Rally Moto Safety

[Doug Woods]

So, I have a fundamental question about Rally Moto safety.

First, let me say that I find the whole Rally Moto concept quite interesting and it looks like something that could really take off and benefit our sport of rallying.

Here is my safety concern.

We have quite stringent rules for rally cars to ensure safety of the occupants during a crash. In addition to the shell of the car, we have roll cages, race seats and special seat belts.

However, in Rally Moto there are none of these safety rules (clearly because they are not possible).

But, we let the Rally Moto motorcycles run in the same event as the rally cars and, I presume, under the same event insurance policy.

It is also clear that it is much, much easier to become injured in a motorcycle crash that a rally car crash.

My question - should we be doing this?

Look at it another way. If somehow, we deem it safe to run a Rally Moto event over the same special stages as the rally cars, and the insurance companies agree with this, then why require all of the safety equipment on the rally cars?

Why not just forget about cages, seats and belts. It would make preparing a rally car a lot cheaper.

I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this.

Doug Woods

[Anders Green]

...why require all of the safety equipment on the rally cars?

Why not just forget about cages, seats and belts. It would make preparing a rally car a lot cheaper.
Not a bad concept, actually. We should all be working with our insurance companies to see what they actually require as far as safety equipment.

Cheers,
Anders

[wvonkessler]

So, I have a fundamental question about Rally Moto safety.
. . .

We have quite stringent rules for rally cars to ensure safety of the occupants during a crash. In addition to the shell of the car, we have roll cages, race seats and special seat belts.

However, in Rally Moto there are none of these safety rules (clearly because they are not possible).


But we do have safety rules for RallyMoto, including the use of helmets, body armor/back protection, and recommended use of neck braces, which parallel those in other two wheel racing sports, including FIM rallies such as Dakar. Much as our car rules parallel those in other four wheel racing sports.

Risks are different for bike riders. Those risks have been okayed by our insurance company (and apparently Dakar's, the other FIM rallies, Best in the Desert, SCORE, etc.).

The concern is that without mandated rules based the relative state-of-the-art of injury prevention within the given sport, whether it is two wheel or four wheel, when an injury does occur, there is potential liability.

All particpants sign a waiver. Motorsports waivers are as a general rule held to be worth the paper they are written on. This is because the competitor assumes the risk of injury and death, based upon known risks to him or her, such as getting hit by another car, going off of the road, hitting a tree.

However, in cases of gross negligence, those waivers can be held not to be applicable. Allowing competitors to race without any safety equipment at all (or without safety equipment that would appear rational based upon the relative state-of-the-art within the given discipline) potentially could be considered gross negligence, as could be conducting a special stage on a road not marshalled and closed to traffic.

For what its worth, the rise in isurance rates within the rally world is not based upon the limited competitor secondary medical claims made under event policies, it is based upon risk to third-parties such as spectators.

I have been told more than once by underwriters that they don't care if a participant kills him or herself, as the insurance company's liability is limited by the waiver and the terms of the Accidental Death & Dismemberment benefit within the policy.

So as much as you wish you could run an unprepared vehicle, I am afraid that you can't. Or if you want to, then you will have to place that risk in light of the relative state-of-the-art of competitor injury protection within the 4 wheeled rally world, and your premium will be adjusted to reflect the potential liability risk, which would include liability for potential gross negligence.

Insurance companies do not exist to lose money. Their underwriters are professionals trained to assess all aspects of risk. If the insurance company had an issue with RallyMoto, or felt that the protections in place for the riders were not adequate, they wouldn't have insured it, or would have charged premiums accordingly.

Regards,

Wilson

[Doug Woods]

So as much as you wish you could run an unprepared vehicle, I am afraid that you can't.

I was trying to make a point. I obviously failed if you think I was proposing to do this.


Insurance companies do not exist to lose money. Their underwriters are professionals trained to assess all aspects of risk. If the insurance company had an issue with RallyMoto, or felt that the protections in place for the riders were not adequate, they wouldn't have insured it, or would have charged premiums accordingly.

This makes sense.

However, I wonder if they really understand the situation. If the insurance company was brought to an event and we showed them a fully prepared Evo rally car, a Rally Moto motorcyle and a live special stage, I am sure they would have immediate second thoughts about the risks they were assuming.

