Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA? [Archive] - Page 2

Doc Bro

08-01-2006, 01:53 PM

My letter from Thursday hope it helps:

Dear Sirs;

My name is Robert A. Breault, DMD, member #344578, from the NER. I am writing to express a few thoughts in regards to the SCCA’s position on Head & Neck Restraints. I have done significant research in regards to my use and support of HNR’s and I firmly believe that they are of paramount importance in the prevention of injuries related to rapid deceleration. I have also served as a Doctor on the head and neck trauma team of a level 1 trauma hospital, where we focus on the surgical treatment of injuries pertaining directly to this subject. I am concerned about the SCCA’s unilateral endorsement of SFI 38.1 as I feel that it doesn’t take into account all aspects of deceleration injury, namely off axis force. While I do understand the umbrella offered to my club that 38.1 provides, I do not believe it will keep drivers alive. The vulnerability that I see is the necessity of a single point release dictated by 38.1. This single point release is a moot point as winged seats, radios, cool suits, drink tubes, and helmet fresh air systems all are restraints in some capacity. I feel that the SCCA would be better protected by endorsing the SFI performance standard not the design standard. This would allow the drivers to choose a system that best suits their individual needs. I would love to see all competitors wearing a HNR, however mandating which system they must wear, may leave the SCCA exposed to litigation. If we as a club endorse the performance standard the exposure is decreased. It allows the competitor to research the design that suits their needs best thus shifting the burden of responsibility off the SCCA. It is caveat emptor. I have witnessed a driver die while wearing an SFI 38.1 approved device that had become dislodged during the impact.

The next issue becomes egress from the vehicle. I will simply point to Joey Hand’s incident at Mid Ohio where he was trapped in the car by his SFI approved device. While it saved his life in the accident, it would have killed him if the fuel that was pouring onto him had ignited as he was trapped. Every competitor knows that racing automobiles is dangerous, we all know that one product cannot safeguard against everything. Let’s agree to allow the HNR to protect from deceleration injuries both on and off axis. Let’s let our fire systems and fire suits give us protection from egress if that is the only concern with other HNRs.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Breault, DMD.

lateapex911

08-01-2006, 03:24 PM

Nice letter. Aren't window nets a restraint too?? ;)

I wish I had the medical credentials you have! Maybe I'll just say i got my device based on the advice of a Doctor friend who races! (They don't have to know the serial number order, LOL)

RacerBill

08-08-2006, 06:15 AM

Update: I received a reply to my letter to our area director - Larry Dent, and the BOD that my letter was received and is being reviewed. Larry again indicated his opposition to the SFI requirement as written in the proposed rule change.

Last night I was copied on an email from Jim Julow, SCCA President. So, the issue is being discussed at many levels within the Club.

Please discuss this proposal with any members that may not have access to the Internet (I know more than one), and get them to write to the Board. Their opinions should be heard as well.

TimM ITB

08-14-2006, 12:04 PM

Anybody heard anything more on the vote for the H&N requirement?? When is it due to happen??

I have sent in my letter, just wanted to know when to expect to hear results from Topeka?

thanks,

Tim M

gsbaker

08-14-2006, 12:18 PM

The weekend of August 26th is what we heard.

Knestis

08-14-2006, 03:01 PM

I had a random thought the other evening. Has anyone thought to contact ASTM to see what it takes to have helmets standards listed for racing? They do exactly the same thing for bicycle and other sporting head gear and it's my understanding that they are more open in their practices than are Snell or SFI...

K

gsbaker

08-14-2006, 03:51 PM

That is a very interesting idea.

lateapex911

08-14-2006, 04:20 PM

Hmmmmm..and you'd think they have the legal aspect down pat, as there are WAY more bike helmets sold, and way more bike injuries than in car racing, and the average bike rider (and family of) isn't nearly as risk aware as the average car racer.

gsbaker

08-14-2006, 04:42 PM

Makes sense, Jake. Beyond that, I find it interesting to broaden things somewhat:

... contact ASTM to see what it takes to have [insert item here] standards listed for racing? They do exactly the same thing for bicycle and other sporting head gear and it's my understanding that they are more open in their practices than are Snell or SFI...
[/b]
After using ASTM specs for years I am embarassed to admit that I know little about how the organization functions. Given that they go from sporting headgear to implant grade titanium alloys (ASTM Spec F136-02a), and most everything in between, I suspect it acts as an umbrella organization for parties ("Committees") that have a common interest in setting a standard for whatever interests them.

Hmm.

Kirk, are you up on these guys?

Knestis

08-14-2006, 08:52 PM

...contact ASTM to see what it takes to have [insert item here] standards listed for racing? [/b]

Eggs-actly.

I don't know much but i learned a little talking with the guy who supplied our Triple 8 over-the-wall helmets for the enduros.

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/mk3.2/summit6.jpg

They are skate boarding helmets, which have their own ASTM F1492 standards. This means that, unlike bike helmets that are not expected to hit the ground very often, skate helmets have a resilient liner that doesn't collapse - recognizing the realities of the current state of the skating art.

There are helmet conflicts going on in the "extreme sporting" industry, with manufacturers trying to dual-purpose helmets certified for bicycles (higher drop-test standard but only one impact required, I think?) for the skate market. Others make the same shell with different liners for different markets and our helmet guy was telling me that skate/bike parks like his have to require the "proper" certification, but have trouble with people replacing the less comfy EPS bike liners with the comfy, softer foam skate liners. Or something like that.

Anyway, the way I understand ASTM works, it convenes panels (or subpanels) of professionals in whatever area is being addressed, which design standards. I can't imagine that it's completely free of politics but if the football helmet manufacturers feel like they get sufficient indemnification by certifying their products are ASTM compliant, there's probably something to it.

K

PS - part of my logic of getting the Triple 8 helmet people invoved was to introduce them to the club racing enduro market, and vice-versa. It didn't cost us much to put 8 of our crew guys in helmets for pit stops and it's one less thing to give me heartburn during the weekend, that someone will trip over an air hose and clobber their noggin on the wall. There's no rule requiring them (only because nobody's been hurt YET) so no standard that they are CURRENTLY required to meet. I was thinking that I needed to send them a report on our happiness with them, right before I read a post and was reminded that we're in a holding pattern on the H&N question...

itracer

08-14-2006, 09:28 PM

There's no rule requiring them (only because nobody's been hurt YET) so no standard that they are CURRENTLY required to meet. [/b]

There is a rule at New Hampshire International Speedway.

From the Supps:
29. Hot Track Helmets – No participant may enter the Hot
Track without a Helmet. Main straight outer wall and
travel lane on pit road are Hot. All Helmets must have a
chinstrap. Subject to review.

This includes flaggers, crew, etc. "Review" is to make sure it is a bike helmet or similar. No real regulation -- yet.

Knestis

08-14-2006, 09:48 PM

Well, isn't THAT interesting! Thanks...
K

JimLill

08-15-2006, 08:46 AM

ASTM and SEI already collaborate on helmets for equestrians..........

ASTM has a Committee F08.53 on Headgear and Helmets

http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/C...4541+1155664094 (http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/COMMIT/COMMITTEE/F08.htm?L+mystore+pcyy4541+1155664094)

JimLill

08-15-2006, 05:39 PM

and from the FIA

http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/826...Hans_system.pdf (http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/826942018__List_29_App_Hans_system.pdf)

Bill Miller

08-21-2006, 04:05 PM

Head and neck restraints: The CRB recognizes that there are head and neck restraints in the market that are not certificated by the SFI or FIA.
As the SCCA is not in a position to establish standards and conduct testing, we rely on outside certification bodies where available, similar to
other requirements we have for driver safety equipment. Products not currently allowed because they are not certificated will be authorized once
they meet the required certification(s). We would also like to remind competitors that the current wording of GCR section 20.5 requires a single
point of release freeing the driver of the seat belt assembly (reference August 2004 Fastrack)[/b]

From the Sept. '06 FasTrack as a 'Member Advisory'

The Head and Neck restraint issue was discussed and the CRB's consensus was that we
should recommend Head and Neck restraint systems that are SFI approved and not allow any
others without SFI approval. There was also discussion about making Head and Neck restraint
systems mandatory as other sanctioning bodies are moving in that direction. No conclusion was reached as to a time table or how the
membership would respond to a mandatory rule.[/b]

From the Aug. 7, '06 minutes of the BoD meeting.

lateapex911

08-21-2006, 04:21 PM

gsbaker

08-21-2006, 04:26 PM

Thanks Bill. Very timely as we just sent the following to the BOD:

<blockquote>Dear Board Member,

We want to pass on a letter from a racer who has used our product for three years and recently been forced to purchase a HANS device after moving to Grand Am. With the exception of an introductory paragraph, it is presented here in its entirety. No emphasis has been added.

Please note item #3.

<blockquote>I bought a new helmet (a wickedly cool Bell Vortex FA) and HANS device earlier this year. I did so because HANS use is mandated by Grand Am. After 4 months of use, I have some perceptions:

1) I hope I never crash with one on because I feel like my belts are "just lying there" on top of the neck restraint. I often fear that they'll shift in a side impact, negating the HANS' effectiveness. Many times during a race I will feel my belts to see if they've shifted. Paranoia perhaps. Of course, this fear is pure unscientific guess work on my part.

