Course Safety

[MattP]

integra55 said:

fthose finishes were atrocious, especially the last event of 06 at Knights... anyone in a fwd car was taking a very real risk of spinning out as they crossed the line ( assuming for a moment that they cared enough to try to win their class)

I have to agree with that, and will add that was the case for the NTI finish before it, to a lesser extent. In a FWD car that wanted to come around on lift throttle or braking while turning, you had three options if you wanted to try and get a good time.
A: Brake while turning, hope you can catch it, plow into outside cones anyway.
B: Brake while turning, intentionally spinning the car to slow it down after the finish line, but avoiding hitting the cones.
C: Power through the corner, and hope you can get the car stopped in the short straight that pointed directly at the cars lining up to start.

At NTI, there was a bit more room, and I was able to avoid all three (though I did touch a cone after the finish and had to back up to get back to the grid).

At Knights, after experiencing choice A quite by accident, I spun it intentionally (B) after the finish on my last two runs in order to avoid the cones. I know Mike (co-driving my car) had to finish the course in a similar way at least once.

I also remember remarking to several people about that course that someone would hit the curb after the quick transition at the end of the long pull across the lots, and we all know what happened with Steven's Miata. I was working the other end of the course when it happened, but I knew exactly where it would be when I heard it hit.

I wasn't at last weekend's event at Knights, so I can't comment on that.

[autoxdad]

prancingdawg said:

In conclusion let me say that Sunday we did not have a novice walkthrough. I do not know who decided not to have it but for future event safety I think we should reinstate the novice walk and designate a volunteer novice steward position for the season like we have done with the other chiefs.

Thank you all for your spirited discussion. As always, I'm sure we can do better and I am always looking for ways to pass along to improve the product.

Bill

The lack of the novice walk was my fault. We got behind with the course and lot clean up that we had to do and I just forgot it. We will be doing them in the future. Dave

[C4Shane]

I have tried to stay off the keyboard on this one, but I guess I will join in. Some great ideas have been presented here on how to improve course safety:
1. Have a safety steward walk-thru with multiple stewards
2. Novice walk thru with the designer to discuss key attributes of the course.
3. SSS drive through (he could do it in a neutral car...say a lime puke green Tercel???)

I would also add that part of the issue here IMO is that the SCCA rulebook may need updating to address the substantial improvement in performance we see in cars. As an example - 10 to 15 years ago Subies were not considered a blistering fast performance car...So, when we are at locations with curbs, etc. we may need to expand the SCCA safety requirements to provide a wider margin.

I would also like to say that this weekend we had two full days with about 170 competitors and anywhere from 3 to 4 runs apiece with only one charge up a grassy knoll - Now, I know that one is too many, but it still shows that the SSS and course designer did their jobs and were within the SCCA rules. As far as the finish, if it didn't force you to bind it down - you would have run up into another set of curbs. The key to the finish at these courses is to remember that the cones after the timing lights count too! Drive accordingly!


And, I think I had the pleasure of witnessing all of the incidents discussed above. The FF incident at NTI involved the sponsor driving the car and it was exiting a 180 and should have never been an issue - one of the slowest parts of the course.

Thank you and you can now return to show already in progress.

[markt]

saabstory said:

(he could do it in a neutral car...say a lime puke green Tercel???)

I'll have you know that boogergreen Tercel was driven to a podium finish ;D

[jbyrd]

Would it be a bad idea to say you get a DNF if you hit a cone after the finish, and announce it before each event?

Or at least, the chairman of the event or SSS should have the option to impose it on an event by event basis?

[lagunamiata]

I was at an event in Wilmington with NCR. They used a stop box after the finish. If you killed the cone at the end of the stop box you got a DNF for the run. It was a BIG cone, so nobody wanted to run it over!!
The lot was small, with little room for a finish, so the stop box was the best option for them. I don't think we need one at our events...

[racerjon1]

jbyrd said:

Would it be a bad idea to say you get a DNF if you hit a cone after the finish, and announce it before each event?

