http://www.njsp.org/news/pr091708.html

from what the report says, he drank A beer, if i understood that right !!

If I read that right, it was the ESPN boom truck that caused most of the damage.....

ESPN might wanna call their attorney.

from what the report says, he drank A beer, if i understood that right !!



Driver Toxicology
Post mortem toxicological analysis of blood obtained from Scott Kalitta during his autopsy revealed the presence of Ethanol at a level of 23 mg/dL. This level converts to a BAC percentage of .02% BAC. This level, 25% of the legal limit for intoxication in the State of New Jersey, remains in violation of NHRA rules (Section 1.7, I., B.1.) as well as N.J.S.A. Title 13 Chapter 62 New Jersey State Motor Vehicle Racetrack Regulations.

.

.

I'm surprised that in a forum full of gear heads that everyone is focused on the minute level of alcohol found in his system rather than on the mechanical failures in his equipment that led to his death. :confused:

Dave

I surprised that in a forum full of gear heads that everyone is focused on the minute level of alcohol found in his system rather than on the mechanical failures in his equipment that led to his death. :confused:

Dave

with all due respect,that is only an assumption on your part.
I only posted what was written in the article,which is factual
Ethanol is not alcohol either

The mechanical failure is the issue...

The FAILURE to properly contain the vehicle at the end is the issue.

with all due respect,that is only an assumption on your part.
I only posted what was written in the article,which is factual
Ethanol is not alcohol either

The mechanical failure is the issue...

I don't believe my comments singled your response out from the others, and what I said was based on observation, not assumption. The first response to the start of this thread went straight to the subject of the alcohol level in his blood. Another post jokingly commented on the level of alcohol, and has since been edited to remove the original comments. And in your post, although I believe it was intended to clarify the facts on the alcohol subject, you also focused only on the issue of alcohol (BAC refers to Blood Alcohol Level) with no explanation or amplification offered to indicate your intent.

Respectfully,
Dave

The FAILURE to properly contain the vehicle at the end is the issue.

For almost a half of a mile?

Speed, engine failure resulting in an explosion, brakes, chute not deploying, fire, engine still running, car leaving ground, going airborne and to the right striking pole that supports net, etc.
A TERRIBLE Freak accident with many contributing factors. :(

Respectfully,
John R.

The FAILURE to properly contain the vehicle at the end is the issue.
The mechanical failure that caused the vehicle not to be able to be properly contained at the end it is the real issue.

from what the report says, he drank A beer, if i understood that right !!


He could have had two beers, but that had absolutely NO effect on the engine exploding, starting the initial event, going through the traps.


Respectfully,
John R.

I don't believe my comments singled your response out from the others, and what I said was based on observation, not assumption. The first response to the start of this thread went straight to the subject of the alcohol level in his blood. Another post jokingly commented on the level of alcohol, and has since been edited to remove the original comments. And in your post, although I believe it was intended to clarify the facts on the alcohol subject, you also focused only on the issue of alcohol (BAC refers to Blood Alcohol Level) with no explanation or amplification offered to indicate your intent.

Respectfully,
Dave

Dave that was my post that was edited out and with all due respect I think you missed my point. What I meant was the amount of alcochol in his system could have come from mouthwash. I guess I should have explained myself better but erased it instead. This in my opinion was a terrible accident and alcohol would have played no part in it.

Dave that was my post that was edited out and with all due respect I think you missed my point. What I meant was the amount of alcochol in his system could have come from mouthwash. I guess I should have explained myself better but erased it instead. This in my opinion was a terrible accident and alcohol would have played no part in it.

Peace.

Dave that was my post that was edited out and with all due respect I think you missed my point. What I meant was the amount of alcochol in his system could have come from mouthwash. I guess I should have explained myself better but erased it instead. This in my opinion was a terrible accident and alcohol would have played no part in it.


Who consumes (drinks) mouthwash? :confused:

Respectfully,
John R.

Who consumes (drinks) mouthwash? :confused:

Respectfully,
John R.

Kids in high school that want to get drunk in school but can't find anyone to buy for them ;) Never had to stoop that low in life, but I know some who have.

