PDA

View Full Version : August FasTrack is out



planet6racing
06-22-2004, 04:30 PM
Well, it appears everyone has been quite busy:

http://www.scca.org/_Filelibrary/File/04-0...08-fastrack.pdf (http://www.scca.org/_Filelibrary/File/04-08-fastrack.pdf)



------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

Greg Amy
06-22-2004, 05:26 PM
Indeed!

Did you notice the rationale behind allowing remote reservoir shocks in American Sedan? These implications can apply to us as well. Granted, we're not ready to breach that discussion again quite yet, but the writing is on the wall...

Tom Donnelly
06-22-2004, 06:18 PM
message recalled

[This message has been edited by Tom Donnelly (edited June 22, 2004).]

Tobey
06-22-2004, 06:34 PM
For the Isaac users, what does this little tidbit mean (page 12, Member Advisories):
-----------------------------------
GCR
Item 1. There seems to be some confusion
amongst competitors and Scrutineers
regarding the requirement for all driver
restraint devices to be able to be released
by a single action. The Club Racing Board
would like to clarify that all safety devices
(including head and neck restraints), per
GCR Section 20.4, shall free the driver
from their belts and the car with a single
point of release.
--------------------------

Banzai240
06-22-2004, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by planet6racing:
Well, it appears everyone has been quite busy:

Actually, a lot of this is being restated from the previous months in-order to prepare for the BoD final approvals at their November meeting...

Now would be a REALLY good time to let your BoD members know how you feel about many of these items... ESPECIALLY if you want them to be approved...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Banzai240
06-22-2004, 06:56 PM
[B]Batteries may be replaced with
those of alternate manufacture provided
they are of similar amp-hour capacity and
weight and are fitted in the standard
location.[B]

WOW... Gel-Cells will be legal??? This one came straight from your CRB guys... Do not pass the ITAC, do not collect...

I wonder just how far "similiar" is going to be taken???

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

lateapex911
06-22-2004, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Tobey:
For the Isaac users, what does this little tidbit mean (page 12, Member Advisories):

My initial reaction?? It means that an arguably better device has been "dumbed" out of legality..

Further research needed.

Isaac
Isaac
Isaac...

(thats the Gregg Baker alert sound)

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Quickshoe
06-22-2004, 07:33 PM
Well if that is what is coming down to (ISAAC not legal because it has two points of release) I won't be racing with SCCA. Simple as that. There are other playgrounds that will welcome me.

If the SCCA is trying to prevent someone from utilizing a device that takes 18 steps to release it, I understand....Let's have a list of approved devices instead of a blanket statement dictating their design.

Many people get upset when the SCCA dictates that they improve their safety equipment above what that person feels is adequate. But what about when they won't let us utilize devices that are better than the minimum required????

I haven't received that issue yet, at what stage is this rule?

Speed Raycer
06-22-2004, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
Well if that is what is coming down to (ISAAC not legal because it has two points of release) I won't be racing with SCCA. Simple as that. There are other playgrounds that will welcome me.

I'll be joining you.

I just keep getting screwed by the SCCA when it comes to safety. I buy a car with belts that are supposed to have some life left in them and then find out I have to buy new belts because the rule changed. I go out and buy new FIA belts and then find out a month later that the new belts I just bought have one too few attachment points because the rule changed... again. I go out and buy a head restraint to save my neck after too close of a call, only to now find out that because I didn't buy from the manufacturer that appears to be greasing a few palms, I can no longer use it because of an extra step.

Heres an idea... Educate the workers on the head restraints available and require a sticker on the vehicle for the type of head restraint used. That way the workers will know what they'll have to do before they even get to the car. Seems to work for fire retardant and the kill switch.

Now, when is NASA going to move into the Midwest? COMMA down at Hallett is looking better and better even though it's a 6 hr tow.


------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/IzysLgoSm.jpg (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)
Izzy's Custom Cages (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)

[This message has been edited by Speed Raycer (edited June 22, 2004).]

titanium
06-22-2004, 10:48 PM
Now they have gone too far!!
Take a look at page 18, Item 1:
"Top heavy noveliy vehicles, such as motorized bar stools, are not permitted"

Yes, they are banned from Solo II competion.
I am sure they will be banned from club racing next!!!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
******************************************
Rodney Williamson
#93 IT7
www.titaniummotorsports.com (http://www.titaniummotorsports.com)

Banzai240
06-22-2004, 11:21 PM
Anyone else catch the HUGE section describing legal harnesses? No more 5-point after 2007, and pretty detailed descriptions of how to mount everything...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

lateapex911
06-22-2004, 11:39 PM
Well, at least with the harnesses, there is a 3 year lead, which shouldn't catch anyone before theirs is up for replacement, so I'm OK with that.

I have an idea of a way around this Isaac issue, but I'll let Gregg Baker give it the okie dokie first.

The idea about training and stickers is a great one. I have run just such stickers ("Isaac Equipped") since I started wearing the Isaac, (a rule requiring such is currently being discussed) and this spring, we did a workers meeting at lunch (At Lime Rock) where we went over the various H&N restraints with them on and hooked up. Kathy Barnes, just off her term as Area 1 Director, happened to be there, called Topeka and flashed me the thumbs up indicating the approval of headquarters. She later indicated they were very supportive.

We plan another such a demonstration at an upcoming event at NHIS, to show a new batch of workers the ins and outs.

Finally, a comment that was made to me by a worker rang true. "Hey if I can't find it (the release) right away, I pull out this" And he showed me his knife that slides between you and your straps...then poof! No straps! So, in the event of difficulty, the Isaac is out in a slice anyway....

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited June 23, 2004).]

lateapex911
06-23-2004, 01:01 AM
You know, reading this, I think they mean that when you undo your belts, the H&N has to come off too. (As opposed to pulling ONE pin on a H&N, in addition to the belts...)


The Club Racing Board
would like to clarify that all safety devices
(including head and neck restraints ), per
GCR Section 20.4, shall free the driver
from their belts and the car with a single
point of release.

