Dallenbach talks about Pike's Peak crash

Thanks for that, I just had a look at the CC thread. Interesting reading. I'm tempted to rip the front half of the Targa Miata cage out and start again...

I haven't read all of the discussions about Foley's cage, but I will say this: after a crash of that magnitude, if you can walk away then everything did its job properly. The lack of window nets was, to me, the biggest mistake made.

I do not for a second doubt that there will be improvements to v.2 or, as in Keith's case, to existing cages in other cars, but all this piling onto the original cage builder claiming it wasn't designed/built properly is, I think, uncalled for and unnecessary.

EDIT: How the heck do you plan ahead for something like this?

Curmudgeon wrote: I do not for a second doubt that there will be improvements to v.2 or, as in Keith's case, to existing cages in other cars, but all this piling onto the original cage builder claiming it wasn't designed/built properly is, I think, uncalled for and unnecessary.

The pile-on isn't because the cage was proper or not. It's because he's arrogantly boasting that a rally style cage would have fared no better than his cage did and until the last couple days he's said he'd build it the exact same way next time.

I think the screen grabs I posted finally swayed him and a lot of others.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

I will argue that the word "Properly" should be changed to "Adequately". After cruising the linked threads and seeing how the passenger B-pillar ended up residing right where the passengers head should be I can definitely see room for improvement. With his massive head movement in the video and proximity of that pillar it is quite possible that the damage on all sides of his helmet came from that one pillar. I am quite impressed with Bell.

After saying all of that, I think it is your own right to die. In a round about way anyone who supports that event agrees. The event included motorcycles and no one car argue that they are adequately caged or would have walked away from that crash.

As I said, improvements will be made. We learn from things like these, thankfully no one was killed. Unlike the SCCA Pro Rally crash which killed Mark Lovell and Roger Freeman a few years ago... Damn, that was a rally cage, wasn't it?

He said what he did with some measure of confidence because, after all, in the final analysis his cage design DID save two people's lives. I'd say that was adequate.

Would the rally cage A pillar bars have helped? Possibly. But in his design the single A pillar tubes did not deform backwards sufficiently to allow the roof to crush, and honestly if you look at some of the A pillar triangulation bars out there I am not really sure they would have helped a whole lot. The B pillar tube which everyone piled on about failing and allowing the co drivers seat to be pushed to one side and twisted, well that could be debated till the earth's crust cools.

Then there was all the commotion about the driver having a halo seat but not the co driver. Maybe that was the co driver's choice? By the way, the deformation of that seat is one of the reasons that, when I get the bucks to buy one, I will be buying a Rage RG3 or similar head/neck support rather than the HANS type. I like the idea of the thing going with me rather than depending on the car's belts.

Co driver's helmet:

That's why I prefer fiberglass to poly. It cracked but did not come apart. The helmet was sacrificed to save his head.

Curmudgeon wrote: That's why I prefer fiberglass to poly. It cracked but did not come apart. The helmet was sacrificed to save his head.

An issue that should never be a problem as a properly designed cage should not allow intrusion into the cabin of a vehicle such that an occupants helmet is damaged. Nobody is saying that the cage wasn't put together properly (great welding), they are saying it was inadequately built. Did it meet the rules? Yes, which means PPHIC is also to blame. But he is also an arrogant dickbag as rally people SUGGESTED he build the cage slightly differently.

I strongly disagree with your stance on the cage did it's job. LUCK is not the cage doing it's job. They survived on luck, and luck alone. Mark Lovells cage was a freikin' decade old design (but it works as a nice strawman).

Some people are acting like this was a huge crash. Yes, it was fairly gnarly, but a tumbling crash like this is one of the best crashes you can have (energy dissipation) and the cage still folded like a freiking pretzel.

And beyond that, to be proud of that as an "engineer" as he so boasts? The rules for being called an engineer differ in Canada and the US (as far as I am aware, there ARE no rules down there), but his actions IMO would violate the Engineering Code of Ethics in Canada.