This has been done a bit in the past, but it doesn't stop the problem. The problem is that it's a competition and people will push, pushing leads to mistakes. Having a straight finish where the cars are settled is the real way to fix the problem.

I like the idea of the novice walk through. For enjoyment of the drivers if nothing else, to make them feel welcome, to help them come back. Other than some spins and the Formula Ford, none of the incidents were novices were they?

What I am saying here is, I don't think it was coincidence that the two curb hits this weekend were in STS2 cars. Lots of competition, fast drivers, pushing limits.

Fast drivers + pushing limits + lot with some loose gravel + a little close to curbs + street tires... it all adds up.

We can't change the first two; it's motorsports and if that isn't there then we can all go do fingerpainting or something. The gravel issue is harder to change.. sweeping it actually creates another problem, but leaving it there doesn't exactly help. Street tires are not going anywhere, so what we can change is the courses.

I would say "let it go, those that hit the curbs this weekend were big boys, and know exactly what it's about, but it LOOKS horrible for the less experienced to see/hear about crashes, and therefore we need to avoid it. As much as I hate to say it, I think it means that at lots like Knights, being a little more proactive. (or less fun, whichever you want to call it)

Jon K

[MattP]

racerjon1 said:

Having a straight finish where the cars are settled is the real way to fix the problem.

Agreed. It does no good to emphasize "don't brake while turning" during novice schools, walk-throughs and other instruction, then have a finish that forces the driver to do exactly that in an unsettled car. If you move the finish up to allow for more room after it, is the course really 'less fun' because you were going 5 mph slower than you would have otherwise?

racerjon1 said:

As much as I hate to say it, I think it means that at lots like Knights, being a little more proactive. (or less fun, whichever you want to call it)

Again, is the course 'less fun' if you don't hit the rev limiter on the long pull across knights with more than the minimum run-off room until the curb? Coming across the lot at 60+ mph with only 20 feet of runoff after a course element that unsettles the car isn't exactly fun to me. At that point it becomes less a contest of driving skill than it does a contest of if you have access to a trailer to get the car home.

I understand that any motorsports competition has a certain level of risk involved, but we can do something to lessen that risk. Is going 5 mph faster on a straight section of course with the tradeoff of less runoff room really that important to have a fun course?

[grey ghost]

As much as I hate to say it, I think it means that at lots like Knights, being a little more proactive. (or less fun, whichever you want to call it)


To slow knights down to be proactive will lead to other issues of cars being harder to control in 1st gear, at the Evo schools we get students to use second gear verses first even if the car could do the whole course in 1st. it settles a car down. slow corners with 1st gear straights will have more spins from throttle verses slides from braking and turning. IE NIT has more throttle spins than the rest of the events.

lets face it spins are inevitable, we can not control aggressive competition. been that way for over 25 years, I have seen curb hits, Light poles, ditches, rollovers, other cars, spectators, workers, dumpsters, grandstands, trees, fences, you name it it has been hit.

I was at the Event in California when we had a Fatality, the driver had a throttle stick and went over 200 yards before striking a tree a 100 feet from the course. killing himself and a passenger on a fun run.

we think we can control an event from having a incident. but we can't it will happen.

the more cooks you have, working on a course the more you will have a Edsel. we had a few NFS around the inner 270, before the start we added more cones. this just made the optical portion more difficult to see.

I get statements that we need to cater the course design for the novice driver, this is usually means a suggestion of more cones,
when this happens the course becomes a sea of cones. and it hurts a good sight picture to look ahead on the course.

thanks Rob.

[lagunamiata]

I don't think we need to cater to novices. I DO think we need to mark the course, that wasn't done on Sunday for some reason.

Spins happen. As Bill Repucci likes to say, he's spun his Miata at 10mph on a course. Drivers will get overly aggressive, that's part of the sport.

We can and should make sure that a car isn't heading straight toward a hard object at high speed then have to make a sharp turn (ie Knights in Nov).

In the heat of competition, even the best driver can get flustered and have brain fade. We can't change that, but we can make the course so that a driver with brain fade doesn't hurt themselves, their car or someone else.

