Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
Elephantman

Air Fence Safety Performance - Research?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by THE DEAN MACHINE
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

 

FFS

 

In this one response you display the total ignorance of the topic you are commenting on! Quit now while you're behind.

 

 

 

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.

 

Absolutely correct; but the "common sense" brigade don't wish to question or understand anything other than, "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".

 

The level of complacency of those who are arguing that air fences must be safer just because they are softer is quite staggering. What is needed is real research not biased opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

This is why at many car racing circuits they have tyres behind the initial safety barrier that give when hit that then reduce the speed of impact. With ref to solid posts etc behind the airfence they should still be covered as they used to be before the introduction of the air fences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this one response you display the total ignorance of the topic you are commenting on! Quit now while you're behind.

 

 

 

Absolutely correct; but the "common sense" brigade don't wish to question or understand anything other than, "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".

 

The level of complacency of those who are arguing that air fences must be safer just because they are softer is quite staggering. What is needed is real research not biased opinion.

 

Are you for real

 

The whole point of an air fence is slow the impact. I know that, you know that, a child of two knows that.

 

If the impact isn't slowed and dispersed elsewhere then it is transferred to the body.

 

Now why are you struggling to understand that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Are you for real

 

The whole point of an air fence is slow the impact. I know that, you know that, a child of two knows that.

 

If the impact isn't slowed and dispersed elsewhere then it is transferred to the body.

 

Now why are you struggling to understand that

 

Why are you struggling to understand that there is no proof that they are any safer than some traditional speedway fences? Or have you a financial interest in flogging them? It is astonishing that people like you do not question the research behind safety products.... to use your abbreviation FFS its staggering!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why are you struggling to understand that there is no proof that they are any safer than some traditional speedway fences? Or have you a financial interest in flogging them? It is astonishing that people like you do not question the research behind safety products.... to use your abbreviation FFS its staggering!

yes there is proof every rider that has slammed into all sorts of fences . They are used at some tracks in road racing and they spend millions on testing them. Car racing is total different as cars are fitted with crumple zones into the chassis .bikes dont have that luxury .the research behind these fences is done in the only way you can with racing and thats to test them in real situations. When the airfence first came out the were fitted on the straights aswell but it was found that it sucked the bike into the fence going down the straight but it only happened a couple of times.please explain how that would of been found out without actually being used in a race. Of the 1000s of serious crashes that have happend with the air fence only the lifting of the fence has shown to be at fault and that is being addressed. car manufactures spend millions on car safety and reinacting crashes but after all that money and testing there is still accidents that happen in the real world that they did not and could not see happening because in crashes not two accidents react the same but they learn from . There is no better testing ground than the real world but we have a great product and every rider agrees its a major step forward in safety. After seeing jason garrity's horrific crash at sheffield i believe an airfence inffront of the current fence would of prevented his broken leg. The so called safe fence snapped his front wheel rim in half ,what chance did a bone have Edited by THE DEAN MACHINE
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy