I’ve been reflecting quite a bit over a race a few weeks ago where I watched 3 cars go off at T1. The driver of the 3rd car hit a wall and didn’t survive. These off’s happened in the first 10 laps of the 1st green flag for the new course configuration; T1 was part of the re-design.

Is there such a thing as a corner that is inherently “dangerous” by design? Or is the level of danger entirely dependent on how each driver takes that corner? Is this where the phrase “there are fast corners and slow corners, know the difference” comes from? Maybe it’s a combination of the two. At what point does scca or the track officials decide that a re-design is in order for safety reasons?

 

Track design is a HUGE factor in how safe a corner is. Try looking at running a track backwards and see how safe it looks that way.....same corners...much different outcome.

 

Should a corner be used that guarantees damage should an off occur?

I think this is the real question, and my answer is yes.

Every person who went off in that turn held some responsibility. If it was a single car incident, they held all of it for being in control of the car. Two car incident, well, they knew what they were signing up for when they started racing, and before they went on track.

I am not a fan of the "let's idiot proof everything" approach that everyone is taking these days.


Not saying the people who went off were idiots, just that we can't regulate everything, for chrissakes!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Adrift &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I am not a fan of the "let's idiot proof everything" approach that everyone is taking these days.</TD></TR></TABLE>

No, but having lots of grassy runoff room is certainly nice to have (like VIR).

If I were building a track, there'd be 50 yards of grassy runoff everywhere feasible.

 

definetely hear ya on the grass. VIR is a very safe feeling track. i would probably do the same if possible.

I agree that tracks should be safe, I just don't think the government or a sanctioning body should step in if it isn't. People will eventually cry loud enough that the event planners will not schedule things on a track that is dangerous, and the track will wake up and re-configure.

That, or their insurance will blast them on the next inspection... Which ever comes first!

 

Well the wall was moved back outside of T4 in summit. I wish embankments were moved further back in T3 and T5 with room for some nice grassy area in front of a sand trap. But i'm banking on pigs flying before that happens.

 

I understand both sides of this argument, but I still am leaning towards the driver's responsablity. The driver should be aware of a turn which is potentaly dangerous, like a high speed entrance to a first gear turn. The track is designed to be a challange, and if everything was totally safty first it might be a tad boring.

I donno, thats just me.

 

not all too clear with what exactly happened, but wasn't Daijiro Kato's death in Suzuka due to the limited run-off area? didn't he slam into the wall and then bounce back onto the track? it's been known that those bikes get way too fast on that track.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by .RJ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

No, but having lots of grassy runoff room is certainly nice to have (like VIR).

If I were building a track, there'd be 50 yards of grassy runoff everywhere feasible.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Running Sebring is just the opposite of VIR... Concrete walls everywhere and not much runoff (with the exception of the safety pin which was redesigned from the old hair pin).

But to answer the question; should owners be required to make tracks safer? No. Do I prefer tracks with good runoff room (like Roebling Road and VIR)? Yes.

Christian- who agrees that the nanny-ism of America is rediculous...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Batoutahell &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I’ve been reflecting quite a bit over a race a few weeks ago where I watched 3 cars go off at T1. The driver of the 3rd car hit a wall and didn’t survive. These off’s happened in the first 10 laps of the 1st green flag for the new course configuration; T1 was part of the re-design.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

What track was it?

A few years ago, there were several deaths in a short time at Summit Point and people were wondering aloud if it was simply not safe. Many of you guys know the track better than I but I seem to recall some redoing and extending the runoff areas.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jdmjunky &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">not all too clear with what exactly happened, but wasn't Daijiro Kato's death in Suzuka due to the limited run-off area? didn't he slam into the wall and then bounce back onto the track? it's been known that those bikes get way too fast on that track.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yes Suzuka does not have enough runoff room where Daijiro got killed and it has been a concern of the Moto GP riders for some time now. What really was appalling about his death is what happened after the accident. Race officials did not call a red flag and the medical team just plopped him on a stretcher like a rag doll with his head dangling off the end. Every time I read about his accident it makes me kinda sick...

