Air Fence Safety Performance - Research?

[Elephantman]

So they are compulsory. Thought so.

In the absence of the independent testing data, let's try this. Which would you prefer. Being pushed headfirst into a solid or mesh fence, or an air fence. You decide.(said in a Sunderland accent).

1. They are only compulsory for FIM events not all Speedway Events

2. The BSPA have decided that all UK tracks must have them (some of these promoters may or may not have a financial interest in selling air fences)

3. All tracks are different

4. Safety is not "one size fits all"

5. At some tracks other forms of safety fence will be safer than Air Fences

6. The Air Fences have not been independently tested and (as far as I am aware) do not meet any EU (or any other) safety standards

7. There have been a number of incidents where the way air fences have been installed has led to injury to riders, that is because:

7a There has been no independent testing to verify in what circumstances the Air Fences will improve safety

7b There has been little consideration of how they should be fitted; so at some tracks they have been installed in a dangerous manner

 

The development of Air Fences has been trial and error; undoubtedly at some tracks they have improved safety but at others they have not and have and will in future exacerbate injury.

 

Safety is too important for the cavalier approach of trial and error.

 

And by the way there are many different forms of mesh fence some patently safer than Air Fences. So I'll make my decision based on the independent scientific testing please...... oh sorry there isn't any!

Edited December 5, 2013 by Elephantman

[f-s-p]

8. They lose their FIM homologation stamp after 5 years of use. After an inspection they can be given two years more. After seven years it's for the bin.

[FTM]

Iv,e read with much interest the pro,s and con,s from many fans about the Air Fences but IMO there is one major design fault with the instillation of all fences .I was trackman at Coventry when they were first introduced although they were trialled the latter part of the year before .I think if there was a trench dug the width of the air bag about 2 feet deep around the edge of the fence the full length of both bends( the bags have their height increased by two feet to allow them to be within the FIM rule book) if the bags are then secured in the trench below the surface of the track I honestly don,t believe we would have had so many serious injuries in the time since they were introduced .The main cause of injuries is as most fans acknowledge the bag lifting and rider following bike under fence if the bike hits the bag halfway up the side there is no reason for it to lift.I saw Chris Louis get his serious leg injuries at Coventry when he hit the Stock Car gate cos his bike lifted the fence ,he went straight into the bottom girder on the gate which is obviously heavy duty to resist impacts from Cars.We never had anywhere near as many serious injuries when we had the wooden fence in situe.The Cov fixing is IMO one of the best in the country because we have the Armco barrier and eyelets are screwed into this and metal cables run through the eyelet loops tightened both ends of the corners and all the bags have strong fabric loops and clips fitted to this cable. It has consistently passed the FIM and British League speedway,s inspection but because they sit on top of the track surface a bike going at 60mph + is always going to kick it up hence the Chris Louis and latterly Chris Holder injuries.As a comedic end to just to enforce how much they should be fixed down when we were setting them up the first ever season we had a fair length of bags connected together on the top bend but not fixed down and the wind started to pick up, before we could get from the pits to the bend we lost 12 bags over the top corner of the track ,dog track fence and corner of the stand we had to hire a cherry picker to get two back from up a large tree needless to say we fixed everything down after that one at a time.

Edited December 6, 2013 by FTM

[Elephantman]

Great post FTM. That is why you cannot go on people's opinions you must always act on facts.

 

If their is a known installation flaw with these fences, that mean the potential for injury is increased, then somebody can be found liable for the riders injuries. Speedway is inherently dangerous but if you know of anything that has the potential to increase the risks and you are the person responsible for safety; then you are duty bound to do whatever you can to eliminate the cause of that increased risk.

 

I wonder if the BSPA has considered their legal responsibilities before they issued this edict?

 

I wonder who will/is getting sued for poorly fitted Air Fences; it has to be happening somewhere?

[iris123]

Great post FTM. That is why you cannot go on people's opinions you must always act on facts.

 

 

 

I wonder who will/is getting sued for poorly fitted Air Fences; it has to be happening somewhere?

So can you point us to the facts that air fences are dangerous or aren't better than what was there previously?And also if you only deal in facts,please point us to the lawsuit(s)

[Boobs]

When my partner was (much) younger he rode his motor-bike on the roads without a crash helmet.

 

When the law was changed to make helmets compulsory, he tells me there were traditionalists who argued against this law.

 

It is obvious the change was desirable, however much the Luddites claimed things would be better left alone.

 

Same with fences. You know they make sense.

[Elephantman]

When my partner was (much) younger he rode his motor-bike on the roads without a crash helmet.

 

When the law was changed to make helmets compulsory, he tells me there were traditionalists who argued against this law.

