We allowed to dicuss the Todd Wilkes case yet?

[fro]

As Saru mentioned, as an event organiser (for rallies, I point out), I'd like to see the coroners report, and subsequent recommendations.

Not just to cover my arse, but to learn what I can to run better, safer events.

[Camma]

A few people have questioned why anyone would drive toward a solid wall.
I agree - Good Question.
So lets break it down as it happened....

- Prior to the event, Todd used this map to prepare
MAP

-On the morning of the event, [as discussed] the braking area was changed.

-On the morning of the event, the organisers were running late and ran a minimal drivers briefing. Instructions were:
- no practise runs,
- get off the track as quick as possible to let the next person through.

Hmmmm Stay with me for a moment....

- Have any of our experienced racers here actually held up a race event whilst they walked a track ? ...assessing if they were happy to race on it ?
Very rarely would this happen - and certainly NEVER with a group of amateur racers.

- And here is the problem....
There is reasonable expectation by an amateur racer that a race track altered by CAMS is suitable to race on.

- Nobody took the time to measure the length of the braking areas and do the calculations.
After the accident, I asked a number of VERY experienced drag racers "how long is the braking area at Willowbank ?"
Do you know what ? NOBODY could answer the question !
[ I measured it in the 993 .....500m]

- If experienced drag racers could not answer the question, how could any of the amateur drivers on the day measure it and know if it was adequate ?

......and that is how you end up driving toward a solid wall.

Thanks Q - As another who didnt know Todd but watched his progress as a fan/spectator, I was saddened to learn that he had died. He has passed away , lets just hope that the recommendations to come out of the enquiry improve the safety and understanding of whats required to run an event like this so we never have to discuss this again.

Hungry6 - Thats an interesting point if true. With my very limited drag racing knowledge arent you required to have a chute if you run quicker than a certain time? If not should this be a requirement or at least some kind of stopping test? At the end of the day, Im no expert and dont claim to be. Again I hope the recommendations give those that have suffered some comfort that some good will come of the trajedy.

[Cplus]

Hungry6 - Thats an interesting point if true. With my very limited drag racing knowledge arent you required to have a chute if you run quicker than a certain time? If not should this be a requirement or at least some kind of stopping test? At the end of the day, Im no expert and dont claim to be. Again I hope the recommendations give those that have suffered some comfort that some good will come of the trajedy.

Anything faster than 10.99 or 130mph needs a chute at ANDRA drag racing events. This wasn't an ANDRA drag racing event, nor had the new JUDGE ever had the chane to lay down a time that quick or fast.

Heindsight is a wonderfull thing.

If that comment about the warning Willowbank gave is true could that intoduce a sort of "due dilligence" type situation into court procedings? ie: TW was warned in a round about way by 'experts' that the car was not safe enough for drag racing or similar events and in some way removing a portion of responsibilty from the people truly to blame?

Cheers,

C+

[Spac]

Anyone know what the CAMS permit was for?

CAMS have VERY few* places where they allow cars with an effective capacity of over 6000cc to compete in speed based events. The effective capacity of a turbo car is calculated by Swept capacity x 1.7. Even if his engine was standard capacity (just under 5000cc - it was actually a 355ci, IIRC), he was way over the limit.
I think he should never have been allowed onto the track for this reason alone.

As best as I can tell, CAMS had all the right procedures in place (in their Manual of Motorsport), but there were several people who did not follow those procedures.

I'm probably going to cross the disrespectful line in some people's eyes, but (even having read Q's post) a degree of responsibility has to lie with Todd.
Yes, someone else set up the course. Someone else didn't let him do a 'sighting run'. Someone else (implicitly or otherwise) assured him the course was safe. These are all indisputable, and are unforgivable, given the outcome.

But...
He was the one who unleashed 1500-odd horsepower without knowing exactly how far he had to stop.
How would any of the officials know how fast that car was capable of going? Only one person there on the day knew intimately how fast that car went, and he made a significant error of judgement.
Yes, other people made mistakes too, and he was the one who paid the horrendous price, but he did make a pretty large mistake.

I guess what it comes down to, is that EVERYONE needs to make their own judgements, and that regardless of what anyone ever tells you, you'll be the one to pay the price at the end if they're wrong.

*By few, I think the actual number is "zero".

[CT]

I think the worst part of this terrible accident was that it could have been totally avoided. "Ill conveived" is a huge understatement describing this event and I am quite amazed to hear that these people are still organising events. I will concur with a couple of other gents in that during a race I carry at least 170-180kph into turn 1 at EC (flat in 5th - no brakes!) on slicks and it would have been tough for some of these cars to use turn 1 to slow down. But the point is that the concept was flawed.

