Air Fence Safety Performance - Research?

[Guest]

VERY well put Sir.

 

There should be NO compromise on Rider Safety. The Sport is very dangerous and anything that can reasonably reduce the chances of serious injury to Riders, or for that matter Spectators should be considered.

 

Yes, it's those both sides of the safety fence who have to be considered. A well put comment.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Guest

[DunRobin]

But are today's injuries caused by the air fences? All the riders say that the new silencers are causing problems when you have to shut off the throttle in the bends & can never be sure when the drive will be restored, when opening the throttle up again & then suddenly kicks in giving too much drive. There also seems to be a lot of accidents in the GP's this year & many seem to be from ruts in the temporary tracks. If you think of it Ward, Woffy & Sajvutinov all have had bad falls in the GP's & I can't remember where Holder got his injury. A lot of injuries involving the top riders.

[The White Knight]

The majority once believed the world was flat; they were wrong! I don't know if you and your fellow riders are wrong or right and actually should I really be that worried it will not ruin my day either way. However if in 10 years time the empirical evidence shows that there are more serious injuries than in the last ten years where do you go from there? A good idea need to have proof that it is a good idea particularly where safety is concerned; I still cannot find any proof!

 

Chris Holder is ALL the PROOF that I need. Had he not slid under the Air Fence and hit the fence behind he would NOT be in the state he is in now. How the Air Fence is anchored though is a different argument which needs to be looked at. The Air Fence WOULD have saved Chris a lot of trouble had his Bike not 'lifted' the fence so that he came in contact with, as I say, the Fence behind.

[Tsunami]

Yes, it's those both sides of the safety fence who have to be considered. A well put comment.

 

In one of my many roles I was fortunate to see a folio showing the tests that one company has carried out on their type of airfence, that they are currently trying to sell to promotions. There are substantial photos of crash test dummies(good name for a group that) being rammed into the fence at a given speed with photos from behind, above and from the side. Speed of impact is calibrated and the effects of the impact photographed. In particular, they carried out the same impacts to the velcro overlap between two panels to show that the joint was not a weakpoint, but as strong at the panel all over. One problem recently has been the weakness whereby the rider, and/or the bike, gets lodged under the actually panel and was unable to get out unaided. Their design has a new feature in the form of a solid rubber wedge behind the kickboard flap, and this will prevent the problem. There are numerous grades of plastic material, all of which will do the job, but Newcastle are going to purchase theirs with the top quality as you would expect. So it would seem that there is a lot of research been carried out and well chronicled. Like the aforementioned solid rubber wedge, actually usage is also being used to try and enhance and improve the qualities to give the riders the best protection.

An announcement is expected very soon.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Tsunami

[Jonny the spud]

 

 

The majority once believed the world was flat; they were wrong! I don't know if you and your fellow riders are wrong or right and actually should I really be that worried it will not ruin my day either way. However if in 10 years time the empirical evidence shows that there are more serious injuries than in the last ten years where do you go from there? A good idea need to have proof that it is a good idea particularly where safety is concerned; I still cannot find any proof!

 

Elephantman. Just a quick question. Have you ever raced speedway ?

[Byker Biker]

In one of my many roles I was fortunate to see a folio showing the tests that one company has carried out on their type of airfence, that they are currently trying to sell to promotions. There are substantial photos of crash test dummies(good name for a group that) being rammed into the fence at a given speed with photos from behind, above and from the side. Speed of impact is calibrated and the effects of the impact photographed. In particular, they carried out the same impacts to the velcro overlap between two panels to show that the joint was not a weakpoint, but as strong at the panel all over. One problem recently has been the weakness whereby the ride, and/or the bike, gets lodged under the actually panel and was unable to get out unaided. Their design has a new feature in the form of a solid rubber wedge behind the kickboard flap, and this will pretend the problem. There are numerous grades of plastic material, all of which will do the job, but Newcastle are going to purchase theirs with the top quality as you would expect. So it would seem that there is a lot of research been carried out and well chronicled. Like the aforementioned solid rubber wedge, actually usage is also being used to try and enhance and improve the qualities to give the riders the best protection.

An announcement is expected very soon.

 

What speeds were those tests carried out at please Dave?

[Tsunami]

What speeds were those tests carried out at please Dave?

 

I really don't remember, BB. They were set up to simulate a rider hitting the barrier flat and upright at racing speed.

[Elephantman]

 

 

Elephantman. Just a quick question. Have you ever raced speedway ?

