Data, facts and questions to ask yourself

[Roy]

Facts:

*SCCA Rally was closed up after 2 deaths that a cage did not prevent.
Requiring cages in all hillclimbs is not going to protect the hills from death.

While it IS true that SCCA rally was canceled after the deaths of 2 competitors that a roll cage didn't prevent, the two events were not directly related. The discussions to drop rally were happening long before Mark and Roger were killed.

Being a rally person myself, Jeff, I find this "fact" of yours to be a very far stretch. It's akin to saying, "After the SCCA mandated rollbars in hillclimb cars, Osama Bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center."

[JekylandHyde]

Being a rally person myself, Jeff, I find this "fact" of yours to be a very far stretch.

I 100% agree, which is why "the other side of this debate" should never
have brought it up to begin with. I only addressed it here, because they
used it (SCCA losing rally after the deaths) as a reason to move to cages
in hillclimbing. I'm still baffled by that logic myself.

I assure you, if they would have never offered this "concern" as a
reason to validate their point-of-view I would not have addressed it.

In fact, I only know about the Rally deaths because they brought it up.

[Nelson]

From what I understand, from SCCA board members, the rally program was cancelled not because of the deaths but because of the cost of litigation concerning the 4 deaths in one year and also because of the "perception" of not being as safe as possible, among other things.

[dspgti]

Since I brought up the facts, let me clarrify. My point was that even though the rally program was very successful and had a very safe record for years, it was the fatalities that caused its ending. I mentioned the fact that one death was unavoidable even with a full cage to avoid a misconception that they could have prevented at least one fatality. The point is, no matter how or why there is a fatality it will end the proram. I mearly support the effort to try to avoid such a thing from happening.

I think that using Rally for any other kind of comparison is wrong. There are many differences in their type of racing. Number one is the type of surface. Dirt, gravel and mud do not have the same factor of adhesion that a paved road has therefore it is far more dangeriuos. They cover great distances over long periods of time mulitplying the potential for mishaps. Wrecks are frequent and rarely involve injury due to saftey provisions. You want to get get some data on survivablity of a crash with a cage, contact them.

Also, several people have brought up the question of driver training. Rally has a pretty extensive driver and co-driver traing program. I don't know for sure but I think the one fatality involved a novice team were the co-driver was killed at their first rally. I for one think that PHA does an excellent job in preparing drivers for hillclimbing. It is detailed, comprehensive and effective.

Dave Y

[JekylandHyde]

Hey Dave,

You just proved exactly what my point was.
Check out your use of the word "avoid":

I mearly support the effort to try to avoid such a thing from happening.

I mentioned the fact that one death was unavoidable even with a full cage to avoid a misconception that they could have prevented at least one fatality.

The implication that putting cages in all cars will avoid the possiblity of death and therefore save the program is not a solid argument as proven with Rally.

Realistically, the 4 deaths between Rally & the hills happened with cages. Maybe I should start a movement to have roll bars in all cars since cages have proven to be too dangerous The stats are on my side.

[dspgti]

Again, I should have known better than to argue with a writer. I'm an engineer and sometimes have trouble getting my point across in written word (and spelling). Your logic totally escapes me, Jeff. I just don't understand your point that if a cage didn't save one person we don't need them at all.

I wish some rally people would jump in here. Was it more than one fatality that involved the driver or co-driver? Does anyone have the facts surrounding the deaths? Were they properly belted (many novices like to keep their belts loose.) What was the cause of death? What do you think of Jeff's logic that if a cage can't save you, don't put one in?

Dave Y.

[JekylandHyde]

no no ... you missed my point Dave.

I'm not saying that we don't need cages at all.
I was poking fun with that last line.
I do think we need cages in certain classes.

My "point" on the subject of the Rally racing is that it was brought up as a reason to add cages to every car so that you do not lose your sport and all I am saying is that adding cages will not eliminate that risk.

All of the safety equipment in the world will not eliminate the risk of death in racing ... look at Eric Medlen's death in NHRA in the last few weeks ... Earnhardt's death ... how many others? Should the hillclimb cars have to meet their level of safety equipment?

I agree that certain classes should be re-evalutated ... SM and SM2 are "new classes" within the last few years and we are now seeing the potential of them. That has been an eye-opener for all of us.

So, yes, maybe cages should be required in those cars or at least those cars reaching the highest performance levels.

Yes, the SS and ASP cars are showing amazing performance right from the factory and maybe they should be re-looked at.

But why ... get rid of everybody?
One do it all in one mass sweeping move?