2) I've tried HANS 2 sizes to see what feels right and they are both uncomfortable, leaving my general neck area feeling pinched and a tad raw. My arms also tingle a bit when I get the shoulder belts as tight as I like (admittedly, which is quite tight). Maybe I'm not used to it yet.

3) I hope I never get caught in a situation where I have to vacate the car in a hurry, because it takes me 2-3 times as long to get out of the car with my HANS on than it did with my ISAAC. The HANS (Head And Neck Snare) gets caught in the window netting or in the harnesses without fail, it seems (OK not every time, but it only takes once of the wrong time). Perhaps I'm just not used to it yet.

4) I hope I never [again] have to feel up to my helmet at the start of a race and notice that one of the "quick disconnects" had somehow "quickly disconnected" through the process of ingress and belting-in, and without me knowing it was disconnected until I was pulling out onto the track. Perhaps I'm not used to getting INTO the car with it yet. But hey, it's not like those quick driver changes in endurance racing are hairy or anything.

5) My neck is stiff after races. This is a luxury I took for granted after three years of ISAAC use. Perhaps this tells me I need to be working out my neck muscles more in case of a lateral impact? I dunno...

6) Neck mobility isn't as good. Go figure. Could be I'm not used to it yet.

7) My perception is everything to me and I realize a lot of what I just said is exactly that - perception. BUT I DO NOT FEEL AS SAFE AS I DID WITH MY ISAAC. Most of my fear comes from a) getting trapped in a car and B) taking a side/lateral-impact - the support just isn't there, as proven by my slightly sore neck after a stint with the HANS.

QUESTION:
What can be done to get the ISAAC legalized for Grand Am and other sanctioning bodies? Is this politicking at work? Is it $$$ to certify the ISAAC? [b]GET ME OUT OF THIS HANS. </blockquote>

Bryan</blockquote>

gsbaker

08-21-2006, 04:36 PM

I read those passages as well and went.."Huh??????"...[/b]

The best is "Products not currently allowed because they are not certificated will be authorized once
they meet the required certification(s)." No products are not currently allowed. "Certificated"?

Relax, Jake. They are just going over the CRB position of several months ago.

Bill Miller

08-21-2006, 04:37 PM

I read those passages as well and went.."Huh??????"

Does one hand know what the other is doing???

Contradictory to say the least.

Nevertheless, it's looking dark and forboding on the H&NR horizon. It looks like tens of thousands of dollars woth of perfectly good devices will soon be rendered worthless, and we'll race with less protection and safety. Or we'll line the pockets of a tilted organization furhter........
[/b]

Contradictory? I'm not sure where you get that Jake. I read both of them to say 'only SFI approved devices are allowed'

The 'single point of release' is going to be interesting in terms of how it deals w/ sternum breakers, err, I mean sternum straps.

DavidM

08-21-2006, 05:02 PM

Do I take this to mean that the BoD has voted to approve the rule allowing only SFI certified devices? If so, then too bad. I will be requesting a roll call of the BoD vote to see who voted for and against the rule. That way I know if I should vote against my BoD member - assuming I'm still with SCCA. I can't say that I'm too surprised as I get the impression the BoD has other parties whispering in their ear. I'm stating this mildly without using those adult words when I say that this makes the BoD look like a bunch of puppets more concerned with doing a CYA and bowing to industry than serving the members. Harsh, maybe, but the time for pleasant debate is rapidly fading into the distance.

David

gsbaker

08-21-2006, 05:30 PM

sgallimo

08-21-2006, 07:28 PM

We would also like to remind competitors that the current wording of GCR section 20.5 requires a single point of release freeing the driver of the seat belt assembly[/b]

And I would like to remind the SCCA that the current wording of GCR section 20.5 requires the single anit submarine strap of a five point harness to have a single release common to the seat and shoulder belts....

I guess since I'm using a six point harness, I can use my Isaac.

Cripes those goobers even screw up pissing me off.

JoshS

08-21-2006, 07:35 PM

And I would like to remind the SCCA that the current wording of GCR section 20.5 requires the single anit submarine strap of a five point harness to have a single release common to the seat and shoulder belts....

I guess since I'm using a six point harness, I can use my Isaac.

Cripes those goobers even screw up pissing me off.
[/b]
I don't get it. 20.5 talks about how a 5-point harness has to work. 20.6 talks about how a 6- or 7-point harness has to work. Both have the same single-release wording. I don't see what any of it has to do with H&N restraints.

Greg Amy

08-21-2006, 07:53 PM

lateapex911

08-21-2006, 08:00 PM

Head and neck restraints: The CRB recognizes that there are head and neck restraints in the market that are not certificated by the SFI or FIA. <--( THAT's funny!)
As the SCCA is not in a position to establish standards and conduct testing, we rely on outside certification bodies where available, similar to
other requirements we have for driver safety equipment. Products not currently allowed because they are not certificated will be authorized once
they meet the required certification(s). We would also like to remind competitors that the current wording of GCR section 20.5 requires a single
point of release freeing the driver of the seat belt assembly[/b] (reference August 2004 Fastrack)

From the Sept. '06 FasTrack as a 'Member Advisory'

The Head and Neck restraint issue was discussed and the CRB's consensus was that we
should recommend Head and Neck restraint systems that are SFI approved and not allow any
others without SFI approval. There was also discussion about making Head and Neck restraint
systems mandatory as other sanctioning bodies are moving in that direction. No conclusion was reached as to a time table or how the membership would respond to a mandatory rule.[/b]

From the Aug. 7, '06 minutes of the BoD meeting.

The contradictory part is highlighted.

In short, they said (and there is a long standing recommendation that goes before the board in 5 days) that they SHOULD recommend a ruling regarding usage of, and allowable H&NRS. But...the other line discusses "Products not currently allowed"...

Since there IS no list of products not currently allowed, that statement is pretty contradictory...or flat wrong. The whole things getting to be a very sad joke............

Xian

08-21-2006, 08:24 PM

Congratulations, SCCA: you have just taken a giant leap backwards by actually making racing more dangerous. Fewer people will be using head and neck restraints as a result of this, myself being numero uno.

http://tinyurl.com/nls47
[/b]
At this point, I'm still planning to roll into the ARRC grid with my Isaac... I really doubt that any of the grid workers are going to ask me to remove it. If they do, I'll refuse. Are they going to kick me out for using ADDITIONAL safety equipmet? Again, very doubtful, imo but we'll see in November.

Christian

gprodracer

08-21-2006, 08:43 PM

Just another thought (angle) on this. The words " that the current wording used by GCR section 20.5 requires a single release" blah blah blah!!!

So why can't we re-word section 20.5 instead of outlawing a piece of safety equipment that is not (as of yet) manditory??

The other parts in Fastrack that got to me were the "the usual letters", and something about "the general consensus was" that any H&N must be SFI "certificated"

"Here's Your Sign..."

Suggestions as to what to do next people?? I have a bad feeling it may get uglier from here.
Please post any ideas.
Thanks,
Mark

Speed Raycer

08-21-2006, 09:32 PM

Hmmm... maybe the Isaac can fall under a driver Comfort & conveinance item.... a Head and Neck Support! No rule against those!!!

sgallimo

08-21-2006, 10:46 PM

Dear Mr Baker and Company,

I'm writing to let you know how your patiented "Driver Aid Management" device has been working for me these past few years. I've been using them exactly as described in your very helpful User's Guide. I use one side to corral those troubling radio wires connected to my helmet and the other side to keep track of that pesky drink tube. All it took was your device and a little velcro. They've been fantastic! They've completely removed ALL worry about getting my hands tangled up in loose wires or hoses while on the track. All I can say is, DAM they're good! And based on what I've been reading lately, your product works much, much better than the other guy's system.

Thanks again from one happy and satisfied customer.

sgallimo

08-21-2006, 11:41 PM

Oh, and say goodby to the ole neck collar, 360 degree helmet support, thingies. They're head and neck restraint systems and they do NOT have SFI 38.1 stickers...

Bill Miller

08-21-2006, 11:54 PM

Oh, and say goodby to the ole neck collar, 360 degree helmet support, thingies. They're head and neck restraint systems and they do NOT have SFI 38.1 stickers...
[/b]

Yeah, but they don't attach to your helmet.

mustanghammer

08-22-2006, 12:27 AM

Per my area director the CRB Head and Neck proposal allowing only SFI approved devices to be used has not been voted on by the BOD.

I think the comments in fastrack by the CRB point to the fact they think they have an end-around regardless of the BOD vote. Can you say power stuggle?

AntonioGG

08-22-2006, 01:08 AM

Did you guys read the rest of Fastrack? Look at some of the other changes...all dealing with liability. You are reacting to this as if there is a persecution of a single company. SCCA is passing the buck to SFI in all aspects...I wonder if clutches are next?

gsbaker

08-22-2006, 06:33 AM

Knowingly banning any proven safety product is not the road to reduced liability. And as far as that ancient rule about single-point release is concerned, I direct your attention to item 3 below (From a letter received this month, presented in its entirety, without emphasis):

<blockquote>Hello Gregg. Long time no talk. I've intended to email/call you for quite a while about this but somehow seem to get bogged down with this or that.

