The full containment seat portion states that seats must be full containment may 1, 2018

USAC and WoO rule mirrors each other trying to meet the SFI 39.2 spec for ****2019****

In talks with seat manufacturers, all of our goal is to make the safest situation possible for all drivers in our midget and sprint cars. I feel we can work together in the coming months to make sure the best specs are mandated for 2019 and beyond.

Levi Jones

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Originally Posted by kcarm92:
Tim, you make to much sense,lol most people that are making this mandatory has never been in a Sprint car or late model before , our sport doesn't care about concussions, if they did after a flip or violent crash they would do a concession protocol, just like any sport.If no ambulance ride to hospital nothing gets done to check it out,

I took a tumble the last race of the year at Montpelier. I was in a seat with the old-style Kirkey side supports on both sides, which deflect about the same as a net; I know this because I tested the right side with a pretty good shot and I could feel it flex. I could also feel a pretty intense pain above my right eye, which diminished as my helmet rebounded off of the head rest. I was conscious and lucid through the whole episode and when everything stopped I got out and they immediately loaded me into the IU Health bus and gave me a thorough inquisition and inspection, which I passed. Aside from a slight residual headache I felt fine. they told me (and my wife) to watch for any changes and come back if things got worse and they would transport me, but I felt OK the rest of the night. I didn't start exhibiting overt concussion symptoms until the next day but I feel that I was adequately assessed in the period immediately following my accident.
I don't think there's really any way to know how I would have fared either with nets or a full-containment "cell"; I did find it interesting that the SFI spec only covers the deflection of the shell structure without taking into account the padding, but maybe that's because there's already a spec in place for the padding and they're only concentrating on the shell with the understanding that there are other subsystems that must work in concert with that basic specification; the shell, the seat padding as well as the helmet itself, even the head and neck restraint system being used.
All that being said, it seems to me that racing organizations, manufacturers and testing foundations alike are doing the best they can to continually find ways to make our sport safer; while things may not be perfect they continue to improve. If nothing was done until the "ultimate solution" is found the insurance companies may be the ones who dictate whether our not the sport is even allowed to continue...

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Originally Posted by kcarm92:
Tim, you make to much sense,lol most people that are making this mandatory has never been in a Sprint car or late model before , our sport doesn't care about concussions, if they did after a flip or violent crash they would do a concession protocol, just like any sport.If no ambulance ride to hospital nothing gets done to check it out,

Kenny,

I was hoping to get folks to at least think about the concussion issue and the potential for these seats to contribute to the injury. I won't be surprised if little comes out of this, however, because most people believe that any brain damage must have occurred before someone gets into a sprint car.:D

Tim Simmons

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

At the PRI show last month they put on a showing of the documentary "Yellow, Yellow, Yellow" about the Holmatro Safety Team; in it there was a segment on Scott Dixon, who had concussion symptoms after the race at Baltimore a few years ago even though he wasn't in an accident. They reviewed the in-car video and discovered that during a restart, while accelerating from very low speeds on the bumpy street surface, his head was ping-ponging rapidly between his head restraints. From that discovery they developed a 2-stage, progressive padding to mitigate the effect. It's all about continuous improvement.

Guess I'll have to talk to, Brian. They are legal in the WoO.

Fred we ran 2nd with a 11k motor...lol

Continuous improvements in safety are always a good thing. Sometimes they protect us from ourselves and the fear of change.

That being said, if USAC, POWRi and everyone else really want to make an impact, they will step up and begin to take preventative measures from guys climbing back in race cars with concussions. They will truly get people evaluated after big spills.

The current model is broken. I hope they decide to put a little more effort in the long term effects these concussions are having on the drivers that are putting the show on.

Eventually, the lawyers going after the NFL, NCAA, NHL and the likes will realize the similarities in auto racing concussions. They will only be after the money when that happens, IMO.

You may say here, "you signed a waiver." To witch my only rebuttal is, a federal judge recently told Tony Stewart's lawyers those little waivers aren't worth the paper they are written on.