 

It is obvious the change was desirable, however much the Luddites claimed things would be better left alone.

 

Same with fences. You know they make sense.

So can you point us to the facts that air fences are dangerous or aren't better than what was there previously?And also if you only deal in facts,please point us to the lawsuit(s)

The arrogance of both your posts is quite astonishing. I don't have a problem with the concept of Air Fences whatsoever; I do have a problem that they have not been correctly tested and there appears to be a haphazard methodology for installation. You have a post from a member of the track staff highlighting just one of the issues and you totally ignore the points that are made.

 

So you sit back with your smug complacency and lets all hope that some rider doesn't suffer worse injuries because of poor design and installation of these fences. I do apologise if taking safety seriously causes you people a problem. Speedway truly is made up of the blind leading the blind!

Edited December 6, 2013 by Elephantman

[Vince]

When my partner was (much) younger he rode his motor-bike on the roads without a crash helmet.

 

When the law was changed to make helmets compulsory, he tells me there were traditionalists who argued against this law.

 

It is obvious the change was desirable, however much the Luddites claimed things would be better left alone.

 

Same with fences. You know they make sense

 

Being old I can remember the helmet law coming in, what I can't remember are examples of riders being badly hurt because they were wearing them rather than the previously accepted safety equipment. That argument could only hold water if there were previously no fences in place. The arguments against introducing helmets were all based on individual freedom, there was never any dispute about them being safer.

However riders like Chris Holder and Luke Priest are there as examples that all is not right with the air fence and both would very likely have received far less serious injuries with a solid or mesh fence. To my mind there is absolutely no doubt that in the majority of cases an air fence provides increased safety for riders, however there are also circumstances where other fences are likely to be at least as safe and quite likely better. Air fences at their best are brilliant, poorly installed they can be bloody dangerous.

[hydrobob]

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned. "risk compensation". Stirling Moss has some interesting things to say about this in his views on modern F1 grand prix racing. In a nutshell; reduce the consequences of a mistake and a complacency sets in that results in more risk taking with the result that you have ended up back at square one. I have had motorcycle get offs before and after the helmet law, only difference was with a helmet I was going a hell of a lot faster.

[Tsunami]

The new fence at Newcastle has straps over the top to the back of the fence, and held onto the existing mesh fence. Similarly, there is straps at the bottom, under the fence and the mesh fence, and again fastened to the original mesh fence. There is a substantial rubber kick board to cover the bottom edge of the fence, and behind that a solid rubber triangular bung to stop riders going under the fence. The original 16in wood kick boards are to remain to give extra support and stiffness to the fence. All gaps between the panel will be covered by a wide velcro strip to maintain the panels adjacent to each other.

[skthecat]

The only sure fire way to prevent a rider/bike going under the airfence is to bury the bottom 6-8 inches under ground, however, a severe impact on the airfence by a bike, rider, bike and rider will drag force the bottom of the fence out of the ground, and if the bike hits the fence first, the rider if at track level WILL go under it.. or the other rider/s & bike/s will slide under.....

I don't think that issue will ever be avoided just by securing the fence differently/burying the bottom.

What needs doing is placing something at track level, possibly burying below track level as well that will take the secondary impact from a bike/s/rider/s.... behind the airfence but in front of the stock car or old fence, something that will absorb the impact. I don't at the moment have an idea, but there has to be a cheap, no, cost effective way of doing this.. I imagine it needs to be say at least 6 inches below track level and around 14/16 inches above the track level, it would need to be like stiff memory foam, and be around 8 inches thick, it would also need to be seamless or be joined in such a way, it would not come apart at the joins.. it would also need to be flame/fire resistant and not melt.... I have no idea where it would be available from or what the material is, but it needs to be found.... Imagine it would be like having airfence and rubber kickboard then a really stiff mattress part buried behind the airfence in front of the old fence.... especially if its motorway barrier type fencing.....

Wish I could post a diagram/drawing as it looks better than it sounds......

[FTM]

The only sure fire way to prevent a rider/bike going under the airfence is to bury the bottom 6-8 inches under ground, however, a severe impact on the airfence by a bike, rider, bike and rider will drag force the bottom of the fence out of the ground, and if the bike hits the fence first, the rider if at track level WILL go under it.. or the other rider/s & bike/s will slide under.....

I don't think that issue will ever be avoided just by securing the fence differently/burying the bottom.