[dropt4by]

Can not agree more...

[mhkfs1]

I have been reading the posts on Course Safety and would like to add a couple of thoughts.

I am the sponsor of the events at NTI. I contacted the SCCA because I wanted students to experience a way to improve their driving skills and get a chance to "race" under a controlled environment. I ran several times before with the SCCA and was always impressed with the safety of the courses set up for the students and the Sunday event.

In response with leaving the NTI event, I feel you are cultivating the sport for the future. You have a school full of 18-25 year olds that are into racing of some type. The events are growing, slowly, but still growing. I have worked very hard to promote the events and to have more of them (hence I have worked with another group to have 4 a year, 2 with them, two with the SCCA).

In response to the FF Incident, that was not a member of the school driving the car, that was a friend of an instructor who found out about the event and entered. I never knew him but he could have shown up at any event.

I have contacted Dave and enjoy working with the SCCA. I believe we have a great relationship and hope to continue it.

Thanks, Chris

[bogner47]

So, to sum up everything posted here thus far, I don't really sense a need to drastically change anything. Nobody has been hurt, car damages have been minor.

However, the COMPROMISE to this is that the SSS, and all of us in doing our responsibility to keep events safe and fun for everyone, discussion like this is positive because it prevents complacency. If we can keep safety as a CONSCIOUS concern for everybody involved, we can continue having successful events. Will 'incidents' still happen? I'd say that's unavoidable, but doesn't mean we shouldn't constantly self-monitor and look for ways to improve safety that doesn't spike too high on the Cost side of a Cost-Benefit analysis. Yeah, we could cancel NTI and Knights events because they're smaller lots, but that doesn't seem to be the best answer. Then why not cancel Auto auction because it's too narrow. Shoot, a car could hit a cone funny, sending it flying into a course worker's head 100 feet away. Likely, no, but possible. Even just a shot rock could theoretically hurt someone.

I've seen a lot more 'stupid' stuff go on that doesn't involve course design itself! Just last Sunday JByrd and I saw a girl run across a hot course, within 30 feet of the course, just because it cut the corner from the two spectator areas!

PS Chris- Thanks for your enthusiasm and continued efforts to building grassroots motorsports participation and cross-racing-culture understanding! I for one have thoroughly enjoyed all the NTI events I've been at.

[crash477]

I agree with most of whats been said. But like everyone else said, people are going to push their cars and find the limits. I thought the course was very fun, but there were a few places that could have been better, ie the stop box. But its al part of racing, we knew the risks when we started it!

[pistonwheels]

mhkfs1 said:

I have been reading the posts on Course Safety and would like to add a couple of thoughts.

I am the sponsor of the events at NTI. I contacted the SCCA because I wanted students to experience a way to improve their driving skills and get a chance to "race" under a controlled environment. I ran several times before with the SCCA and was always impressed with the safety of the courses set up for the students and the Sunday event.

In response with leaving the NTI event, I feel you are cultivating the sport for the future. You have a school full of 18-25 year olds that are into racing of some type. The events are growing, slowly, but still growing. I have worked very hard to promote the events and to have more of them (hence I have worked with another group to have 4 a year, 2 with them, two with the SCCA).


I have contacted Dave and enjoy working with the SCCA. I believe we have a great relationship and hope to continue it.

Thanks, Chris

I don't anticipate the need to drop NTI. I see great value in what our two groups have achieved.

Not every event we run will meet the requirements of every competitor.

Martin B.

[W. Dean Furr]

Thanks to all for the thought given to the subject of Solo safety.

I agree with several of the respondents that there is risk inherent in any form of motorsport, and that we are not in total control. So, if we want to keep our reputation as a safe and responsible club, we've got to work with the factors that ARE within our control. Do we have a crisis? I don't think so. But we do NOT want to wait until we have a crisis before we consider the trends. When cars are hitting curbs as often as they have recently, the trend is in the wrong direction. (Reread the posts above and see how many incidents you count where cars reached the curb or the edge of the pavement, or had to take extreme measures such as intentionally spinning the car. This is NOT normal.)

Some of the discussion appears to be a simple difference of opinion about what is acceptable. I agree with those drivers who see autocross as a sport where a driver should be able to occasionally hit 11/10 without risk of significant consequence. To me, the biggest difference between Solo-I (now TT) and Solo-II (autocross) is the pucker factor. In Solo-I, drivers recognize the need to adjust their driving depending on the consequences of an off-course flight. But, in Solo-II, where we have a great diversity of skill levels and car prep levels (including cars that folks intend to drive home), there should be adequate runoff for any reasonably-predictable driver error, such as a spin or braking too late. When I hear very-competent drivers talk about having to change the way they drive sections because they don't feel there is enough runoff room, and hear experienced competitors talk about knowing up-front where the accident will happen (and being proven right), that's enough to convince me there is room for improvement.

Several potential factors have been mentioned: Novice drivers who don't know their limits, experienced drivers who push the limits, sites with potential hazards that we must work around, changes in the sport toward quicker courses, faster cars, red mist, cold tires, street tires, and unmarked courses. Some of those factors are in our control. Some are not.

Site availability is just one factor, but an important one. I know we would all like to have 40-acre sites of unobstructed smooth pavement. But until someone finds those sites, we have what we have. A course that is perfectly safe at Continental may be unacceptable at a site like Knights or NTI. That doesn't mean we can't safely use those sites. It just means we've got to give extra attention to runoff room at some sites. (Remember, the SCCA requirements are MINIMUMS. See SOLO rules 1.3 and 2.1.)

We CAN run fun and safe events at the sites we use now. We've done it for years. Safer does not always mean slower, and slower does not always mean less fun. (I believe Rob could design a fun course on a tennis court.) But tailoring the course to the site may well mean everyone is not thrilled with every course. If that's the price we pay for keeping the course safe and protecting our options of using the site again, I see that as an acceptable price.

Regardless of the causes, we've got to stop cars from leaving the pavement. Our reputation as a safe and responsible club is at risk. Thanks again to all who have provided suggestions and insight. I know many of the folks running the autocross program, and know they will do what it takes to keep the sport safe.

[prancingdawg]

Excellent thoughtful commentary, all. Keep up the good work!

[dstan]

I am totally a n00b here so I had some questions about working the course safely and correctly.


I think we all had different Idea's while working how to call the
hit cones
should it not be +1 for every time it happens and let timing sort it out?
We were not really instructed on How to report over the radios

Like today I reported many DNF's on the last gate from my station (3) It was because I could see them go above the gate
from where I was.
Should I have reported it or should station 5 have done it?
i can tell you station 3 could see most everything on the course

the only problem was i got dizzy from turning round and round

One other question...
We were told if we saw something unsafe to stop the event.
I noticed that there was lots of gravel on the course near the final
Gate and several cars spun out there. Is that considered an obstacle to be avoided or a true hazard ?
Is it not better to err on the side of safety?

I am not only wanting to learn to drive better but really know
all aspects of this sport! I really appreciate your focus on safety
I am in the construction business and safety is key there also.

[trickbrick]

I can help for a couple of your questions, dstan.

Technically for calling in cones, you say your station and then the cone count followed by the car class/number. (Then hopefully control will quickly repeat your call to be sure they heard correctly.) And yes, control/timing and scoring is supposed to keep a running tally of the cone counts for each person.

As for the calling dnf's, it's technically supposed to be whichever corner it happens by (to avoid confusion), but IMHO, with dnf's it doesn't matter as much, cause if you dnf twice it's still the same result.

Usually in the past if a corner worker noticed something about the course that could be a safety issue, we would either send a runner (if we had enough people) to find the safety steward, or radio in that we see a potential safety issue. That way, start can be held without red flagging people and can minimize confusion. Then, typically the safety steward would come look at the potential hazard and take appropriate action. I have been in situations where the course had to be changed due to asphalt breakage, etc.

I hope this helps!