What they didn't say, and where the rule's logic falls on its face is that the window net (it IS, after all, a driver restraint, no??) has to be released with that same "single release".....

(not to mention arm restraints, internal nets, etc.)

Thoughts?????


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited June 23, 2004).]

CaptainWho
06-23-2004, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Finally, a comment that was made to me by a worker rang true. "Hey if I can't find it (the release) right away, I pull out this" And he showed me his knife that slides between you and your straps...then poof! No straps!

As one of my instructors as a corner worker said: "Honey, if you can't figure out the releases, cut every strap you see ... he'll (the driver will) come out!".

------------------
Doug "Lefty" Franklin
NutDriver Racing (http://www.nutdriver.org)

m glassburner
06-23-2004, 05:37 AM
I think every track/area should do the demo thingy for the head restraints, belts ,window nets.... blah blah blah I'd be willing to help!! we currently use the hutchens device...mike g.

joeg
06-23-2004, 07:50 AM
Scot--The belts change was in the works for some time. Don't blame SCCA for that one--The FIA apparantly demonstrated the superiority of the 6 and 7 point system. Other sanction bodies will likewise be going to that standard too.

oanglade
06-23-2004, 08:27 AM
IT Miata hardtops will be optional from Jan. '05.

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

gran racing
06-23-2004, 09:14 AM
"Actually, a lot of this is being restated from the previous months in-order to prepare for the BoD final approvals at their November meeting..."

November meeting? Thought these items were going to be voted on in August. Just trying to determine how long I have to wait to find out the primary answer I'm waiting for (as well as a few others).

924Guy
06-23-2004, 10:19 AM
Yeah, I dropped Gregg Baker a line as an FYI... apparently they've been trying to work with Topeka for a little while to clarify the rule. Perhaps this is a bit of a blindside to him as well. Certainly is BS IMO since there's no discussion about radio leads, drink tubes, etc.

As for NASA in the Midwest - working on it. And I agree, if this is what Topeka's gonna do, I have further reduced motivation to continue to play in IT, even if I can get the proposed drop to ITB. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif Gotta be safe, even more important than being competitive!

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com

Mike Spencer
06-23-2004, 10:51 AM
Jake asked for "thoughts". Here's mine; The phrase "shall free the driver from their belts and the car with a single
point of release" would not apply to a HANS device at all.

Because.... restated it says 'shall free the driver from A & B'. OR, 'shall free the driver from A and free the driver from B'.

A) "their belts" (to me at least) refers to the 5/6-point harness.

B) "the car" is, well... the car. A HANS device does not attach you to the car, it attaches your helmet to another part of you.

As others have already pointed out, this technically DOES apply to radio hookups and (depending on whether you clip the tube to your suit) camel-backs, since they do (technically) attach you to the car. On the other hand, a window net does not attach you to the car, it just impedes your path out. Another clarification is probably necessary here.

For the benefit of those less informed (me) would someone please explain how the Isaac system works? I've never seen one. Thanks!

------------------
Mike Spencer
NC Region
ITA/7 RX-7 almost In-Garage
1990 RX-7 Convertible In-Driveway

Tobey
06-23-2004, 11:20 AM
Mike, go here for info on the Isaac:
www.isaacdirect.com (http://www.isaacdirect.com)

Here's a copy of the email I sent to the CRB:

The August Fastrack has the following member advisory:

"Item 1. There seems to be some confusion amongst competitors and Scrutineers
regarding the requirement for all driver restraint devises to be able to be release
by a single action. The Club Racing Board would like to clarify that all safety
devices (including head and neck restraints), per GCR Section 20.4, shall free
the driver from their belts and the car with a single point of release."

I would like a clarification, because this seems to be rule making, not interpretation. GCR 20.4 specifically addresses belts, and nothing else. Before this rule is applied to ALL safety devices (window nets?), it needs to have member input, in order to flesh out all the ramifications.

My real concern is that I use an Isaac device, which has two attachment points. This interpretation would seem to prohibit the use of my Isaac. I understand the desire to have an easy exit from the car, but the Isaac releases are easy to work, and with a little worker training should not be an issue. I would also be willing to put a sticker near the window opening to alert the workers that I am using an Isaac.

Hopefully, an equitable solution can be reached. However, if I can no longer use what I consider to be the superior head and neck restraint device on the market, then I will be forced to seriously consider not racing with SCCA any longer.

Mike Spencer
06-23-2004, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Tobey:
...The Club Racing Board would like to clarify that all safety devices (including head and neck restraints), per GCR Section 20.4, shall free the driver from their belts and the car with a single point of release.

Sorry, I missed the "including head and neck restraints" part the first time. That WOULD clearly include your Isaac system.

However, I agree whole-heartedly. That DOES appear to be rule-making, not interpretation. To support that point, imagine trying to protest someone for 20.4 on the basis of their H&N safety system. Would the Chief Steward/Scrutineer INTERPRET 20.4 (as it is currently written and begins "THE SHOULDER HARNESS [my emphasis] shall be the over-the-shoulder type. There shall be a single release...") to include the H&N system?

In addition, would anyone pony up the protest fee HOPING they will? I sure wouldn't!

(EDIT: typo)

------------------
Mike Spencer
NC Region
ITA/7 RX-7 (almost)
ITS RX-7 (just started)
1990 RX-7 Convertible (street car)

[This message has been edited by Mike Spencer (edited June 23, 2004).]

Mike Spencer
06-23-2004, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Tobey:
Here's a copy of the email I sent to the CRB: .....

Tobey, you've got me wound-up on this one. Here's a copy of what I just sent;


Gentlemen -

I would like to respond to an advisory published in the August Fastrack. Specifically,

"Item 1. There seems to be some confusion amongst competitors and Scrutineers
regarding the requirement for all driver restraint devices to be able to be released

by a single action. The Club Racing Board would like to clarify that all safety devices

(including head and neck restraints), per GCR Section 20.4, shall free the driver

from their belts and the car with a single point of release."