Doug Woods

[ihbobry]

However, I wonder if they really understand the situation. If the insurance company was brought to an event and we showed them a fully prepared Evo rally car, a Rally Moto motorcyle and a live special stage, I am sure they would have immediate second thoughts about the risks they were assuming.

Doug Woods

Doug,

I think they understand, a car hurtiling into a crowd vs a bike. Assuming what Wilson wrote above to be true, competitor safety is not where they believe their primary risk is placed.

Bernie

[wvonkessler]

However, I wonder if they really understand the situation. If the insurance company was brought to an event and we showed them a fully prepared Evo rally car, a Rally Moto motorcyle and a live special stage, I am sure they would have immediate second thoughts about the risks they were assuming.

Doug Woods

Doug, I have personally spent time with insurance company representatives at a number of NASA events which were being audited. I've even put them in rally cars for rides on the shakedown stage (after making sure they were waivered and wearing a helmet and silly-suit).

The reps know motorsports, and get sent to motorsport events because of this. There is more concern about metal shop kids who are helping tech at the local high school not wearing steel toed boots than about the fire-breathing cars.

The more they know about the sport, the more comfortable they are with it. It is better to keep them in the loop, not out of it.

Wilson

PS - I know lesser prep for cars was not your point, but it did serve as a good example to make mine. :)

[Eric Burmeister]

I would venture that risk assessors for insurance companies understand motorcycle racing (and it's risk/payout) based on historical motorcycle racing endeavors better than anyone besides a guy who dons a helmet and straddles a bike in competition (and maybe better than a few).

Two points:
1) Bikers ARE different than drivers. Beginning drivers often think they are the next Solberg or Schumacher. They enter a rally and don't find out until the first reseed that they suck. They then keep trying to "improve" (go even faster) long before they have the skills necessary to do this properly. They crash cars and we call these incidents "learning experiences." Hopefully they don't get dead crashing one sideways into a tree.

Beginning bikers often think they are the next Knight or Carmichael (look 'em up). They enter their first event and in the first half mile say "HOLY SHIZNIT, I can barely control this thing at a crawl!" and they slow down and keep themselves safe...or withdraw (yes, we had withdrawals at Sandblast because riders felt the riding skill level necessary was above their level...when was the last time you had that in a rally car?). Their fitness level...even if very fit...won't keep up with them if they don't know how to ride. They will get tired and slow down. Period.

Simple way to explain dirt bikes to a non-rider: Compare skiing to riding a go-kart. As you learn to ski, falling is a part of the equation. You go as fast as you feel comfortable. You know you will fall. As your skill gets better you fall less and get faster and, arguably, much safer. Now compare that to getting on a go-kart for the first time. You put the right foot to the stops and go as fast as you can because you "can't get hurt on this thing!" You overcook it into 1 and spin it into the tires. No consequence. Maybe a little sore.

Dirt bikes are like skiing. You will fall. You will (probably) get injured. Prepare for it. Ride within your ability because your ass is out there blowin' in the breeze.

2)It is a lot easier to get hurt on motorcycles, true. But...It is a lot easier to get dead in rally cars.

I think the risk assessors' numbers would probably back up my personal feelings based on seat/saddle time on that last one...

[wvonkessler]

Thank you Eric for explaining the difference between riders' and drivers' limits much more eloquently than I could.

Wilson

[Eric Burmeister]

You're welcome. ;)

Now for the caveats...

I think there are certain events that, due to road surface, edge-of-road hazard, and certain road elements, do not lend themselves to being good RallyMoto events.

Pavement: Scares me because the above fitness/talent relationship is diminished as compared to racing on dirt. In other words, a rider may push himself like a rookie driver tends to on this surface. Oh yeah. And road rash sucks the big one.

Hard surface (clay) with loose, sparse peagravel on top: Traction is very variable. No tires work well on this (that I have found). I suppose that's rallying. :)

Decreasing radius curves: Not necessarily called out with arrows on the side of the road (as of yet), but scary because bikes are accelerated thru turns...and cannot be braked in a lean (very much). If your entrance speed is too high, you must try to trailbrake/enginebrake gently as the turn tightens up on you. And say a prayer. :)



FWIW, I thought the level of arrowing at Sandblast was pretty good. Make sure the arrows for a blind junction turn...especially one without runoff (like a T)...is arrowed before the curve or crest that makes it "blind." Downward arrows for cautions were good.