What needs doing is placing something at track level, possibly burying below track level as well that will take the secondary impact from a bike/s/rider/s.... behind the airfence but in front of the stock car or old fence, something that will absorb the impact. I don't at the moment have an idea, but there has to be a cheap, no, cost effective way of doing this.. I imagine it needs to be say at least 6 inches below track level and around 14/16 inches above the track level, it would need to be like stiff memory foam, and be around 8 inches thick, it would also need to be seamless or be joined in such a way, it would not come apart at the joins.. it would also need to be flame/fire resistant and not melt.... I have no idea where it would be available from or what the material is, but it needs to be found.... Imagine it would be like having airfence and rubber kickboard then a really stiff mattress part buried behind the airfence in front of the old fence.... especially if its motorway barrier type fencing.....

Wish I could post a diagram/drawing as it looks better than it sounds......

I understand what you are suggesting but I don,t think there is a need for extra materials as long as the bags are fastened securely below ground level the bag will take the impact approximately 2 to 3 feet up on the front face which IMO will negate the bag lifting up out of the trench .There maybe a small problem of the bike bouncing away from the fence but no more than normal .as always safety is paramount and to negate injuries to riders the assembly crew must be A one in their building of the fence unfortunately this is not always the case as you don,t have enough time or manpower to change over from dogs/stock cars bangers etc etc to Speedway.I don,t know how Doc Bridgett works his miracles at Wolves cos I think they still run dogs Mon afternoon before Speedway at night If you ever read this forum Doc could you enlighten me and others .

Cheers Mick C

[Elephantman]

The very fact that people with some experience are talking about the best way to install these things sums up the problem. The manufacturers and BSPA/FIM et al should be in a position to instruct users how to safely install them. But they can't, because they don't know, due to the fact these fences have not been independently and thoroughly tested.

 

The approach to such a key safety item is staggering and borders on negligent!

[Tsunami]

The very fact that people with some experience are talking about the best way to install these things sums up the problem. The manufacturers and BSPA/FIM et al should be in a position to instruct users how to safely install them. But they can't, because they don't know, due to the fact these fences have not been independently and thoroughly tested.

 

The approach to such a key safety item is staggering and borders on negligent!

In only your opinion.

 

Manufacturers have examined the circumstances and adapted to the requirement. Given the fastenings I mentioned in my previous posting, it would be self explanatory as to how to fasten them to the mesh fence. The approach might be 'staggering and bordering on negligent' only to you, but you ignore the upgrading based on experience and the natural process of evolution. End OF.

[Alan_Jones]

To anyone that's come into this thread with big ideas and no research, please have a look at the following before making yourselves look sillier than you already are;

 

http://www.airfence.com/airfencespeedwayorig_safest.html

 

http://www.airfence.com/pdf/as.pdf

 

http://www.championproducts.info/TIBS_Manual_for_FIM_2.pdf

 

http://www.championproducts.info/Polyfoam_Brochure.pdf

[Tsunami]

To anyone that's come into this thread with big ideas and no research, please have a look at the following before making yourselves look sillier than you already are;

 

http://www.airfence.com/airfencespeedwayorig_safest.html

 

http://www.airfence.com/pdf/as.pdf

 

http://www.championproducts.info/TIBS_Manual_for_FIM_2.pdf

 

http://www.championproducts.info/Polyfoam_Brochure.pdf

Thanks for all that. Nite Nite, Elephantman.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Tsunami

[Elephantman]

Thanks for all that. Nite Nite, Elephantman.

You really are unbelievable; manufacturers webs sites full of marketing bull rubbish and your convinced. Having read all of this my points are still all valid. Why do you have such an interest in ensuring discussion about safety is suppressed?

 

No independent verification or testing!

[SCB]

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned. "risk compensation". Stirling Moss has some interesting things to say about this in his views on modern F1 grand prix racing. In a nutshell; reduce the consequences of a mistake and a complacency sets in that results in more risk taking with the result that you have ended up back at square one. I have had motorcycle get offs before and after the helmet law, only difference was with a helmet I was going a hell of a lot faster.

thats the same theory that says remove air bags from cars bad out metal spikes on the steering wheels.

 

Spikes for steering wheels!!

[bartlett]

You really are unbelievable; manufacturers webs sites full of marketing bull rubbish and your convinced. Having read all of this my points are still all valid. Why do you have such an interest in ensuring discussion about safety is suppressed?

 

No independent verification or testing!

Champion Products barriers were independently verified and tested by MIRA (Motor Industries Research Association), who are an independent testing research centre, with facilities to test anything from motor cars, motorcycles and trains to aviation and defence. All testing was done under supervision of FIM Inspectorate. If you go to www.championproducts.info the testing videos are there for all to see. To quote Tsunami "Nite nite elephantman"

[The White Knight]

thats the same theory that says remove air bags from cars bad out metal spikes on the steering wheels.

 

Spikes for steering wheels!!

 

 

Now THAT could cause a prickly problem. :rofl: