Right Time for Cockpit Safety Review?

[Ratickle]

In the 12 boat thread, the discussion turned heavily to safety of design and overall driver protection. Is this the time to do a review?

In that thread, Steve David discussed at length the issues with Unlimited cockpit safety and invited some to visit their facilities.

John Cosker invited some to visit his facilities and is discussing improvements and changes with his teams.

Scotty talked about working with Dave Vilwock on safety with their Geico team.

Joe talked about the work their JBS team is doing with Mystic as well.

George Linder worked with the UIM teams and other on the lavin guidelines. Should we try to pull him into this and see if an overall review of his guidelines are warranted?

It seems to me, looking in from the outside, this is a very opportune time for this and it would be a fairly simple thing with email and fax's to accomplish. The loss of a couple people last year has bothered me since.

What do you guys think? Should we try?

[Sean H]

at Biloxi OSS had a canopy meeting and a I believe a commitee was started. I would email Ron if you want to get the details on that.

I still think you are crazy for wanting a removeable canopy.

[Sean Stinson]

I agree the time is very oppurtune for a meeting of the minds as to what the future holds in store.....There is no value on human life, either you have it or you don't, the latter isn't the position any of us want to be in or, god forbid, put another person in!!! I think that a new standard needs to be set concerning boats that run over 100+ mph while in competition!! I can speak from experience that hitting the water at that speed isn't fun! It doesn't matter if it is from an ejection OR from it entering your boat from a stuff or failure of your equipment!!! I believe even the Lavin Standards probably need to be revisited and refined!!! 20 years ago if you would have told a Vee would run over 100mph I would have said "Yeah right!!! You need to quit smoking what your hauling" 10 years ago if you would have told me the boats would be racing competitively on shorter tighter courses at speeds approaching 200mph I would have had you committed!!!! With all that being said here we are and it is here to stay!!! So now is the time to have a meeting agree on a standard and strictly, and I mean STRICTLY ,enforce it before we lose another family member, friend, or fierce competitor!!!

Respectfully
Sean Stinson

[Ratickle]

at Biloxi OSS had a canopy meeting and a I believe a commitee was started. I would email Ron if you want to get the details on that.

I still think you are crazy for wanting a removeable canopy.

I may be. I just look at the F16's etc and knew they come off. And, no one has always said I'm the brightest.....

[Sean Stinson]

I may be. I just look at the F16's etc and knew they come off. And, no one has always said I'm the brightest.....

The trouble with our canopy guidelines and what the aircraft sector use's is that when you factor the hydraulicing effect that water has into the equation things that aren't mounted securely are going to become quickly removed when you have water introduced into those areas at a high rate of speed!!!!

[phragle]

1st place to start, is the establishment of 1 single entity that will research design and test, with all the org's onboard willing to fllow the regs. not 16 different ideas or one design legal in one org and not in another. one answer when a builder has a question, one set of guidelines used in prerace inspection. that entity should be funded by all the racing orgs.

[BradH]

I want to be involved with the board or safety review group but still have not heard...anyone?

[Dude! Sweet!]

Is there any thought/discussion around doing survival capsules like the drag boats do? It's funny that this came up. I was watching drag boats yesterday and it occurred to me that I wanted to ask why they don't run them in offshore boats...

[phragle]

simple effects of kenetic energy..the bouncing that offshore boats take. the drag boats don't bounce that much, when they do, they come apart and the capsule breaks free. th only way I see it working offshore is for the capsule to be significantly stronger than the portion of boat surrounding it..so that the boat would 'break' away from it in a catastrophic accident.

[Chris]

If you read the rulebooks of some racing organizations, they dedicate paragraph after paragraph to technical issues that the racers bicker about endlessly, but one sentence to boat safety- and at that it only "suggested".

Bottom line- this is how new racing organizations are started. If you impose safety, a big chunk of these guys will take their ball and go elsewhere. This isn't NASCAR where the organizers own the show. The racers make the rules and if you make ANY rules that require people to buy new boats or make large expenditures that impact their ability to race and win not one iota, you'll have massive backlash.

[Ted]

Chris, while I agree that there may be some friction created from a new set of guidelines, at least there could be a look at them in a new light and factoring in new materials, etc. And when it was done at least there would be "guidelines" and the racers and organizations could use them as they see fit. The Lavin guidelines as I understand it were driven by the loss of a racer and a desire to prevent more catastrophic injuries of that nature. Since there have been some incidents over the past year and since technology has advanced so far so fast, at least a look by some of the most knowledgeable in the industry could be beneficial.

[Sean Stinson]

Chris, while I agree that there may be some friction created from a new set of guidelines, at least there could be a look at them in a new light and factoring in new materials, etc. And when it was done at least there would be "guidelines" and the racers and organizations could use them as they see fit. The Lavin guidelines as I understand it were driven by the loss of a racer and a desire to prevent more catastrophic injuries of that nature. Since there have been some incidents over the past year and since technology has advanced so far so fast, at least a look by some of the most knowledgeable in the industry could be beneficial.

Yes they came from the loss of Mark Lavin..RIP....but they were to be incorporated into the boat even before his death it just happened that they raced Key West before the implementation of the canopy system to his boat which is even more of a gut check!!! It's hard to imagine the Catch 22 of the whole scenario.....that may not be the right phrase to use here but everyone sees the eye opening what ifs of it!!!!

[MOBILEMERCMAN]

Here is my left field opinion. The boats are going too fast. Does anybody really believe you are safe at speeds over 150? Some guys want to be the fastest. The better racing is not in the extreme classes. If a 200 mph boat bottom fails what is going to happen when it lands on its light weight deck?

It is not yet been shown you can survive every accident at 100.

I think there is similarity in a comparison to boxing. You get it the ring, you battle away, sooner or later you get hit by the right shot and lights out.

[T2x]

We all know that the best minds are available and willing. The data is available and the foundation is laid in the Lavin Guidelines. There is also a set of rules in the UIM which, while based originally on the Lavin guidelines, have been updated with strong financial backing by the Victory team and others. Fabio Buzzi has designed a working break away cockpit pod for offshore over 20 years ago. Bottom line, putting together a blue ribbon panel is easy and a no brainer.

What is interesting, and understandable, is the strong silence from the racing organizations on this issue. There is a school of thought that if you mandate a safety system and it fails, the racing organization could be liable. On the other hand if they do nothing it would seem they are at least as liable through negligence. It is, as has been stated earlier, a Catch 22. The other issue is the stubborness of both racers, and builders around cockpit "comfort" and "visibility" which has caused many to abandon the helmet "halo" minimums and to widen and, by doing so, weaken window openings or to use admittedly inferior materials like stretched acryllic.

So the challenge is twofold:

1. Put together a safety panel for the express purpose of updating the Lavin Guidelines.

2. Figure out how to mandate these into rules for and by the racing organizations.

Good luck with the latter.

T2x

[MOBILEMERCMAN]

Rich , has safety technology ever caught up with the advances in speed in offshore at any point in time?

[T2x]

Rich , has safety technology ever caught up with the advances in speed in offshore at any point in time?

Truthfully, yes.......... but only in Europe....where cockpit safety is mandated.

On the other hand the Unlimiteds have done a stellar job of saving the vast majority of lives during hellacious accidents.

A better question is:

Does the technology exist today to prevent fatalities like the ones in Patchogue and Biloxi (+/- 140 mph)? The answer to that is a very definite.... Yes!

Whether or not the technology exists to prevent fatalities at the uppermost turbine speed envelope is where the design standard updates are needed.

T2x

[BRAD SCHOENWALD]

We have been working on this already for a few months. Of late I have had some time resource limitations and we are a bit behind.

Step one is to develop criterion

This is a complex problem and to be done properly will likely require academia. I have been in discussion with the Naval Academy NavArt program and have scheduled con calls with UofM NavArt Chairman.

The NavArts I have spoken to have all strongly suggested the use of FEA as principal due the complexity of the problem.

The work theory is to throw out any existing prescriptive basis and develop new goal based strategies.

Upon completion of the design review, test panels structures will be constructed and tested to verify the math and load calculations.

The implementation, enforcement etc will have to be done separately. I/we are working to develop the design for most appropriate structure possible.

[T2x]

We have been working on this already for a few months.

Brad:

Who is "we"?

While I appreciate the government and academic involvement. There has already been a lot of testing and development done by the UIM class 1 guys, that should at least be considered, lest you expend great amounts of effort time and resources in re-inventing the wheel. If the Unlimiteds have taught us anything, there is as much need for real world data and experience as simulation models in developments of this type. On the other hand any data on fighter jet crashes into the ocean could be VERY helpful.

T2x

[Pete B]

T2X,
Most fighter crashes at sea, aircraft are written off. aircraft are not recovered.
in many of those scenaio's the canopys have been ejected prior to crew ejection.
Depending on the aircraft each canopy and forward windscreen have different configurations.

The A/C I am most familiar with the forward windscreen was a total of 3 layers, two layers of biaxail stretch polybuteral (SP) sandwiching a glass panel with heating elements.
side panels were 2 layers of polybuteral.

Canopys are designed as windscreens, back in the 80's, I seen what a turkey buzzard did to a A-7 Corsair, besides the mess, not much left or bird or canopy.

[Chris]

Chris, while I agree that there may be some friction created from a new set of guidelines, .

I guess to make the point a little less obliquely, the racers have to want it. I just don't believe it will be imposed upon them by any sanctioning body "requiring" compliance. Especially in a soft economy and in the face of low boat-counts at major races.