Race Safety Innovations

RSI Update
Friday May 13 2011
Since the last update on the Sprint Car safety project, Danny Martin Jr. has been on a winning streak that is unchallenged nationwide.

Read all News

2009-2010 Sprint Car Safety Project

By Keith L. Grant; Race Safety Innovations 3/10/10

Part 1; Section 1; The Foundation of a Comprehensive Cockpit Safety System

The goals and objectives of Part 1 of our Sprint Car Safety Project focus specifically on cockpit and driver safety concerns that have plagued sprint car and open wheel racing for years. Many well intentioned individuals have attempted to make changes to targeted cockpit safety concerns throughout the years with limited results. However; to be truly effective, cockpit safety has to be treated as one complete and comprehensive system for any type of race car or similar vehicle.

With the help of our technical associates and safety equipment project partners, we intend to show new products and improved methods to address age old problems with innovative ideas and common sense solutions that can be adapted to any type of sprint car.

There have been many articles written about seat and restraint harness belt installation in race cars by many racing sources. We are confident that the team that we have assembled for this project will provide accurate and practical information on all of these topics for racers, tech officials, promoters and emergency responders alike. A common goal is to provide guidance for implementation to insure compliance and enforcement in realistic and manageable terms.

Follow along as we discuss a brief summary of racing safety history, current safety equipment mandate debates and technical issues in Section 1. Section 2 of this article will provide you with new information and installation pictures of a new and improved method to mount a ButlerBuilt full containment racing seat and a Hooker Harness ratchet restraint system in Doug Shaw's new Safer Design sprint car chassis.

How the recent motorsports safety revolution began

Racing safety has always been a hot topic among professionals who earn a living at driving fast. They need to have the best equipment available in order to return week after week, crash after crash in order to collect a handsome paycheck. The prestige and stardom that accompanies most of these professional athletes doesn't hurt either. Racers are extremely competitive by nature and are to say at the least; adrenaline junkies. They also can't afford to get hurt.

The stories and deeds of dedicated pioneers in motorsports safety throughout the years to overcome numerous evolutionary motorsports safety problems have brought the sport to where we are today. But as the sport changed and the speeds increased, so did the needs of an industry becoming increasingly complacent or slow to react towards driver and competitor safety. The racing industry seemed to reach a plateau and became unresponsive in many arenas much to the distaste of emergency responders who have grown increasingly frustrated with this problem, yet tasked with the grim and thankless job anyway.

Triggered by the death of Dale Earnhardt Sr. in 2001 and culminating with others before him, NASCAR began a lengthy program of evaluating cockpit safety improvements with seat and restraint manufacturers alike soon thereafter. This program included construction methods, installation, and post crash analysis among other concerns to improve driver survivability and injury reduction in a racing accident.

Other forms of motorsports also took notice of NASCAR's latest actions and began evaluating their own needs and ways to address them as well. NASCAR's efforts and results in concert with private industry and safety gurus would soon be felt throughout the motorsports racing community. Stock car racing was not alone in the need to step up the safety requirements throughout the industry. The trickle down effect would inevitably help the sportsman and weekend warrior racers worldwide as well.

Jeff Van Dusen (the first driver of the #24 Shaw chassis) already owned a fairly new ButlerBuilt full containment seat for this new ride. So we contacted ButlerBuilt Professional Seat Systems to continue working with us on this project. ButlerBuilt has been an industry leader for many years protecting drivers in all types of motorsports with their innovative seat designs and cockpit safety equipment.

Jeff Van Dusen started driving for the #24 team in 2009 and helped us develop this program. Jeff said at one time that it was the most comfortable and responsive sprint car he had ever driven. Despite new team start up issues, the #24 team was competitive right out of the box. In 2010, Jeff moved on to other endeavors and Danny "Hammer" Martin took over the controls. Danny has racked up several wins early in the season and is rapidly adapting to the new chassis style with similar compliments about its design. He is also committed to continuing with this safety project with the rest of the Shaw Racing #24 Team.

Oddly enough, it was also ButlerBuilt that had designed a new full containment prototype seat that was installed in NASCAR Sprint Cup driver Jeff Burton's car for that same fateful 2001 Daytona 500 race. At that time, Jeff Burton was considered a leading force in driver safety and continues to do so today. While many dismissed his overprotective concerns in driver safety at the start, his initial designs with ButlerBuilt are the standard today with many seat builders and have reduced serious injuries and saved many a life because of it. Thanks for your diligence and concern for others Mr. Burton.