The guy is a toolbag, and no one should be encouraging or celebrating his oversized pompous ego that will put others in harms way.

HiTempguy wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: That's why I prefer fiberglass to poly. It cracked but did not come apart. The helmet was sacrificed to save his head.

An issue that should never be a problem as a properly designed cage should not allow intrusion into the cabin of a vehicle such that an occupants helmet is damaged. Nobody is saying that the cage wasn't put together properly (great welding), they are saying it was inadequately built. Did it meet the rules? Yes, which means PPHIC is also to blame. But he is also an arrogant dickbag as rally people SUGGESTED he build the cage slightly differently.

Do you really think that a cage of ANY design will NEVER allow intrusion?

HiTempguy wrote: I strongly disagree with your stance on the cage did it's job. LUCK is not the cage doing it's job. They survived on luck, and luck alone. Mark Lovells cage was a freikin' decade old design (but it works as a nice strawman).

Which brings me back to my original statement that yes changes will come of this. Since you are conversant with the incident, can you tell us what, if any, changes to cage design came about as a result of Lovell and Freeman's crash?

HiTempguy wrote: Some people are acting like this was a huge crash. Yes, it was fairly gnarly, but a tumbling crash like this is one of the best crashes you can have (energy dissipation) and the cage still folded like a freiking pretzel.

There is NO WAY to predict ALL possible outcomes or events for ANYTHING. The Magic 8 Ball will always say 'ask again later'. You are correct, the tumble is the best for energy dissipation. Yes the cage did bend. And yes after all that two guys still walked away. OBTW: 'crush structures' are built into cars for the express purpose of dissipating crash energy by.. wait for it... bending. So it could even be argued that the cage deforming may have contributed to their survival. (No, I'm not really supporting that theory, BTW.)

HiTempguy wrote: And beyond that, to be proud of that as an "engineer" as he so boasts? The rules for being called an engineer differ in Canada and the US (as far as I am aware, there ARE no rules down there), but his actions IMO would violate the Engineering Code of Ethics in Canada.

http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html

HiTempguy wrote: The guy is a toolbag, and no one should be encouraging or celebrating his oversized pompous ego that will put others in harms way.

Heh. I betcha had it been YOU that built the cage, you'd be proud two guys walked away and maybe you'd defend your design from the dreaded...

An FIA approved cage for an EVO:

You know what freaks me out about that one? No X or diagonal brace in the main hoop, only the 'tunnel brace'. Yeah, I know the rear diagonals add strength, but still... I also don't particularly like the lack of a 'bowed out' door bar. I realize this is not wheel to wheel, but smacking a tree or a rock would still present a helluva whack in the side, I'd feel better with a NA$CAR bar or similar.

Remains of an STi with a FIA rally cage:

Looks pretty deformed to me. But from what I understand (this happened in Hungary), this driver and co driver walked away, too.

EVO cage post crash;

Curmudgeon, this wasn't after-the-fact Monday morning quarterbacking. Both the builder and the driver were warned by experienced competitors that recognized the team's inexperience about the dangers and changes to their modus operandi that would be required to avoid this accident and reduce the risk should the accident occur.

And if I had built that cage I'd be horrified that it performed so poorly. Happy the occupants survived, but I'd be making changes for the next one immediately. Not stating it's better than a rally-style cage on the forums.

Also, on the topic of cage deformation. The cage SHOULD eventually deform. But it should spread that deformation throughout the structure. It should NOT deform heavily at one point. The collapsed Z-bend in the A-pillar is the standard example of "failure" that could be avoided by using a more modern cage design that originally came from rally cages.

Double check that line drawing of the EVO cage is still approved. I believe it was a homologated cage that has been dated out. That main hoop design has been illegal for years.

The FIA cookbook cage is a generally stronger cage design that can be adapted to any car, but at the penalty of a little weight.