Jeff

Kids in high school that want to get drunk in school but can't find anyone to buy for them ;) Never had to stoop that low in life, but I know some who have.

Jeff


Okay, Jeff, please allow me to rephrase. :cool:

Why would Scott Kallita consume (drink) mouthwash?

Respectfully,
John R.

Ever concider that it was a residual level.

With respect to all posts so far, this only confirms what most of us already knew. It was a freak accident caused by an engine failure. That does not mean that the NHRA should take corrective steps to lessen the probability of a catastrophic crash. In my opinion, the mention of alcohol is more of a a legal requirement and will probably exempt the NHRA from any responsibility.

I read the book "Fuel and Guts" which documents the birth and evolution of racers using Nitro Methane. Scott was a modern day version of the pioneers of this dangerous form of racing. It is still dangerous even though safety has evolved a 100 fold.

My heart goes out to the family of Scott....terrible loss....but let's keep this all in perspective....he was doing what he loved. I love driving my 40 year old car but should someone cut me off at 60 MPH leading to my rollover ...I will probably not survive. That is a risk I take and accept. Scott was no different.

It will be interesting to see how the NHRA handle the report. I am not a risk assessment expert but I bet TV cranes and lifts will need to be out of "line of fire" . I also predict that hard stop objects in the containment area will need crash absorbers. Part of my day job is that of a safety professional leader for a medium sized company. All accidents are reviewed and conditions are evaluated.

Probably the most important part of a risk assessment is the "Line of Fire " test. In order to reduce risk all blunt impact probabilities in the line of fire must be removed or protected where the car will travel in or out of control. Obviously a car could fail off the line and pole vault into the stands at 1/8 track. That is part of a risk assessment, the probability of that terrible event happening. That is how sanctioning bodies like NHRA establish boundaries.Crashes are part of racing but not when the racers are hurt or killed like that of Scott's.

Anyway, the report although interesting was most disturbing as it showed that Scott was trying to stop the car. Hopefully the great loss will make a safer world for all of us racers.

Okay, Jeff, please allow me to rephrase. :cool:

Why would Scott Kallita consume (drink) mouthwash?

Respectfully,
John R.

Bad choice of words. Even if you RINSE your mouth with alcohol based mouthwash, it will show if you blow. I think we are all on the same page. Alcohol played no factor

I think we all also agree that it was a "perfect storm" of things going wrong at the same time, a freak accident. The odds of something like that happening again are astronomical. GO BACK TO 1320' NHRA!!!!

I'm wondering why there was anything at the end of the track at all. Why not have a huge area of pea gravel? I mean, posts, concrete walls, boom trucks? These guys are going 300+ mph, that's putting a lot of faith in a parachute.

Just a point, any kind of racing, drag, stock car, formula 1, they all have built in dangers associated with speed. It is impossible to make racing 100% safe. Remember back when Bobby Allisons stock car almost went into the stands except for the catch net. Every time i attend a drag race, and sit up in the stands, whether a car goes out of control, a tire blows or a bellhousing explodes, i know there is a certain amount of danger involved. Its the price we pay for going. Heck, my chevelle could fall off the jack stands, or for that matter a jack stand could fail.... Think about it...Enjoy life..tell your wife and kids you love em.. No guarantees on our next breath.

Bad choice of words. Even if you RINSE your mouth with alcohol based mouthwash, it will show if you blow. I think we are all on the same page. Alcohol played no factor

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Scott wasn't blowing for them to get these test results. They found alcohol in his blood. Alcohol only stays in your blood stream for a given amount of time (don't recall exactly how long, but it's typically just a matter of hours). Even if the amount was small (one quarter of the legal limit according to the report) it COULD have played a factor in Scott's ability to react to the accident. I'm not saying it did, I'm just saying it COULD have. I think the legal argument is "was he impared". Additionally, as the report said, the NHRA has a zero tolerance rule concerning alcohol and driving so the amount isn't at issue, the issue is that there was any alcohol in him at all.