As I am sure you are all aware, Section 20 specifically deals with Driver's Restraint System. After reading the entire section several times, I was able to find references to 5-point harnesses, 6-point harnesses, arm restraints, and window nets. Further, the harnesses were individually defined as consisting of lap belts, an over-the-shoulder type of shoulder harness, and anti-submarine strap(s). There are no references to head-and-neck (H&N) restraints anywhere in the section.

I believe that an attempt to include H&N restraints in 20.4 would be wrong for a number of reasons;

1) Rule 20.4 specifically addresses the shoulder harness. While some H&N systems use harnesses, others do not. Those that do are not of the over-the-shoulder type.

2) If you assume that 20.4 DOES include H&N restraints, wouldn't you also have to include H&N restraints in 20.1 and 20.2? If you consistently apply a definition of "shoulder harness" to include H&N restraints, all straps (including the H&N restraints) would be required to be 3 inches wide. I do not believe any of the available systems would then be legal. You would effectively be outlawing all H&N systems in SCCA.

3) The Competition Board is already recommending that "effective 1/1/05, FIA certified 2-inch wide shoulder harnesses be allowed to be used in conjunction with the HANS device" (Nov 21-23 meeting, published February Fastrack). That statement alone clearly separates the HANS device from the "shoulder harness".

4) As the current "advisory" is written, you are very probably making illegal one of the newest, and (arguably) most effective safety devices available to a driver today; The Isaac system. I feel quite certain that the CRB is not intentionally trying to prevent a driver from using quality safety equipment.

Rather than try to pigeon-hole a (relatively) new safety device into the existing rule structure, may I respectfully suggest that it would make much more sense to add a completely new section that deals with Head & Neck Restraints. This would allow them to be defined, as well as controlled.

Thank you for your consideration.

________________________



------------------
Mike Spencer
NC Region
ITA/7 RX-7 (almost)
ITS RX-7 (just started)
1990 RX-7 Convertible (street car)

ddewhurst
06-23-2004, 04:13 PM
As someone stated in an previous post the window net is another required release action. The door opening is another release action. If this bunch of genius rules writters is so on top of the situation then how come they allow hand held fire extinguisher in IT ? How many actions does that thing take before you can get to the harness action, the window net action & the door action.

Disgusting at best............. Might they be http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

Mike Spencer
06-23-2004, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
As someone stated in an previous post the window net is another required release action. The door opening is another release action. If this bunch of genius rules writters is so on top of the situation then how come they allow hand held fire extinguisher in IT ? How many actions does that thing take before you can get to the harness action, the window net action & the door action.

Disgusting at best............. Might they be http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

Maybe! But I don't really think it's that bad. Rule 20.4 specifically addresses the shoulder harness. That's it!

Calling a H&N system part of a shoulder harness is a stretch (sorry, no pun intended), but (almost) arguable. I don't think anybody is going to try to say a radio connection, window net or the door falls under the definition of "shoulder harness".

But who knows.... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif

------------------
Mike Spencer
NC Region
ITA/7 RX-7 (almost)
ITS RX-7 (just started)
1990 RX-7 Convertible (street car)

gsbaker
06-23-2004, 04:50 PM
Well now. I think I'll just pop into the IT board to see what's shaking. Holy smokes!


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...The Club Racing Board would like to clarify that all safety devices (including head and neck restraints), per GCR Section 20.4, shall free the driver from their belts and the car with a single point of release.</font> (emphasis added)

It looks like the HANS device is forbidden in SMs and other small, closed-cockpit cars! And if NASCAR adopts this philosophy, it’s bye-bye HANS!

Okay, okay, I’m having a little fun here, but not much. This subject, at least within the SCCA, is screwed up beyond all recognition (Isn’t there an acronym for that?), but people are making a good-faith effort to put things right. It is unfortunate this was mentioned in the FasTrack before the details were worked out. Here is a brief summary of what is going on:

1) SCCA Pro Racing includes the Isaac system in its list of accepted, mandated H&N restraints. It takes the position that the driver needs to demonstrate that they can quickly egress from the car, and does not care how it is done.

2) SCCA Club Racing recognizes that it has created something of a monster by concentrating on the means rather than the ends. They are making a sincere effort to fix it. We're not privy to the internal debate in Topeka, but I suspect the main issue is whether they continue to tweak the GCR as is, or flush all egress-related rules and switch to a Pro-style performance measure.

SCCA Club Racing has contacted us for our input on this subject, and has been very receptive. (See the subject FasTrack, page F-165, center column, item #6.) Without getting into the details, we offered two observations:

1) Getting out of your seat means nothing if you cannot get out of your car. This is not some philosophical position; we are aware of real instances where drivers have been trapped in burning cars by competing products. Had nets not melted or corner workers not been there to put out the fire, these guys would have been vacuumed out of their cars once everything cooled off. We purposely designed the Isaac system so it would be left behind if you have to bail. It’s been an uphill battle, but drivers are slowing coming around to agreeing that <1 second to pop the pins is a small price to pay for a guaranteed exit.

2) Given that tweaking the GCR to accommodate belts, H&N restraints, radio connectors, etc. could be cumbersome, a Pro-like approach to egress may be the best way to go. We are not recommending a specific time limit, but rather that the driver demonstrates that they have practiced rapid egress to the point where it becomes second nature. Jake Gulick does this regularly; I’m sure he could chime in as to whether this approach makes any sense.

Those are the highlights. Other stuff is going on, but it’s more business/politics than safety.

This is a case of safety technology getting ahead of the rules. The rules will eventually come up to speed and I hope it happens soon. Here is the nightmare scenario: Tech bounces Isaac, driver borrows “other product”, driver gets barbequed, SCCA gets sued into the next dimension. No winners there.