Aside from the lawyer grab, I honestly think they need a new protocol model. The effects 10, 15 or 20 years later are crazy. These organization's don't go and make you get cleared. They don't appear to care one way or the other. Especially long term. No paperwork for a Dr. to sign off on or anything else.

Just my opinions.

Last smackdown aftera crash, I vaguely remember a safety worker shoving a clipboard in my face before I had my helmet off. Not sure what it was for but I’m sure I scribbled my rights away lol

Originally Posted by Tim:
First of all, I'm a firm believer that it is best to have some sort of "mechanism" to keep the driver's head within the confines of the cockpit/roll cage at all times. I have concluded that the head nets provide satisfactory protection to achieve that goal. While not necessarily "against" the full containment seats I believe their current design could pose some hazard that they are actually attempting to prevent. As I read the SFI 39.2 specification, the head restraint is supposed to accept a certain load, imposed to simulate impact, with deformation to be limited to the specification. Essentially, what I glean from this is the seat head restraint/halo is supposed to be very stiff. My issue with this stems from research by Dr. Bennet Omalu that suggests that concussions are not only caused by outward impact but that the brain, which is suspended in a viscous liquid inside the skull, can "rattle around" inside the skull, breaking through the liquid and impacting the inside of the skull causing brain injury when the head is moving and suddenly stops, as if hitting the head rest during a violent episode. The padding on both the seat and inside the helmet cushion this to some degree but I'm not sold that the full containment seat prevents what I've described from happening and, quite possibly, might promote this type of brain injury. My opinion is that the head nets offer the same protection without as sudden a stop of the head thereby lessening the possibility of internal brain injury. There are other issues with the full containment seats that I question, such as cockpit egress in both an emergency (fire) and extrication after a wreck. I like the fact that the head nets can be easily removed to allow exit. I will say, though, that I am a fan of the shoulder supports and other aspects of the seats.

It is just my opinion that I would like to see more research done on seat construction with regard to head restraint before I spend the required dollars to get a seat that complies with the specification.

Tim Simmons

Someone who actually gets it...

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

I actually thought the head and NECK restraints were even more to do with avoiding spinal injuries???

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Originally Posted by jdull99:
I actually thought the head and NECK restraints were even more to do with avoiding spinal injuries???

Having used about all the restraints, and I mean using them, I get the feeling that everything but the old donut, whatever you want to call it, is about as effective as anything has come out of all this, most guys you see with a HANS device, wears it so loose, they can turn their head like an owl, the super duper seat restraints are so rigid, I don't feel safe, you have very little movement at all, it makes you the "target", so to speak, probably the most rigid parts in a race car, and the driver is tied to this, my feelings are that a lot of "safety mandated stuff", I wouldn't want my name signed to it, the "donut", was a PITA, but at least you had some movement, and you were still protected by your helmet, and it was supported by the donut, resting on your clavicles, not being clamped in a vise. JMHO! Bob

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Tell you what someone new to the racing world might think that concussions and racers with concussions abound at all race tracks, the way this post went. Its rare to suffer a true concussion and something that can never completely be taken out of life. For every guy that rings his bell racing there are 100's of normal folks leading a normal life that do the same thing.
Theres only so much you can do before the sport is no longer the same, any sport. IMO Most all off track "studies" are crap. As far as I'm concerned having my head clamped straight ahead is more dangerous then being able to move a bit and not being totally blind to the sides. I'm sure the seat and restraint manufacturers would like to go as overboard as possible. I wish someone would mandate that you keep buying my new and improved product even if as a consumer you don't want it and are doing enough giving the parameters to protect yourself.

