Camaro driver and navigator die in Silver State Classic crash

Very sad.

 

IIRC, didn't a Testarossa owner and his wife die in a tire-related failure at the same event years ago? As I remember it, they had the wrong speed-rated tire (but it was OEM, so it passed). Makes me wonder whether there's a tech-inspection issue. I assume all tires are checked for the correct ratings and wear, but sometimes stuff just happens.

CW

 

IIRC That TR incident was in 1989/1990, they had a VR-rated tires.

RIP to the Camaro driver& navigator.

 

You can have the proper tire, and still have troubles with road debris......R.I.P.

 

True, but I would assume that there are forerunners on this course, at the very least. Also, I should think that the course is checked for debris prior to the start. That's not to say that a car ahead of you can't drop some parts or knock some debris onto it, though. A reminder of the perils. A cut tire at 150+ can ruin your day, for sure...

CW

 

OEM cars are not meant to be raced. PERIOD. If you race an OEM car, you are a fool who is risking your life needlessly.

Most likely these two died not as a result of the crash itself, but from the fire.

That's why things like Nomex racing suits, fuel cells and fire suppression systems are must-have safety items in any serious form of racing. Not to mention a trained Fire Repsonse & Rescue Team standing by and available within moments of a wreck.

Hopefully people will learn something from this. But probably not. Frankly, I am surprised this kind of thing doesn't happen more often in these weekend warrior events.

 

Daijiro Inada had a really bad crash somewhere about 03' I want to say. Same thing. Tire blew out. He brought the speed down quite alot before the JUN/Option Z took a hard right and rolled about a dozen times.

I hope this does not get the lawyers out and shut it down. You can't do anything remotely dangerous/fun anymore in this country.

 

I think you have an excellent point.

However, this vehicle looks highly modified. It would be interesting if to find out if they had fuel cell or where the fire started from.

 

Your comment about fire and rescue team on stand by is impossible on the road/targa type events.

If you want to race your car, the race track is the best (and safest) place.

Why organisers keep wanting to run events off tracks and on closed public roads I don't honestly understand.

RIP ...
Pete

 

you party naked, you take you chances

 

+1

Just by viewing the pic provided, I see a bigger hood probably to fit the blower. Also I think it has a roll cage.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Yup, I was also entered in that event. The tires on the TR were old and I was told he was offered another set and refused them. Long, lurid skidmarks, a smoke plume and wreckage scattered about-surprised the driver survived(and later litigated everyone from Ferrari to Goodyear). Definately placed a damper on the event that year.

Many of the unlimited category entrants have all those things. Also, a pretty good safety/tech inspection. The entrants without additional safety gear are required to run much lower speeds. Just what would they learn? To purchase ultra high performance vehicles to use strictly as grocery getters?

Because they are fun. Very low fatality rate. Plenty of other things are more likely to kill you. Guess we can't mountain bike, ski or climb either as there are no safety nets?

 

According to the Ely Times, the Nye County Sherrif's Office put the speed of the Camaro at 200MPH when it crashed.

Do you really believe that a Camaro was engineered to operate anywhere close to that speed? Or that the car was engineered to allow a reasonable chance at survival for the occupants?

Get serious. A roll cage and few other safety goodies aren't going to magically transform a vehicle designed from the ground up to operate at traditional highway speeds into an F1 supercar. At that speed, a passenger car is nothing more than a rolling casket.

No to mention that the roads themselves were never designed to accommodate vehicles traveling at those speeds. At 200MPH on a public road, even the smallest mishap is guaranteed to result in death.

And your attempt to equate blasting down a public highway at 200MPH with peddling a bicycle is laughably ludicrous.

But make no mistake. If this kind of activity is "fun" to you, I have no desire to interfere with Darwin's Theory. Enjoy yourself. Tempt fate often enough and maybe you, too, will make the 1,000 Ways to Die highlight reel. I'm sure these two had a helluva good time right before the tire blew.

And I'm sure their wives and children are having a great time with it, too.

 

Infidel,

First, lighten up a bit. If people wish to "race" (your word) their cars on a closed road environment, that's their choice. If they don't have the equipment to do it, but do it anyway, that's also their choice. Many of these cars are designed and engineered (obviously) to do the speeds they're doing. Hot rodding perhaps takes them over that safety threshold, but, again, that's their choice. They assume the risk that stuff happens.

There are LOTS of variables that go into these crashes. And, as pointed out by ForzaV12, there is also a relatively low fatality rate. I'm not saying this is a good thing that happened, but if these events are organized and people want to drive in them, then that's their choice. You don't have to enter them. But, being openly hostile to the whole notion is a bit over the top. I'm sorry these people died, but they did it of their own actions. They, and their families, will have to accept that.

CW

 

RIP to the drivers.

High performance driving is a risk we all take. Limiting events to the racetrack will not prevent deaths - lots of people die at racetracks.
Better a closed-road event where those at risk have chosen to accept the risk than street racing or the stupid things we've all done when younger when other innocent lives are at risk.

With regards to tire failures....these things happen. A C&D test driver was killed back in the 90s under a highly-controlled test with a full safety team, proper tires, etc., when testing the Renntech SL600 & a tire failed at ~200mph.

I made my wife promise years ago to NEVER sue anyone if I died in a driving event. It's a risk I have chosen to take. Yet, according to the statistics, I have a greater chance of being killed on the highway during a normal commute.