Lastly, I’m not sure what to say (except thanks) to those of you who say you will dump the SCCA if you can’t use your Isaac. Wow. You guys are on the A list for Rolex tickets.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

Mike Spencer
06-23-2004, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by gsbaker:
...SCCA Club Racing has contacted us for our input on this subject, and has been very receptive. (See the subject FasTrack, page F-165, center column, item #6.)...

Gregg -

Not to rain on your parade, but while you paint a fairly optimistic picture item #6 is listed under "are submitted for information only, or require no further action by the Club Racing Board."

That sounds an awful lot like those "Thank you for your input" responses they publish all the time.

Don't misunderstand. I hope I'm wrong!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif

------------------
Mike Spencer
NC Region
ITA/7 RX-7 (almost)
ITS RX-7 (just started)
1990 RX-7 Convertible (street car)

gsbaker
06-23-2004, 05:20 PM
Mike,

I hear ya. This could get ugly in the short term, but I have the impression from communications with Topeka that they recognize there is a problem with how some folks are interpreting 20.4--and it is not in the best interest of driver safety.

BTW, could someone post the text of 20.4? It's been forever since I read it, I left my GCR out of town and the replacement isn't here yet.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

Tobey
06-23-2004, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by gsbaker:
Lastly, I’m not sure what to say (except thanks) to those of you who say you will dump the SCCA if you can’t use your Isaac. Wow. You guys are on the A list for Rolex tickets.
Well, I have other problems with SCCA that have almost made me quit racing with them. If this rule is truly interpretated so that I can't use my Isaac, it will be the last straw. Let's hope that some intelligent, cordial, reasoned input will change things for the better.

Tobey
06-23-2004, 05:23 PM
Here's the introduction to section 20, followed by 20.4

20. DRIVER’S RESTRAINT SYSTEM
All drivers in SCCA-sanctioned speed events shall utilize either a five or six-point restraint harness meeting the following specifications. Arm restraints are required on all open cars including open Targa tops, sunroofs and T-tops. The restraint system installation is subject to approval of the Chief Technical and Safety Inspector. (Note: SFI requirements for Driver’s Restraint System does not include arm restraints at this time. Window nets need not be dated.)

....

20.4
The shoulder harness shall be the over-the-shoulder type. There shall be a single release common to the seat belt and shoulder harness. When mounting belts and harnesses it is recommended that they be kept as short as reasonably possible to minimize stretch when loaded in an accident.

The shoulder harness shall be mounted behind the driver and supported above a line drawn downward from the shoulder point at an angle of twenty (20) degrees with the horizontal. The seat itself, or anything added only to the seat shall not be considered a suitable guide. Guides must be a part of the roll cage or a part of the car structure.

Only separate shoulder straps are permitted. (“Y”-type shoulder straps are not allowed.) “H”-type configuration is allowed.

planet6racing
06-23-2004, 05:28 PM
Well, if the SCCA rules out the Isaac, I really don't care. I'm going to wear it when I am on track and other drivers/officials can protest me all they want. It's literally my neck on the line!

Now, if NASA would just expand into the Midwest and if I'd get off my butt and check out Midwest Council...

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

Mike Spencer
06-23-2004, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by gsbaker:
BTW, could someone post the text of 20.4? It's been forever since I read it, I left my GCR out of town and the replacement isn't here yet.

Just to put it in context;

20. DRIVER'S RESTRAINT SYSTEM
(basic definition)

1. A five-point system, recommended for use...

2. A six-point system, recommended for use...

3. The material of all straps shall be Nylon...

4. The shoulder harness shall be the over-the-shoulder type. There shall be a single release common to the seat belt and shoulder harness. When mounting belts and harnesses it is recommended that they be kept as short as reasonably possible to minimize stretch when loaded in an accident. <paragraph> The shoulder harness shall be mounted behind the driver and supported above a line drawn downward from the shoulder point at an angle of twenty (20) degrees with the horizontal. The seat itself, or anything added only to the seat shall not be considered a suitable guide. Guides must be a part of the roll cage or a part of the car structure. <paragraph> Only separate shoulder straps are permitted. (“Y”-type shoulder straps are not allowed.) “H”-type configuration is allowed.

5. The single anti-submarine strap of the five-point system shall be...

6. The double leg straps of the six-point system may be...

7. Each seat (lap) and shoulder belt of the harness (5 or 6 points), shall have an individual mounting point...

8. All driver restraint systems shall meet SFI Specifications 16.1...

9. Harness Threading: Assemble in accordance with manufacturers instructions.



------------------
Mike Spencer
NC Region
ITA/7 RX-7 (almost)
ITS RX-7 (just started)
1990 RX-7 Convertible (street car)

gsbaker
06-23-2004, 05:55 PM
Thanks guys. That was fast.

Yup, just as I remember. 20.4 deals with harnesses only.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

gsbaker
06-23-2004, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by gsbaker:
BTW, could someone post the text of 20.4? It's been forever since I read it, I left my GCR out of town and the replacement isn't here yet.

What a hoot. I get home and the new GCR is on my doorstep.

Sure enough, harnesses only.



------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

1stGenBoy
06-24-2004, 11:01 AM
FYI,
NASA is running an event at Road America in Oct.

Bob

Banzai240
06-24-2004, 11:34 AM
Guys... I just ordered a new set of harnesses (literelly JUST ordered them) from RacerWholesale... 6-point G-Force with the standard latches for $64.00... You can't tell me that $32.00 a year is going to make or brake your racing budget...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Speed Raycer
06-24-2004, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
You can't tell me that $32.00 a year is going to make or brake your racing budget...


NO... but the $$$ I just plopped down for the Isaac sytem might if it's suddenly a paperweight...

The camels back is definitely starting to show some hairline fractures.

My letter's been sent...



------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/IzysLgoSm.jpg (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)
Izzy's Custom Cages (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)

Wayne
06-24-2004, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by gsbaker:
This subject, at least within the SCCA, is screwed up beyond all recognition (Isn’t there an acronym for that
Yup, it's called FUBAR...

I won't quit racing with scca if they outlaw my ISSAC, but I certainly won't be happy about it.