As far as bikes and karts go though, better barriers need to be utilized as much as possible. AMA has made some strides with this recently actually. Still, I think they may need to stop doing Daytona, the bikes are getting too fast for the course.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CRX Lee &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">What track was it?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Heartland Park, Topeka. I think scca is still investigating the accident.

 

it should be noted, that after that first group (GT & Prod) where the incident occured, i don't think anybody so much as put a wheel off on that spot the rest of the weekend. i haven't heard of any other incidents there in the past couple weeks either. does anybody know if there has even been another race or event of any type there since april 4th?

i won't go into it too much, as i was also there, and jim and i have already discussed this at lenght. but, there were many many factors that contributed to the accident, and yes, i think track design was one of them. there are dangerous tracks, and there are dangerous spots on tracks. i think this is a dangerous spot in a dangerous hobby. dangerous tracks need to be shut down and reconfigured. dangerous sections of track i'm not so sure. what i do have a problem with is not the design of the pavement, but in the things that surround the pavement. the start/finish line is in a horrible spot, and there really needs to be some type of impact suppression measures taken along the wall in question.

i don't think this is where the phrase of fast and slow corners came from. gall darn it, this is racin', and some people are gonna go *****-to-the-wall even if the edge of the track drops off 100ft into water.

i don't know what it takes for the SCCA to step in and deem a track un-safe. i'm not even sure if it's the region, or the SCCA that decides this. you might want to call up the RE of the Land O Lakes region, as Brainerd International Raceway has been deemed unsafe for the past few years. iirc, there was an incident with a racing car leaving the course, and entering into the spectator area via a berm that eroded into a ramp (see shenendoa thread), don't remember if anyone was hurt or not. i know a formula ford guy that had been racing there 20 years until they shut it down, maybe i'll talk to him and get my story straight.

either way, we do have the choice of racing there or not, we accept the risk. if you're like me, you're not racing in the front, and there isn't any reason not to lift a little through T1 just to be safe. wait........jim you are racing for the lead aren't you?

 

I think the answer to the origional question is yes. Of course a corner/track can be dangerous.

Think about autocross course setup rules...long straights shall not end in a u-turn..stuff like that. Does that mean that we cant have difficult parts of a course, no. I am also not suggesting that we change roadrace courses to fit autocross rules. I am jsut answering the question that yes, tracks can be inherently dangerous.

Lee, From what I understand there is a big rise now at the corner in question, a rise that unsettles cars on approach. Either SCCAForums.com or the SCCA.com forum has a post on this with pictures.

As far as track approval goes, there is some sort of inspection process, I know that Atlanta Motorspeedway has (or had) a roadcourse that did not meet SCCA criteria because of runoff room (I believe it was possible for cars from one section of the track to enter another section if they lost control, i could be wrong)

As far as what to do...I think just as safety gear, or items like the SAFER barrier that is gaining attention in pro racing, this is everyones responsibility. Track designers, management, drivers...etc. When something catostrophic happens, it should be looked at and if needed changed. Moving barriers back, or creating a safer track doesn't hurt the racing, but it does allow us to do less damage to ourselves, and our cars.

Jon K
http://www.seat-time.com

 

You can be sure after what happened at Heartland, SCCA risk management will look into what happened and if possible why it happened. If an unacceptable risk is found in design with the new configuration then sometimes it is the insurance company (no insurance, no race) who may say you have to change "x" or we won't insure an event there. If it gets changed it will have to be recertified by a qualified person (usually a track designer). I was privileged enough to spend a day with the person who certified the Barber Motorsports Park for SCCA and it was given a very serious once over that took almost all day. I learned a lot walking around during the process. We all would love tons of runoff everwhere but it seems most tracks still have a turn or two where for whatever reason you just can't get as much as you would like. You take a mental note of it when you are driving. As much concrete that is in close proximity at Road Atlanta (while behind tire barriers) it is still one great road course. You just know you can't wuss out coming down t11 to t12.
Most road courses are a lot safer than they were fifteen or twenty years ago and so are the cars. Still the facts are that at speed bad things can happen to good people/drivers and this is a sport that I acknowledge is "inherently dangerous". Most track owners/designers need to do what they can to minmize risk but that is just it, it can't be eliminated. If I get hurt in this sport the last thing I want somebody to do for me is to run and try and blame someone/organization for what happened. I guess that is why we don't have fun things like Nurburgring in this country. I agree with the philosphy you should analyze and appreciate your risks and if you end up on the short end of the stick, it is unfortunate but a risk you accepted.
Barry H.

 

FWIW count me in as not a fan on NASCAR tracks with a road course in the oval. Here are some pics of my car that I thrashed a Gateway Internation Raceway in St. Louis. Not having any runoff room before I nice hard concrete wall sucks.

 

The question is who is responsible ultimately. I do not know Gateway but I do know Pocono and The Glen. Both have large amounts of runoff. They also have numerous places to get the car bent if the right circumstances are present. There was an HPDE at Pocono in which a brand new Neon was totaled in T1 and an M3 slid thru the grass entering the South course-hit the tires protecting the ARMCO and flipped. What did these incidents have in common-drivers way over their heads. I was also present when another driver decided to take his car out at The Glen and promptly took out a large piece of foam barrier because he would not follow instruction. In all 3 the cars were destroyed but the drivers survived (M3 went for long stay in hospital).
The loss of life in our sport is tragic regardless of the type of event. Someone said that the officials were insensitive as to the rider and I agree. We are ultimately responsible for our actions. Is Daytona or any other track that bikes visit dangerous-great question. How many here are aware that Talladega was rented and configured by Harley to test the newest generation of their bikes. I seriously doubt tht a company would do that unless they deemed the track safe for their professional rider/testers.
Some of us remember Marlboro, MD and the bowl. If you exited wrong you could land on your head-everyone knew this. The turns immediately following were no picnick either there was no runoff. We adapted and drove using skill not speed to get thru quickly. There are still tracks that are tight. We now have 2 new brilliantly designed tracks in the east that are as safe as current technology allows. Both BeaveRun and Barber are state of the art. The new section at SP will eventually be that way-if people use their smarts in the carousel.
It is up to all of us to think about what we arre doing and cooperate with one another to reduce the risk of a major incident. The sanctioning body should also look closely at design (F1 does) and help track operators provide the best environment possible.

 

This is a sobering discussion.

Do you guys think part of the danger was because this was a new track configuration? The reason I mention this is because it seemed no one else went off there after that... (did these posts correctly?)

-dave

 

I know both Gateway and Heartland Park very well - both as a driver and a corner worker.

First about Gateway: there's not a ton of runoff room anywhere. It's not an incredibly huge oval, and the paddock plus the track are all in the infield. You can get away with a minor off here and there, but if you go off in a big way, more than likely you'll be stopped quickly by concrete.

Is it inherently dangerous? Depending on your point of view, I suppose you could call it that.

I'd call the track "unforgiving" rather than "inherently dangerous." So some, "unforgiving" may translate into "dangerous." Heck, last year we had a car roll at MidAmerica Motorplex. At that track, you have to DRIVE the car to a wall. Is the track dangerous? It was that day, at that time, for that driver in that car.


As for Heartland Park.....

Yep, I was there.

I do think more, better runoff on the left-hand side of the track would be a welcome improvement - smooth, open grass would do a TON to help a driver's confidence through there, if nothing else.

Of course, that doesn't prevent someone from dropping a wheel off on the left and hooking back to the right - pretty much cause #2 of folks finding the wall on the right over the crest. (The other cause was people lifting or turning as they drove across the crest of the track, while the car was unsettled.)

I wouldn't necessarily call it "inherently dangerous," however. There are other tracks with similar features. Mid-Ohio, T11 is the same sort of "over the rise, turning" situation....with a whole slew of tires driver's right to catch the cars. (OK, so Mid-O has a whole slew of tires pretty much everywhere....)