I bought a new helmet (a wickedly cool Bell Vortex FA) and HANS device earlier this year. I did so because HANS use is mandated by Grand Am. After 4 months of use, I have some perceptions:

1) I hope I never crash with one on because I feel like my belts are "just lying there" on top of the neck restraint. I often fear that they'll shift in a side impact, negating the HANS' effectiveness. Many times during a race I will feel my belts to see if they've shifted. Paranoia perhaps. Of course, this fear is pure unscientific guess work on my part.

2) I've tried HANS 2 sizes to see what feels right and they are both uncomfortable, leaving my general neck area feeling pinched and a tad raw. My arms also tingle a bit when I get the shoulder belts as tight as I like (admittedly, which is quite tight). Maybe I'm not used to it yet.

3) I hope I never get caught in a situation where I have to vacate the car in a hurry, because it takes me 2-3 times as long to get out of the car with my HANS on than it did with my ISAAC. The HANS (Head And Neck Snare) gets caught in the window netting or in the harnesses without fail, it seems (OK not every time, but it only takes once of the wrong time). Perhaps I'm just not used to it yet.

4) I hope I never [again] have to feel up to my helmet at the start of a race and notice that one of the "quick disconnects" had somehow "quickly disconnected" through the process of ingress and belting-in, and without me knowing it was disconnected until I was pulling out onto the track. Perhaps I'm not used to getting INTO the car with it yet. But hey, it's not like those quick driver changes in endurance racing are hairy or anything.

5) My neck is stiff after races. This is a luxury I took for granted after three years of ISAAC use. Perhaps this tells me I need to be working out my neck muscles more in case of a lateral impact? I dunno...

6) Neck mobility isn't as good. Go figure. Could be I'm not used to it yet.

7) My perception is everything to me and I realize a lot of what I just said is exactly that - perception. BUT I DO NOT FEEL AS SAFE AS I DID WITH MY ISAAC. Most of my fear comes from a) getting trapped in a car and b) taking a side/lateral-impact - the support just isn't there, as proven by my slightly sore neck after a stint with the HANS.

QUESTION:
What can be done to get the ISAAC legalized for Grand Am and other sanctioning bodies? Is this politicking at work? Is it $$$ to certify the ISAAC? [b]GET ME OUT OF THIS HANS. </blockquote>

Gee, I detect a note of sarcasm.

Talk about liability exposure. If this guy gets barbequed his estate will own Grand Am and everyone named France.

sgallimo

08-22-2006, 08:17 AM

Yeah, but they don't attach to your helmet.
[/b]
True but they are a head and neck device without a SFI 38.1 certification and so their use is also at risk.

ddewhurst

08-22-2006, 08:25 AM

Single point release:

20.4. The shoulder harness shall be over the shoulder type. There shall be a single release common to the seat belt and shoulder harness.

That would be the single point release along with adding the anti submarine stuff correct.

I have straped myself into the car as described above, then I attached my ISAAC. Now I rotated my cam lock & with a common single point release my my belts are free of each other just as the rule specs they SHALL be.

Maybe a rule rewrite is in order. ;)

What do you all think ?

David

gsbaker

08-22-2006, 08:42 AM

Dave brings up a great point that has been lost in the shuffle, i.e. that the Isaac system does not violate the GCR. In fact, the GCR says nothing about H&N restraints.

Nevertheless, we prefer the spirit of the rules deal with getting out of the car, not getting out of the seat.

(Edit: Somewhere is a reference to using 2" belts with the HANS. FasTrack maybe.)

Knestis

08-22-2006, 08:52 AM

A classic case of diddling around the edges of a policy rather than stepping back, asking what is the primary intention (and secondary, if they become important), and writing a clear regulation. In this case, we have the same issue going on at the "local" level (SCCA is one instantiation of the SFI-guided policy on H&N systems) as we have at the higher, world motorsport level, with the "single-point-of-release" silliness.

The "protect your head and neck" and "get out of the car" rules have to be made separate, to avoid the chick-egg goofiness:

1. If we care about egress, the CRB needs to write a rule addressing it - "All drivers must be able to get completely out of and 10 feet away from their race car in less than XX seconds when asked to demonstrate their ability to do so. This must be accomplished unaided in a stationary, upright position with all accessories, driver comfort, communication, harness, head & neck restraint, steering wheel, window net, and other potential hindrances in place, exactly as they will be in racing conditions."

2. A head and neck restraint system meeting the following head load reduction performance levels is (recommend/required): (insert performance standard here)

It is notable to me that they pussyfoot around actually REQUIRING H&N systems because they know good and well there will be a giant hew and cry from the membership, but are really brave about taking away my responsibility to my family for making the best decision for my own safety. Take this for what you will, as my "sprint racing" driver suit is NOT SFI rated but provides thermal protection FAR beyond the minimum SFI standard for our game.

K

AntonioGG

08-22-2006, 09:26 AM

Knowingly banning any proven safety product is not the road to reduced liability.
[/b]

In case you were responding to me, I wasn't saying there was merit to their decision.
I'm only trying to point out the current environment.

gsbaker

08-22-2006, 09:52 AM

In case you were responding to me, I wasn't saying there was merit to their decision.
I'm only trying to point out the current environment.
[/b]

No, no. It was a general comment. Sorry if I offended.

It's human nature for sanctioning bodies to feel secure when in a crowd of like-minded folks, but when it turns out to be lemmings headed for the cliff, someone needs to sound the alarm.

Kirk, as is often the case, has summed it up well. These are old rules that were put in place decades ago and no longer apply to a modern racing environment. So replace them with rules directed at performance, not design. Do you want to use explosive bolts and an ejection seat to bail? Fine. Show us that it works.

Darryl Pritchett

08-22-2006, 10:28 AM

sgallimo

08-22-2006, 11:02 AM

.... Why not reengineer it to meet the standards with a single point release system? ......
If so meet the standard and let the perspective buyer make their buying decision, if not then lets move on.
[/b]
You've hit upon the point rather nicely. The current Isaac design performs better than the leading "single point release system". To redesign the Isaac to follow that single point release design would lead to a reduction of performance and safety. The "feature" that allows the HANS to meet the single release aspect of 38.1 is the "feature" that could allow the belts to slip off during an impact. By leaving that "feature" out of its design, the Isaac removes that risk of accidential device detachment - thus dramatically improving driver safety.

This is why folks want a SFI performance certification instead of the current SFI implementation certification. We continue to fight because we want the SCCA to allow us to select from the available devices that meet the performance specs.

ryotko

08-22-2006, 11:08 AM

...My question is this. If the isaac is better then the Hans, or R3 ect. Why not reengineer it to meet the standards with a single point release system? Also does it meet or exceed all crash test? If it meets the standards and has equal or better crash test data then it should open the door up for a company like Isaac to excell in this market. If it cannot meet the standard for crash data then maybe it should not be allowed. It seems this is all about proving the Isaac's to be better then the Hans, R3 ect. If so meet the standard and let the perspective buyer make their buying decision, if not then lets move on.
[/b]

All of your points have been addressed. You really should read the thread before you jump in on page 15 with all the answers. To sum it up, the problem isn't with any of the available products, it's with a bad SFI spec. that's being poorly implemented by SCCA.

-Bob

gsbaker

08-22-2006, 11:23 AM

Details here. (http://www.isaacdirect.com/SFI.html)

lateapex911

08-22-2006, 11:36 AM

From my perspective at this time I have no head & neck restraint system. I am purchasing one at the end of this season just for my own reasons not anything to do with all this and am leaning towards the R3. My question is this. If the isaac is better then the Hans, or R3 ect. Why not reengineer it to meet the standards with a single point release system? Also does it meet or exceed all crash test? If it meets the standards and has equal or better crash test data then it should open the door up for a company like Isaac to excell in this market. If it cannot meet the standard for crash data then maybe it should not be allowed. It seems this is all about proving the Isaac's to be better then the Hans, R3 ect. If so meet the standard and let the perspective buyer make their buying decision, if not then lets move on.
[/b]

Not so simple.....

This gets messy....the SFI standard isn't about crash tests. Cynics will point out that its about cash flow, but the physical properties of the standard are very exclusive to all other architecture types. I encourage you to read the spec. It requires a "Main unit" that is held in place by the belts, but free to leave with the driver, and involves point of release language. It further goes on to define materials and such. Not surprisingly, the people involved with the HANS were 'instrumental' in the writing of the spec.

After reading that spec, I found it hard to, in my mind, design anything materially different than a HANS clone. It's as though our government, when the light bulb was invented, contacted LFI (Lighting safety Institute) and asked for a standard. LFI went to the leading expert in the field, a Mr Edison, and asked him to help write the specs, because really, the LFI knew little about the device. So they produced a standard that decreed that all future LFI standard lighting devices would use a glass spere with a filiment as the light source.

Which leaves little room for advancement and innovation.

Simply put, it's a dumb ass standard, written for all the wrong reasons.

And this discussion is NOT about the Isaac...although it has become the poster child for the non SFI units as it does happen to perform very well, arguably better in some cases that the devices that we will be allowed (or forced) to use.

But, (to carry the light comparision further) because it uses an HID light source instead of a filiment, we can't use it. Draconian.

The SFI spec, 38.1, is available not on the SFI ste, but on the HMSmotorsort site, here:
http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1...ecification.pdf (http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1_Head_Restraint_Specification.pdf)

Note item 2.2 and B is most interesting.

A classic case of diddling around the edges of a policy rather than stepping back, asking what is the primary intention (and secondary, if they become important), and writing a clear regulation. In this case, we have the same issue going on at the "local" level (SCCA is one instantiation of the SFI-guided policy on H&N systems) as we have at the higher, world motorsport level, with the "single-point-of-release" silliness.

The "protect your head and neck" and "get out of the car" rules have to be made separate, to avoid the chick-egg goofiness:

1. If we care about egress, the CRB needs to write a rule addressing it - "All drivers must be able to get completely out of and 10 feet away from their race car in less than XX seconds when asked to demonstrate their ability to do so. This must be accomplished unaided in a stationary, upright position with all accessories, driver comfort, communication, harness, head & neck restraint, steering wheel, window net, and other potential hindrances in place, exactly as they will be in racing conditions."

2. A head and neck restraint system meeting the following head load reduction performance levels is (recommend/required): (insert performance standard here)

It is notable to me that they pussyfoot around actually REQUIRING H&N systems because they know good and well there will be a giant hew and cry from the membership, but are really brave about taking away my responsibility to my family for making the best decision for my own safety. Take this for what you will, as my "sprint racing" driver suit is NOT SFI rated but provides thermal protection FAR beyond the minimum SFI standard for our game.

K
[/b]

Agreed.....but it is my impression that the club, or the CRB, or perhaps the BoD, has chosen to follow their paid legal counsels advice that they are not in the position to decide what is, and what is not acceptable.

In my discussions with those involved, they are loath to consider such an idea. "Can't do that" or "Not our place to define such a thing" and so on.

From a common sense view, that makes no sense. We should wear NOTHING(?) rather than we look at the big picture?

But from a legal view, I guess common sense and actual safety are not on the list of concerns.

turboICE

08-22-2006, 11:44 AM

Of course legal counsel is not concerned with actual safety. Legal counsel wants to know if they had all their ducks in row when presented to a jury.

Consider the average jury's reaction to the rule and the spec. A spec exists and the rule utilized it. Do you think for a second they will have any desire to gain sufficient understanding that the spec was manipulated in its creation and as a result the rule reduced safety? From their perspective an "independent" body set a spec and the rule relied on it. Legal counsel says the club is good to go.

Which makes me wonder why we even have any group in the club with safety in the title. If they are going to pass on their responsibility for our safety to those who are trying to address legal liability - what is the point? Oh to give the appearance that it was the safety group who determined and put the rule in place for a jury, of course.

The whole thing is a farce and I really don't understand how such a large group of persons representing the club and claiming to be addressing safety can actually stomach this result.

Darryl Pritchett

08-22-2006, 12:01 PM

lateapex911

08-22-2006, 12:06 PM

gsbaker

08-22-2006, 12:11 PM

Thanks (Gsbaker) for you post with details on the Isaacs. Now I am not an engineer nor claiming this is a simple solution. I actually like the idea of the Isaacs.

My idea and feel free to shoot it down if its not possible. How about having a back piece similar to the R3 that straped around your torso and the Isaacs attaching to that. Would this not solve the single point release issue and still protect the driver if the belts were to come off the unit due to the fact of the unit straped to the back. Yes it may not work quit as good as todays unit but if it passed the standard and is still better then the Hans, would we all not win by having another alternative choice.

Just an idea.
[/b]
And it's a good idea. The problem is one of liability. Because SFI requires a design that does not positively capture the belt, the belts are allowed to slide off the shoulder. This is extremely dangerous, for obvious reasons.

Personally, I have no interest in telling a jury that we knowingly provided our now-deceased customer with an inferior design so we could make more money. Someone will eventually get sued over this and the spec will change, assuming SFI survives.

erlrich

08-22-2006, 12:22 PM

Just curoius - and maybe we have a few tech and/or grid workers here who could provide some insight - who would be responsible for checking the H&N devices for compliance, assuming they were not a required piece of equipment (i.e., not required to undergo annual inspection)? As far as I can tell if the equipment is not required then tech really wouldn't care about it, and I've never heard of grid workers checking equipment for SFI compliance, so realistically who is going to tell us we can't use our non-SFI restraint?

JoshS

08-22-2006, 01:15 PM

(Edit: Somewhere is a reference to using 2" belts with the HANS. FasTrack maybe.)
[/b]
It's in the book itself, 20.10.

RSTPerformance

08-22-2006, 02:37 PM

I just spoke with my area Director, Bob Introne, and voiced my opinion regarding the issues here. He was open minded, and supportive, and very approachable. I'm not sure he wants his views repeated here, but I was pleased and relieved to find him so open to the discussion.

I encourage others to do the same. Go to your regions website, get the contact info, and call or write. I think that they would like to know what you think, and it's our job to let them know how we want our club run.
[/b]

When a fast track asks for member input or when we do want to give input on a specific topic such as this one whome are we suposed to e-mail? If I didn't follow the correct process please disreguard the rest of my nasty rant, and accept my appologies.

It has been well over a month since my e-mail went out to whom I thought I was suposed to e-mail. I am curiouse if anyone got a responce from the [email protected] or [email protected]. I personally enjoy speaking to Bob and I respect him in the highest degree, however I will say publicaly and to him how disapointed I am in the top levels of the SCCA organization. I have no idea if he recieves the e-mails sent to [email protected] or not, so I do not want my comments to reflect on him as an individual leader.

Anyway, I was disapointed to say the least that I got no responce from anyone at the e-mails [email protected] or [email protected]. I wrote asking seriose questions from a future "steward" , "Steward in training" , "driver" , and/or "outsiders" (lawyers) point of view. I did recieve responces from other stewards saying that my questions were good questions. I refuse to use my personal contacts to get a hold of someone as I am "testing" the process from a less involved members point of view who still wishes to be herd.

For now I will say that no responce from the "powers that be" means they really don't care about the potential rule being enforced or not. I have a bit of a bitter attitude about this, yes. Simply because nobody bothers to reply or care what we (you and I) think. If we (drivers and stewards alike) can't get answers then how are we suposed to respond?

Did someone say like 100's of posts earlier that SCCA NATIONAL has problems? I now agree... My honest current opinion is the heck with SCCA National, and to each region thier own!!! :happy204:

Raymond "VERY DISAPOINTED :dead_horse: " Blethen

PS: I hope my post doesn't bite me in @$$ but if someone reads this who actually cares and has "power" then maybe you will see thier is a breakdown in the system that is suposed to exist... Don't be mad at me (get over yourself and realize your not perfect either), realize the system isn't working and fix it. I am a little SIT and obviosly can't fix it, as noticed in the failure of recieving a responce from anyone other than other stewards whome I respect but also can't seem to fix the problem.

wpspeedracer

08-23-2006, 06:22 AM

I know I'm jumping in way late here not having read all 16 pages, however, this video is me hitting the wall straight on at Daytona on the bank at turn 1 at over 90 mph several weeks ago. Had I not had my ISAAC on, I doubt I would be here today. At the end of the accident, even after being knocked silly, there was no issue in popping the two helmet pins and going out the window. I don't even want to think how I would have climbed out the window with a Hans. I'm not going out on the track without an Isaac

crash occurs around the 4 minute mark

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7738901058081551810

mark

erlrich

08-23-2006, 07:58 AM

Bill Miller

08-23-2006, 08:01 AM

Um, Mark, you just f*#^ing with us, or did you link to the wrong video?
[/b]

I don't think it was his video, but the video from someone behind him. At ~4:24 you can see a car hit the wall shortly after they went back out onto the banking. I'm guessing that that was Mark.

erlrich

08-23-2006, 08:32 AM

I don't think it was his video, but the video from someone behind him. At ~4:24 you can see a car hit the wall shortly after they went back out onto the banking. I'm guessing that that was Mark. [/b] Thanks Bill. I actually saw that, but I guess the "this video is me" part threw me. I was waiting for the car taking the video to wreck.

wpspeedracer

08-23-2006, 10:36 AM

Sorry if I threw you guys off......This video is from a car about 4 - 6 cars behind me and as he is coming out of the infield at turn six, you can see me in front hitting the wall

mark

erlrich

08-23-2006, 11:06 AM

Sorry if I threw you guys off...... [/b] No problem, that's what happens when you're sitting at your desk, answering the phone, answering questions from other people in your office, trying to finish a schedule that should have been done Friday, and trying to watch a video all at the same time. Guess I should have let the phone ring, huh :D ?

Man, that looked like a hard hit - that "soft" wall didn't look so soft!

wpspeedracer

08-23-2006, 11:27 AM

As stated - I will never leave the grid without the Isaac on. My head/neck moved just enough to prevent ANY injury. I had one day (Tuesday) where my neck was a little stiff, gone by Wednesday. Isaac works and works well......I would even consider not racing SCCA anymore if they stop me from wearing it. PCA, NASA, PBOC, HSR, SVRA have no problem with it and even encourage the use of 'Neck Restraint Systems'. There's lots of racing out there if SCCA stops us here.

Mark

pgipson

08-23-2006, 09:10 PM

When a fast track asks for member input or when we do want to give input on a specific topic such as this one whome are we suposed to e-mail?[/b]

I sent my comments to my BoD member (via the e-mail address on the SCCA website) to a BoD member I know from my last division, to the CRB and to our RE. I got no responses from anyone. Not even a "thank you for your input".

lateapex911

08-23-2006, 09:32 PM

I sent my comments to my BoD member (via the e-mail address on the SCCA website) to a BoD member I know from my last division, to the CRB and to our RE. I got no responses from anyone. Not even a "thank you for your input".
[/b]

Normally I wouldn't make this suggestion, but hit the regions website and call your director...this is something thats pretty important, and once the writing is in the book, it'll never come out.

mustanghammer

08-23-2006, 10:22 PM

I sent my comments to my BoD member (via the e-mail address on the SCCA website) to a BoD member I know from my last division, to the CRB and to our RE. I got no responses from anyone. Not even a "thank you for your input".
[/b]

I received a response for Lary Dent immediately and so did others. I was told by my area director that the response - number of letters and e-mails - for this issue was HUGE. Maybe they truly did't have time when you wrote. They get the e-mails and letters.

wpspeedracer

08-24-2006, 02:36 PM

I sent comments and video link to Terry and got an immediate response:

"Thanks for the info Mark. I will forward it to the Club Racing Board which is the group reviewing the matter.
Sincerely,
Terry

Terry Ozment
Director of Club Racing
800-770-2055 x 304
785-232-7214

[email protected] "

RSTPerformance

08-24-2006, 04:56 PM

Well, I guess my membership isn't worth it as I never got a responce from any BOD members... maybe I should give up volunteering for them and simply concentrate on myself... I've never done that in my SCCA career since I was 7 or 8 years old in the old timing booth... Hummmm This whole thing is politics and lawyers at thier best. I deal with that crap enough at work, no need to deal with that crap doing something I am suposed to enjoy doing.

Until I get a responce to my questions I will publically state that I would NEVER protest or disqualify someone for wearing an ISAAC or similar if the rules comes into play. If that jepordises my ability to graduate to a steward so be it. If it throws me out of the SIT program, your loss not mine. Someone should friggen pay attention. I know this site gets viewed by many involved in SCCA, and I know someone recieved my dam e-mails.

and no Jake, I am not sending any specific e-mails to any board members. I sent it to [email protected] and that should be good enough. If it isn't then the SCCA website should indicate that. If you think that this is sooo important then you can feel free to send my name and my posts along to anyone who is to busy for me that is suposidly "running" SCCA. I have always felt SCCA is run on a local level and I will continue to feel that way until someone actually does something that members want.

I am also pissed that I don't think they every pay attention to over half the people who respond. I have never seen a thank you for your input in the Fast Track and I know myself and others have given it. They seem to just pick 2 or 3 names and forget about everyone else.

Raymond "Probably soon to be booted from SIT program" Blethen

PS: Jake when you or anyone else forwards my name along, my e-mail was sent on 7/28/06 specificaly to [email protected]; [email protected] and a specific board member I will not mention for my own good (even though he never replied) as well as a few stewards whome I must say did reply, to bad they are not the ones running SCCA.

RSTPerformance

08-24-2006, 05:54 PM

Dam it Jake...

I sent another e-mail, but not because of the H&N restraint issue, but because the BOD and CRB does not care about moulding or developing future Stewards and Leaders of this organization. In my e-mail it does have a copy of my original e-mail that lists 6 seriose questions that as an SIT I should know and as a concerned member they should know the answers to.

My last e-mail (todays only) went to:

The competition Racing Board: [email protected]
The Board of Directors: [email protected]
The Chairman of the Board of Directors, Bob Introne: [email protected]
The President, Chief Executive Officer, Jim Julow: [email protected]
The Executive Assistant, Aimee Thoennes: [email protected]
The Risk Manager/Legal Counsel, Pete Lyon: [email protected]
The Director, Club Racing, Terry Ozment: [email protected]
The Manager, Club Racing Events, Wyndi McCormick: [email protected]
The Manager, Club Racing, Deanna Flanagan: [email protected]
The National Administrators of Stewards, Costa Dunias: [email protected]

If it should go to anyone else in the entire organization please let me know, I will send my disapointments to them directly.

Raymond "errrrr" Blethen

ddewhurst

08-25-2006, 07:35 AM

The fun part is that if any of the BoD or CRB read this site they don't have the goods to respond as a couple do on the Production site.

I bet IT puts more money in the coffers than Production. & please no speaches from the ITAC folks.

David :dead_horse: Dewhurst

planet6racing

08-25-2006, 07:44 AM

Actually, David, there are several board members (both CRB and BOD) that have responded to many issues here. Let's not start with attacks like that, please.

gsbaker

08-25-2006, 09:11 AM

We would like to thank supporters of Isaac systems--and all non-SFI products for that matter--for having expressed their opinions to the Board. We expected a good number to speak up, but we are getting the impression that it's one notch short of storming the castle with pitchforks.

Thanks, and have a great weekend!

RSTPerformance

08-25-2006, 10:33 AM

I felt as with my disapointment, I also need to recognize when SCCA "National" does a great job. I received a reply this morning to my e-mail that I sent out and I was very pleased with what it said. Jeremy Thoennes was the respondant. He answered my questions and I certainly understand the position that SCCA is in.

One interesting quote from the e-mail:

SCCA has come to rely on third party organizations such as snell, SFI, and FIA for a majority of our rules for driver apparel as we do not conduct our own product testing nor do we have the resources to develop our own standards.

While I completely understand and agree 100% with this statement (I don't expect SCCA to develop their own standards) the only question I still have is why have the rule in the first place? Is it an insurance requirement or is the SCCA just being smart (proactive) in following what ALL other major racing organizatins are doing?

Jeremy also pointed out to me that the CRB looked at egress times in the past instead of a single release requirement and as recently as 2002 member feedback opposed such a rule. Looks like we dug our own hole and/or the CRB needs to reconsider as times have changed a lot over the past 4 years.

Now I am left very much on the edge of how I feel... One part of me agrees completely with making a rule and unfortunatly putting presure back on greg/ISAAC to work with SFI to prove that his product is safe and get the SFI requirements changed, but the other part says... wait this "other" product may be safer and who are they (SCCA) to say what safety equipment you can run?

I am sure if the internet was around when they required seatbelts or helmets we would all be having the same debate, and now it is just second nature to have a snell rated helmet and SFI rated belts...

Raymond " :unsure: " Blethen

DavidM

08-25-2006, 12:57 PM

I received a response for Lary Dent immediately and so did others. I was told by my area director that the response - number of letters and e-mails - for this issue was HUGE. Maybe they truly did't have time when you wrote. They get the e-mails and letters.
[/b]

If it was a huge response they don't seem to be paying any attention. This whole issue has been ridiculous and could have been solved in a number of simple ways, many of which have been discussed in this thread. If this is a legal issue then why not just have those of us wishing to use non-SFI devices sign some sort of waiver acknowledging that we understand our device is not SFI compliant and we accept responsibility for said devices operation. Keep the waiver on file at SCCA headquarters. Put the useless lawyer the SCCA has to some good use by creating the waiver in legalese.

This issue pisses me off so much because a number of workable solutions were available yet the boards don't seem interested in them. For what is supposedly a member driven organization we seem to be getting ignored.

David

ddewhurst

08-25-2006, 01:13 PM

***there are several board members (both CRB and BOD) that have responded to many issues here.***

Bill, names of several CRB anf BoD members ^ please.

tderonne

08-25-2006, 01:59 PM

Can we list what items have to meet what safety standard? I'll start:

Fuel cells. None for IT. Some other classes have to meet FIA specs for a new cell, but that expires at 5 years and is ignored by SCCA.

Seats. None. But must be one piece and have rear support, unless they meet FIA 8855-1999 (an old spec?). Is some classes stock seats aren't even allowed, and they met a higher spec than the FIA spec.

Cages. SCCA specs. Some FIA cages aren't legal for SCCA.

Those are three examples where SCCA does not rely soley on someone else to set the spec. Others?

Knestis

08-25-2006, 03:17 PM

The most appropriate comparison is DRIVER'S SUITS:

Driving suits that effectively cover the body from the neck to the
ankles and wrists, manufactured of fire resistant material, worn
with underwear of a fire resistant material. One piece suits are
highly recommended. All suits and underwear shall be made of the
following accepted fire resistant materials: Nomex, Kynol, FPT,
IWS (wool), Fiber glass, Firewear™, Durette, Fypro, PBI, Kevlar,
NASAFIL, or any suit carrying an SFI 3-2A/1 or higher certification
patch. Underwear of PROBAN is approved. The following specific
manufacturer(s) material combinations are also recognized: Simpson
Heat Shield, Leston Super Protex, FPT Linea Sport, Carbon X, and
Durette X-400. Underwear is not required with three-layer suits or
with suits carrying FIA standards of 8856-1986 or 8856-2000 or
SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch . FIA
homologated driving suits and underwear are recommended.

