Integrating biomechanics with stakeholder perspectives to inform safety in grassroots dirt track racing.

Grassroots dirt track racing is a foundational part of motorsports with a high risk of severe injury. This study aimed to gather perspectives and experiences of motorsports drivers surrounding safety and head acceleration events experienced during grassroots dirt track racing to inform strategies to improve driver safety. Thirteen drivers (n=9 who primarily race on dirt tracks; n=4 who primarily race on pavement tracks) with prior dirt track racing experience participated in separate, group-specific focus groups and/or one-on-one interviews where video, simulations of head motion, and head acceleration data were shared. Peak kinematics of laps and crash contact scenarios were recorded, and head perturbations (i.e., deviations in head motion relative to its moving-average trajectory) were quantified for each lap and presented through guided discussion. Responses were summarized using Rapid Assessment Process. Audio recordings and field notes were collected from focus groups and interviews and analyzed across 25 domains. Drivers described dirt track racing as short, fast bursts of racing. Benefits of dirt track racing for driver development were described, including learning car control. Drivers acknowledged risks of racing and expressed confidence in safety equipment but identified areas for improvement. Drivers observed lateral bouncing of the head in video and simulations but recognized that such motions were not noticed while racing. Track conditions and track type were identified as factors influencing head perturbations. Mean PLA (5.5 g) and PRV (3.07 rad/s) of perturbations experienced during racing laps and perturbation frequencies of 5 and 7 perturbations per second were reported. Generally, drivers accurately estimated the head acceleration magnitudes but were surprised by the frequency and maximum magnitude of perturbations. Maximum perturbation magnitudes (26.8 g and 19.0 rad/s) were attributed to hitting a "rut" in the dirt. Drivers described sudden stops, vertical loads due to landing from a large height, and impacts to the vehicle frame as crash events they physically feel the most. Summary statistics for crashes (medians = 7.30 g, 6.94 rad/s) were reported. Typical impact magnitudes measured in other sports (e.g., football) were provided for context. Upon reviewing the biomechanics, drivers were surprised that crash accelerations were relatively low compared to other contact/collision sports. Pavement drivers noted limited safety features in dirt track racing compared to pavement, including rigidity of vehicle frames, seat structure, seatbelt integration, and lack of oversight from sanctioning bodies. Most drivers felt seat inserts and head and neck restraints are important for injury prevention; however, usage of seat inserts and preferred head and neck restraint system differed among drivers. Drivers described their perspectives and experiences related to safety and identified strategies to improve safety in grassroots dirt track racing. Drivers expressed support for future safety research.

Driver head kinematics in grassroots dirt track racing crashes: A pilot analysis.

Motorsport athletes experience head acceleration loading during crashes; however, there is limited literature quantifying the frequency and magnitude of these loads, particularly at the grassroots level of the sport. Understanding head motion experienced during crash events in motorsport is necessary to inform interventions to improve driver safety. This study aimed to quantify and characterize driver head and vehicle kinematics during crashes in open-wheel grassroots dirt track racing. Seven drivers (ages 16-22, n = 2 female) competing in a national midget car series were enrolled in this study over two racing seasons and were instrumented with custom mouthpiece sensors. Drivers' vehicles were outfitted with an incident data recorder (IDR) to measure vehicle acceleration. Forty-one crash events were verified and segmented into 139 individual contact scenarios via film review. Peak resultant linear acceleration (PLA) of the vehicle and PLA, peak rotational acceleration (PRA), and peak rotational velocity (PRV) of the head were quantified and compared across the part of the vehicle contacted (i.e., tires or chassis), the vehicle location contacted (e.g., front, left, bottom), the external object contacted (i.e., another vehicle, wall, or the track), and the principal direction of force (PDOF). The median (95th percentile) PLA, PRA, and PRV of the head and PLA of the vehicle were 12.3 (37.3) g, 626 (1799) rad/s2, 8.92 (18.6) rad/s, and 23.2 (88.1) g, respectively. Contacts with a non-horizontal PDOF (n = 98, 71%) and contact with the track (n = 96, 70%) were common in the data set. Contact to the left side of the vehicle, with the track, and with a non-horizontal PDOF tended to have the greatest head kinematics compared to other factors in each sub-analysis. Results from this pilot study can inform larger studies of head acceleration exposure during crashes in the grassroots motorsports environment and may ultimately support evidence-based driver safety interventions.