 

No is the short answer but a number of my good friends did. I don't quite understand why my questioning of safety standards and request for verifiable proof should cause such angst with some posters. In most other walks of life this research would have been conducted in an objective way prior to any implementation of the solution. It is clear from the lack of responses that this has not been done, although I do note Tsunami's comments; however there is a difference between a manufacturer conducting tests as part of their production/marketing effort compared to an independent test by an accredited safety organisation. I'm just a bit astonished, I guess, as safety is so important.

[oldace]

No is the short answer but a number of my good friends did. I don't quite understand why my questioning of safety standards and request for verifiable proof should cause such angst with some posters. In most other walks of life this research would have been conducted in an objective way prior to any implementation of the solution. It is clear from the lack of responses that this has not been done, although I do note Tsunami's comments; however there is a difference between a manufacturer conducting tests as part of their production/marketing effort compared to an independent test by an accredited safety organisation. I'm just a bit astonished, I guess, as safety is so important.

 

I can only assume you are on a wind up.

 

Absolutely no one in their right mind could question the safety of a "softer" landing area over a solid one in the event of impact.

 

Have a look round the swings in a public park or any school yard. Even on the streets you find scaffold tube now covered with foam.

 

Plain old common sense can be research enough in some cases

[Elephantman]

 

 

I can only assume you are on a wind up.

 

Absolutely no one in their right mind could question the safety of a "softer" landing area over a solid one in the event of impact.

 

Have a look round the swings in a public park or any school yard. Even on the streets you find scaffold tube now covered with foam.

 

Plain old common sense can be research enough in some cases

 

You really have missed the point and you nicely display why common sense isn't that common. In most walks of life anything to do with safety you test, test and test again, release the results and then implement. On the basis of your argument fluffy pillows would be better than air bags; what matters is how the fence absorbs the impact and captures the rider and bike; if you don't know the answers then don't comment.

[Vince]

I can only assume you are on a wind up.

 

Absolutely no one in their right mind could question the safety of a "softer" landing area over a solid one in the event of impact.

 

Have a look round the swings in a public park or any school yard. Even on the streets you find scaffold tube now covered with foam.

 

Plain old common sense can be research enough in some cases

 

Then the endless millions spent on researching road safety has been wasted when all they had to do was use common sense and surround the cars with foam rather than sophisticated crumple zones.

 

Crash helmets are clearly the wrong way to go, common sense dictates that they should be air filled soft bags rather than a hard shell designed to reduce impact by collapsing.

 

I still think it is fair to question whether air or foam fences are actually safer than the best collapsible fences already in use. Quite obviously at tracks where a collapsible fence isn't an option then a properly installed air fence is many times better than a solid wall but that isn't the case at every track and some tracks already have excellent fences and may be replacing them with something that will be worse.

[oldace]

Then the endless millions spent on researching road safety has been wasted when all they had to do was use common sense and surround the cars with foam rather than sophisticated crumple zones.

 

Crash helmets are clearly the wrong way to go, common sense dictates that they should be air filled soft bags rather than a hard shell designed to reduce impact by collapsing.

 

I still think it is fair to question whether air or foam fences are actually safer than the best collapsible fences already in use. Quite obviously at tracks where a collapsible fence isn't an option then a properly installed air fence is many times better than a solid wall but that isn't the case at every track and some tracks already have excellent fences and may be replacing them with something that will be worse.

 

Air fences are in essence, crumple zones, it is exactly what they do.

 

Are they better than a collapsible fence. Well Ipswich had one of those and it was safe enough to finish Mark Lorams career

 

Of course there are still issues with the securing of the air fences, issues which to date have inflicted multiple injuries to riders but a properly functioning air fence, for certain, would be the safest using technology as it is today

[Blackadder]

I know that rider safety is paramount, but take the case of Sheffield, where their safety record is as good as anyones and better than most. On the basis of an apparently non-existent directive from the FIM they could be required to install an APD, close or change to Sundays. No-one knows what effect that would have on attendances. I don't think they have access to the track until 4.00pm on Thursdays, so they would have until about 6.45 to get everything out from storage and installed ready for the referee's inspection. It would all then have to be removed after each meeting. Would storage be an extra charge on the rental? There are also labour costs. As a new fence would not bring extra people through the turnstiles, the cost will have to be taken by the promotion and/or riders' points money decreased. Sheffield have had a terrible season for injuries, but not one of them happened at Sheffield. The source of the instruction to install APDs and the effect it could have on UK tracks is still puzzling.

[Elephantman]

I know that rider safety is paramount, but take the case of Sheffield, where their safety record is as good as anyones and better than most. On the basis of an apparently non-existent directive from the FIM they could be required to install an APD, close or change to Sundays. No-one knows what effect that would have on attendances. I don't think they have access to the track until 4.00pm on Thursdays, so they would have until about 6.45 to get everything out from storage and installed ready for the referee's inspection. It would all then have to be removed after each meeting. Would storage be an extra charge on the rental? There are also labour costs. As a new fence would not bring extra people through the turnstiles, the cost will have to be taken by the promotion and/or riders' points money decreased. Sheffield have had a terrible season for injuries, but not one of them happened at Sheffield. The source of the instruction to install APDs and the effect it could have on UK tracks is still puzzling.