(2006 GCR, emphasis mine)

In this case, it's probably appropriate to make the requirement based on materials and number of layers. Regardless, they didn't specify particular TPI burn-through test performance and did not align exclusively with one or a group of manufacturers, or one foundation.

With H&N systems, the best answer would be specific, impact head-load-reduction test results from an independent lab, since there are more than one way on the market to skin this particular cat.

K

Bill Miller

08-26-2006, 10:18 AM

Excellent post Kirk!

gsbaker

08-28-2006, 04:34 PM

The Board voted and the results won't be official until they are reviewed and published, which takes a couple of weeks.

In the meantime, your Area representatives may have more information...

Jeremy Billiel

08-28-2006, 05:16 PM

Greg - Are you leading us??? Someone must have a leaked answer on this hot topic!

tderonne

08-28-2006, 05:45 PM

Yeah, what are the unofficial results?

lateapex911

08-28-2006, 08:52 PM

I just discussed this with the CRB...and they weren't talking, although I didn't ask about this specific issue. Cryptically, they said that the BoD voted "as expected"...and that, certain items have been leaked on the SCCA site...

Not really anything definate, eh???

(Not related, but the top 24 concept flew and "certain new classes were added" according to the SCCA site press release.)

gsbaker

08-29-2006, 06:39 AM

Greg - Are you leading us???...[/b]
Absolutely not. We have no idea. The response we got from SCCA staff was very neutral. Apparently they are reluctant to speak for the Board since the wording is not final until published. Of course, in this case it is either "Yes" or "No", but you get the idea.

They did mention, however, that the vote is not secret and Board members are not obligated in any way with respect to comments. So if you e-mailed or called before, do it again and you will probably get the answer.

Bill Miller

08-29-2006, 07:21 AM

Absolutely not. We have no idea. The response we got from SCCA staff was very neutral. Apparently they are reluctant to speak for the Board since the wording is not final until published. Of course, in this case it is either "Yes" or "No", but you get the idea.

They did mention, however, that the vote is not secret and Board members are not obligated in any way with respect to comments. So if you e-mailed or called before, do it again and you will probably get the answer.
[/b]

Hopefully one of the BoD members that posts here will share this information w/ us.

PSherm

08-29-2006, 01:47 PM

Nothing listed about H&N restraints in the CRB recommendations to the BOD on the SCCA web page, so I guess another bullet dodged... for now... :happy204:

DavidM

08-29-2006, 02:04 PM

Maybe they're trying to give the board members time to run for cover. "As expected" does not have a good sound to it. Maybe I'm a pessimist and hopfully I'll be proved wrong.

Davd

lateapex911

08-29-2006, 03:45 PM

Well, that's what makes me go "Huh??""

MY BoD man, (the chair) indicated he thought it was the wrong thing to do now, and he seemed receptive to my suggestion that it be tabled. And I got the impression that he thought the other Directors were in agreement, at least a lot of them. Which is NOT to say that it's a slam dunk majority!

My discussions with the CRB, on the other hand, indicated that THEY thought it was the way to go, and that they HAD to do something. So...if THEY think it went "as expected", that's bad.

But it is SO nebulous, and definition sensitiive, that I could see it going either way.

IF it's tabled, I'd like to know NOW rather than later, so that any strategies that could be put in play could be initiated now, as opposed to later.

Matt Rowe

08-29-2006, 05:28 PM

My BOD board memeber seemed to be on the same page as your Jake. He said he was pushing to suspend any voting on the issue until some issues were investigated and questions answered. So my expectation is the BOD wouldn't have voted at all or if they did they would reject the proposal based on a lack of information/justification.

gsbaker

09-13-2006, 06:34 PM

Tick, tick, tick... Well, at least the next FasTrack is due soon.

If I sound bored it's because I am. The wife is travelling, the pets are all snoring and the next Netflix doesn't arrive until tomorrow -- and I was so looking forward to "Vampire Vixens from Venus".

So perhaps a contest is in order? No one seems to know which way the voting went, so how about everyone sign up for "Yes" or "No". "Yes" means the Board accepted the CRB's proposal to require SFI "certified" products, and "No" means they tossed it. It's possibe the Board just postponed the issue, but we can call that a "No".

I don't think a poll will work, so everyone who wants to bet can just post "Yes" or "No" here. Everyone who is right gets something. I have no idea what, but we can work out the details later. Whatever you guys think is fair, assuming we agree. ;)

lateapex911

09-13-2006, 07:16 PM

I love Isaac contests!

I'm optimistic right now..........

"No"

gprodracer

09-13-2006, 07:26 PM

I'm hoping..
wishing...
and praying...

NO!

Oh, and I have my fingers crossed too!

Mark

erlrich

09-13-2006, 07:31 PM

They'll vote NO.

I sent my friend Guido to visit each of the members :D

Daryl DeArman

09-13-2006, 07:48 PM

Hoping that it will be a NO. Something about the scales of justice...one side holding facts and reason (NO Vote) while the other side holds politics (yes Vote)...or something like that. Unfortunately, I think they'll vote YES.

Eagle7

09-13-2006, 07:52 PM

I think they'll send it back to the CRB to revise, so I guess that's a NO.

RSTPerformance

09-13-2006, 07:55 PM

I think that they voted in favor of the member feedback they recieved, and I think that most members felt we should not have any rules at this time!!!

:birra: Raymond

Knestis

09-13-2006, 09:16 PM

This vote will carry the "no." It's the next one we really have to worry about, I think.

K

EDIT - if I win, I want a pony.

Bill Miller

09-13-2006, 09:41 PM

Mark me down for a 'No'

But I agree w/ Kirk.

lateapex911

09-13-2006, 09:45 PM

You want a pony Bill??

But I agree with Kirk, that this aint going to go away....

tlmotorsport

09-13-2006, 10:00 PM

i'm going to go for a no as well bob

Dave Burchfield

09-13-2006, 10:32 PM

My hope is that the vote will be a "NO" If we are successful this time, it has to be only the beginning of a massive effort to "educate" the CRB and the BOD. Maybe this is the time to begin keeping our ideas such that they could be compiled, researched, and presented in a landslide.

mustanghammer

09-13-2006, 11:27 PM

They voted no.

Ponys are for girls I want a MUSTANG!

Wreckerboy

09-14-2006, 07:43 AM

The will (or have) voted "no".

However, there are discrepancies in both Florida and Ohio that will demand a recount. Something about some guy named Chad getting hung. Oh, sorry, wrong election....

planet6racing

09-14-2006, 07:51 AM

I'll buck the trend and say:

"Yes"

and, if so, I won't be racing next year. While the membership can have all the input it wants, if the lawyers say that the club won't exist if the rules stay as they are, the BOD will be forced to do something.

Sorry.

itracer

09-14-2006, 07:59 AM

I'll say "NO" as Kirk said -- For this vote. Not sure about the future ones though.

RacerBill

09-14-2006, 08:01 AM

I vote for a 'No' vote based on communication with my Director prior to the meeting. I agree that something will be added to the GCR in the near future. Hope it will be something reasonable.

gsbaker

09-14-2006, 09:56 AM

Well, that woke everyone up.

Regardless of which way the vote went, I agree that the fat lady has yet to sing. I also agree with Dave that the time is ripe for a more proactive stance, which reminds me of an observation made recently by a party who shall remain annonymous. Allow me to paraphrase:

Annonymous Party (AP): "So, an Isaac is as good as SFI designs in frontal impacts?"
Me: "Well, you can tune a HANS to get under 1,000N neck tension on the Delphi sled, which is better, but you need a four belt shoulder harness."
AP: "That's great if you hit something at 300Gs, but you're dead by then anyway, right?"
Me: "Right. Soft tissue injuries in the chest cavity start around 150Gs or so."
AP: "And no SFI design can touch an Isaac on side impacts, right?"
Me: "Not even close."
AP: "And SFI designs can lose the belts in amateur road seats whereas the Isaac will keep them in place on the shoulder -- and they can cause egress problems, right?"
Me: "The SFI designs don't always have those problems, of course, but they can, yes."
AP: "So, it is then safe to say that SFI designs don't really offer any practical safety advantage over the Isaac designs, and have documented safety weaknesses, right?
Me: "A good summary, yes."
AP: "And the SCCA wants to use SFI as a point of reference, right."
Me: "They prefer referring to an outside standard, yes."
AP: "Then the solution is obvious."
Me: "What's that?"
AP: "Petition the SCCA to ban all SFI head and neck restraints."

Sounds good to me.

Oh, one other thing that I didn't want to bring up before the vote because it would just muddy the waters. A free pony to the first person who can name the day jobs of two of the three members of the CRB's Safety Committee, listed about a third of the way down the page here: http://www.scca.org/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=0...30&x=080|070&~= (http://www.scca.org/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=0087A0-5F37E30&x=080|070&~=).

Daryl DeArman

09-14-2006, 10:47 AM

They are in retail sales/distributors of safety equipment....namely SFI approved safety equipment. Where is my pony?