At this point I've grown a bit tired of all the questioning, and second guessing on the part of some officials, and some of my fellow competitors. Normally this type of stuff doesn't bother me, but in this case I've got people making comments to my wife about the "supposed" ISSAC shortcomings. She of course doesn't understand all the ins and outs of head restraint systems. But it doesn't help matters when she is standing in impound, and sees that I'm the only driver climbing out with an ISSAC, and everybody else has the hans. Nor does it help matters when she hears random workers/officials making comments about the ISSAC requiring two points of release, vs one on the hans.

At any rate, if it does come to pass that the ISSAC is indeed outlawed, I will sell it and buy a hans device. I prefer the ISSAC for easy of use and comfort. As a practical matter, I don't believe there is much difference in the actual performance characteristics between the two, in the event of a crash. Yeah, I've seen the graphs, the studies, the internet arguments etc.

Wayne

Mike Guenther
06-24-2004, 06:41 PM
I might be wrong about this, but isn't there only one point of release to get you helmet off? That would release the Isaac with one move. Just a technicality. Anyway I think you're on the right track that 20.x doesn't mention H&N anyway.
Have fun & be safe

Quickshoe
06-24-2004, 06:43 PM
Wayne if it does come to the point that it is "outlawed" by the SCCA. Let me know how much you want for your device. I'll buy it and take a friend with me to NASA.

Now that I've said that, I don't believe SCCA will outlaw the device. I am going to give them the benifit of the doubt, perhaps this reaction is just an unintended consequence of them trying to clarify the wording of the rule. Not a direct attempt to outlaw the ISAAC. If it was an issue of lobbying/politcs than I assure you that neither the SCCA or HANS will be in my future.

--Daryl DeArman

philstireservice
06-24-2004, 11:03 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Mike Guenther:
[B]I might be wrong about this, but isn't there only one point of release to get you helmet off? That would release the Isaac with one move. Just a technicality.

Yep it's called the chin strap !!!!!


------------------
Phil Phillips Integra GSR #4
www.philstireservice.com
Official Independent Amsoil Dealer for the ECHC
Distributor for FireCharger AFFF fire systems
Hoosier Tire Dealer

Bill Miller
06-24-2004, 11:50 PM
Darin,

Why do they keep saying they'll only move certain cars (and change the weight) if PCA's go through? The current rules already allow them to change the weight at the time of reclassification.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
06-25-2004, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

Why do they keep saying they'll only move certain cars (and change the weight) if PCA's go through? The current rules already allow them to change the weight at the time of reclassification.


I know that... You know that... but there are some on the CRB that disagree or are otherwise hesitant to interpret the rule the way we do. Long standing traditions and all that...

We're working the issue...

Besides... reclassifications are considered rule changes and can only happen officially twice a year... After either of the BoD votes (November and December)... It is my interpretation of these actions that there are those that believe it would be safer to move these cars as we've suggested IF they have the extra insurance of being able to adjust the weight in the event of an overdog. Fair enough...

If PCAs don't pass in November, then we'll put some more weight, so to speak, behind getting them to "understand" that the rules already allow for weight changes under the conditions described in the GCR...

I think that either way, most, if not all of the reclassifications are going to get passed..., but that's just one persons optimistic view of things...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Sterling
06-25-2004, 12:51 AM
Just sent my letter supporting the use of Isaac head and neck devices.

It's optional safety equipment. It's should be my choice.

Besides it's a great device.

Sterling
FP Lancia Scorpion
ITB Fiat Spider

Bill Miller
06-25-2004, 07:26 AM
Darin,

Not to get into an arguement, but I don't see what needs to be 'interpreted', it's pretty clearly spelled out that you can adjust the weight w/o any rule changes. Anyway, be that as it may, I'm also curious about some of the other reclassifications. Is it safe to assume that if they don't mention a weight change, that the cars are getting moved w/o any weight adjustments?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
06-25-2004, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

Not to get into an arguement, but I don't see what needs to be 'interpreted', it's pretty clearly spelled out that you can adjust the weight w/o any rule changes.

Apparently, not everyone agrees that it is so cut and dried...


Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Anyway, be that as it may, I'm also curious about some of the other reclassifications. Is it safe to assume that if they don't mention a weight change, that the cars are getting moved w/o any weight adjustments?

I would never "assume" anything around here, but to answer your question, yes, there are some cars recommended for reclassification that were recommended as such without a weight adjustment.



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Wayne
06-25-2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
Now that I've said that, I don't believe SCCA will outlaw the device. I am going to give them the benifit of the doubt, perhaps this reaction is just an unintended consequence of them trying to clarify the wording of the rule. Not a direct attempt to outlaw the ISAAC. --Daryl DeArman
I agree, Probably a lot of emotional over-reaction. I certainly am not going to loose any sleep over it. But at least we are talking about something other then car classifications! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Mike Guenther
06-28-2004, 04:52 PM
I noticed in the GCR that the same model Mercedes 190 that's kickin butt in ITS is also spec'd in for ITA. I don't see any difference in the spec. That car would be way ahead in ITA. Am I missing something?

Mike Spencer
06-28-2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Mike Guenther:
I noticed in the GCR that the same model Mercedes 190 that's kickin butt in ITS is also spec'd in for ITA. I don't see any difference in the spec. That car would be way ahead in ITA. Am I missing something?

First thing: There are two Merc's in ITS, a 6-cyl and a 4-banger. I suspect the "6" is the one that's cleaning up, but either way let's compare the 4-bangers;

The 4-cyl ITS car is a 16-valve and the ITA car is 8-valve.

Also, the compression ratio is a little higher for the "S" car (9.2 vs. 9.0), gear ratios are VERY slightly different (but not night-and-day), and the "A" car is 150 lbs. lighter.

Go figure! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif

(EDIT: The Bore is exactly 1 mm different between the two, they have the same stroke but end up with exactly the same displacement. Can you say "typo"?)

