Changes to Heartland Park at Topeka

[Super Dave]

Yeah, but SCCA mandates them for specific reasons that cannot be known because of liability.

Airfence is another issue all on its own.  It's usable for direct less that direct impacts.  If you glance Airfence on an upright bike, you will get countersteered into the wall.  Airfence does have limitations of its placement because of those kinds of things. 

I always thought that there had been walls at turn five away from the track in the past.  As a second gear corner that you have to continually slow from speed to make because it's still turning back on itself, and the drop of elevation at the exit, you've got to slow it down before you can drive down the hill.  Tangents from a those radii should point one well down the track.

[Spooner]

I agree-you SHOULDN'T be able to hit the wall there, but its obviously quite possible. 

I would love to know why SCCA would want them..  I would think they could move the wall back 75 yards to make it safer for us and still have a wall for SCCA..

[r1owner]

the only reason I could think is to prevent a car from blowing thru it and then reentering the track on the other side (if the track turns back on itself).  At that particular turn I see no reason why it can't be moved back like Nick said.  Makes no sense to me. 

If I remember correctly (I could be wrong) there was also a wall at turn 4 that seemed a little too close for me.

Why can't we just talk to the track owner and get their reasoning?  You seem to have their ear Dave, why not ask them?

[r1owner]

I always thought that there had been walls at turn five away from the track in the past.  As a second gear corner that you have to continually slow from speed to make because it's still turning back on itself, and the drop of elevation at the exit, you've got to slow it down before you can drive down the hill.  Tangents from a those radii should point one well down the track.

If you lose it trying to accelerate out that's one thing, but what about when you're just starting to lean it in and someone tries to make the pass inside and sends you both off pretty much perpendicular to the race line?

[Super Dave]

If two guys are arriving at the inside, they are slowing and they are generally a long way from the outside edge of the track.  You still have solid surface to brake on.

One can come up with a limitless number of scenarios.  Even then, unique dynamics of individual accidents can't completely be accounted for.  That would pretty much leave riders riding at 20MPH with pillows, etc.

Airfence placement was CCS's job as it was their Airfence is my understanding there.

[Burt Munro]

Best map I could find of HPT - too bad it doesn't show all the walls.....

Seems like there would be plenty of run off room from Turn #5 (before you'd need to worry about reentering the track) without the wall.

I know Carson from Road America was involved in planning the reconfiguration of the front straight a couple of years ago.  Wonder if he was also involved in the latest improvements?

[Burt Munro]

I always thought that there had been walls at turn five away from the track in the past. 

Dave,

I can tell you for sure that the wall at #5 was new last year.   Completely different profile than the original walls.  It was a pain to find anything on the wall to tie airfence to.  I guess it's possible that there a wall there before - don't know why they would have torn it down to put up a new wall though.

[dylanfan53]

...snip...He actually went off coming out of T5.  Unfortunately, there was only airfence on the wall to protect a rider if you crashed going into the corner before you turned in.  There was no protection mid corner on...
...It appeared that Brad left the track on the bike and then bailed as he headed toward the wall...Since he was traveling at an angle toward the wall, he actaully traveled 90 ft from the track to the wall.  The extra distance helps, but when you consider that you travel almost 90 ft in 1 second at 60 mph, he did not have much time...

That's worth a reread.  The science involved there cost me dearly last summer at Autobahn.  There was only a split second to make a decision, but I made the wrong one.    My mistake.

And like Dave said,

One can come up with a limitless number of scenarios.  Even then, unique dynamics of individual accidents can't completely be accounted for.  That would pretty much leave riders riding at 20MPH with pillows, etc.

So I suppose "To bail or not to bail" is the question.  Personally, I'll be more flexible in the way I think about that depending on which track I'm at in the future and which turn I'm in.

[r1owner]

One can come up with a limitless number of scenarios.  Even then, unique dynamics of individual accidents can't completely be accounted for.  That would pretty much leave riders riding at 20MPH with pillows, etc.

I agree about the limitless scenarios... however, if moving that wall (which I've yet to hear a valid reason for it's being there) only takes one choice to save the limitless ones, then why not simply move the freaking wall?

You sound like a dude that determines if the part that they know will fail one in a million times costs more to replace on the aircraft fleet, or take the risk of a couple hundred lives in a crash cause it costs less in the long run to settle with the families.  In this case it's even simpler (assuming there is not a valid reason for the wall to be there).

[Jeff]

You sound like a dude that determines if the part that they know will fail one in a million times costs more to replace on the aircraft fleet, or take the risk of a couple hundred lives in a crash cause it costs less in the long run to settle with the families. 

No.  Dave just likes to argue until you give up. LOL... xoxoxo

[EX#996]

No.  Dave just likes to argue until you give up. LOL... xoxoxo

Yep.....

[Super Dave]

Actually, there may be an answer.

However...

The litigous nature of the US has left racing and race tracks with issues.

First, the "nature" of competition and track days has some assumption of risk.

Second, all scenarios cannot be accounted for.  That's a problem in civil court all on its own.  It's not about "reasonalbe doubt" as in criminal issues, but "doubt" is what needs to be proven in civil issues.

As a result, specific parameters of safety cannot be published in the United States.  The SCCA, as an example, has individuals that have knowledge of what the parameters are and what the future requirements will be for a track to be certified.

Example:  a track is certified.  Over time, there are decisions made regarding safety by someone like the SCCA.  The track is given notice of what changes need to be made in addition to a time table.  Making the changes might have a monetary cost.  A track might not have the funds immedately available.

Yes, during that time, incidents might occur.  These changes may or may not impact how the incident plays out. 

The availability of this information outside of the organization and the track can leave both exposed to civil suits.


So, why are there those walls at HPT?  Well, they cost money, so, there is a reason.  We are not in the know for that knowledge as per above.

I've raced plenty of places that had some feeling of exposure to something.  And then I've seen people crash in the strangest places and hit things that were seemingly far enough away.

LRRS races inside the little bull ring that they do.  It's smaller than Blackhawk,  and there's stuff everywhere.  And they usually have bigger grids.  Daytona has always been pointed at as unsafe, but I don't believe that CCS records whould show that it has been the prime location for higher injury rates.  I remember this being stated four of five years ago.