the same track--guard rails--posts--fences--sand traps and cables ---lsr doesnt have to deal with any of that-----  just some thoughts ------------------------------------------- willie buchta

[Malcolm UK]

Data acquisition

The training crash involving the UK outright land speed record holding jet car in 2006 did not yield any data once the vehicle turned over, as the transmitting aerial was torn away.  The only way to retain information would be to have a true recording 'black box' held on the vehicle.  Not a matter of seconds to attach I fear.

The driver suffered no broken bone or neck injury, but his helmet hit the cage and damage was caused under the skull.  BBC footage shows some of the flat spin, pencil roll, and the end to end spin - cockpit structure withstood damage and parts were torn off dissipating energy.  Could have had a worst case outcome as no Hans.  Crash was mostly on grass at the side of the airfield.

Malcolm UK

[Richard Thomason]

This is not meant to sound like a wise-a**, because we have had some serious accidents in the last 8 years, I wonder if the accident investigations report like a highway traffic accident that the cause of the accident was "excessive speed". I do know that the life insurance companies are taking a different approach to insuring LSR racers. If they know you are involved, you are now a "rated" individual. It started with the unfortunate demise of Nolan White. I hate writing this because someone may not understand what I am saying. I truely mourn the loss of every individual on the salt. I am there with you all. I am concerned about the increasing rate. Be that as it may, I am running at WF and hope to run fairly fast.
rht

[64avanti]

So what accident reports have been made public?

[Malcolm UK]

The only one I can think of is British publishing.  It was not an LSR accident as such but it involved the UKs Outright Land Speed Record holder and two reports were made public - Health and Safety Executive and BBC.  the team and car owners Primetime published their own views (constrained by lawyers acting for other parties). 

I know it can be difficult for an accident within the sport to be described and rules do get changed to build on the learnt outcome.  But presumably no outside agencies become involved in the USA who have to go public at the time.  Do Coroners have to produce written details about their findings over there?

If there was data acquired from a car, how would it be analysed and presented in the USA?

Malcolm UK

[manta22]

The American Alpine Club has annually published "Accidents In North American Mountaineering" for years now http://www.americanalpineclub.org/pages/page/72 . Likewise, the National Speliological Society publishes "American Caving Accidents" http://www.caves.org/pub/aca/ every year. These organizations undertake this to improve the safety of these sports. Accidents are described factually, analyzed as to what caused the accident, and sometimes make recommendations about preventing similar situations. These reports are valuable to these sports-- they help identify poor judgement, inexperience, inadequate equipment, equipment failure, or exceeding one's ability.

Without some sort of accident reporting system it seems like the LSR community as a whole will still be in the dark as to what happened and how it might be prevented in the future. Are lawyers running the whole country now?

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