Curmudgeon wrote: Heh. I betcha had it been YOU that built the cage, you'd be proud two guys walked away and maybe you'd defend your design from the dreaded...

Hey Curm, you know, what I like about GRM is that most people (most) know what they are talking about. This is a site for learning.

I may not be a cage builder, but I've been in and crashed in enough rally cars to know what does and does not work. I wasn't put in as the president of RallyWest (regional rally body of Western Canada sans BC) for my good looks I'd like to think. I've been around this block. I don't like pulling the "hey, look at me, wave my dick around card" but seriously, there are quite a few rally-folk on this forum.

Weirdly enough, never did I say intrusion shouldn't be allowed, but in pictures posted, the occupants HEAD IS OUTSIDE THE CAR. In a crash with no initial impact (typically the highest amount of force exerted) on the roof of the car. Same with I never said a car shouldn't crumple, OF COURSE it should. But if a car crumples enough to injure the occupants (or in this case, destroy their helmet), it didn't work. A proper cage WOULD HAVE prevented the intrusion that happened on this car. Jari Matti Latvala crashed his WRC car a couple of years ago in an EXTREMELY similiar incident. The car was even rebuildable the cage held up so well. Again, roll overs aren't nearly as bad as sudden impacts. In a rollover, I would want the cage to keep the car as non-deformed as possible for the exact reasons of the PPHIC crash.

YOU are the one (as far as I am concerned) talking out of your behind armchair quarterbacking, and it is not appreciated. There is a reason that cage would never be allowed in rallying, for this exact reason/scenario. FIA cages make do with what they can in side-impact protection due to the nature of crashing in rallying (middle of nowhere, if you are able to move, getting out of the vehicle is the number one priority, no jaws of life to save you out there).

As for your picture, who/where/when/what etc. It's all situational. Looks to me like there are a lot of trees around that car. In a case of sudden decel (tree), there is only so much that can be done. At some point, you have to accept that hitting a tree at speed is hard to stop. Rolling a car though? In comparison terms, it's nothing.

I can not tell you SPECIFICALLY what cage design changes were made, but I can tell you that significant updates to how cages are built (size of tubing, material of tubing, and additional bars) were phased in, specifically due to this (and one or two other) deaths in NA rallying in that time frame. Cage design changes between 2003 and 2008 were a monumental step forward in rallying cage safety in NA. It's why a car built after 200(1?) and before 200(7?) can not be logbooked without cage modifictions here in Canada, and usually the cage modifications are extensive enough to make it worthwhile to start a new cage.

Edit- Modernbeat explains it much better than I ever could have. The cage picture you posted, is not legal in RallyAmerica or CARS if it were built like that today.

Hi Temp, what you said is what I've been saying all along and was in fact stated in my OP on this subject. I did not, however, start wagging my schlong around right off the bat. That all started (EDIT:) elsewhere before the car even quit smoking.

I'm glad you see there is NO WAY to predict all possible outcomes of a given situation. That is what I meant by MMQB'ing, it's real easy to have 20/20 hindsight.

You are also 100% correct that this was NOT a rally legal cage. It was never presented as such. It did meet PPIHC standards or it would not have been allowed to run. Shpuld PPIHC change their standards? Quite possibly. Could the builder have done things differently? You bet. Would it have changed the outcome? That could be debated till the sun goes dark.

I am a firm believer in the saying 'pencils have erasers for a reason'. I also have been known more than once to go back and improve on something I have built and (time to wag my schlong, I guess) yes I do build cages. No I have never built a rally cage and I am nowhere near as experienced as the guys who do it for a living, but my stuff has passed SCCA and LeMons tech (and before you laugh at #2, go see what the specs are and perhaps you should go through that tech yourself before dismissing it out of hand). I have fixed other's poorly designed cages, gone back and added tubes etc to my own after reflection and also at the suggestion of others (ask Toyman). I think enough of my work that I trust my own life to it.

