Challenge car Safety - we should talk about it.

I know we touched on it at the town meeting, but people were telling me about things they saw that should not have passed tech, and I saw a few things of my own. The safety concerns I saw should have been fixed before leaving home.

I think a college team had a member go to the hospital (2015?) due to freak accident, that would be hard to foresee. There's no need to take risks with things we can see are dangerous.

These safety issues actually surprise me because I felt that the track always did a very thorough tech inspection in the past. My teammate took the car through inspection this year, so I missed that part.

It took me longer to fill out the two registration cards then the inspection took. They gig me on a fuel pump wire that needed to be secured that ran through the passenger compartment. Fortunately I knew my car with sound or I wouldn't be driving it. However, some cars got through that had clearly dangerous designs. That is what scares me

I think most people know where we stand, safety items should be exempt.

Harness, seat, fire suppression, lighting, brakes, cage/rollbar, etc.

Some of that is already exempt. Safety should be paramount though.

That being said, the nature of the Challenge builds does warrant a little deeper inspection than the normal stuff I think. Most Tech guys look at the stuff they usually check for a track night, battery, belts, seat, etc. I think a GRM appointed guy should take a step back and look at a car and say - "what have they done here, and what could have been made unsafe in the process".

My tech inspection meant raising the hood and looking at the battery bracket. Didn't shake it to see if it was attached (it wasn't- I fixed it)

That's all.

Didn't shake the wheels, turn the steering, didn't even look for the throttle return spring.

Circuit_Motorsports wrote: I think most people know where we stand, safety items should be exempt. Harness, seat, fire suppression, lighting, brakes, cage/rollbar, etc.

Do you consider a factory seat unsafe? Just curious.

We are going all out on safety in our build. Fire suppression is free. Brakes are free. Cage ain't. Harness is free.

We already have everything but the cage, and I'm looking for someone who knows what they are doing for that.

I will not drive something that is unsafe. I have a kid to come home to.

I would like to volunteer to be a tech inspector. Give me a flashlight, a Ranger quick jack, and a stamp that says FAIL.

Arm restraints, neck supports...

A short talk with John Hoopes can change anyone's perspective on this stuff.

Summary: no 1 safety device is sufficient. It's a system, designed for a purpose. Any missing pieces (of the safety system) void the entire system's effectiveness.

He was driving a caged car on the street with no neck support and a 5 point harness with only the lap belt on- no helmet. The cage changes the crumple zones, and really was never designed for a head-on. His worst injuries were from the lap belt, but if he had been wearing the shoulder straps with no HANS, he probably would have broken his neck. He said he won't wear a donut again.

Partial street systems are equally useless.

Tech also did not check to see if my helmet was current. It was in a bag- they never saw it.

There should be some discussion about things that add to safety but also increase performance. Brakes and Tires, chiefly. Would spending $2000 on a full aftermarket brake system be "exempt" from the budget? Tires, too.

These are issues other race events that designate dollar amount limitations (LeMons, Chump, etc) have dealt with in varying ways.

We have been discussing car safety as well, including a more detailed pre-event inspection process. Once we're ready to make an announcement, we will (happily) share it with the rest of the world.

Thanks, everyone, for the concern. It's nice to see that we're all on the same page here.

Viewing from afar, my thoughts go directly to one of my favorite builds, and where feet go in relation to the rest of the car.

In reply to Woody:

That isn't even the scariest part of that particular car- it gets more and more sketchy the closer you look

I think the elephant in the room was a design this year that was not safe. No extra safety equipment in the world would have made me feel safe driving it. I thought twice about removing my 5 mph bumpers for weight yet another team had a 2x4 aimed at their chest in the event of a front impact.

SVreX wrote: Tech also did not check to see if my helmet was current. It was in a bag- they never saw it.

I had my helmet in my hand & had to ask if he wanted to inspect it. He pulled back the lining, saw the Snell 2005 sticker, and told me "You know you only have 1-more year before this needs replaced?". I don't know NHRA rules, but for SCCA I should have until the 2020's have been released.

In reply to David S. Wallens:

I was a Solo-2 safety steward for ~5-years and would gladly volunteer to assist with tech next year, at least for the autox portion of tech.

I would also be happy to volunteer as a tech inspector- I've got experience with rally, LeMons, autocross, and FSAE tech inspections and would be glad to memorize the NHRA rulebook so that I can help.

David S. Wallens wrote: We have been discussing car safety as well, including a more detailed pre-event inspection process. Once we're ready to make an announcement, we will (happily) share it with the rest of the world. Thanks, everyone, for the concern. It's nice to see that we're all on the same page here.

I think that more than a few people know exactly how I feel about safety in general and the sad trend of incidents going unaddressed at the challenge. Personally, I trust the staff when they assure me that they are giving this the attention that it deserves. The multitude of considerations and perspectives are important to be aware of and it would be a huge mistake for any party to dismiss the input of anyone concerned.

I eagerly await the announcement from GRM; for now I will withhold my own thoughts and speculations but encourage everyone to do as their conscious dictates. If their perspective is flawed or incomplete then we as a group should endeavor to help each other fully understand the issues involved and work towards a comprehensive solution.

I want to thank the staff for hearing our concerns and working to address them. When my friends (or myself, honestly) are endangered I can get emotional and I apologize if I offended anyone at the challenge due to my anger at the situation(s).

SVreX wrote: Didn't shake the wheels, turn the steering, didn't even look for the throttle return spring.

Didn't do any of that to my car, either

SVreX wrote:

Circuit_Motorsports wrote: I think most people know where we stand, safety items should be exempt. Harness, seat, fire suppression, lighting, brakes, cage/rollbar, etc.

Do you consider a factory seat unsafe? Just curious.

FWIW, I consider factory seats to be very safe but only as part of a system with adequate mounts and restraints...

SVreX wrote: Tech also did not check to see if my helmet was current. It was in a bag- they never saw it.

They did actually address it but not really check my helmet. The inspector asked if it was a current snell helmet and I checked the sticker and replied that it was ok. Good thing I am honest!

I'd wager that GRM does not want responsibility for saying a car is safe because then when you saw your fool head off with your super creative aero hood made from 100% recycled razor blades held together with magnets your family can sue the berkeley out of them. If they are smart they will do the whatever the insurance company and/or an attorney told them to do and that is it. Which is usually called "Self Tech" and "Liability Waiver Forms".

At some point you have to wear your big boy pants and accept the risk you have in front of YOU and let others do the same. If you are afraid to be impaled by a rusty fence post re-purposed as a steering shaft then ... don't get in their car. Easy peasy. Otherwise, you get "THE RULES". Real racing has them out the wazoo. The rules limit creativity. They stifle it actually. They are the reason a $500 car ends up being $15k when it takes the green flag. You are racing solo, at low speed in a parking lot fer berkeleys sake. If you can't run something sketchy there then who is going to go?

In reply to Huckleberry:

The concerns stem more from the fact that there are workers on the autocross course, and the cars drag race next to each other- at least for me. Plus, doesn't the challenge adhere to SCCA autoX/ NHRA drag rules?

tb wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Circuit_Motorsports wrote: I think most people know where we stand, safety items should be exempt. Harness, seat, fire suppression, lighting, brakes, cage/rollbar, etc.

Do you consider a factory seat unsafe? Just curious.

FWIW, I consider factory seats to be very safe but only as part of a system with adequate mounts and restraints...

So, is a factory seat safe in most Challenge cars, assuming the mounts have not been modified? (Im really asking a budget question. If the factory seat is safe, I don't see the reason for a freebie for seats in the budget. I believe that was why it was originally considered a performance enhancement on the autocross, and weight reduction). Just curious...

Stampie wrote: I think the elephant in the room was a design this year that was not safe. No extra safety equipment in the world would have made me feel safe driving it. I thought twice about removing my 5 mph bumpers for weight yet another team had a 2x4 aimed at their chest in the event of a front impact.

Agreed, completely, but it certainly isn't the first or only deeply disturbing safety lapse that needs to be addressed.

Personally, I would be more worried about a roll over in that "thing" and the fact that there was almost nothing really strong enough to do any good...

+1 for huckleberry

I am not saying safety isn't important, nor that we can't improve upon the current guidelines and status quo.

But I agree that at some point it just comes down to personal responsibility, and we will never all agree on exactly what is safe and what isn't.

In reply to Huckleberry:

I agree with much of what you say, with a couple of caveats.

There is really a twisted jumble of legal exposure going on and even if "their" lawyers say that they are clear "my" lawyers will simply point out their name on the banners and the issue of who is sanctioning what will become murky...

The real problems are not when everything is fine and you avoid getting into a deathtrap; the problems start when something goes wrong and you are involved with a deathtrap that you were under the impression was safe to be around.