------------------
Mike Spencer
NC Region
ITA/7 RX-7 (almost)
ITS RX-7 (just started)
1990 RX-7 Convertible (street car)

[This message has been edited by Mike Spencer (edited June 28, 2004).]

gsbaker
06-28-2004, 06:34 PM
We’ve given this some thought, and I’d like to throw out a few observations, some logically connected, most random.

First, the Fastrack publication:

GCR 20.4 refers to harnesses only, with no reference to any other restraint. If someone in Topeka wishes to, on the fly, substitute “restraint” for “harness”, and make reference to getting out of the car as well as getting out of the seat--which this clarification does--then we are now including window nets, right-side lateral head nets, etc. All of these components no longer comply with the GCR. Obviously, this won’t work. The clarification needs clarification.

Also, the G-Force SRS-1 head restraint uses the harness, and has no helmet quick-release pin. Ergo....

Second, Politics and other unsavory issues:

“...I don't believe SCCA will outlaw the device. I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps this reaction is just an unintended consequence of them trying to clarify the wording of the rule. Not a direct attempt to outlaw the ISAAC. If it was an issue of lobbying/politics then I assure you that neither the SCCA or HANS will be in my future.”

Hmm, how can I put this? There are both lobbying and politics involved. On the lobbying front, readers may have noticed that Hubbard/Downing personnel are everywhere this year pushing the HANS device. Their favorite ploy is to offer to present to sanctioning bodies (“at no charge”) the basics of H&N restraint science. After a two-hour “scientific” presentation, they will summarize the relative effectiveness of the devices they have considered. Guess which one wins? This is what happened at the SCCA conference earlier this year.

As many readers recall, there was a flurry of complaints to Topeka that the Club was being used as a doormat by a commercial endeavor. It wouldn’t have been bad had it not come on the heels of the 2-year SFI belt rule. Let’s save that for one of many other archived threads.

About the same time we fired off an e-mail to Topeka noting that they had been chumped out, I became engaged in a rather, shall we say, “enthusiastic” discussion regarding the relative merits of the Isaac system vis-à-vis the HANS device. As it turns out, one of my opposing debaters was a regional SCCA tech and HANS user. About two weeks later, an Isaac user from that region told us that tech would not ‘acknowledge’ the Isaac system. The customer used it anyway.
Now we have the Fastrack notice.

So, yes, there is an element of politics involved here.

Lastly, safety:

“At this point I've grown a bit tired of all the questioning, and second guessing on the part of some officials, and some of my fellow competitors. Normally this type of stuff doesn't bother me, but in this case I've got people making comments to my wife about the "supposed" ISSAC shortcomings. She of course doesn't understand all the ins and outs of head restraint systems. But it doesn't help matters when she is standing in impound, and sees that I'm the only driver climbing out with an ISSAC, and everybody else has the hans. Nor does it help matters when she hears random workers/officials making comments about the ISSAC requiring two points of release, vs one on the hans.”

You should have had your wife at the ARRC last year. The Isaac/HANS ratio was at least 2:1.

This is the part I find most annoying, especially because it involves family in your case. Please, Wayne, pass on to your wife the following information.

1) No head and neck restraint ever developed has outperformed an Isaac system in scientific laboratory crash tests, especially one invented in the last millennium. None. Period.

2) Any concerns about “supposed” ISAAC shortcomings are just that—-speculative. While it is conceivable that such events may occur, they must be compared to documented, established incidents of drivers being not protected by the HANS device or, in the extreme (Justin Wilson, F1 driver, 2003 season) being sent to the hospital without having crashed.

“At any rate, if it does come to pass that the ISSAC is indeed outlawed, I will sell it and buy a hans device. I prefer the ISSAC for easy of use and comfort.”

If it comes to that, Wayne, we will pay for your HANS device and provide a sticker that reads, “This thing sucks.”

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

Geo
06-28-2004, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by gsbaker:
Also, the G-Force SRS-1 head restraint uses the harness, and has no helmet quick-release pin. Ergo....

I'm not sure about the point of this comment,but to clarify....

The SRS-1 H&N restraint is secured in exactly the same way as the HANS. It fits underneath the shoulder harnesses, but is not attached to them. Therefore, no QR pins are necessary.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

PRO7
06-28-2004, 06:54 PM
If the Isaac is approved for use by SCCA Pro Racing why would it not be acceptable in Club Racing? Why should there be a different standard for Club racers?

Am I missing something here?

------------------
Ed Reich
Cal Club - SCCA

eh_tony!!!
06-28-2004, 07:36 PM
Hopefully this will all be a moot point soon.. John Baucom (Trans-Am MAP quality Enginering Mustang #86) has become a user, supporter, and believer in the Isaac system. This system has been used by John in several Trans-Am events. He is currently working with Gregg to get the ISAAC FIA approved. Assuming FIA approval, THAT should (hopefully, unless the BOD is critically stupid) negate any club arguments.

Tobey
06-28-2004, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
Now that I've said that, I don't believe SCCA will outlaw the device. I am going to give them the benifit of the doubt, perhaps this reaction is just an unintended consequence of them trying to clarify the wording of the rule. Not a direct attempt to outlaw the ISAAC. If it was an issue of lobbying/politcs than I assure you that neither the SCCA or HANS will be in my future.

--Daryl DeArman
I hope you're right, but I'm not betting my life on it. That's why anyone with an opinion, one way or the other, needs to write the CRB and make your opinion known.

gsbaker
06-29-2004, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
...The SRS-1 H&N restraint is secured in exactly the same way as the HANS. It fits underneath the shoulder harnesses, but is not attached to them....

Some test photos show it clamped to the belt.


------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

gsbaker
06-29-2004, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by PRO7:
If the Isaac is approved for use by SCCA Pro Racing why would it not be acceptable in Club Racing? Why should there be a different standard for Club racers?

Am I missing something here?



No Ed, you're not missing anything. Club does not care what Pro does.