I'm gonna bore you for a minute with a little story; several years ago when I was still riding enduros and hare scrambles I bought a really nice Shoei helmet. I bought the one I did for several reasons, not the least of which was the eyeport design wich allowed me to better fit a large pair of goggles over my glasses. (Yeah, I'm blind as a damn bat without them.) At an enduro, I apexed a corner and got yanked off the bike, I could not see out of my right eye for a moment. Scared the bejeezus out of me, then I realized it was because my helmet was twisted on my head anf that had yanked the goggles over my eye. I then realized there was serious pressure on the left side of my head. (This all happened in the space of maybe 2 seconds.) That's when I discovered a small tree limb (maybe 1" in diameter) embedded between my helmet and my head. It had entered perfectly between my goggles and helmet, bit a small chunk of foam out of the goggles and embedded itself in the Styrofoam lining before it broke off of the tree. Didn't even break the skin, just had a small red spot on my left temple. Another inch to the right and I would not be here pissing you off with my inane ramblings.

I could easily say that the problem was due to the oversized eyeport. Nope, not true: it was a combination of random chance and piss poor line slection on the part of my rider.

That incident has made me realize that there is no possible way to predict anything and to think it can be done is ridiculous. We protect ourselves the best we can but still something we didn't expect can happen. That's why I save my MMQB'ing for myself.

modernbeat, that line drawing came from this thread:

http://forums.evolutionm.net/motor-sports/595975-evo-roll-cage-reference.html

and is presented as an FIA legal rally cage. There is no mention of it passing any other specs. If you look carefully at the STi picture, it appears this is the design used there.

EDIT: On a second examination, the main hoop of the STi does have an X brace, so no it is not exactly the same as the FIA cage line drawing I linked. It is much more like the .gif below but it still bowed pretty good.

There is a link there to a HUGE .pdf which is Ralliart Japan's homologation drawings for the Evo.

There is also a .gif animation of another 2008 Rally America approved (no mention of FIA) design which DOES have the dual diagonals. Hope it loads:

I notice that in this design the diagonals have been deleted from the backstays and there is no harness bar. That's two things I personally would want in a rally cage, along with the aforementioned 'bowed' or NASCAR door bars. I also prefer a one piece halo loop, it's easier to get headroom (particularly side headroom) that way.

And Hi Temp, as you say hell no I ain't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.

The great thing about that GIF is the lack of a steering wheel in the picture. Having built a couple of FIA cages, trying to make the additional A pillar support bar NOT intersect the steering wheel can be a challenge. I also don't really like the emphasis on rollover protection as opposed to side impact protection- no dash bar, straight side bars. I'm pretty sure there have been a number of rallyists done in by sliding into trees. I'm also sure you could park a D9 Cat on the roof of one, though.

It gets to a level where things start to require compromise. I drive a super late model stock car. Once I am in the seat, supported, belted, HANS'd, I can see nothing other than ahead and to the left, so we use spotters and radios. I'm safe as heck, with steel plate and tube surrounding me, but it would be nothing but carnage were I to hit a roadrace track with other cars around me.

I'd say the cage at Pikes did well, but the supplementals were a bit lacking. The codrivers head should have been contained better, and this would be a non-discussion.

Just for gits and shiggles, check out this cage design:

Cool car (powered by a Humber inline hemi 6 cyl) and appears to have been built by a Kiwi. Love the arm through the cage.

One note about this crash - it might have been a rollover, but it wasn't a gradual dissipation of energy as it would have been on a flatter surface. I'd rather roll across a field than smack a wall, but I'm not sure how I'd feel about rolling off a cliff of that magnitude. I could see both the corner and the final resting place of the car from where I was watching Pikes Peak, and that was a massive fall.

One thing I noticed was the passenger's seat. Check out the hole where it pulled out of the floor.