To begin with ... How safe is too safe?

Some will argue that mandating "excessive" requirements in any section of racing, including safety, may force financially strapped semi pro teams or less expensive sportsman racers and series to leave the sport or "downgrade" to a lower division because of the additional rules and associated compliance costs. Others will say that we can never make racing safe enough, no matter what the costs are while many others are afraid of over regulation or government interference in the sport.

Proactive sanctioning bodies are aware of this problem and do the best they can within their own limitations, but finding a balance between "safe enough" and "too safe" as some allude to is difficult at best with adequate financial backing in a good economy. Racers must be diligent about their own personal safety and not totally rely on others to implement or police safety regulations or standards.

Add to that the increasing demands of insurance companies, regulatory and municipal concerns (and fees) and industry demands; it's no wonder most average racers, promoters and track owners are finding it increasingly difficult to stay in business in today's economy. We must always remember that while we consider this a sport with all its bells, whistles and competitive challenges; we are in the entertainment business, period. That's still difficult for many to accept to this day.

But, we must also provide safe products and venues for fans and participants alike while attempting to turn a profit for the owners who give us a place to sell our wares, compete fairly and safely while entertaining our fans (and having a little fun) at the same time. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

Safety improvements should never be viewed as a bad thing when comparing acknowledged risks to documented benefits. However, the associated costs may indeed add to the struggles or demise of many underfunded teams, organizations and/or race facilities that fail to plan or fund accordingly.

The flip side of this argument is that throughout racing history, improvements in safety equipment have also produced more reliable and purpose built equipment for many racing applications with a direct relationship to the automotive, industrial and commercial markets and products worldwide. Racing has always been a proving ground for new and innovative performance products and safety equipment, training and venue operations are no different.

Equipment failures and accidents that may have adversely affected drivers and participants in one arena may have proved beneficial to many others once positive and corrective changes were made. The key is to finding a proper balance between the two which takes determination, compromise and hard work for all involved with a cause and effect plan and analysis to justify costs and rewards.

Racers should look to their series officials, local emergency responders and industry safety experts for guidance and by offering their assistance in matters of equipment, operations and facility safety as well. Mandating additional safety equipment helps to increase the level of protection for all drivers but at the same time is also used repeatedly as a scapegoat for other financial constraints or regulatory gripes and complaints from competitors, owners and race officials. What's the tradeoff?

The SFI Foundation is a voluntary manufacturer and motorsports membership organization that uses industrial and equipment standards to develop specific guidelines to which specified safety equipment is recommended, developed and certified by their respective manufacturers. Equipment that carries the SFI label has successfully completed the industry based evaluation, testing and certification process for the particular product specification along with the SFI licensing requirements to do so.

As new technology becomes available or industry needs change, SFI periodically reevaluates all of the specifications with industry leaders to make changes needed to maintain and/or improve the performance of the products. Controversy between product manufacturers, changing industry needs and decision makers may also mandate revisiting a specification to tweak it where needed, but the intent is to make the products as safe and as efficient as possible for the rigors of racing demands.

Our responsibility

Racers have to be very cognizant of the safety of the fans who come to watch us race for their enjoyment as well as their fellow competitors. There is a level of responsibility that we must all accept to enjoy this sport to its fullest. To simply say; "That's racing ... they knew the risks!" is not acceptable in many courts of law in liability, insurance and negligence cases in today's litigious society whether they signed the commonly used liability waiver at the pit gate or grandstands or not.

If you know the inherent and openly acknowledged risks of auto racing and choose to endanger your life by not properly protecting yourself; that's your business. But; if you know the risks and choose to willfully endanger someone else's life by your actions or inactions; that decision is commonly referred to as willful negligence. That's a criminal offense in addition to just plain and sheer stupidity.

Industry standards also play a key role in insurance ratings and liability costs. To simply play ignorant and take a stance of "We've done it that way for 30 years with no major injuries or deaths" is just like playing Russian roulette. Murphy's Law is always a factor in racing and sooner or later, everyone's luck runs out. Be prepared for it and don't role the dice every time you race or open the gates.

Here's what we have been doing at RSI and Shaw Racing to help address these topics for the future.

A strong chassis is imperative to vehicle integrity in a crash

Sprint Car chassis design was developed many years ago when open wheel roadsters were a big part of Indy Car Racing. Modeled from early open cockpit designs from Europe in LeMans and Formula 1 type race events, the cars allowed the driver's torso to be exposed from the waist up with no roll cages or true seats and restraint harnesses for many years. Some old timers would say that only "real men" could race these cars and because of this tough guy attitude, many of them ended up as statistics as well. Numerous drivers and spectators lost their lives during those early years of open wheel racing because of the lack of safety equipment and industry knowledge at that time.