In my opinion, Pro has the best policy: A manufacturer must demonstrate that the product substantially reduces loads, and the driver must demonstrate that they can exit the car quickly. After that it is a matter of choice for the driver.

[edit: spelling]

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[This message has been edited by gsbaker (edited June 29, 2004).]

Geo
06-29-2004, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by gsbaker:
Some test photos show it clamped to the belt.

Shouldn't be. That's not the way it's worn, so the tests would be invalid. I also don't see any possible way to clamp it to the belts.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

gsbaker
06-29-2004, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
Shouldn't be. That's not the way it's worn, so the tests would be invalid. I also don't see any possible way to clamp it to the belts.

It's on the Web site.

It's been tested with and without a means to keep the belts from sliding off. True, the present version may ship without this feature.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

gsbaker
06-29-2004, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Tobey:
...I hope you're right, but I'm not betting my life on it. That's why anyone with an opinion, one way or the other, needs to write the CRB and make your opinion known.

Absolutely. I would encourage everyone who wishes to protect their neck and their investment to write the Board.

Also, put the Club on notice that you will hold them liable should you be denied the use of your Isaac system.

And send it certified mail, return receipt requested.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[This message has been edited by gsbaker (edited June 29, 2004).]

dickita15
06-29-2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by gsbaker:
Also, put the Club on notice that you will hold them liable should you be denied the use of your Isaac system.


while I understand that emotions run high and that it is percieved that the RRB is messing with your livelyhood, I have found that you have to be careful that with type of threat. I think it is a good idea to state that you have invested in a proven safety device and it seem to be counterproductive to ban it, particuarly when the threat of a hard impact is probably much greater that threat from a slightly slower egress.
dick

raceworks
07-07-2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by gsbaker:
If it comes to that, Wayne, we will pay for your HANS device and provide a sticker that reads, “This thing sucks.”



So your contention is that the HANS device is a dangerous rip-off sold by greedy scumbags? Might want to change the FAQ on hour website then... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

While I have some very strong opinons about harnessbelts versus the ones I sell I would NEVER put anything like that in writing unless I was sure I could prove my contention in court.

I can certainly understand your frustration with SCCA's rule-making processes, but I would hardly characterize making a presentation (biased or otherwise) as some sort of underhanded business practice. It's like a local store owner screaming that Wal-Mart is evil just becuase they have a larger advertising budget.

For what it's worth, I think the restraint rule is very goofy as written. The basic idea is a good one (making sure the drivers can be extricated quickly), but the rule needs to be written more intelligibly and it doesn't seem like re-writing the restraint system rules is a good way to go in any case.

Realistically, ANYTHING can end up snagging when you try to get out of a car (I almost got whiplash from a drink bottle tube getting caught during a driver change). I even pay attention to how my shoes are laced now because I've had them catch on things in the cockpit while getting out.

If we tried to write specific rules govering every possible situation we'd end up with a hundred pages on cockpit configuration. Honestly, the egress rule was the most sensible rule Pro ever came up with and adopting something similar in club racing would be easy to implement and wouldn't add that much time to an annual tech.

"Strap in, put your helmet & neck restarint on. Now the window net. You've got 10 seconds. Go!"

Device or no device, if you can't get out of a race car that fast you probably don't belong in one.

eMKay
07-07-2004, 10:50 PM
Wow...They added 14" wheels to the '95-'98 Eclipse spec line like I told them to. The system DOES work :-) Too bad I bought a Neon instead. Well, not too bad, it's a much better platforn to build a racecar out of, and for now I'm autocrossing it with great success.

sgallimo
07-08-2004, 11:59 AM
I routinely practice getting out of my car: thru the right window; thru the left window; head first; feet first; with and without the steering wheel, cool shirt hoses, radio wires, and Isaac connected; AND with my eyes closed. I try to do everything short of knocking out the front or rear glass or flipping the car over.

I also practice these things at the track. After most practice and qualifying sessions, I'll leave the wheel, helmet, etc. on and crawl out thru one of the windows. I've also found that a good off season activity is to go out in the garage after dark, strap in, have someone turn out the lights, and practice the egress. I even practice locating and unclipping my hand held extinguisher with my eyes closed.

It is my opinion that everyone should practice these types of things. It is also my opinion that the Isaac was the perfect choice for my situation. If the SCCA decides to not allow the use of the Isaac, I will continue to use it until the Stewards won't let me. At that point, I sincerely beleive that I would unload all of my stuff and move onto one of my other hobbies.

I don't work for any H&N manufacturer nor do I sell any of their products. But I can't say that I don't market any of their products because I do let people know about my Isaac.

What's next? Are we going to have an "Official H&N device of the SCCA"? Are they going to restrict us to one manufacturer of suits, shoes, helmets, gloves belts, nets, etc.??

I suppose I need to make myself a bumper sticker that reads "It's the Isaac or it's the highway".

- scott gallimore
ITC #88 Nissan Pulsar
driver, F&C, starter, race control

[This message has been edited by sgallimo (edited July 08, 2004).]

sgallimo
07-08-2004, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Guys... I just ordered a new set of harnesses (literelly JUST ordered them) from RacerWholesale... 6-point G-Force with the standard latches for $64.00... You can't tell me that $32.00 a year is going to make or brake your racing budget...

[Hmm.. Darin, that might be the first post of yours that bothers me. I had the same strange feeling inside that I did when, years ago, my boss's boss returned my United Way pledge card because he didn't feel I was donating enough...]

For ease of driver changes, we prefer the camlock version which is $115. And no, $57.50 a year is not going to break my racing budget. That isn't the point. The problem is with the SCCA forcing us to spend money to replace perfectly good equipment.

I really do have doubts about the competence of any governing body that could believe that exposing an incredibly oversized seat belt to the elements for more than 2 years would result in a significantly larger decrease in driver saftey than using and washing a driver's suit for 10 to 15 years would; or racing on 20 year old suspension parts; or ....