Doesn't look like there was much in the way of a backing plate. I'm guessing there was no back brace on that seat either, based on where it ended up.

I'm going to go have a closer look at my cage now.

It looks like neither seat had a back brace. If the seat is not firmly mounted to the car, the inertia generated by a ~175 pound body flopping around would put huge stresses on the seat and its attachment points. It looks almost as if the seat was bolted to a stock attachment point (weld nut) which pulled out of the floorpan. The reason I bring this up is, based on what I can see of the seat it appears to be a tubing frame design. You'd think it would fail before the floor pan, but it's hard to tell without actually examining it first hand.

Also, it's difficult to see how the drivers' harness attaches, but in the pic I posted taken from above you can see what looks like the passenger harness shoulder straps across what looks like a harness bar. If the seat can move inside the harnesses, it means the harness suddenly becomes slack just when it's most needed to be tight and that would go a long way toward explaining why his head was sticking out of the car. I know a lot of people don't like seat back braces (I've heard them referred to as 'spears') but here's a good example of why some sort of attachment at the rear is an excellent idea.

There's a lot of good discussion in the links that were provided on the previous page. I think the co-driver was especially lucky in this case, and think that these types of crashes should cause everyone to take another look at their safety equipment.

[MMQB] One other bit of gum flapping on my part: to me, the harness bar (if that's what it is) is too far behind the seats. Sure it may be accepted and pass tech etc but to me a long run of webbing like that is Not A Good Idea because of the amount of 'stretch' it has. That's not the only place I have seen that, I've seen more'n one SCCA legal cage done that way. [/MMQB]

Keith wrote: I'm going to go have a closer look at my cage now.

Keith, if you are going to revisit your cage, I'd suggest reading the entire 6-year thread on cage construction on Corner Carvers.

http://forums.corner-carvers.com/showthread.php?t=27556

There are a few vocal guys on the IT board that are dead set against back braces. I disagree, because I took physics in high school.

Curmudgeon wrote: [MMQB] One other bit of gum flapping on my part: to me, the harness bar (if that's what it is) is too far behind the seats. Sure it may be accepted and pass tech etc but to me a long run of webbing like that is Not A Good Idea because of the amount of 'stretch' it has. That's not the only place I have seen that, I've seen more'n one SCCA legal cage done that way. [/MMQB]

In support of that opinion is Hans and Schroth. They now recommend the shoulder harnesses straps be "As short as possibe". I pressed Gary Milgrom, a VP at Hans, about specific length recommendations and he wrote back less than 8", if possible. That is from the back of the Hans to the front of the harness bar or other attachment.

I would refer anyone interested in the latest published info and best in class safety restraint installation instructions to the document titled "IMIS Guide to Seatbelt Installation" at: Hans Device Tech

I am not in any business arrangement with Hans. I am an SFI licensed tech for RA and do NEFR and STPR. I also do tech at Mt Washington and NEHA events and I am Chief Scrutineer for RNY. I have been heavily influenced to look closely at safety harness issues and installation after extensive talks with Mike Hurst of RA and SFI and seeing a number of unreleased videos of tests involving simulated impacts with various improper harness installations.

In their installation literature, G Force says their harnesses can stretch up to 20% of total length in an impact. I'm guessing at 36" average length from harness bar to the buckle, meaning it can stretch up to 7.2". I would think other manufacturers have a similar allowance.

I am no materials engineer, but it seems improbable to me that the webbing would 'snap back' the full amount. Add to that an unbraced seat which could move an equal amount in the opposite direction, now you'd have about 10-14" of harness puddled up in your lap instead of keeping you strapped tight in the car. That could be a big part of why the co driver's head was outside the cage at one point.

Assuming harness material is like tow strap material, it will stretch and return. There's a bit of give - which isn't such a terrible thing when it comes to holding a body into place. I seem to recall 20% stretch being about right for two straps.

The fact that the seat was not attached to the car anymore was probably a major factor.