Indianapolis type race cars saw this problem unfolding as history shows when they made the switch from front engine cars to rear engine cars. As these cars evolved and speeds increased, so did the need for improved safety equipment and better chassis and cockpit designs. When the Indy Racing League was first formed in 1996, they started the series with many older chassis with varying levels of chassis design that needed a fresh footprint and foundation in order to move ahead for the series future.

That started a series of evolutionary changes beginning in 1997 to include new modular cockpit tubs and chassis designs, safer seats and restraint upgrades, improved fueling systems and suspension changes, pre-designed crush zones and so on. The track safety program was also upgraded to a professional traveling team to better aid the drivers in safety preparation, race operations and serious accidents. These and other changes were immediately reviewed and adopted by many sanctioning bodies as the wave of the future in motorsports safety for good reason and continue to this day.

The evolution of the original sprint car chassis designs came from increased needs for better chassis, roll cages to protect drivers from crush injuries in accidents, better seats, safety harnesses, fuel cells, suspension components, tires and wheels and so on. What has not progressed in sprint car racing as rapidly as other forms of racing, are many of the recent safety concerns for overall driver protection that seem to have fallen by the wayside or at least to the back of many competitors' and racing official's minds. Status quo is still prevalent in this type of racing to many.

Current chassis manufacturers must be vigilant to provide a sturdy cage structure and not sacrifice strength for lightweight tubing changes to insure that the driver's compartment is fully supported. The cage must protect the driver in the types of accidents commonplace in sprint car or open wheel racing regardless of weight concerns and lightweight tubing options.

But, the chassis is also part of a competitive vehicle that has to be reliable and perform as designed under varying race conditions. To combine the needs of predictable performance and driver safety into a complicated maze of aircraft grade chromoly tubing, suspension and drive train mounting points can be a daunting challenge to say the least.

Once again, we are talking about a comprehensive cockpit safety system to truly protect the driver in open wheel racing types of accidents. Just like a house; it all starts with the solid foundation or in this case, the race car chassis.

Shaw Racing Products

Doug Shaw has been building sprint cars and open wheel racers for over 30 years with great success in many parts of the country. His chassis, like many other chassis builders, have been built around a standard design that goes back at least 40 years with many new tweaks and changes to make this "old school" race car platform design perform even better.

What has not changed is the wheel to wheel contact that occurs at every race track around the world where these open wheel demons compete. They still jump wheels, tumble and roll and spin wildly out of control in an accident to the delight of many fans. Weird but true.

Follow closely as we show you how we made the 2010 Shaw Racing chassis safer for racers everywhere.


2010 chassis under construction with arrows pointing to key changes to cockpit safety changes

Note the diagonals and multiple methods of reinforcement in Doug Shaw's new Safer Design 2010 coil over sprint car chassis. Pay particular attention to the changes made in this 4130 chromoly chassis to the seat frame and lap belt anchor area and new additions to the A-frame lateral bar reinforcement that sets this chassis apart from others. These are just a few new updates taken from the first Safer Design 2009 chassis that have made a great difference in overall stability and safety for the driver in general without compromising performance and adjustability of the suspension.


Before and after painting views of A-bar and seat frame modifications

Note the added lateral mid bar to the A-frame to reinforce the torsional twisting forces of the chassis into that area. This A-frame is a common part in all sprint car chassis and is the main rear support for the seat and structural rear cockpit uprights. Based on previous experience, we felt that this was an area that could use additional support in an accident. You can also see where we added inner seat rails to the lower seat frame that our new design lower seat belt anchors are welded to.

We feel that these changes, among others, are a big reason why this chassis is a Safer Design in the improvements and evolution of a better and more comprehensive sprint car chassis cockpit safety system.

Let's begin with the ins and outs of a sprint car racing seat

First and foremost, a driver's racing seat has to be comfortable to allow the driver to perform at their full ability and capacity during any race, short or long. The seat has to be both comfortable and able to absorb any crash impact and keep the driver in a safe and protected environment to reduce injury potential.

Recent industry changes and new SFI seat specs now standardize testing methods of strength and performance requirements for two types of stock car racing seats where adopted by sanctioning bodies. Many changes have occurred over the last 5 years or so pertaining to the integration of full containment seats into the sprint car community. Change can be a difficult thing to accept especially in motorsports unless a performance gain can be realized and seats are no exception.