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Originally Posted by Tim:
First of all, I'm a firm believer that it is best to have some sort of "mechanism" to keep the driver's head within the confines of the cockpit/roll cage at all times. I have concluded that the head nets provide satisfactory protection to achieve that goal. While not necessarily "against" the full containment seats I believe their current design could pose some hazard that they are actually attempting to prevent. As I read the SFI 39.2 specification, the head restraint is supposed to accept a certain load, imposed to simulate impact, with deformation to be limited to the specification. Essentially, what I glean from this is the seat head restraint/halo is supposed to be very stiff. My issue with this stems from research by Dr. Bennet Omalu that suggests that concussions are not only caused by outward impact but that the brain, which is suspended in a viscous liquid inside the skull, can "rattle around" inside the skull, breaking through the liquid and impacting the inside of the skull causing brain injury when the head is moving and suddenly stops, as if hitting the head rest during a violent episode. The padding on both the seat and inside the helmet cushion this to some degree but I'm not sold that the full containment seat prevents what I've described from happening and, quite possibly, might promote this type of brain injury. My opinion is that the head nets offer the same protection without as sudden a stop of the head thereby lessening the possibility of internal brain injury. There are other issues with the full containment seats that I question, such as cockpit egress in both an emergency (fire) and extrication after a wreck. I like the fact that the head nets can be easily removed to allow exit. I will say, though, that I am a fan of the shoulder supports and other aspects of the seats.

It is just my opinion that I would like to see more research done on seat construction with regard to head restraint before I spend the required dollars to get a seat that complies with the specification.

Tim Simmons

Finally someone who gets it. This is exactly what I've been saying, only better. Thank you. :8::9: Another issue I have with the FC is it essentially holds your head upright like driving a nail and so if you don't have the halo bars a c0ckpit incursion could be disatrous.

I think we saw less compression fractures in the days of the donut. The new stuff leave a big gab allowing that area to compress. Not saying that's the only place the compression fractures happen, but we sure see them a lot more now.

I agree, and I think with the seemingly change in thinking of how belts should be installed, could increase your observation, I had a couple of drivers who were under the impression that shoulder belts should pull you down in the seat, instead of the lap belt, it took a lot of explaining to get them to see how and where they were wrong, I have no idea where this idea came from. Tim, in response to your observations, with a donut and the side nets, the ever present sore throat was the worst thing I ever got, and they were some pretty scary crashes, or so I was told, I didn't watch. Bob

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

To add one more fact to what Tim has stated....By the way, I have 5 credit hours in Anatomy which qualifies me to be an expert...A brain traveling 100 mph suspended in fluid does need a "buffer". If the head is surrounded securely and with the addition of neck restraints, will not move, when the head comes to a sudden stop the brain will still impact the skull (because the brain is still traveling 100mph)....Thus, a brain injury can occur without the head making contact with an object.

Totally off this subject but having the same idea of something to slow down an impact versus a solid object to stop a car traveling 100mph....Everyone would agree that the Catch fence at Eldora and Lawrenburg are the "best" in the mid west, and almost all would agree that the Catch Fence at North Vernon(Twin City?) is the worst....Provided the front stretch has ample strength to protect the spectators....Would you rather contact a solid object at 100mph or something that would catch your car like a net (Ask Levi, the tumble he took years ago at Twin City was HUGE, but when he got to the catch fence it sit his car down like a mother laying a baby in a crib?) Maybe, just maybe, short tracks would be safer with a Catch Fence that absorbed the impact versus solid pools to contact? Also, at Twin City you are not going to bounce back to the track to have impact with other cars?

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

SFI-rated padding is very stiff, and is considered the best option for decelerating a body in motion, be it to absorb the shock of a spinal column into the seat bottom or the head off of a headrest or roll cage; it is designed to be firm enough so that it crushes to absorb the blow but not so soft that it rebounds or bottoms out, much like the lining of your helmet is supposed to work. 100-to-zero is a difficult feat to accomplish without some compromise; no support and bad things happen, like a basal skull fracture or impact with something REALLY hard, like a concrete wall. Netting could be the answer but could also allow too much give, or allow the head to be forced out of the "envelope" with dire consequences. A stiff aluminum or carbon structure may not deflect enough but that's where the ridgid foam comes in, between seat structure and cranium. If soft, flexible structures are the best answer (not saying they aren't but I don't think the seat manufacturers/safety foundations are completely in the dark) why is Levi endorsing SFI compliance, given his experience at Twin Cities? One other thing: how much can a driver actually move his head in a non-containment seat to avoid the dreaded cockpit incursion?

