Woooo Hoooo! Let's go break something!!

[gsbaker]

I'll be Earnhart's belts would have worked fine at 20G, but failed at a higher level. If the SkullSaver Supreme slips out of the harness at a high G level, isn't that a major non-linearity which a low-G crash wouldn't demonstrate?
[/b]

It could be, but that probably depends on the seat. The SSS slipped out of the harness at Delphi at 68Gs using a bench seat. But that was a 30 degree offset test, meaning the lateral component was 34Gs (sin30 = 0.5). If you can get as high as 20Gs (just guessing) you may see the same thing.

Seat selection will be critical, and I doubt anyone here wants to use a bench seat.

[lateapex911]

. How fast do you think the sled would need to be going to cut a 40' motorhome in half when hit side on?
[/b]

7MPH?

Those things are such tin cans, LOL.

[Daryl DeArman]

So I would request that whatever test you do, meets the stupid SFI requirements.
Or put the entire organization on the sled and test them...sans anything for protection. And maybe toss on an SCCA lawyer type or two, just so they can feel what it will be like after I hit something having been required to take my Isaac off.
[/b]

Amen.

FWIW, I know my motorhome isn't exactly the safest thing on the road, but unless I get t-boned by something as big or bigger they are going to go right through the basement storage and hit a VERY beefy frame. I have a feeling they would be in worse shape than I, (not the vehicles). I'll escape through the large windshield that will surely pop out after by only other exit door is now inoperable.

Besides I have one of those really safe and strong Class A's that the salesmen tell you has the front cap constructed of 16ga steel instead of fiberglass like most of the competition. Great, sounds strong(er) because it has the STEEL word in its' description, but an almost verticle section of 16ga sheet steel isn't exactly a crumple zone.

[Geo]

Since this thread was initiated solely for the purpose of amusement,...
[/b]

Well shoot Gregg, if this is purely for amusement, I'd like to see a sled test with the dummy unbelted and unhelmeted. We could see just how far he'd fly, or perhaps the farthest some pieces would fly. Bonus points would be to somehow add gasoline to the mix w/o Nomex.

Yes, I'm a sick puppy..... :P

[edit]Actually, I like Jake's idea (I always like Jake's ideas) even better of putting the SFI organization on the sled sans belts or helmets. Of course you could still call it the Dummy Toss..... [/edit]

[gsbaker]

Well shoot Gregg, if this is purely for amusement, I'd like to see a sled test with the dummy unbelted and unhelmeted. We could see just how far he'd fly, or perhaps the farthest some pieces would fly....[/b]

With or without a cup?

Yes, I'm a sick puppy..... :P[/b]

Roger that.

[edit]Actually, I like Jake's idea (I always like Jake's ideas) even better of putting the SFI organization on the sled sans belts or helmets. Of course you could still call it the Dummy Toss..... [/edit]
[/b]

Those who write safety specs should be required to ride the sled.

[tderonne]

MMiskoe (Sorry don't know your name, and your profile has your website, but didn't work) post reflects what I hear the most, we just don't go fast enough, nor do we have such hard things to hit as the big boys.

I even make that argument myself. My 95 MPH Festiva is safer than a 135 MPH AS car.

Not sure how it relates to anything you could do on a sled though.

Tim.

[JIgou]

Man, the "We don't go fast enough to get hurt" statements really make me cringe.

Jarrod

[jake7140]

"And maybe toss on an SCCA lawyer type or two, just so they can feel what it will be like after I hit something having been required to take my Isaac off."

Perhaps a bucket filled with head cheese would replicate that sufficiently.

[gsbaker]

Man, the "We don't go fast enough to get hurt" statements really make me cringe.

Jarrod
[/b]

That's because you've "crashed" without ever leaving the track. The car-hits-car scenario can get ugly.

I'm going to get in trouble regardless of which why I go. If I acknowledge (which I do) that the probability of a severe impact is less in road racing than in circle track I could leave someone with the impression that protection is not needed; if I go the other way we're accused of fear mongering. So I'll offer a couple of quick facts and one opinion:

Fact 1. It's not how fast you go, it's how fast you stop. The 50G sled at WSU (which is nearly twice the lethal limit) runs at 35 mph. Earnhardt's velocity change was less than 50 mph, IIRC. Most drivers who crash will tell you that it feels worse than it looks on video.

Fact 2. If you lose your belts in a side impact you no longer have a head and neck problem, you have a body problem--especially in a multiple-impact scenario.

Opinion: Personally, I'd rather crash the motorhome.

[tderonne]

Kind of had to cut that short, you bet it makes me cringe, wasn't saying it's a proper argument. Of cours everything is relative.

Here's something to think about.

35 MPH crash into something immobile is more than likely surviable in a modern car with a three point belt and an airbag or two.

Same 35 MPH crash in most of our racecars is NOT survivable without some sort of H&N restaint.

[lateapex911]

Well seeing as how we IT guys are driving considerably slower cars than those w/ the Big Money, what G's should we expect to see in a typical incident? We won't have 180mph impact w/ a fixed concrete wall (well maybe in ITR??)

[/b]

THis is a relevant point....

A recent helmet study showed that helmet specs that required protection to the skull in super high impacts were actually imparting higher loads on the skulls in lesser load crashes that were the statistical majority, than helmets designed for lesser specs.

In other words, certain helmets that were designed to pass the super slam test, did. But, the loads on the heads in those same helmets were much higher in lesser hits, than the loads on heads in helmets designed for other, less stringent specs.

As statistics show that most crashes were significantly less that the stricter spec prepared for, the conclusion is that that higher standard would actually cause more injuries than a lesser standard in most cases.

Helmet-wise, it would be good to have a helmet that could do both...be compliant enough to cushion the blow in lesser hits, yet resilient enough to protect in the huge hits.

The larger lesson here is that the basic thinking that "more is better" isn't always the case.

On of the reasons I like the Isaac is the "auto adjust" nature of it. The fluid dampers respond to the force present...more damping when needed, less when not. I think that for guys like us, in closed cockpit cars, it has several important advantages.

I am saddened by the relative blindness of the spec writing system.........

[Daryl DeArman]

A recent helmet study showed that helmet specs that required protection to the skull in super high impacts were actually imparting higher loads on the skulls in lesser load crashes that were the statistical majority, than helmets designed for lesser specs.

<SNIP>

Helmet-wise, it would be good to have a helmet that could do both...be compliant enough to cushion the blow in lesser hits, yet resilient enough to protect in the huge hits.
[/b]

Good points. An easy to relate to example is the cheap vs. good roll bar padding. The cheap stuff won&#39;t hurt you at a very low velocity (punch it with an easy jab), punch it hard and you wouldn&#39;t even know it was there. Worthless for our needs. The good stuff--doesn&#39;t feel like it would cushion much but I am pretty confident that if you whack your arm on it one good time--you&#39;ll be thankful it was there.

Helmets--how about a progressive density liner--or will the soft compliant stuff leave too much air space for secondary impacts?

[RacerBill]

"Those who write safety specs should be required to ride the sled."

For those who remember the good ol&#39; days at the Glen.....

THE SLED WANTS A LAWYER! THE SLED WANTS A LAWYER! THE SLED WANTS A LAWYER!