[Roy]

I wish some rally people would jump in here. Was it more than one fatality that involved the driver or co-driver? Does anyone have the facts surrounding the deaths? Were they properly belted (many novices like to keep their belts loose.) What was the cause of death? What do you think of Jeff's logic that if a cage can't save you, don't put one in?

Ok, that would be me, I guess. First of all, the SCCA rally program did not have any real training requirements for driver or co-driver. You show up to your first event in anything from a 1.0 liter geo metro to a 2.2 liter turbo awd subaru, take a 2 hour class, and then hit the stages.

Since Rally America has taken over the program, it's still pretty much the same, other than you cannot start your first few rallys in anything other than a Production or Group 2 (low horsepower 2wd) car (unless you can be signed off by the license steward due to prior experience).

Now, the four deaths that occured in the last couple of years of SCCA Rally were as follows.... At the 2003 Ski-Sawmill Club Rally, two veteran rally spectators (and competitors, too, I believe) were killed when a rally car on a hot stage left the race surface and struck them. They were Michael Reidy and Peter Smith. This was before strict spectating rules were required at SCCA events, so you could pretty much walk down a hot stage and spectate from anywhere you pleased.

The same year, at the Oregon Trail ProRally, Subaru Rally Team USA Driver and Codriver Mark Lovell and Roger Freeman were killed at the first turn of the first special stage when their vehicle hit a tree at a VERY high rate of speed. Real details of the event never really became public, but from what I've read (and been told), it was a side impact to the doors.... the doorbars did their jobs (Score one for cages, jeff), but the drivers were not wearing head/neck devices, nor were they using seats with head support. While I can't be sure as I haven't seen the autopsy results, I've heard that they died of basular skull fractures. At the very next event, almost all of the top teams were using HANS devices and seats with significant head support.

Jeff... it's only a matter of time before hillclimb requirements are synchronized with road racing... it's the logical thing to do (and believe me, I see a lot of illogical stuff happening within the SCCA). When that does happen, you can expect SFI 38.1 devices, too.... I'm not sure about you, but my neck is worth the $800 I paid for my HANS, and my legs, arms, and chest are worth the $2000+ I paid for my welded in custom roll cage... As of right now, I still have no money to go to events, let along do the mandatory roll cage updates that are required in my class... and thats just fine. I'll save up a little cash, and when I can afford it, it'll happen. Until then, I'll just keep on truckin'.

[JekylandHyde]

If we can agree that the only way to completely eliminate the risk of death in hillclimb racing is to stop racing hillclimbs and that if you want to keep hillclimb racing, then we would have to agree that mandating safety equipment falls within "risk assessment."

So where is the assessment? And what has changed that assessment?
Why are cars that were deemed safe 2-3 years ago, suddenly not safe any more?

Why is the Great Pumpkin Fiero in CSP more of a risk this year or 3 years from now than it was 2 or 3 years ago?

What's changed?

[brandonl]

Well, as a "rally person" I will chime in on this subject.

2000 Ski sawmill:
Kovacs was a codriver in a car that hit a tree on the a-pillar of the codrivers side at a high rate of speed being driven in reckless fashion. The ar did have a roll cage installed. I will not say in public forum what I feel caused this death, but read the above R word and draw your own conclusion.

2003 Oregon trail:
Lovell/Freeman were killed when they hit a tree at a high rate of speed in a very well prepped and properly caged car. No, the cage did not help them there, but this was a very hard impact as you would imagine to kill both occupants. In rally accidents, if there are injuries at all, it is very rare for both occupants to be hurt. Both occupants killed instantly? Design any cage you want, it wouldnt have helped.

The other pair of deaths that year were Smith/Reidy who were both normally competitiors but at Saw mill that year they were spectating. They were killed when they were stuck by a rally car that left the road at a high rate of speed and hit them and nearly hit others also.

The deaths of Peter Smith and Martin Reidy are what truly raised a red flag, as these guys were not inside a race car, they werent on a waiver list somewhere, they were innocent bystanders. This is what really opened eyes, as anyone who has spectated a rally since that day can tell you, spectator areas are called spectator pens now.

How does this, and rally translate into the PHA cage debate? Here is how I see it...

There may be instances were cages can hurt you ie a street car with unpadded areas etc, but in racing you are better off with one. The question to ask isnt, why werent these deaths prevented by a cage. The fact is that they would have happened caged or not. That doesnt mean that no cages at all with solve anything.