A fatal incident occured a couple of years ago at the Lighthouse Kart Racing event in the 'Gong when a young kart racer lost her life right in front of me which I believe could have been avoided. The event used the wrong type of water barriers that had slots at the bottom of the barriers big enough to trap a kart wheel if they came in contact. Before racing begun, a number of racers voiced concerns to the organisers that they were the wrong type of barriers and they refused to review them, let alone stop the event. I was filming a safety video for work and I talk about the barriers being the wrong type etc the morning before racing begun not knowing how catastrophic an accident they would cause. To give you an idea, we rebuilt our kart 3 times that day due to impacts with the barriers - most of which were axle damage.

When organisers need to understand is that competitor safety has far more importance than the sponsors, the politics or the money. No amount of money can substitute for the loss of a life. Organisers must be accountable and must listen to valid concerns and not put their own interests ahead of the safety of competitors because we already know that motorsport is dangerous.

[Cal]

But...
He was the one who unleashed 1500-odd horsepower without knowing exactly how far he had to stop.
How would any of the officials know how fast that car was capable of going? Only one person there on the day knew intimately how fast that car went, and he made a significant error of judgement.
Yes, other people made mistakes too, and he was the one who paid the horrendous price, but he did make a pretty large mistake.

Well said. I don't believe the organisers could ever have imagined the thing to be as quick as it was.

Cal.

[DAZDA]

Physics.

Brakes convert kinetic energy to thermal energy.

Kinetic energy is calculated on the vehicle velocity squared!!

So the approximate KE of a 1 tonne car at 200km/h is 1.54 MJ
and the approximate KE of a 1 tonne car at 300km/h is 3.47 MJ.

So to put it a different way, a 50% increase in speed results in a more than 100% increase in KE to be dissipated in braking.

An increase from 200km/h to 300km/h more than doubles the stopping distance assuming all other things are equal...

[fdrx7]

An increase from 200km/h to 300km/h more than doubles the stopping distance assuming all other things are equal...

More like triples. Parking that amount of heat in discs and pads is a BIG ask.

[old baggins]

Not sure of this has been posted or discussed here or even previously anywhere else, is the real reason the track was switched (180 degrees) was because of the rubber on turn 1? The story I have heard is that any drag events that took place at EC (from a certain date), the promoters were responsible for cleaning the track (of rubber from burnouts etc) so that turn 1 had a consistent grip to it? Sorry if this has been discussed before. Was trying to gauge how true this "story" is.

[edo]

Im with Spac on this one...
The result was undoubtedly tragic. But say all that had happenned was that he stuffed it into the wall at a lesser speed, wrecked the car but walked away. I think then more people would be happy to blame him & tell him he farked up. As it is because he made a huge fark up everyone is trying to shift blame from the driver.

As mentioned in another thread, I was asked to do a top speed run in Nizpros ute with the 1200+ hp donk on the salt flats in march next year. I asked if it would have a cage, was told no & said fark off...Im not entirely sure I would have said yes if it had a cage either. Now running on the salt flats doesnt require braking at all you coast to a stop. If I did do it & managed to stuff up & kill myself (even if it was a mechanical failure) I wouldnt want anyone else blamed. I wonder if Todd may have felt the same way

[DAZDA]

More like triples. Parking that amount of heat in discs and pads is a BIG ask.

Do you not understand what "All other things being equal" means? This includes consistent performance of the brakes for the entire brake application from either speed...

If you really want to get picky about it, we could start taking into consideration aerodynamics, drag, etc... but for the sake of this discussion I was trying to point the approximate increase in 'distance to stop' with speed increases*.


* - in an ideal world let alone what Todd faced.

[fdrx7]

Geez, got sand in your vagina today? I was just thinking aloud that in real life it would have been even more. Wasn't being picky at all.

[Spac]

CT, I see what you're saying, but coming from a rallying perspective, I see things differently.
[devil's advocate]
The competitors saw the gaps in the barriers, and they knew that a kart wheel could fit in them. They then chose to go out and race. THEY took responsibility for whatever happened WRT the barriers by choosing to race.
[/devil's advocate]

We all sign the disclaimer, saying that "motorsport is dangerous" in big letters. We all (should) know that there's a chance that everytime we get into a competiton vehicle that we won't get back out. The existance of helmets, roll-cages, harnesses, scrutineering, fire-extinguishers, safety marshalls re-inforces the obvious and indisputable fact that motorsport is dangerous.

We all then drive accordingly, and in vehicles that we feel give us the right thrill to safety ratio.

IF after all of this, it turns to shit, then a huge burden of responsibility must lie with the competitor, no matter how unfortunate the outcome.
As one of my work-mates said "You buy the ticket, you take the ride"...

We do it for the thrill, We do it for the challenge. If "negative outcomes" were impossible, we'd all just drive totally flat out and it'd be as boring as lawn-bowls.

Which is not to say that the people responsible for the running of the Ter-Vel event shouldn't have their arses reamed....

[Cal]

Geez, got sand in your vagina today?

:rotflol: I will be using that line in future. :rotflol:

Cal.

[Spac]

Dazda has sand in his vagina most days.

(He's my brother-in-law, so I'm allowed to give him shit on internet forums)(aren't I?)