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Dose this mean they will no longer have the Gas & Brake pedals inside the car? For years these two things have had a lot to do with handling.

Originally Posted by Z-man:
I think they should leave the adjusters in the cockpit, just not connect them to anything.

Classic.

Big fan of concussion protocol. That might have saved Kevin Doty who had several leading up to his death.
Otherwise, a waiver should state the safety personnel/ equipment the track is providing and from that point, the signee assumes all risk. If that isn't valid in court, then what is?

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Originally Posted by jdull99:
I actually thought the head and NECK restraints were even more to do with avoiding spinal injuries???

It just depends on the one you use. The HANS is only designed for straight collisions (Nascar) while some of the others are designed for the types of wrecks in open wheel racing. A couple of the other head and neck restraint systems use multiple tethers that are supposed to futher support your head in a wreck.

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

I understand that (I see the way I worded it though...I mentally included the side supports on the seat as to what I meant for a restraint of some sort)...in regards to those side supports on the seats, I was under the impression that was to keep the head from goin side to side (keeping from breakings necks, while obvsly keeping the head contained inside the cockpit at the same time). So ya, combined with the HANS, from the forward collisions, I thought they all worked together...

Originally Posted by mike mcghee:
Fred we ran 2nd with a 11k motor...lol

Fred and Mike, that was a beautiful thing @ Badlands. Glad to be able to witness it.

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

But I bet you had cockpit adjustable shocks and a new tire!

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Close your eyes and dream of a podium with 43 drivers hugging and saying we are all equal winners.Then you wake up and realize your at a Nascar race.See the direction this is going?

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Originally Posted by HDINDY:
Close your eyes and dream of a podium with 43 drivers hugging and saying we are all equal winners.Then you wake up and realize your at a Nascar race.See the direction this is going?

Not really

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Originally Posted by HDINDY:
Close your eyes and dream of a podium with 43 drivers hugging and saying we are all equal winners.Then you wake up and realize your at a Nascar race.See the direction this is going?

Originally Posted by Backitin:
Not really

Me either. Just because everyone is in the same boat doesn't mean they'll make the same call on setup. Some get it right, some don't. However since cockpit adjustments have been the norm for quite a while in USAC I don't see why it just now became an issue. I mean USAC is suppose to be, "The Top of the Heap", so them having more knobs and cranks seems fitting, that and having the remote adjustment isn't much more expensive than no Remote stuff, is it? I'm not outraged by this, but to me comes under,
"Fixing something that isn't broke".:11:

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Originally Posted by HDINDY:
Close your eyes and dream of a podium with 43 drivers hugging and saying we are all equal winners.Then you wake up and realize your at a Nascar race.See the direction this is going?

What the heck?

This thread makes me think that the open wheel racing that we love will implode before long. Maybe not in my lifetime, but I see no need to get my grandkids hooked on it. I have raced. It's dangerous. Shouldn't that element always exist?

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Originally Posted by flagboy55:
This thread makes me think that the open wheel racing that we love will implode before long. Maybe not in my lifetime, but I see no need to get my grandkids hooked on it. I have raced. It's dangerous. Shouldn't that element always exist?

It would be better if it didn't. Who needs more dead or paralyzed drivers?

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Nascar has restricted it self to the point of boring. I don't want follow the leader sprint car racing , with the time change tracks are gone by the last
heat race.At least with a dry slick track the driver can get the horse power to the ground to make it a race. Your big money teams will make it a drag race now.400 HP motors day racing and 10" tires aren't coming back.What USAC really needs to do is set the example and pay better money .