I would consider using downward arrows for areas where one might find "deceptive treeline" in the Jemba notes. I was riding treelines like I used to drive with tulips at the crests and curves.

Thanks again for the experience!

[turoc]

I2)It is a lot easier to get hurt on motorcycles, true. But...It is a lot easier to get dead in rally cars.



I do not agree with that. In a closed/controlled environment such as a motox track (not a ss)what you are saying might be true but when you are talking about a Specialstage the risk factor on a motorcycle is huge compared to car. I understand the mass and volume of a car plays a huge role and forces at impact will be great compared to a bike but you dont stand much of a chance striking a 2 foot wide tree with a motorcycle . With a car you might be able to walk away uninjired (just like in the case of Sprongls or M Johnston). Obviously the physics of the crash will decide things. There are several more motorcycle related deaths at Dakar each year than car related (if any fatal car accidents occur at all). Not only that, access to power or the transfer of power to road is much easier on a motorcycle.
So, when it comes to the safety of things motorcycles are definetly not safer than cars when traveling on same roads, key word being "Same Roads". Hopefully Moto guys always keep that in mind

[Eric Burmeister]

I appreciate your thoughts, Turoc, but you are forgetting that we continue to drive the vehicles beyond the limits of the road.

Let me explain it this way.

I am riding what I perceive as the "racing line" around a right 4 corner. It tightens up on me to a 3 unexpectedly.

If I were in a car, I would be bouncing the left side of my car off the fauna, but on my bike, since it occupies a 32" wide profile instead of an 80" wide (car slightly sideways) swath, I am still technically ON the road while admittedly off my line by 15%. (Same 15% puts the car partially off the road...and incurring damage...and most likely putting it out of the driver's control.)

Now. Let's say it KEEPS getting tighter and I do reach the edge of the road. In a car, I am driving a 5'X15' box that I often have few choices as to where to put it once off the road. The forest WILL meet with my vehicle.

On a bike, I reach the edge of the road under braking, but DON'T STOP RIDING. I do go "off" the road, but with my low frontal profile vehicle have SOME choice as to the line I pick OFF the road. The suspension is VASTLY superior and the vehicle is far easier to maneuver and often allows control over and between obstacles that are impossible for cars. Ditch? Weight back, clutch, rev, pop wheelie and jump.

I did this once at Sandblast. I went off. In a car, I would have broadsided a 12" dia. pine on the codriver's side. On my bike, I steered clear of the pine, went 25' into the forest BETWEEN the trees, and stopped. I rode back out to the road (bypassing a gate, as circumstance would have it) and proceeded on down the road. No harm, no foul.

Car drivers are by necessity optimistic. They (including me) always think they can save it. This is why most rally "offs" result in side impact...because we are sliding sideways trying to save it.

Riders are also optimistic. But they have more choices than car drivers. They (including me) look for the best option given the conditions. Sometimes this includes a little vacation from the road thru the forest.

I guess my point is the same roads are not the same roads. Not at all. Watch the helmet cam video from Sandblast and see how different the lines are for bikes.

edit...in fact, I'll give you some examples. Look at 1:25 in the video when that curve tightens up on me. In a car would've been off. Still on the road on the bike, tho admittedly off line. Again at 3:25 when I hit the water/slime hole...could've been disasterous in a car. Just kicked a little off line, but there's plenty of extra road for a bike! Finally, the overshoot at 4:12 would have been cause for a stop, reverse, get going again in a car. Nary a second lost on the bike. :)

Finally, comparisons to Dakar aren't very logical in my opinion. Dakar bikes are tipping scales at twice of what is reasonable for RallyMoto. Comparing Dakar to RallyMoto is like entering a Hummer filled with 600 gallons of fuel in an american rally.




I do not agree with that. In a closed/controlled environment such as a motox track (not a ss)what you are saying might be true but when you are talking about a Specialstage the risk factor on a motorcycle is huge compared to car. I understand the mass and volume of a car plays a huge role and forces at impact will be great compared to a bike but you dont stand much of a chance striking a 2 foot wide tree with a motorcycle . With a car you might be able to walk away uninjired (just like in the case of Sprongls or M Johnston). Obviously the physics of the crash will decide things. There are several more motorcycle related deaths at Dakar each year than car related (if any fatal car accidents occur at all). Not only that, access to power or the transfer of power to road is much easier on a motorcycle.
So, when it comes to the safety of things motorcycles are definetly not safer than cars when traveling on same roads, key word being "Same Roads". Hopefully Moto guys always keep that in mind

[Doug Woods]

Doug, I have personally spent time with insurance company representatives at a number of NASA events which were being audited. I've even put them in rally cars for rides on the shakedown stage (after making sure they were waivered and wearing a helmet and silly-suit).