 

Good points well made; but you really are not allowed to questions these things; common sense isn't it! Wasn't Simon Stead's dreadful injury this year caused by his bike bouncing off an air fence?

[bartlett]

No is the short answer but a number of my good friends did. I don't quite understand why my questioning of safety standards and request for verifiable proof should cause such angst with some posters. In most other walks of life this research would have been conducted in an objective way prior to any implementation of the solution. It is clear from the lack of responses that this has not been done, although I do note Tsunami's comments; however there is a difference between a manufacturer conducting tests as part of their production/marketing effort compared to an independent test by an accredited safety organisation. I'm just a bit astonished, I guess, as safety is so important.

The testing was done by an accredited safety organisation, no other than MIRA (Motor Industry Research Assocation) under the watchful eye of a representative from the FIM.

[THE DEAN MACHINE]

I know that rider safety is paramount, but take the case of Sheffield, where their safety record is as good as anyones and better than most. On the basis of an apparently non-existent directive from the FIM they could be required to install an APD, close or change to Sundays. No-one knows what effect that would have on attendances. I don't think they have access to the track until 4.00pm on Thursdays, so they would have until about 6.45 to get everything out from storage and installed ready for the referee's inspection. It would all then have to be removed after each meeting. Would storage be an extra charge on the rental? There are also labour costs. As a new fence would not bring extra people through the turnstiles, the cost will have to be taken by the promotion and/or riders' points money decreased. Sheffield have had a terrible season for injuries, but not one of them happened at Sheffield. The source of the instruction to install APDs and the effect it could have on UK tracks is still puzzling.

sheffield's safety record is nothing to do with the fence it the shape of the track. You dont hit the fence straight on you hit it along it ,it was the same sort of thing at exeter and that was a steel fence but you didnt hit it straight on and yes i have ploughed into sheffields fence aswell and it didnt save me from injury. The fence didnt give an inch so something had to absorb the impact and that was me .an airfence would of taken most of if not all of the impact. Riders crashing is testing .its work in progress . you cant test properly for racing incidents no matter how much money you throw at it .there will always be that one crash where a one in a million chance happend. I dont like using the" you have never raced a speedway bike " but when you have hit an metal/wood/mesh fence it bloody hurts and i have to say there have been a couple of times ive crashed into an airfence and it hurt very little .airfences a massive step forward in safety

if you know me i very against pointless things being used in speedway like dirt deflectors and oil catchers etc and im very vocal about it but the airfence is a godsend for speedway and i know the SRA tried to push through airfence 5years ago at every level so the riders are all united on this .also there is a helmet on the market that you put on loose and then inflate to fit .Adam Mckinna used one at buxton this year. The only real way to test is to put it in real situations and that is whats been done yes it has floors and they need to be addressed but the airfence has been a excelent step forward and to read some promoters saying "my track dosent need them" and then to go to try to justify why is really sad

Edited October 8, 2013 by THE DEAN MACHINE

[horneymikh]

 

 

You don't need to be hit by a car to be killed when riding a bike. You can fall of a bike at very slow speed, hit the back of your head on concrete and be killed. It may not happen often, but it happens. Wearing a helmet will vastly reduce the chances of that happening.

 

I agree with this, March this year I had a freak accident on my mountain bike where the pedal snapped at high speed. Result was me smashing the back of my head into the concrete, i'm sure i'd either be dead or seriously injured without the helmet.

[oldace]

to read some promoters saying "my track dosent need them" and then to go to try to justify why is really sad

 

Spot on. I could argue that Ford Mondeos don't need seatbelts because so far I have never had an accident in mine where it save me from injury.

 

It is much the same as Machin arguing that an air fence isn't necessary at Sheffield because so far no one has been killed by the lack of one

[Humphrey Appleby]

Absolutely no one in their right mind could question the safety of a "softer" landing area over a solid one in the event of impact.

 

It's actually more to do with slowing the speed of impact at a rate that reduces the chances of injury. Soft substances of course tend to do that better than hard surfaces, but you could hit something soft and injure yourselves if it stops you abruptly.

[oldace]

It's actually more to do with slowing the speed of impact at a rate that reduces the chances of injury. Soft substances of course tend to do that better than hard surfaces, but you could hit something soft and injure yourselves if it stops you abruptly.

 

Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

FFS