Originally Posted by revjimk:
It would be better if it didn't. Who needs more dead or paralyzed drivers?

I never understand this argument. More people are killed going to the grocery store in one day than all the drivers killed in racecars annually. 40,000 drivers are killed annually on U.S. roads. Yes we should continue to make advancements in racing safety, but they are pretty safe. News flash racing is dangerous and so is walking down a flight of stairs. All involved know the risks and they choose to accept it.

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Originally Posted by flagboy55:
This thread makes me think that the open wheel racing that we love will implode before long. Maybe not in my lifetime, but I see no need to get my grandkids hooked on it. I have raced. It's dangerous. Shouldn't that element always exist?

Danger will always exist, but I'm not sure I follow the logic of "not encouraging" others to race because "They might survive it". I myself am not opposed to safety measures, far from it. I do prefer some choice as to what I use if there are options, ie nets instead FC. To me there is too much evidence that the intended safety device inflicts its own serious injury without a crash, that should not be. I know its poetic to say someone died doing what they love, but in all honesty its still a tragedy and a loss. I would much rather those we've lost and those permanently injured be able to come back to the reunions and step out of the drivers seat when they decide to.

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Originally Posted by revjimk:
It would be better if it didn't. Who needs more dead or paralyzed drivers?

Without a element of danger it isn't racing anymore and pretty much anyone could do it. You might just as well switch to remote control cars. The element of danger is about the only thing that separates my grandma being able to race and a real racer. Nobody needs dead or paralyzed drivers, nobody needs to whine and cry either about someone who gets injured in a race car. Unless of course they were forced into doing it. I could be wrong but I'm guessing you never raced or if you did you were terrified the whole time. I love the feeling of danger when I'm riding speedway. Its what separates me from the folks sitting in the stands. Jesus, you act like everytime theres a race someone gets killed or worse. If you cant handle the stress as a spectator that someone might pay a pretty big price for they're fun find something else to watch.
p.s. if you really want to help the safety issue a lot can be done with the track surfaces. dodging huge holes and ruts, or bad dust issues i.e. Eldora are more dangerous then the cars and the safety systems they employ.

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Originally Posted by Backitin:
Without a element of danger it isn't racing anymore and pretty much anyone could do it. You might just as well switch to remote control cars. The element of danger is about the only thing that separates my grandma being able to race and a real racer. Nobody needs dead or paralyzed drivers, nobody needs to whine and cry either about someone who gets injured in a race car. Unless of course they were forced into doing it. I could be wrong but I'm guessing you never raced or if you did you were terrified the whole time. I love the feeling of danger when I'm riding speedway. Its what separates me from the folks sitting in the stands. Jesus, you act like everytime theres a race someone gets killed or worse. If you cant handle the stress as a spectator that someone might pay a pretty big price for they're fun find something else to watch.
p.s. if you really want to help the safety issue a lot can be done with the track surfaces. dodging huge holes and ruts, or bad dust issues i.e. Eldora are more dangerous then the cars and the safety systems they employ.

If the specter of death or serious injury looming is all that interests in racing, I think you missed the point of it. Racing has its dangers, it always will, but there is so much more to it than just cheating death. There is competition, achievements, records, technological advancement, skill, winning and you can never fully master it. The danger is only one aspect to the much broader thing that is racing. What you are describing is strictly defying death, a thrill seeker. If that's all that motivates you I think you are in the wrong game, there are many much more fatalistic pursuits available to you than motorsport. Evel Knievel has been dead a while, so that gig is open, why not do that? The level of safety you use is 100% up to you and you'd be the sole attraction. You could do it in the nude while wearing a faux lime green mohawk and a sock on your jimmy, with big red clown shoes on full of angry fire ants. Maybe leave the fuel line loose so the chance of a fire will be looming. You could partially cut the frame in a few places. The possibilities are endless if all that interests you is the thought of death facing you. Lastly, as far as what separates you from your granny racing is a ton more than just safety equipment, I hope. So, much to consider...