Characterization of Head Acceleration Exposure During Youth Football Practice Drills.

Many head acceleration events (HAEs) observed in youth football emanate from a practice environment. This study aimed to evaluate HAEs in youth football practice drills using a mouthpiece-based sensor, differentiating between inertial and direct HAEs. Head acceleration data were collected from athletes participating on 2 youth football teams (ages 11-13 y) using an instrumented mouthpiece-based sensor during all practice sessions in a single season. Video was recorded and analyzed to verify and assign HAEs to specific practice drill characteristics, including drill intensity, drill classification, and drill type. HAEs were quantified in terms of HAEs per athlete per minute and peak linear and rotational acceleration and rotational velocity. Mixed-effects models were used to evaluate the differences in kinematics, and generalized linear models were used to assess differences in HAE frequency between drill categories. A total of 3237 HAEs were verified and evaluated from 29 football athletes enrolled in this study. Head kinematics varied significantly between drill categorizations. HAEs collected at higher intensities resulted in significantly greater kinematics than lower-intensity drills. The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence informing evidence-based strategies to reduce head impact exposure and concussion risk in youth football practices.

MODIFYING MIDSOLE STIFFNESS of BASKETBALL FOOTWEAR AFFECTS FOOT and ANKLE BIOMECHANICS.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing incidence of foot injuries in basketball, which may be from the sport's repetitive, forceful multi-directional demands. Modifying midsole stiffness of the basketball shoe has been reported to alter ankle motion and plantar forces to reduce the risk of injury; however, the effects on anatomical, in-shoe foot (metatarsal), motion is not well understood. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify differences in foot and ankle biomechanics between basketball shoes with differing midsole stiffness values during single-leg jump landings. It was hypothesized that a stiffer midsole would elicit lower 1st metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) dorsiflexion angles, higher ankle dorsiflexion angles, and higher plantar forces and relative loading in the distal foot. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental cross-sectional study. METHODS: Twenty high school and collegiate-aged basketball players performed a single-leg side drop jump and a single-leg cross drop jump in a pair of standard basketball shoes and a pair of shoes modified with a fiberglass plate to increase midsole stiffness. Three-dimensional motion analysis and flexible insoles quantified foot and ankle kinematics and plantar force distribution, respectively. Separate 2 (footwear) × 2 (task) repeated measures ANOVA models were used to analyze differences in 1) ankle kinematics, 2) 1st metatarsophalangeal kinematics, 3) maximal regional plantar forces, and 4) relative load. RESULTS: The stiffer shoe elicited decreased peak ankle plantarflexion (mean difference = 5.8 °, p = 0.01) and eversion (mean difference = 6.6 °, p = 0.03) and increased peak ankle dorsiflexion angles (mean difference = 5.0 °, p = 0.008) but no differences were observed in 1st MTPJ motion (p > 0.05). The stiffer shoe also resulted in lower peak plantar forces (mean difference = 24.2N, p = 0.004) and relative load (mean difference = 1.9%, p = 0.001) under the lesser toes. CONCLUSIONS: Altering the midsole stiffness in basketball shoes did not reduce motion at the MTPJ, indicating that added stiffness may reduce shoe motion, but does not reduce in-shoe anatomical motion. Instead, a stiffer midsole elicits other changes, including additional ankle joint motion and a reduction in plantar forces under the lesser toes. Collectively, this indicates that clinicians need to account for unintended compensations that can occur throughout the kinetic chain when altering a shoe property to alleviate a musculoskeletal injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.