I'm wondering why there was anything at the end of the track at all. Why not have a huge area of pea gravel? I mean, posts, concrete walls, boom trucks? These guys are going 300+ mph, that's putting a lot of faith in a parachute.

Beyond the run off is a busy city street. Would you want a 300mph projectile flying into traffic? If the car had hit the catch net instead of the pole holding the catch net he may have survived. I'm sure when they parked the boom truck where they did they believed it to be entirely out of harm's way since it was beyond all the safety features.

Bottom line, this was a bizarre accident where one catastrophic thing led to another which led to another and ultimately to a fatal end. We can't ever hope to accommodate safety features for EVERY possibility but we can try. This report at least pointed out that the features on the car and at the track were involved and even put together given these particular circumstances were inadequate to save Scott. It also seems to point out that the runoff area and safety net were not entirely inadequate (which is what I thought back in June) just that they were not adequate given this bizarre set of circumstances (blown engine, locked clutch, destroyed chute, entering the pea gravel at too great a speed, etc.).

If I remember the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), aircraft mechanics can have up to .04 blood alcohol level and be working at the job. This gives a bit of an idea how insignificant .02 is.

Ethanol is not alcohol either


Ethanol (or ethyl alcohol, C2H5OH) is the same kind of alcohol as you'll find in alcoholic beverages, isn't it? :confused:

Ethanol (or ethyl alcohol, C2H5OH) is the same kind of alcohol as you'll find in alcoholic beverages, isn't it? :confused:

I thought the same thing and thats why I mentioned fumes. What you breath gets into your blood. Oxygen for example. I guess I am asking, could breathing fumes bring your blood alcohol level to .02?

I think we all also agree that it was a "perfect storm" of things going wrong at the same time, a freak accident. The odds of something like that happening again are astronomical. GO BACK TO 1320' NHRA!!!!

Yep! Just as soon as they extend the run off at all tracks to a distance that will keep another "freak accident" from happening. Also add safer barriers to the walls and remove all fixed objects from the ends of tracks that a runaway car might hit!:yes:
A cheap fix to make sure the same fate does not befall another!

I'm surprised that in a forum full of gear heads that everyone is focused on the minute level of alcohol found in his system rather than on the mechanical failures in his equipment that led to his death. :confused:

Dave

x2:sad:

engine failure resulting in an explosion... engine still running

Thats what confused me... According to the report, it sounds as though the engine was still under power, but I thought it was a catastrophic engine "failure" that caused the explosion???

"A review of information provided by Delphi, which was recorded by accelerometers, mounted to the Kalitta vehicle revealed multiple impacts producing over 100G, with some approaching or exceeding 200G"

WOW, that's some serious G-forces right there! If I'm understanding the report correctly down in the "Fixed Object Impacts" section, the car seemed to have flown Over the concrete wall with initial blunt contact being made with the pole and then several blunt contacts with ESPN's boom vehicle. One can only speculate at this point whether the lack of those two objects (pole and boom vehicle) would have allowed Scott to live. I wonder if he still had control of the vehicle, because it sure seemed like the car held a straight line. With brakes intermittently locking up, you'd think a person unconscious at the wheel would allow the car to veer left or right. One bad sequence after another contributed to this tragedy :sad:

I thought the same thing and thats why I mentioned fumes. What you breath gets into your blood. Oxygen for example. I guess I am asking, could breathing fumes bring your blood alcohol level to .02?

Would breathing Nitro register in this test as alcohol? That would be a good test to have done for see if it would register as anything.

OK, I checked. Wouldn't be registered as alcohol.

I'm wondering why there was anything at the end of the track at all. Why not have a huge area of pea gravel? I mean, posts, concrete walls, boom trucks? These guys are going 300+ mph, that's putting a lot of faith in a parachute.





Beyond the run off is a busy city street. Would you want a 300mph projectile flying into traffic? If the car had hit the catch net instead of the pole holding the catch net he may have survived. I'm sure when they parked the boom truck where they did they believed it to be entirely out of harm's way since it was beyond all the safety features.