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Originally Posted by Aces&Eights:
If the specter of death or serious injury looming is all that interests in racing, I think you missed the point of it. Racing has its dangers, it always will, but there is so much more to it than just cheating death. There is competition, achievements, records, technological advancement, skill, winning and you can never fully master it. The danger is only one aspect to the much broader thing that is racing. What you are describing is strictly defying death, a thrill seeker. If that's all that motivates you I think you are in the wrong game, there are many much more fatalistic pursuits available to you than motorsport. Evel Knievel has been dead a while, so that gig is open, why not do that? The level of safety you use is 100% up to you and you'd be the sole attraction. You could do it in the nude while wearing a faux lime green mohawk and a sock on your jimmy, with big red clown shoes on full of angry fire ants. Maybe leave the fuel line loose so the chance of a fire will be looming. You could partially cut the frame in a few places. The possibilities are endless if all that interests you is the thought of death facing you. Lastly, as far as what separates you from your granny racing is a ton more than just safety equipment, I hope. So, much to consider...

Thank you!
"There is competition, achievements, records, technological advancement, skill, winning...." Exactly. I'm more interested in the difference between Kyle Larson & other drivers than between drivers & Grannies

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Originally Posted by Backitin:
Without a element of danger it isn't racing anymore and pretty much anyone could do it. You might just as well switch to remote control cars. The element of danger is about the only thing that separates my grandma being able to race and a real racer. Nobody needs dead or paralyzed drivers, nobody needs to whine and cry either about someone who gets injured in a race car. Unless of course they were forced into doing it. I could be wrong but I'm guessing you never raced or if you did you were terrified the whole time. I love the feeling of danger when I'm riding speedway. Its what separates me from the folks sitting in the stands. Jesus, you act like everytime theres a race someone gets killed or worse. If you cant handle the stress as a spectator that someone might pay a pretty big price for they're fun find something else to watch.
p.s. if you really want to help the safety issue a lot can be done with the track surfaces. dodging huge holes and ruts, or bad dust issues i.e. Eldora are more dangerous then the cars and the safety systems they employ.

"you act like everytime theres a race someone gets killed or worse."??? Where did I say that? But before roll cages, seat harnesses, etc. LOTS more drivers died
I' glad you enjoyed racing & survived intact. I suspect if you were paralyzed or burned, you might be singing a different song.
You're right about one thing: No way would I race a sprint car

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Originally Posted by JDK222:
I never understand this argument. More people are killed going to the grocery store in one day than all the drivers killed in racecars annually. 40,000 drivers are killed annually on U.S. roads. Yes we should continue to make advancements in racing safety, but they are pretty safe. News flash racing is dangerous and so is walking down a flight of stairs. All involved know the risks and they choose to accept it.

Bad analogy. OF COURSE more everyday drivers are killed , cause millions do it, & its pretty much a necessity. How many people drive race cars? I'm sure if you look at percentages, WAY more race drivers are killed per miles driven

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Its typical, the folks that ruin most good things sit on the side lines worried about the well being of others who are doing just what they like getting a feeling that most of you sad sacks will ever know. Take the fear factor out and like I said pretty much anyone could race and there would be many more Larsons and such out there.
Hey dumbasses part of being a Larson or whomever is dealing with fear.

Re: USAC outlaw all cockpit adjusters
 

Originally Posted by Backitin:
Its typical, the folks that ruin most good things sit on the side lines worried about the well being of others who are doing just what they like getting a feeling that most of you sad sacks will ever know. Take the fear factor out and like I said pretty much anyone could race and there would be many more Larsons and such out there.
Hey dumbasses part of being a Larson or whomever is dealing with fear.

Without all the "sad sacks" & "dumbasses" in the stands, there would be no $$$ for all this to happen...
We're not ruining anything, we're supporting racing & trying to keep drivers alive & intact