autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Spins & Blame

To: autox@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: Spins & Blame
From: "Jeff Winchell" <Jeff@Winchell.Com>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 14:39:11 -0800
> According to YOUR speculation, the statistical risk associated with
> autox is negligible compared to street driving. I came up with a model,
> now you're dodging the issue. How many accidents per vehicle mile are
> typical for street driving?

I'm not dodging the issue. I'll repeat this again ...miles is the wrong 
unit of measure for this.

> > Is there more information on this, or was this the sole significant
> > factor?
> 
> This was indeed the "sole significant factor." The site was unavailable
> for autox use for more than two years as a direct result of Solo II
> incidents.

What site was this?

> > Is this situation representative of the typical site having
> > problems?
> 
> I've heard the concern about accidents expressed often enough by site
> ownership to know that it is usually a major issue.

What is the sample size? 

 
> > Sites that also hold open track events, road racing or drag racing
> > couldn't possibly have this problem since accidents are likely to
> > happen at least once every few events.
> 
> That's not even a good attempt to dodge the issue. The vast majority of
> Solo II events are held in stadium or high school parking lots or on
> airport facilities.

Once again, I'm not dodging the issue. None of the events in my 
region of the country are held in a stadium or a high school parking 
lot. Two of the venues in this region are airports, and both also hold 
Solo I events.

> > The current SCCA rules of the fastest Stock or Street Prepared cars
> > running in the mid 60's is an objective standard that is reasonable.
> 
> As is the expectation that a course design allow sufficient runoff space
> so as to allow a spin without the car striking solid objects.
> 
> > Doom and gloom over a roll over once in 13 years is not.
> 
> Based on my experience, rollovers occur a bit more often than that.

That would still fall under a small frequency, IMO, and therefore not 
something to be worry about changes to course design procedures as 
this thread has been indicating.

> some extent, driver awareness of the capacity of certain cars to roll is
> the only defensive measure that is effective in preventing them. Course
> design can be a factor, but no course design can be 100% effective in
> preventing a rollover.

I agree, so course design doesn't seem to be an overall problem 
needing to be corrected as this thread indicated.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>