------------------
-Scott Gallimore
-ITC #88 Pulsar

m glassburner
07-08-2004, 01:20 PM
You know we talk about seat belts,makes me wonder about the belts in my street car,subjected to even more abuse.2-5-10 years old...makes you go hmmmmmmm..mike g.

Banzai240
07-08-2004, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by sgallimo:
I really do have doubts about the competence of any governing body that could believe that exposing an incredibly oversized seat belt to the elements for more than 2 years would result in a significantly larger decrease in driver saftey ...




You need to check the information that is supplied with your belts, as well as the rules for NHRA, and other organizations...

While I agree that these belts would be perfectly fine to use for the originally specified 5-years, even the manufactures data supplied with the belts shows that they do degrade over a two year period... The SCCA is just reacting to what the "experts" are telling them.

Additionally, other organizations, like the NHRA, have required a two-year replacement rule for some time... so in reality, the SCCA (in typical form...) is reacting LATE to this trend...

It's not really worth complaining about, because it's likely not something that is going to be changed... My comment about the money it costs was based on a choice we all have... We can 1) complain, protest, and bitch about it, or 2) Just ante up, pay our money, and go on racing

I suppose that there is a third option, which would be to try to campaign to get the old rules reinstated, but I tend to believe in matters such as this that it would be a futile effort...

Don't be suprised if, in the near future, H&N retraints are a required item as well... Just seems to be the way things are going...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 08, 2004).]

Wayne
07-08-2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by sgallimo:
I've also found that a good off season activity is to go out in the garage after dark, strap in, have someone turn out the lights, and practice the egress.
That's a good idea. My wife already thinks I'm crazy for going out to the shop in the off season and sitting in the car making engine noises... Now I'll be sitting in the car, fully suited up, in the dark, making engine noises, then crashing noises, then grunting noises as I extract myself from the car. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Wayne

gsbaker
07-08-2004, 04:13 PM
http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Fire up the camcorder, Wayne! It's gotta be good for first place in some contest.

Gregg

Banzai240
07-08-2004, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by sgallimo:
I routinely practice getting out of my car

Funny... I can honestly say I've never really thought about practicing this... It's a GREAT idea, and you've now prompted me to add this to my list of necessary things to do in my race preparation!



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

gsbaker
07-08-2004, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Funny... I can honestly say I've never really thought about practicing this... It's a GREAT idea, and you've now prompted me to add this to my list of necessary things to do in my race preparation!

We are seeing more drivers doing this, especially as more "safety" stuff in the cockpit makes it increasingly difficult to exit in a hurry. The enemy is panic, and if one practices enough, bailing becomes second nature and the chance of panic diminishes dramatically.

Some drivers go so far as to practice (with the stopwatch running) the worse-case scenario: driver's door jammed, cockpit filled with smoke. So they go out the passenger side with their eyes closed while holding their breath.

(Yo, Jake. You out there?)

Extreme? Maybe, but it's easy, takes very little time and is absolutely free. Best safety investment you can make.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

ITSRX7
07-08-2004, 08:04 PM
May have been mentioned above...SCCA Pro requires 15 seconds or less for full removal of yourself with 100% of your gear on and strapped in. They time it as part of your Annual.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Geo
07-10-2004, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by Wayne:
That's a good idea. My wife already thinks I'm crazy for going out to the shop in the off season and sitting in the car making engine noises... Now I'll be sitting in the car, fully suited up, in the dark, making engine noises, then crashing noises, then grunting noises as I extract myself from the car. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Don't forget to have a few beers before trying to extract yourself from the car. Not because you drink and race (I'm sure you don't), but because after a hard hit you'll be dazed and groggy so you'll HAVE to simulate that too. Your wife will like that explanation. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
07-10-2004, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by gsbaker:
We are seeing more drivers doing this, especially as more "safety" stuff in the cockpit makes it increasingly difficult to exit in a hurry. The enemy is panic, and if one practices enough, bailing becomes second nature and the chance of panic diminishes dramatically.

Amen to that.

That's why the military trains and trains and trains.

That's a lot of the secret of martial arts - do the same thing without thinking or panicing.

When I went sky diving we had a 6 hour ground school that was actually 1 hour of information and 5 hours of repetition.

As you said, you want to be able to do things w/o thinking so that even when your mind say FIRE!, your sub-conscious says "pull fire handle, pull pins, disconnect belts, drop net, open door, and GET THE HELL OUT."


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

gsbaker
12-16-2004, 05:04 PM
We owe readers an update on this...

To review, the August Fastrack included an interpretation of GCR Section 20.4 which incorporated head and neck restraint devices in the definition of "harness." Some read this to mean that the Isaac system would be banned from SCCA Club Racing, even though it is on the approved list for SCCA Pro Racing.

Please be advised that the BOD has not adopted this intepretation. Also, it is our understanding that the 2005 GCR has the language of Section 20.4 unchanged.

Furthermore, I had the opportunity to meet with Kurt Weiss, Chairman of the CRB, and Jeremy Thoennes, Technical Manager, Club Racing at the SAE conference in Dearborn two weeks ago. As they do not speak for the BOD they could not offer a final Club position on this matter. However, it would be accurate to say that they are acutely aware of the fact that Section 20.4 is worthless with respect to the subject of H&N restraints. More important, they are also aware that the objective is getting out of the car, not getting out of the seat.

In summary, all Isaac products are accepted (if not encouraged) for use in the SCCA, and we expect all Isaac products to be viewed favorably by Club Racing in the future, it's just a question of how the wording is handled. Section 20.4 may be rewritten, a section for H&N restraints may be added, or a "Bail" requirement may be added.

If you have strong feelings on this subject, now would be a good time to let them be known.

Happy Holidays.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[edit: spelling]

[This message has been edited by gsbaker (edited December 16, 2004).]

Quickshoe
12-17-2004, 02:27 AM
Guys and gals, please be heard.

JIgou
12-20-2004, 05:32 PM
E-mail the Club Racing Board at [email protected], CC to Board of Directors at [email protected].

Jarrod