For the record...since I have been the only YES vote thusfar, if I win, donate the prize to someone else. Thanks anyways...I don't want to "win" something based on that outcome...

Do I sound bitter? I assure you I am not. I am quite happy actually. Personalized plate on the new bike "NJYN LIF"

gsbaker

09-14-2006, 11:22 AM

Close but no cigar, Daryl. One is a HANS dealer, but not the other.

Still time to win the pony, folks! :)

lateapex911

09-14-2006, 11:43 AM

Google is your best friend folks....

.........and the results will be eyebrow raising.

It's the midwest steward guy that has me scratching my head.

For my part, I really want to understand better the procedures, and the methods that are utilized in writing such recommendations.

Dave Burchfield

09-14-2006, 12:15 PM

You mean, Arnie Kuhns, President of SFI? This is NO conflict, absolutely not. It is in the best interest of SFI to retain the gathered power they have by "encouraging" all sanctioning bodies to mandate only SFI approved equipment, regardless if it is in the best interest of the sport or the drivers. They stand to lose in large porportion if anyone moves away from their standards. Imagine what may go through the minds of other sanctioning bodies minds if SCCA comes up with a better means to qualify H&N systems.
"Umm......SCCA isn't using the SFI approval becaus they came up with a different means to qualify equipment that meets all the legal requirements and is a more comprehensive evaluation. What do they know that we don't?"

Others may begin asking questions...............questions result in lost power and lost revenues.

Am I missing something here?..........or was I born yesterday?.........

lateapex911

09-14-2006, 01:08 PM

You mean, Arnie Kuhns, President of SFI? This is NO conflict, absolutely not.
[/b]

Dave, should we be reading your post with the fromatter "[sarcasm mode ON] in front of it?

Knestis

09-14-2006, 01:15 PM

Joe Marko - principal in HMS Motorsport and "safety expert" (multiple web entries say it, so it must be true), Hans and Schroth dealer.

Arnie Kuhns - my position on SFI's mission has been beaten to death here. His primary job is to convince sanctioning bodies to adopt his standards, thereby forcing racers to give his company money.

I don't know anything about Ed Ozment.

K

planet6racing

09-14-2006, 01:19 PM

When Ed was a steward up here, he seemed like a pretty good guy. Had a chance to talk to him a little at the drivers school when he was the steward and I was an instructor. His wife, Terry, received some promotion in the SCCA that he obviously went with.

I really wish I didn't know about the people on the safety committee. :( :bash_1_:

Dave Burchfield

09-14-2006, 01:31 PM

Jake,

Ohhhhh nooooooooo.............maybe I should have put a smiley after that.......didn't you see my tongue firmly implanted in my cheek?

dickita15

09-14-2006, 02:19 PM

Ed O is also one of the 4 people in the known universe certified by SCCA to do course inspections. He is the only one on the safety commitee that I know of no connection to the sale of safety devices.

88YB1

09-14-2006, 03:19 PM

Sounds like it's time for the masses to pick up there shovels and pitch forks and revolt. I thinlk they voted no. Something to do with the noise of rattling sabors.

Chuck

ryotko

09-14-2006, 04:02 PM

I'll side with the optimistic majority and say the vote will be NO. Something tells me otherwise though.
I've let my membership expire over this issue and refuse to renew until I'm confident that I'll be able to use the Isaac.

-Bob

PSherm

09-14-2006, 04:58 PM

I'm gonna say the CRB never presented it to the BOD... :lol:

I guess that means no? And I have no idea what anybody on the BOD, Safety Commitee, or CRB does for a living, and I don't need a pony.

I will, however, be happy to accept a free ISAAC... :happy204:

gsbaker

09-14-2006, 05:27 PM

...and I don't need a pony.

I will, however, be happy to accept a free ISAAC... :happy204:
[/b]Ponys only. Isaacs are hard to come by.

shwah

09-14-2006, 07:19 PM

I think this battle is won, the vote was no don't recommend head restraints and require SFI certification. I think the war is lost, the next vote will be yes to require head restraints and require SFI certification.

I also think this sucks, but I will not let it keep me from racing.

Stan

09-14-2006, 09:55 PM

Any planned celebrations might be a bit premature, since that was submitted to the BoD was the recommendation that h&n devices, if used, be SFI 38.1 certificated. If the BoD indeed voted no, that still leaves the single-point-of-release rule (GCR 20.4) in place...and the ISAAC still non-compliant.

Stan

PS - I have nothing against the ISAAC...just pointing out the glaringly obvious.

erlrich

09-14-2006, 10:52 PM

that still leaves the single-point-of-release rule (GCR 20.4) in place...and the ISAAC still non-compliant.

Stan

PS - I have nothing against the ISAAC...just pointing out the glaringly obvious. [/b] With all due respect Stan I must wholeheartedly disagree with your statement. The commonly mis-quoted "single-point-of-release" rule actually states "The phrase "single point of release" on the other hand means to me exactly what you and many others have expressed, that there must be a single point, somewhere in the harness system, that when activated releases the driver from the harnesses. If the rule in fact stated there must be a single point of release I would agree with you completely. However that is not what the rule says, and to my way of thinking there is nothing in section 20.4 that would preclude me from using the ISAAC, or any other H&N device regardless of how it functioned. Of course, that's just one man's opinion.

Oh, and one last thing; even though I disagree with you on this issue, I also want to thank you for taking the time to stop by and join in the discussions when you are able. I know every member of this forum really appreciates the fact that a member of the CRB is listening to our opinions.

turboICE

09-14-2006, 10:59 PM

I really, really want to hear club counsel's thoughts on a situation in the grid whereby someone approaches a driver and insists they remove their ISAAC prior to exiting grid to the track. And if it was to happen to me it will be great because it will be on video for later review by my estate.

RSTPerformance

09-15-2006, 12:36 AM

Stan-

At this point I have to agree with earl on this one... If we were to DQ or not allow someone to race with the Issac or similar H&N system that needs additional releases then we will also need to requre that many people remove thier doors, window nets, radio's, cool suites, and what not before they race. I do understand the opinion that many have that a radio wire or similar can easily be cut but IF your intermpretation of the rule is what we should follow then be sure that you look at all the implications of your view, and don't use it only to attack certain H&N restraint systems.

I think that SCCA probably made the right decission and I hope that it is because this topic needs some other sort of requrement structure. Single release is NOT the scape goat, nor a good reason for all this debate.

Raymond

Stan

09-15-2006, 01:36 AM

With all due respect Stan I must wholeheartedly disagree with your statement. The commonly mis-quoted "single-point-of-release" rule actually states "The shoulder harness shall be the over the shoulder type. There shall be a single release common to the seat belt and shoulder harness." And no, I'm not playing silly word games. There is a huge difference between "single release" and "single point of release" in my opinion. "Single release" refers to the mechanism that attaches the individual components of the harness system together, and as far as 20.4 is concerned means that there must be a single mechanism, or latch, to which all the individual harness pieces attach, and which when activated releases the harness components from each other.

The phrase "single point of release" on the other hand means to me exactly what you and many others have expressed, that there must be a single point, somewhere in the harness system, that when activated releases the driver from the harnesses. If the rule in fact stated there must be a single point of release I would agree with you completely. However that is not what the rule says, and to my way of thinking there is nothing in section 20.4 that would preclude me from using the ISAAC, or any other H&N device regardless of how it functioned. Of course, that's just one man's opinion.

Oh, and one last thing; even though I disagree with you on this issue, I also want to thank you for taking the time to stop by and join in the discussions when you are able. I know every member of this forum really appreciates the fact that a member of the CRB is listening to our opinions.[/b]
Earl,

Sorry my "short-hand" was misconstrued as a "mis-quote", because I wasn't actually quoting anything. Rather, I was informally highlighting that where the ISAAC has encountered problems with SCCA, that challenge is independent of the recent BoD vote, and remains unresolved.

You may interpret 20.4 as requiring a single release of the belt components, but others have taken exactly the stance you disagree with...that it means there should be a single release for the driver. But rather than debate the semantics of the GCR, which is less than crystal clear :rolleyes: , I suggest we concentrate on achieving what the vast majority of writers to the CRB want - language permitting safe and effective h&n systems, because even if the BoD voted no, that issue still isn't resolved.

You guys know the [email protected].

Stan

PS - Thanks for the words of welcome, Earl. I try to check in every few weeks, but don't post often.

Bill Miller

09-15-2006, 05:30 AM

gsbaker

09-15-2006, 08:02 AM

I didn't know SFI designed H&N restraints???
[/b]In effect. The spec (38.1, section 2.5) goes to this single release issue.

Stan,

The issue is resolved -- except, apparently, among a small group on the west coast.

The letter of the 20.4 relates to harnesses only; there is no mention of H&N restraints. The spirit of 20.4 relates to getting the driver out of the car, not getting the driver out of the seat. (Joey Hand probably had no problem getting out of his seat.) Hence, there is no basis in the rules for keeping an Isaac user from driving.