Every time somebody is killed at a motorsports event there are things to be learned, and safety equipment gets better and better. It will never be 100% safe, nor will all deaths be preventable. Nor will we always be able to point blame - sometimes these things just happen. Nor should we rush to get rid of the events or assume that there's an inherent fault in how they are run. Speed = risk no matter how you cut it.

 

Firstly, as I have already stated, people are allowed to be stupid and suffer the consequences.

Secondly, there are exactly ZERO OEM domestic cars designed to operate at 200MPH.

Thirdly, there are exactly ZERO public highways in the US designed to accommodate cars operating at 200MPH.

Lastly, the idea of a "low fatality rate" is bunk. In reality, as a percentage of the number of people who actually participate in these events, the rate of death is substantial:

According to the people who run this particular race, only a couple of hundred people (+/-) participate in this race IN ALL SPEED CATEGORIES. Two of them died. That's a 1 in 100 chance at death.

But that number is misleading because we know that as speed increases, the chance at death increases exponentially.

This race typically only has a few cars compete in the 180MPH category. This year, only two cars competed. And two of the four people who competed died. 1 in 2 odds of death. And note that only two cars competed in this category in 2010, one of which was the car involved in this year's fatality. And only three cars competed in this category in 2009.

How are those odds sounding now? Still sounding like a "low fatality rate"?

By the way, your odds at dying in normal driving is 1 in 6,500 according to the National Safety Council.

 

uh, they've run the event for 19 years since the last fatality. I think that changes your statistics a bit.

How about this: YOU don't ever race these events. Let the rest of us who want to drive fast take the risk, and don't call us stupid when we die, but pay respect.

 

And "stupid is as stupid does."

There are acceptable levels of risk in racing, and their are unacceptable levels.

Virtually all forms of racing have rules designed to keep vehicles operating in what are acceptable levels based on both the skills of the drivers and the performance limits of the vehicles. That's why NASCAR runs restrictor plates. And that's why race organizers added chicanes to the Mulsanne straight at Le Mans (along with dozens of other course changes and vehicle requirements over the decades to improve the safety of the race.)

Running passenger vehicles at 200MPH on public road ways is not simply dangerous, it's suicidal. No passenger vehicle with a simple roll cage and handful of other safety goodies can be expected to survive a wreck at 200MPH. The drivers are going to die. Period.

And, as I have pointed out earlier, the fact is that, as a percentage of the cars that have participated in this extreme speed category in this race, the rate of death is high.

But let me be clear: I have no problem with the basic idea of this race. But there is a world of difference between the risks of operating a vehicle at 100MPH versus 200MPH. A tire blow out at 100MPH is damn dangerous, but probably survivable with a reasonable amount of safety gear installed. At 200MPH, it is a death sentence.

Fin.

 

No.

 

RIP to the participants.

Nick

 

I don't know if there are any domestic cars designed for 200mph+. The Saleen, maybe? The old Vectors? Anyone can shoehorn enough horsepower into a car to get there, I guess, but that doesn't necessarily mean the car's safety has also been upgraded. If you broaden the pool, though (and I don't know what purpose you had in narrowing it), an increasing number of vehicles are designed to reach and capable of reaching that speed. The F40, produced 20 years ago did 201mph, IIRC. But, the Mclaren F1 did FAR more than 201mph also almost 20 years ago. Our technology (safety, tires, etc.) have improved in those ~20 years. So have the roads. Losee found out in his Enzo that you can survive a crash at a very high rate of speed, btw.

I'm not going to argue that the roads were designed specifically to accommodate extended periods of 200mph+. They weren't, but I would argue that there are indeed stretches of long, straight and flat roads that could conceivably sustain those speeds safely. Indeed, the very fact that the event has run without major incident for such a long period is a testament to that point. It can be done. You can argue that it's going to happen, and when it does, you're probably correct that at those speeds, you're probably not going to walk away. But, I wouldn't necessarily argue that such an event is inherently unsafe. There is certainly the potential, however, for very, very bad outcomes.

But, as also noted by another, the fatality rate is still low, based on the fact that hundreds, if not thousands, of competitors over the years have completed their runs without incident. Track driving also has fatalities. As does street driving. With energy, there can be stiff penalties. Dispersing that energy becomes more challenging at higher velocities, due to the increase. I agree.

However, I'm unwilling to say that this event should be terminated, based on this single crash. Or any other high rate of speed event, for that matter. This is how we, as drivers, test ourselves in a (relatively) controlled environment. Personally, I wouldn't do this event given all the unknowns and unknowables, but even on the track, sometimes, we get an unpleasant surprise now and again, and where else can people test their own limits and the limits of their cars? I've seen arrogance, stupidity and excitement lead to disaster and changed lives. It happens, but I don't think we should attack the drivers as being "stupid". They may have been the most careful drivers and planners, but despite their best efforts things just didn't go as expected. Had they completed their run without incident, there'd be nothing to discuss, I suppose. Or, would you still feel they were "stupid"? Maybe just lucky?

CW

 

I think the point is, humans do all kinds of stupid things to prove themselves or get a thrill. Look at your chances of surviving Mt Everest.

Should we stop humans for doing stupid things? Where do you stop then? Who decides what is stupid and what is worthwhile?

The drivers of this race car knew the risks. Surely, they didn't want this outcome but nobody forced them into the car and told them to do 200 mph.

This is a freedom of choice issue for me. Yes, they may have lost their lives in a way that could have been prevented. Maybe it could have had better equipment. But few cars are built to survive a roll over crash at 200 mph. If you get into a car and do that, you know the risk you're taking.