At this time, sprint car seats have not been incorporated into any particular SFI seat spec, so each manufacturer markets their sprint car seats according to their in-house design, engineering and testing with direction from open wheel racers, industry officials and chassis builders alike.

SFI Spec 39.1 and 39.2, Sec 2.1 states;

"A Stock Car Type Racing Seat (standard or custom) assembly is used to secure the user within a stock car racing vehicle with the objective of minimizing injury to the driver during accident conditions and of supporting the driver safety during normal racing activity".

While that statement is specific to these stock car racing seat specs, it also applies to ALL racing seats in ANY type of racing vehicle. It must also be noted that while SFI 39.1 and 39.2 seat specs were introduced to SFI by stock car racing organizations to develop construction and performance criteria specific to their individual needs and applications, ANY racing organization or sanctioning body may adopt them, make changes to or create their own specification for their specific needs according to SFI requirements.

The performance of the "spec" seats is now measured by specific industry driven strength and performance test criteria developed with SFI oversight that all manufacturers have to follow in order to market SFI approved products. That seems to have leveled the playing field a bit with manufacturer's claims even as all SFI specs are constantly being evaluated periodically to stay abreast of the industry needs and changes.

Aluminum seats have been the mainstay of racing seat construction for many years because of their predictable strength and ability to control impact loads during an accident. Weight has always been an issue with sprint car racers especially with their seat style or "high" weight issues mainly because of their upright design. Previously, many lightweight sprint car racing seats were mass produced with little or no custom design, strength or performance requirements and were flimsy in construction. That is now changing for the better especially where minimum weight rules are established negating the need for the costly high tech lightweight components to gain that "edge" over the competition.

To clear the air from the onset; there are several dedicated seat builders in the industry who build quality aluminum racing seats for many types of race cars. Most racers use specific products and have worked with a favorite seat manufacturer for years.

Drivers don't like to switch manufacturers unless a major safety problem occurs or a new innovation peaks their curiosity to encourage them to change brands for their benefit.

These seat builders also have their individual strengths and weaknesses. Since SFI has now instituted these 2 new seat specs; 39.1 and 39.2 with a third spec under development, many of these individual design weaknesses have been exposed and now reduced with engineered performance criteria contained in these "spec" seats.

This has taken some of the marketing fodder from the masses but not the innovation required to meet these specs. It has also driven up some of the costs associated with these seats as a result of most compliance requirements and in many instances, has also increased the physical size of these seats to meet these requirements. That change has posed challenging issues within the racing community presently because of the radical changes needed to accommodate these new "spec" seats in current chassis designs, depending on the specific seat or chassis manufacturer.

Over the last 10 years or so, composite seats designs were taken from IRL chassis development and built to compete with the aluminum seats with varying results depending on manufacturer designs. There are pros and cons to both types of seat construction and performance so the buyer needs to do their homework on vehicle requirements, proper seat measurement and fit, manufacturer design differences, crash data info and specifics relevant to their racing needs before buying.

Suffice it to say that composite seats are here to stay and will get better in design and should become more affordable as time goes on, but they will always come at a higher cost to the average racer. Progress and innovation are inevitable especially in motorsports and composites are a huge part of current motorsports components.

Full containment seats have also been proven on several occasions to provide additional protection against cockpit intrusion from outside forces in an accident. Although not intended for that purpose, full containment seats have reduced many serious driver injuries by blocking errant suspension parts or other potentially damaging contact from other vehicles, barriers or fences from entering the cockpit area.

While cage nets have been used for years to contain a driver's upper body and head inside the main cage in the event of an accident; they provide little protection from outside physical intrusion forces into the cockpit area. Full containment seats of today's design almost eliminate the need for these cage nets if properly built and installed correctly in conjunction with a good restraint system, head and neck system and proper driver personal protective equipment including arm restraints.

Full Containment Seat Concerns

Because of the demand for safer sprint car seats, ButlerBuilt was one of the first racing seat manufacturers to take a stock car style full containment seat and adapt it to sprint car and midget race cars at drivers' requests. Their initial designs placed a larger NASCAR style impact head surround and shoulder support on the right side of the seat with a smaller head surround and shoulder support on the left side for ease of driver cockpit egress and access while still giving adequate support where needed.