).
Maple grove was the same way. Wall at end of "short" runoff, Then public road. They removed the wall, Moved the sand trap to the other side of this road and close the road during events with "fast" cars. This was done BEFORE Kalitta's crash. Maple Grove saw the danger and fixed it before someone died.
Thats what confused me... According to the report, it sounds as though the engine was still under power, but I thought it was a catastrophic engine "failure" that caused the explosion???

I friend of mine broke a crank and sent #7 rod through the side of the block and #8 "removed" the oil pan at about 1000'. It was still running as he made the turn off the track and he had to hit the kill switch to shut it off.

... it sounds as though the engine was still under power, but I thought it was a catastrophic engine "failure" that caused the explosion???

What do I know, but - considering the speed he was going, the RPMS the engine was turning, and whatever fuel was still in the lines, I would think the engine could keep running for the few seconds that were left?
I mean, from the time the engine blew 'til the time he hit the wall couldn't have been more than 3-4 seconds, right?
Whatever, it's just a really sad deal ... :(

Bad choice of words. Even if you RINSE your mouth with alcohol based mouthwash, it will show if you blow. I think we are all on the same page. Alcohol played no factor


True, but the amount would be much less significant than .02. That is one reason the Police wait 20 minutes after making a probable DWI arrest, to allow any alcohol that may be present in your mouth to dissipate, which would indicate an improper reading on the Breathalyzer.


Respectfully,
John R.

I'm surprised that in a forum full of gear heads that everyone is focused on the minute level of alcohol found in his system rather than on the mechanical failures in his equipment that led to his death. :confused:

Dave
If you notice the capital "A" between drank and beer in my statement, i was referring to him having "A", "ONE", "SINGLE", beverage. As if they(being whoever) might try to use this as a contributing cause of the accident, to try and cover someone elses ass for being liable. Although i didn't post this, it was my line of thought. Sorry for the misunderstanding !!!

If you notice the capital "A" between drank and beer in my statement, i was referring to him having "A", "ONE", "SINGLE", beverage. As if they(being whoever) might try to use this as a contributing cause of the accident, to try and cover someone elses ass for being liable. Although i didn't post this, it was my line of thought. Sorry for the misunderstanding !!!

Scott,

That report has to cover every issue of that accident beginning with the initial event, i.e. in this case, the exact moment there was an engine failure, the time the car came to a rest and the post-mortem. It has to include everything that occurred, any and all contributing factors, including the condition of the driver, cause of death and a toxicology report, which is routine in these type accidents. That NJSP report has nothing to do to cast blame or liabilty on anyone, just the facts of the investigation, the cause and effect of the crash itself and it's (NJSP) conclusions.

For the sake of argument, if Scott indeed did injest an alcoholic beverage, which I doubt, it still would have not had any effect on his engine failure, which led to the impending crash and his unfortunate death. :sad:


Respectfully,
John R.

I thought the same thing and thats why I mentioned fumes. What you breath gets into your blood. Oxygen for example. I guess I am asking, could breathing fumes bring your blood alcohol level to .02?

You do know that if you fill your gastank, and inhale (by accident) the vapors from the gas, You can fail a breathalyzer test for hours after your fillup. Yes the ethanol enters into your system, and can pose an issue. With The occupation requiring fuel in close proximity, I could see how his BAC could be 25% of the legal limit.

If I remember the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), aircraft mechanics can have up to .04 blood alcohol level and be working at the job. This gives a bit of an idea how insignificant .02 is.

FAR's say .02% is maximum, accounting for residual amounts in the blood. A retest is required if the individual tests greater than .02%, but less than .04%.

Its been a while since I looked in my book. A guy could get tanked up after work, and still be in violation the next day.

The typical person can metabolize one ounce of alcohol an hour. So if you drink a 12 pack quickly in one sitting, it will be roughly 12 hours from when you started before you will have metabolized all that alcohol and you may still have measurable amounts in your system by then.

I still just find it foolish to have a concrete wall at the end of the track like that.

I still just find it foolish to have a concrete wall at the end of the track like that.

The track at Indy, where the U.S. Nationals are held, has a Jersey barrier at the end of that track as well.


Respectfully,
John R.