In a Spec Miata, with 102 screaming ponies under the hood, this part of Heartland Park we're talking about is WFO. Something a few of us discussed as we stood there: a whole bunch of drivers were turning in waaay early, which left them with no choice but to fight the car to keep it on the track on the other side of the rise/kink.

Maybe that's driver style, maybe it's more car-specific....but I spoke with a long-time racer who wasn't driving that weekend, but WAS paying attention. He noted that almost all of the SMs were going through smooth, with plenty of track left....and without lifting. Maybe we just couldn't get the cars going fast enough to get into trouble (reference power levels above) ....but I do think most of us, for whatever reason, were moving the apex a little later and having plenty of track.


Different features can be dangerous, absolutely. Consider "the kink" at Road America; "coming down the hill" at Road Atlanta. Both of these are dramatically different....but, as with Heartland Park and Gateway and 50 other tracks across the nation, it comes down to choice. There's no rule in the book that says your gas pedal has to be to the floor up to, through, and beyond these features.

I agree with jc836:

Even though we're surrounded by steel, with rollcages and helmets and head restraints and belts and firesuits and experienced workers waiting to help us when we run out of talent....even with all of that, there has to be a bit of a self-preservation instinct in a driver.

If you're not comfortable going flat out through "that" portion of "that" track, don't.

If you're not comfortable racing door-to-door with "that" guy, don't.

It is, after all, a hobby...and a choice.

Jarrod

 

While I agree with some of the comments made by bluegsr I just want to clarify the phrase as I wrote it "inherently dangerous" in my thread and how it was used by bluegsr. I did not say that any track was "inherently dangerous". My comment is that the sport is "inherently dangerous". But then probably the most dangerous thing you do is driving on the public roads to the event because unskilled, inattentive drivers, and overcrowded roads kill over 40,000 people a year. I just think sometimes people see the racing harnesses, roll cage, etc. and may think well this is a "safe sport". In a way it is for an inherently dangerous activity- pushing a car to the limits of its performance envelope. Physics is inescapable-momentum, mass, g forces, soft tissue and hard objects. I think people engaged in this activity need to be honest and acknowledge I can get hurt, seriously hurt. The odds are in one's favor that it will not happen but it can. I use to be a mountain bike race director for a very large race in the Southeast. Our release form started off with the phrase that the entrant understands that mountain bike racing is an inherently dangerous activity. You had to acknowledge that before we took your entry. We had broken bones and maybe a few bonked noggins every race (500 to 700 entrants). I have the scars to prove it. I guess for me if you can't admit to yourself (not saying anyone isn't) that yes I am engaged in an inherently dangerous sport, then you don't need to be doing it because you are not being honest. I know I can get hurt and while being on my personal "comfortable" limit I try to minimize the risk. That is all.
Barry H.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by acurasquirrel &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">FWIW count me in as not a fan on NASCAR tracks with a road course in the oval. Here are some pics of my car that I thrashed a Gateway Internation Raceway in St. Louis. Not having any runoff room before I nice hard concrete wall sucks.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

i'm rather familiar with Gateway, where did you go off?

 

CV joint seized coming out of the nascar turn onto the straight. I was doing about 110mph when the backend came around.

 

The original Nurburgring--THAT was an inherently dangerous design, as eveidenced by how many world calss drivers died there.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jc836 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">We now have 2 new brilliantly designed tracks in the east that are as safe as current technology allows. Both BeaveRun and Barber are state of the art.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Hmmm... Did they ever fix that ludicrous pit-out arrangement at BeaveRun?

Jon

 

Here's my $.02. Just because drivers know that racing is a danger it shouldn't take away responsibility from the track owners to make a track that is as safe as possible. If there's a problem that can be fixed, that is causing damage (be it to the cars, or the drivers themselves) I feel that the track has a responsibility to make changes.

I also feel that if a driver feels that a track is inherently unsafe he should not drive there. If there are a lot of others who feel the same way the track and sanctioning bodies will get the picture.