These new head surrounds and shoulder supports would soon allow many drivers to discontinue using the cage nets so prevalent in the past to control head and body movement within the cockpit in a crash as proven in many sled tests. However, some drivers still use cage or window nets as an added measure of safety based on their own individual choices or sanctioning body requirements.

To be fair to other seat builders in the industry, many of these other companies have also taken a similar approach to building full containment seats and have their own designs and a very loyal racer following. Unfortunately, the seat business is very competitive and racers need to be fully aware of the pros and cons of any manufacturer products, especially pertaining to safety equipment.

Some of the valid safety concerns recognized by many but not truly addressed in the development of the full containment seats were;

Visibility is limited out the right side of the race car.
How does a driver get out of the seat and car quickly in a fire?
How does the track safety team get a driver out who is injured?
How does a driver get out of these new seats if the car is upside down after an accident?
If the car is driver side down or driver side against the wall, some drivers could not get out the right side of the car because of the big head surround on the right side.
The Head and Neck systems make it difficult to get out of current full containment seats.

A troubling problem also uncovered that is apparent across the board with most racing seat problems is with improper seat mounting installation methods, even by motorsports professionals. That is a consistent concern in all of motorsports today by sportsman racers and professional teams alike.

These concerns are in addition to the never ending complaints by unhappy users about how big and heavy some of these seats are; restriction of arm movement with these seats in a sprint car, limited egress, cost and so on. What many racers don't or won't take into consideration is their own physical size, conditioning and health limitations which contribute to some or all of these seat "problems". Instead, they blame their equipment for many of these cockpit egress issues. That is a difficult topic for a seat manufacturer to address with severely overweight or extremely tall drivers in small race car cockpits, especially sprint cars and midgets.

In 2002, I contacted Brian Butler about some of these seat issues in stock car racing especially. We began working together by making improvements to the new style seat structure to accommodate track rescue team extrication needs as these new seats were evolving into mainstream stock car racing and beyond. Each new seat built had some type of improvement built into it to make it better than the last. The learning curve was steep and fast for us all by thinking proactively.

This time frame was during sled testing and seat development long before dedicated Safer Barriers, COT programs, composite seat structures and the introduction of numerous Head and Neck Systems that dot the market today. This time frame was also before extensive research and development centers were constructed and/or utilized in several communities to understand the mechanics of these safety concerns in many forms of motorsports.

Fast forward to today and to how these full containment stock car style seats have infiltrated sprint car and other forms of open wheel racing. Some of the earlier problems with seat construction have improved, but overall nagging cockpit safety problems have merely been moved around in some forms of open wheel racing. A certain amount of apathy exists in this type of racing that in this day and age should be eliminated or at least reduced. We have the technology and ability to do so.

When Murphy's Law rears its ugly head ... Accidents happen

Weight has always been an issue with sprint cars as many divisions have no minimum weight rule. The standard rule in racing is that light is fast. Critical fasteners and locations are drilled and lightened and titanium is used in many key safety areas. Seats have been an after thought for many years by many.

Some of the stories of the past had drivers using fiberglass kitchen chairs, plastic drag racing style seats and in many case, no seat at all! IRL chassis used little or no padding for a driver's seat as recent as the late 90's and many drag racers still use little or no "real" seat even today.

Sounds crazy right? Yep and in many areas, it still continues to some extent where safety rules are not taken seriously or enforced. Ignorance is not bliss in these circumstances. It can also be deadly.

One of the biggest problems to overcome is the fact that most racers think they are invincible. Some drivers think that since they have never been hurt badly in the big wrecks they have been in over the years, they never will be. Or "the new guy needs this fancy equipment, not me". "My stuff has been good for 20 years, so why change now?" "You guys just cost me more money with this new safety crap." Sound familiar? Arrogance cannot be cured, but simple ignorance can be reversed with basic education.

The few that will spend more money for better safety equipment or demand safety improvements are the ones who usually have been hurt in prior accidents with inadequate equipment or lack of a good safety program and now understand the value of it now more than ever.

Because of the nature of open wheel race cars ability to make wheel to wheel contact and flip often in these types of accidents, driver extrication issues are a serious concern by many track safety officials. The mechanism of injury and violent acceleration and deceleration loads imposed on a driver's body can be devastating during these flips, rolls and sudden stops that are often considered a "normal" result of open wheel racing crashes and accidents. Some consider these accidents "crowd pleasers".

A 1994 Society of Automotive Engineers technical report of a 1992 Illinois dirt track accident concluded that current restraint system technology was primarily designed to protect the driver in frontal impacts and not during X-axis rollover incidents. We still see those types of crashes and impacts at race tracks across the country because of the dynamics involved especially in dirt racing.