The more they know about the sport, the more comfortable they are with it. It is better to keep them in the loop, not out of it.

Wilson:

That is good to hear. Sounds like you have done your homework.

The reason I made the initial post is that the whole safety aspect of Rally Moto just feels wrong to me.

And my life experiences have taught me that when something feels wrong, it probably is wrong.

Anyway, I wish nothing but success for Rally Moto. I just hope we don't have a bad accident that somehow affects the more tradional aspects of our sport.

Doug Woods

[Mike Hurst]

The concern is that without mandated rules based the relative state-of-the-art of injury prevention within the given sport, whether it is two wheel or four wheel, when an injury does occur, there is potential liability.....

....Allowing competitors to race without any safety equipment at all (or without safety equipment that would appear rational based upon the relative state-of-the-art within the given discipline) potentially could be considered gross negligence, ........

Given the FIA's mandate of the HANS for all rally championships in 2008, WRC HANS requirement since 2005, and Rally-America's 2008 H&N mandate, Would you consider the H&N device to now be a relative "state-of-the-art" measure needed to avoid negligence and potential liability?

(Of course, this only aplies to those riding inside rally vehciles, and not on them.)

[wvonkessler]

Not my decision Mike. I know what my personal decision is regarding selection and use of a device.

The following is meant in sincerity.

You are knowledgable. What is the SCCA doing? MSA? CAMS? CARS? NZ? Sweden? Norway? Germany? France? Spain? Italy? ARCA? World of Outlaws? SCORE? CORR? USAC?

What is the better, or the "proper" standard, SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858?

Are there studies regarding basilar skull fractures in rally? What is the incident of basilar skull fractures in rally? What about studies of basilar skull fractures from true side impacts?

What effect does the speed of a rally car have on the potential severity of an impact? Does a clubman car than can reach 85 mph need the same protection as an open car that can reach 130?

Is the HANS device effective in a side impact? Is it more effective than other devices? Are there other solutions in a side-impact situation, such as wing seats or nets?

Wilson

[Mike Hurst]

Not my decision Mike. I know what my personal decision is regarding selection and use of a device.

The following is meant in sincerity.

You are knowledgable. What is the SCCA doing? MSA? CAMS? CARS? NZ? Sweden? Norway? Germany? France? Spain? Italy? ARCA? World of Outlaws? SCORE? CORR? USAC?

What is the better, or the "proper" standard, SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858?

Are there studies regarding basilar skull fractures in rally? What is the incident of basilar skull fractures in rally? What about studies of basilar skull fractures from true side impacts?

What effect does the speed of a rally car have on the potential severity of an impact? Does a clubman car than can reach 85 mph need the same protection as an open car that can reach 130?

Is the HANS device effective in a side impact? Is it more effective than other devices? Are there other solutions in a side-impact situation, such as wing seats or nets?



..Complete thread hi-jack..or I hope this was not a rhetorical question.

I strongly encourage a Nasa rallysport represenatative to participate in discussions, such as those hosted by the SFI, where representative of sanctioning bodies from all over the world get together, face to face, and discuss these same questions.

In answer to some of your questions:

1. All events listed on the FIA calender (all ASNs) must use the HANS effective 1/1/09. USAC mandated the 38.1 devices effective 1/1/07 for all tracks, all divisions. NHRA mandated their use in 2007 based on ET and speed. Of course the highest profile racing series (Nascar, IRL, OWRS, F1) already mandate the HANS. I don't know what the SCCA is doing...probably neither does the SCCA..

2. For us, the other sanctioning bodies requirements are not as relevant as the FIA's mandates with regard to major rallies. According to the FIA institute, yes, basal skull fracture are occurring in rallies. Don't confuse our low participation numbers and small statistical sample with actual safety. We need to take safety measures that will allow the larger statistical samples of greater participation.