How do you find stats on damage lessened? Shortened trips to the hospital? Less likely to be injured? Less likely to be killed? No number of gadgets and devices will save you in certain circumstances, but that doesnt mean that you shouldnt bother taking preventative steps.

I know guys who have gotten out of a rally car with a broken ankle instead of a shattered pelvis and entire leg after hitting something just in front of their door. I bought and then repaired a galant VR4 that had hit a rock the size of a sofa on the right front and the only thing that kept the r/f wheel from coming through the floor and into the codrivers feet was the mounting foot of the of the a-pillar bar. No injuries there. A mutual friend hit a tree on the drivers door at about 60mph, the x style door bars slamming into the seat and stopping the tree from going into the center of that car saved that driver from a possible life in a wheel chair, or death, the a-pillar bar of the cage in that cage also moved quite a bit. Enough that if it werent there, the tree would have stuck his head. I personally saw an early model mitsubishi eclipse cart wheel and end over end into dense woods at 70+ mph, the car was pulled back on the road with its short little roof line entirely folded in and around the roll cage, the driver was un injured. I have helped push many a bent rally car onto a trailer that make you step back and say "wow, that guy lived?", yup, he sure did and he is standing next to you helping push.

So how do you research that? There are no tangible stats or figures that tell us EXACTLY how much safer a cage makes you. Some may say that guys like I described above are lucky? Well I say anyone taking a long hard ride on the roof without a roll cage and walking away is the lucky one.

Racing is dangerous, that is a known and accepted evil. If bolt in style cages are allowed, there is no reason that the street class cars should be fighting this. Unbolting the front half of the cage is a pain in your ass? I can think of some worse things on the other side of that coin. Bolt it in and be done with it, and KNOW for a FACT that you have at least tried to lessen damage and better prepare yourself if you have an incident.

Brandon

[b yoder]

Why is the Great Pumpkin Fiero in CSP more of a risk this year or 3 years from now than it was 2 or 3 years ago?

What's changed?

Nothing has really changed but, and this is in no way slamming Keith, the potential speeds of Keith's car are certainly in the range where a cage should be required. Keith ran a 145.xxx at Duryea in '06, while the record is a 131.xxx. If Keith were to further prep his car to push the record certianly with increased speeds, his potential risk would rise. Would it rise to the point of needing a cage? I don't know how fast does a 131.xxx feel? Now how would it feel going off to the right prior to turn 6?

Jeff,
you ran a 123 this past year. Can you seriously tell me that if you were to have an off, you'd be fine w/ just a bar? Problem with the question is there's no answer because no one knows, as there are way too many variables involved. Likewise insert a cage, and the answer is the same. I think it really comes down to minimizing risk. Are your chances of walking away improved w/ a cage, again variables but, if you could recreate cage vs. bar accidents I'd bet you a paycheck the cages would win. Another question, why do you wear a full face helmet? An open face is an acceptable (legal) alternative yet you choose to wear a full face. Why do motorcyclists wear helmets when (legally) they now don't have to? My assumption would be to minimize risk. I'm really not sure why you are such a proponent against the cage proposal, as your car is trailered. Racing requires a commitment of finances, time, etc. Again, if someone wants to participate, they need to make the commitment. What's the problem with bolting in and out a cage to suit the other needs of their car, if it's not a dedicated race car? As mentioned in my earlier post, I pointed out that my CRX was a dedicated, trailered car (unregistered/un-insured) yet I took the time to bolt/unbolt to gain a competitive advantage in another motorsport pursuit. It really all comes down to one's own priorities.

Brian

[JekylandHyde]

Jeff, you ran a 123 this past year. Can you seriously tell me that if you were to have an off, you'd be fine w/ just a bar? Problem with the question is there's no answer because no one knows, as there are way too many variables involved. Likewise insert a cage, and the answer is the same.

100% agreed Brian, no one knows if I would be okay either way.
What I do know, is that I am comfortable with the risks I've been taking (otherwise I wouldn't have taken them!) and I am okay with the possible outcomes.

Another question, why do you wear a full face helmet? An open face is an acceptable (legal) alternative yet you choose to wear a full face. Why do motorcyclists wear helmets when (legally) they now don't have to? My assumption would be to minimize risk.

Absolutely! ... I am very safety conscious and like to minimize risk.
That's why I have a bunch of other stuff that is also not mandated ... kill switch, fire suppression system, neck brace, extra bars on my roll bar, etc ...

I sure don't feel I need to push what I feel that I need onto others.

I'm really not sure why you are such a proponent against the cage proposal, as your car is trailered.