But; have we really improved overall driver safety in this area industry wide since that 1994 SAE report? Have new seats fixed all of our other problems? Be honest with your answers.

Add to the fact that open wheel cars often end up resting on their roofs with the driver hanging upside down, fuel may be spilling from broken fuel lines or punctured fuel bladders, there may be intrusion into the cockpit area from damaged vehicle components, etc. Also adding insult to injury is that open wheel race cars often become entangled in poorly constructed catch fences, get vaulted out of the racing arena or may be one of many cars trapped or piled up in a wreck just to complicate the situation.

All of these potentially serious conditions can tax the abilities of track safety crews to extricate a driver from this type of commonplace accident at the race track. Many track crews and safety officials have pushed and lobbied safety officials and equipment manufacturers to produce removable racing seats to make it easier to extricate the driver if a serious injury may have occurred after an accident.

Why not make seats removable for driver rescue?

This concept is contrary to the seat design goals in that in order to keep the seat in a secure position to do its job properly, it must be securely mounted in the vehicle. Installing quick disconnect pins or mounts that can be easily accessed by the track safety crew is unrealistic in many opinions due to the impact loads and mechanism of injury potentials that distort the chassis, roll cage, seat and driver compartment in a serious wreck. It is an issue that has been thought and rethought many times over.

All those impact loads are transferred into and through the driver's body during this process but can be reduced with the proper equipment and safety systems in place. Making seats easily removable could speed up driver extrication time by track safety crews but is not a good option to prevent or reduce serious injuries from occurring with a properly secured seat and restraint system in the first place.

In addition, the driver still needs to be separated from the damaged seat for proper immobilization on a backboard and stretcher once they are removed from the vehicle, a difficult task sometimes even by experienced rescuers. This option truly would not be the end all solution as many have touted in the past to speed up driver extrication.

Track safety crews must become familiar with the types of vehicles and safety equipment they will be overseeing and responsible for. Emergency response training must be ongoing to keep crews fresh and knowledgeable of the requirements of motorsports fire/rescue response. Promoters, sanctioning bodies and track safety crews must be proactive with their emergency action plans and resources and not simply react with poor judgment and kneejerk reactions to every incident they come across on race day.

Because of the slow integration of these full containment seats into sprint car and open wheel racing, track safety crews have been very vocal about the initial accidents that were occurring with drivers using these new seats. That resulted in various rescue tools and extrication methods being developed to make this access easier for safety teams and safer for drivers while still maintaining the integrity and strength of full containment racing seats during normal use.

While working with ButlerBuilt on many of these problems, I developed a tool called the ZipFlex™ Wire Rescue Saw. The ZipFlex™ Wire Rescue Saw was designed to quickly remove the impact foam in the seat head surrounds to allow faster access to the driver by the track safety crew in this instance without the initial need of powered rescue tools.

ZipKits™ were then developed to be pre-installed during new seat assembly or as an aftermarket retrofit as we did with Jeff's seat in these pictures and have been successful in many types of race vehicles and seats.

The SFI Foundation has acknowledged that the need for proper track rescue procedures and training are vital for timely and safe driver extrication demands. SFI has also acknowledged the ZipFlex™ Wire Rescue Saw as one of the tools used for track safety crews in their Incident Response Training Program. Contact SFI at www.sfifoundation.com for details about this training program.

Other sanctioning bodies have undertaken similar training programs for track rescue teams with limited success. Larger organizations such as NASCAR, NHRA, IRL and others have developed internal training programs for their series officials and teams, but the trickle down effect to smaller tracks and responders has not been as effective and accessible as is needed.

The National Fire Protection Association in conjunction with racing and industry officials nationwide developed a standard entitled NFPA 610; Guide for Emergency and Safety Operations at Motorsports Venues. This recommendation details many aspects of motorsports safety for all types of facilities with many of the above goals in mind we have detailed. Contact the NFPA at www.nfpa.org for details.

I hope you stayed with us as we just covered a vast amount of material in record time. I know there is a lot of material to understand and absorb and we just touched the tip of the iceberg with this summary. Maybe that's why few have taken on the task of tackling a project as big as this. We did, so hang on as we continue with Section 2 of Part 1 of our project.

Section 2 details our 8 point seat mounting system with colorful pictures and provides more information and directions on restraint systems and new chassis and cockpit mounting changes for a Safer Design of sprint car.

Go to Section 2