3. The consensus of the representatives I've met and spoken with is that the occurance of fatal neck injury is more directly related to the angle of vehicle impact than speed. The opprtunity for steep angles is more prevelant at short tracks and rally than on large speedways. Easily fatal impact forces can be generated by steep impacts of 60mph or less. For liability reasons, you'll have a tough time finding these studies documented / available....but the guys who are in the know will discuss the causes and what they've learned. Hours sitting around a table at Delphi (Ohio) with John Melvin, Hubert Gramling, and Steve Peterson while waiting for the next sled test to be set up, are spent discussing specific accidents, injuries, and causes. ...These are the guys to talk to, because they're not selling anything. I strongly encourage NASA to participate in these activities...or at least listen to someone who does.

4. We considered the 38.1 to be a good enough definition of generally accepted practice, especially with the NHRA and USAC also using it, but FIA 8858 may be a perfect definition....it's a tough decision, but 38.1 is more democratic and allows for devices that may work better for some, especially larger people. In the US legal system, the SFI may be a more recognized definition of accepted practice than the FIA. NASCAR's recent acceptance of the non-HANS Hutchens Hybrid gives more credence to non-8858 but 38.1 devices.

5. The head and neck device is designed to reduce neck forces in frontal impacts, although there is some protection added laterally, but it is not a design goal or part of the standard. Lateral protection, through the use of better seats or nets, is a seperate issue (but also very important) that will be addressed by a new FIA seat standard coming soon.

6. I'm sure we will alway be able to find some group, or rally somewhere in the world that has much lesser safety standards....but that's not the definition of following "state-of-the-art".

[Adrian Wintle]

FWIW, I thought the level of arrowing at Sandblast was pretty good. Make sure the arrows for a blind junction turn...especially one without runoff (like a T)...is arrowed before the curve or crest that makes it "blind." Downward arrows for cautions were good.

I would consider using downward arrows for areas where one might find "deceptive treeline" in the Jemba notes. I was riding treelines like I used to drive with tulips at the crests and curves.

Were the arrows set at angles to indicate the exit angle of the corner? Or were they just showing direction? If they were only showing direction, would the addition of corner angle have been useful to riders (e.g. an arrow pointing straight left implies a 90-degree left hander, while one pointing 45 degrees off vertical implies that the exit of the turn/junction is approximately 45 degrees from the current direction of travel)?

This is one reason we use crossed arrows for cautions in Canada. A very acute corner arrow (pointing almost straight down) can look very much like a "caution" down arrow.

Adrian

[Eric Burmeister]

Yes, they were set to indicate approximate angle of the corner. A square right was a horizontal arrow. A right at Lazy T would have the arrow appropriately clocked to indicate how lazy.

[tom grossmann]

I'm going to echo Eric's comments:

First; as a once very aggressive motorcycle road racer I can also tell you that you don't take crashing lightly on a bike.

Second; Don't confuse closed course events like Motocross (to a lesser extent road racing) with off-road riding , there is a differant mind set.

Third; Motorcyles are a slow in fast out affair if you wish to go quicky.(note versions of slow in vary wildly with skill level)

Fourth; Unlike a minor incident in a car , which may only cost money , this same type of incident may have you limping around for weeks on a bike AND you'll be reminded of your minor incident every winter. (for an example of this come watch me attempt to walk on cold damp mornings)

I have several friends who've been desert racing for years and they go faster than we do on rally stages on far rougher roads. While broken bones are soemwhat common fatalities are extremely rare and usauly a freak occurrance like the Danny Hamel incident.

I hope to do a Rally Moto event at some point , not all Rallies lend themselves to Bikes. Like Eric said Riding on Gravel roads is very dicey. If you never been down a gravel road at between 70-90 MPH it's a real eye opener , this would probably scare the hell out of most racers for sure.

Tom

[nicebloke]

Dirt bikes are like skiing. You will fall. You will (probably) get injured. Prepare for it. Ride within your ability because your ass is out there blowin' in the breeze.

As a recent convert from on-road to off-road motorcycling, I couldn't agree with this statement more. When non-dirt-riders asked me how it was after my first day at an OHV park I said it had more in common with skiing than with riding a sportbike at a track day. And, as you so eloquently put it, the mental approach to skiing is vastly different than most people's mental approach to driving a car fast.