UK Karting - Notice Board (2-Stroke Karting) : Re: Zip nose cone, MSA obliged to implement risk p

Notice Board (2-Stroke Karting)

Re: Zip nose cone, MSA obliged to implement risk p
Posted by 'SimonS' on 25 Nov 2009 @ 10:54

| View Message Thread | Reply to this message |

SimonSJoined: December 2004
Total Posts: 4
[ View User Profile ]

The problem is that without access to the incident reports, it is impossible to say whether the incidents are actually due to the involvement of the Zip nosecone.

With the obvious popularity of that nosecone, there is a good chance that any accident will involve a kart with that kind of nosecone fitted.

It doesn't follow that the Zip nosecone is the cause of those accidents.

During the year there was an outbreak of karts (Junior Blue) flipping at one track. This, we were told required action.

However, at other tracks it is common for accidents in another class (Rotax) to invove karts flipping. Indeed, one might say that one has a better than 50% chance of any red flag at any track will involve Rotax. This apparently does not require action, perhaps in part because more than 50% of karts are some variety of Rotax and partly because it is often obvious that the cause of the flip is driver action, not kart design.

We have had a large number of cadets taking up karting and it only requires a very small number to have the wrong idea to push the accident statistics up. It might simply be that the numbers on the track willing to push into a corner has gone up and tipped the speed from 'not ride over' to 'ride over'. This is why it is necessary to be sure that it is the nosecone design that is causing incidents and not these other factors.

The answer might be that cadets need some extra training, because their assumptions about what is or isn't acceptable are wrong. After all, most of us have heard a parent encouraging their driver to 'push the driver in front out of the way' and there is a lot of advice about the need to take risks going into corners. Cadets are not known for their high levels of risk assessment in certain circumstances.

The downside of a management plan of an assumed risk is that it can be applied elsewhere. If 50% of accidents involve one type of engine for example , then is that engine a clear risk or is it that the incidents will continue to occur, unless the real cause of the problem is addressed.

This isn't to say that the Zip nosecone isn't dangerous, but one needs to be sure before demanding that it is outlawed by 'risk assessment' of the wrong factors. After all, we would look silly if the proposed testing showed that it was there was no difference between Zip noses and blunt noses.

Message Thread:

Zip nose cone, MSA obliged to implement risk plan? by 'cadet1608' (24 Nov 2009 @ 23:23)

Re: Zip nose cone, MSA obliged to implement risk p by 'RoadRat' (25 Nov 2009 @ 9:46)

Re: Zip nose cone, MSA obliged to implement risk p by 'SimonS' << You are here!

Re: Zip nose cone, MSA obliged to implement risk p by 'RoadRat' (25 Nov 2009 @ 11:04)

Re: Zip nose cone, MSA obliged to implement risk p by 'jofabby' (25 Nov 2009 @ 12:08)

Re: Zip nose cone, MSA obliged to implement risk p by 'cadet1608' (25 Nov 2009 @ 13:26)

rules..... by 'HC64' (26 Nov 2009 @ 17:00)

Re: Zip nose cone, MSA obliged to implement risk p by 'SimonS' (26 Nov 2009 @ 18:34)

Re: Zip nose cone, MSA obliged to implement risk p by 'RoadRat' (26 Nov 2009 @ 18:56)

Post a Reply:

You may post a direct reply to this message which will appear in this thread.
To post a new or unrelated message use This Form. Top of Page
Notice Board Index

[ UK Karting Main Index ]


News	Karts & Karting	Notice Board	Market Place	Companies Directory	Tracks Directory	Events Calendar	Race Results	Photo Gallery	Links