I'm not debating the rule soley for my own sake (it doesn't even apply to me anymore) but because I generally think it is not a good way to go for the entire club to go. That is the point of this thread. This rule will affect everyone.

As for my own cars, it would have affected me as I was hoping to contest Jekyl (my non-turbo, daily driver) in the 2008 season and beyond. It's a CSP car that runs slower than Keith's Fiero. Unfortunately, we already wasted the money of setting the car up for the hills.

As for "Hyde," the fast car that I've been racing, it is not a trailered, dedicated race car and it never will be. I drive it on the street frequently and last year we did 18 events in Hyde. We trailerd to only 5 of them: 2 were out of state, one was out of the country and the other two were the hills that were over an hour away that I camped at (R.V & G.D.). Otherwise, I drove to all of the events.

All of this brings up another issue with this rule. I was considering last year putting a cage into Hyde that would suite my needs and what I would feel comfortable with. This rule would mandate the cage design, which throws out anything that I would have considered.

[Roy]

So where is the assessment? And what has changed that assessment?
Why are cars that were deemed safe 2-3 years ago, suddenly not safe any more?

Why is the Great Pumpkin Fiero in CSP more of a risk this year or 3 years from now than it was 2 or 3 years ago?

What's changed?

Uh.... EVERYTHING? Tire compounds provide more grip. Pavement technology has improved. Gasoline technology has improved. Performance levels of cars improve. Performance levels of drivers improve.

Why on earth do you think records keep falling left and right? Because of technology! If we leave safety requirements stagnant, technology will continue to advance! Records will continue to fall, and drivers will start getting hurt.

[JekylandHyde]

Why on earth do you think records keep falling left and right? Because of technology!

Left and right? One of the classes that was discussed as being exempt from the cage rule was CSP.

CSP Giants record was set in 1998.
CSP Weatherly record was set in 1998.
CSP Duryea record was set in 1998.
CSP Pagoda record was set in 1995.

It's going on nearly10 years for CSP.

How about some others that were mentioned:


Pagoda records:
SSB 1992.
SSC 2005
DSP 2006
FSP 2002.

Duryea:
SSB - 1992
SSC - 1989 - I remember the 80s
CSP - 1998
DSP - 2005
FSP - 2000

You can check the rest of the hills & classes if you so desire.

Again, I think Dave Y made the most logical attempt at a compromise ... too bad he was poo poo'ed without a sincere, realistic discussion on his points.

[dspgti]

This has nothing to do with the discussion but everybody knew that the CSP car setting the records in 1998 was cheating. I guess the rotatry guys can hear when the engines have had illegal porting. You probably have to be a rotary guy to understand it. I'm not sure I would recommend CSP to be exempted anyway. Look at the level of cars and their times from national SOLO II events. Very potent if you ask me.

Most of us think of ourselves as being pretty fast and gauge ourselves by the class records at each event. In reality we rarely see a competitor at the upper potential level in skill and preparation. A case in point; Occationally, there is a driver that comes to some of our Jefferson events. I remember him starting in club racing several yeras ago in a moderatly prepared MR2 (Tim Stevens). He runs on both tracks on doubles weekends just for practice. The last time he showed up was 2004 with his national level MR2 in GT3 and set the record that is 3 seconds faster than the GT2 and GT1 class records, in both directions. That is what I think of when I talk about speed potential of a particular class. Not what the current average speeds or class records are, but of the potential.

Dave Y.

[MR2Glenn]

Speaking of breaking CSP records, I was going to challange those records with my factory supercharghed Toyota MR2 last year. But due to finacial reasons I had to sell it. There wasen't any real cars in CSP untill recently when the rules changed. Another car that could also break records with ease is the Dodge turbo Neon. I know with my old Supercharged MR2 at local events with no mods other than 13 inch wheels, the car was always within the top 4 FTD'S out of multiple 60 plus car events. In hillclimbing and roadracing I wouldn't race without a cage knowing from past incidents on the track with a MK1 MR2.

[Matt Green]

Matt R., Matt G. Morg W., Steve T., Rich S. and the rest, you can dislike me and what
I have been writing as you see fit, but I know that I've been motivated by the love of this sport.

Wow, Jeff. I didn't realize I didn't like you. If asked, I would still consider you a friend. I didn't realize that I had to dislike you to disagree with you.

There were a total of 540 hillclimb entrants in 2006 and 27 of them would have been gone with this rule.
Again, that's just the folks I actually spoken with.
27 out of 540 might not sound to terrible, but that is exactly 5% ... 1 out of every in 20 drivers at each hill.

I'm saying this with all honesty- I applaud your research and work to get those numbers together.

*No one has ever been killed in a PHA event with a roll bar

And no one has ever been killed or even injured driving a Dodge Charger, despite at least one being rolled over by an experienced driver. Does that mean that I'm perfectly safe in driving that car?

*There are two organizations in the U.S. that hold more hillclimbs per year than PHA and both of them have classes that require no roll bar or roll cage.

They also do not have insurance that pays for injury or death of a driver.

*The only way to make sure no one ever dies hillclimbing is to stop hill climbing. There will always be
a risk of death in racing and there will always be a risk of insurance and/or attorneys closing up the sport.

You are correct, and it's my job to help manage that risk.

*SCCA Rally was closed up after 2 deaths that a cage did not prevent.
Requiring cages in all hillclimbs is not going to protect the hills from death.

Those two deaths of which you speak were probably not the ones you think. The reason for Rally leaving SCCA was *spectator* injuries. And yes, you will see some changes in the way we deal with spectator liability over the next few years.

*Folks that run roll bars aren't necessarily doing it because of the expense of a cage - talk to Steven Sincavage about
his new car and how much his new bar is costing him. It's obviously not just about the expense. Look at the money
wrapped up in my car, I assure you I can afford to put a cage in my car.

Im really not sure how to answer that Jeff, but it's nice to see that you acknowledge your choices.

*Which is a greater risk: doing a hill with just a bar in the dry or doing it with a cage in the rain? If we are so
concerned about liability and the appearance of putting safety first, why do we not postpone or cancel events due to rain?

Because very few of our really bad crashes have occurred in the rain. Obviously I would say then that it's much more dangerous to run with only a bar in the dry.

*Yes, I went over board making a point with my "safety rule proposal"
threads, but in all seriousness it does seem a vast majority of incidents
on the hills involve a driver going straight off course so where is concern
about head and neck injuries? How often do we really see tumbling
cars? How often have we seen spinning cars at really great speeds at our events?

Hmmm, well, as the person who has written a large number of the incident reports we've filed in the last five years, I would say that at least half if not more of our reportable incidents involve a spin or roll. I will have to do some research on that.

[JekylandHyde]

*There are two organizations in the U.S. that hold more hillclimbs per year than PHA and both of them have classes that require no roll bar or roll cage.

They also do not have insurance that pays for injury or death of a driver.

NHA does have insurance for the driver.

I'm not sure about NEHA, but their site does reference workers taking care of "insurance." I'm not sure what kind of insurance that is.

[JekylandHyde]

I'm saying this with all honesty- I applaud your research and work to get those numbers together.

Thanks, but why wasn't this done on your end?
It would have been a lot easier, and more comprehensive, for someone on your end to have done it.

And no one has ever been killed or even injured driving a Dodge Charger, despite at least one being rolled over by an experienced driver. Does that mean that I'm perfectly safe in driving that car?

Nope, you are not safe driving a Charger!
So should we eliminate Chargers from the hills?
That's what you are doing with roll bars.

You are correct, and it's my job to help manage that risk.

So if no one has been seriously injured or killed from running only a bar,
what data are you basing your "risk assessment" on for your rule proposal?

I recall you saying on the phone that you had none.
It was just your "gutt feeling" that it was the right way to go.

Those two deaths of which you speak were probably not the ones you think. The reason for Rally leaving SCCA was *spectator* injuries.

Matt, I only know of these deaths because you told me about them.
We are talking about the same ones.
I was specifically speaking about the specator deaths.

The fact that it was spectators makes my point.
You are concerned about losing hills because of deaths that a roll cage would not prevent.
You mandate cages and someone could still kill a spectator and you lose your sport. That was entire my point.

Because very few of our really bad crashes have occurred in the rain. Obviously I would say then that it's much more dangerous to run with only a bar in the dry.

If you are calculating your position on this based on the total # of incidents, I would not be surprised if you have seen less serious incidents in the rain as there are fewer rain rusn done and less drivers particiapte in the rain.

I wonder what the math looks like when comparing incidences in the rain PER # of runs taken versus # of incidences in the dry with a roll bar PER runs taken.

You would also have to start with defining "really bad."

[JekylandHyde]

Matt Green, if hill climbing with just a roll bar is so dangerous and my car is being used as an example of how "extreme" roll bar cars have become ...

... then why were you so willing and eager to take my car up a hill?

You surely didn't seem too concerned about it only having a roll bar to want to give it a try.