But forget the rules and look at instances where drivers are trapped in their cars by head and neck restraints. Every time it has happened -- every time -- it has been by a product that conforms to this odd interpretation of 20.4 to which you refer. Never an Isaac system. So even if that interpretation of 20.4 is correct all of the evidence says it is the more dangerous approach. What do you do with a more dangerous interpretation of the rule? Enforce it?

The rules, regardless of how they are interpreted, and the field evidence not only support Isaac use, they suggest that certain design concepts should be revisited.

This issue is very much resolved and, frankly, members find the anti-Isaac argument (invariably made by people who have never used one) increasingly embarassing.

TurboIce has it right: If the CRB fails to grasp these fundamental facts and gets someone killed, a jury will be happy to offer a further explanation.

ddewhurst

09-15-2006, 08:40 AM

Following is a portion of my letter to ALL those people at SCCA. I agree 100% with Earl. Also within SFI specification 38.1. point 2.1. "decreases both neck stress and head excursion during a vehicle impact without reliance on helmet impact into structures or nets.". Duh, pretty hard while using a HANS to reduce the lateral load from 19% to the 85% reduction of the ISAAC without some sort of side support.

Do we have some people recomending/making rules that will save our lives that don't know how to read? If anyone connected with making a decision on this rule is offended please post within this thread or pm me.

****Please read the SFI Specification 38.1 point 2.1 immediately below and ask yourself the following question. How can the HANS provide equal or greater lateral moment reduction than the ISAAC system without reliance on helmet impact into structures or nets? (Window net, right side net & or a seat with helmet side bars.)

SFI Specification 38.1

2.0 Definitions

2.1 Head and Neck Restraint: An active Head and Neck Restraint System is a protection ensemble providing an alternative load path which decreases both neck stress and head excursion during a vehicle impact without reliance on helmet impact into structures or nets.

The driver getting out of the car is a secondary issue to which we have all read about the trials of Joey Hand wearing a HANS attempting to get out of his upside down car during the Grand American Rolex Sports car Series race on June 24th, 2006 at the Mid Ohio sports car race course. Joey Hand didn't/couldn't get out of the car via the SFI specification 38.1 point 2.5 required one release motion. "I couldn't get out because my HANS device was stuck in the window net," The safety workers released Joey Hand's HANS from the window net and extracted Joey from the car. I am not implying that Joey Hand could not have had the same issue had he been wearing a ISAAC system. I am trying to point out that under similar circumstances the same results can occur & that the SFI specification 38.1 point 2.5 required one release motion is not the single best specification.

Do some real thinking about the one release motion specified within the SFI specification 38.1. point 2.5. One release motion to disconnect the safety harness, after disconnect of the drink tube, after disconnect of the radio wire, after disconnect of the window net, after disconnect of the right side net, after disconnect of the steering wheel and then oh crap I'm upside down & I get my HANS caught in the window net that opened from the top down when I was right side up. Next think about the fact that the ISAAC reduces the lateral moment by eighty six percent as compared top the HANS which only reduces the lateral moment by nineteen percent.

Please vote NO to specifying that the SFI specification 38.1 be mandatory for SCCA Club Road Racers.****

David Dewhurst
SCCA 250772

PSherm

09-15-2006, 09:33 AM

Following is a portion of my letter to ALL those people at SCCA. Racers.****

[/b]

David - nicely done. Do we have your permission to copy your letter and use it in our letters to the CRB and BOD?

Doc Bro

09-15-2006, 10:09 AM

[quote]
But forget the rules and look at instances where drivers are trapped in their cars by head and neck restraints. Every time it has happened -- every time -- it has been by a product that conforms to this odd interpretation of 20.4 to which you refer. Never an Isaac system. So even if that interpretation of 20.4 is correct all of the evidence says it is the more dangerous approach. What do you do with a more dangerous interpretation of the rule? Enforce it?

Greg,

I'll play Devil's advocate for a second without offense I hope, as you know I use the Isaac.

There would be more instances of drivers hanging up with a HANS simply because the numbers of HANS users is higher. It becomes a much more powerful (number of participants) study. If 1 in 1,000 users get hung up and you only have 500 users you may not expect to see hang ups....yes?

That is part of the enigma, shrouded in mystery, wrapped in a conundrum that I see with this whole thing. Sometimes "the people" get confused with pseudo-science (it's even easier to get a lawyer to bite on pseudo-science). The bottom line is unless we have enough users out there with documented crash histories we may not be comparing apples to apples in "their" eyes.

I chose the Isaac because the science was good. But, then again....I understand science.

R

Knestis

09-15-2006, 11:00 AM

A thought, Paul - it's generally thought that letters that are simply cut-and-pasted copies of someone else's ideas don't carry near the weight that an individually written one might. It would probably be more powerful to put shared ideas in your own words.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - we need to disentangle the issues being addressed here. We need:

1. A requirement that drivers use H&N systems - since the data strongly suggests that they have the power to keep us safer. Since the science is there to allow it at reasonable cost, designs should be expected to meet specific performance benchmarks using repeatable tests. It is not necessary for any external body to "approve" these devices, once a performance standard has been established, NOR is it appropriate to require particular attributes of system design, as long as performance standards are met.

2. A separate requirement defining minimum egress time requirements - since it seems like this is an issue that we care about. The number of releases (or whatever) is an weak-at-best indirect measure of the time required to get the hell out of a crashed car. Since it is the latter that we care about, rather than the former, the policy should act directly on the desired intention of the rule. Add an item to the GCR that requires that drivers demonstrate, at the request of the appropriate officials, that they can get all the way out of their car with all of their accoutrements in place. If they want to handcuff themselves to the wheel, that's their own how-do-you-do, as long as they can get out in XX seconds.

Blame (again) the SCCA rules writing process that diddles around the edges of existing text, rather than asking what really matters and revising rules as necessary...

K

lateapex911

09-15-2006, 11:16 AM

What's disturbing to me is that the SFI spec was written by people with a vested interest in creating a spec around one architectural solution, one that was already designed. It's hard to imagine the designer of a device writing a spec that would either exclude his device, or make the spec open enough that non clone devices could qualify.

So now we have a spec that, in essence, defines the very design. And therefore limits progress, innovation, and yes, performance.

Add to that the conflict arising in the "one release" rules wording. The rule specifically refers to the belts being released, not the driver from the belts. Again, we get into the classic conundrum of reading the rules as written, or adding suppositions like, "of course they are talking about getting the driver out.." Well, if we take that logical path, it's easy to point out that there are a myriad of items that stand in the drivers way of getting out that require releasing, many of which have no standard at all!

I have been reminded many times that the rules mean what the rules say, not what I think, or assume they mean. If they don't say what the rulesmakers intended, they should be rewritten accordingly.

Each side of the reading has it's logical flaws. In the end though, my logic tells me that I'm better off crashing heavily (head on, or the much more likely lateral and multiple hit type of incident) with a device that helps me make it to the end of the crash, and with the least impact on my physiology, so that I can then extract myself from the car.

But now I hear that the "One release" rule is or will be used to exclude devices.

So, my question to any proponents of using the one release rule to remove devices from a driver before he goes out on track is, "Are you making that driver safer by your actions???"

......
2. A separate requirement defining minimum egress time requirements - since it seems like this is an issue that we care about. The number of releases (or whatever) is an weak-at-best indirect measure of the time required to get the hell out of a crashed car. Since it is the latter that we care about, rather than the former, the policy should act directly on the desired intention of the rule. Add an item to the GCR that requires that drivers demonstrate, at the request of the appropriate officials, that they can get all the way out of their car with all of their accoutrements in place. If they want to handcuff themselves to the wheel, that's their own how-do-you-do, as long as they can get out in XX seconds.

....

K
[/b]

Kirk, I am in complete agreement, but I fear the club's counsel will never allow it, for fear of losing his job down the line.

IF the club were to state that we needed to have egress within 15 seconds, and someone were killed within that 15 seconds, say by another car impacting the stopped car in which the driver was in the process of extricating himself from, the club is no doubt fearful that they will be taken to court for setting a standard that killed a driver....

....nevermind the logic that says that it is safer to remain IN the car when in the impact zone.

I do see the clubs legal conundrum here.

I like the idea of course, but I don't see counsel going for it.

gsbaker

09-15-2006, 12:09 PM

Doc,

I agree. The proper, scientific way to address the question is to see if the number of occurances are proportional to the devices in the field. Test hypotheses, get "p" statistics, all that stuff. And, yes, someday someone will get injured using an Isaac system, possibly due to an egress issue. No product is perfect, including ours.

On the one hand it is amusing to see numerous instances of SFI/20.4 "compliant" designs trapping people in cars. That's not supposed to happen. On the other hand, it is stunning to witness the flawed logic: Who cares if you can get out of your seat if you can't get out of your car? We ain't talkin' rocket surgery here folks.

Most valuable is to talk to drivers who have used both. You can throw the theories out the window and find out what really happens.

JamesB

09-15-2006, 12:40 PM

Other then the Joey Hand incident. How many other incidents have been publicized that you get this grand number from? I only ask because read racing forums all the time, I read racing news every day, I only want to know where your statistics are comming from.

I guess what im after is I have not read report on report of egress issues. So im befuddled why this is your main basis of your argument, in the interest of understanding I just want to see what I am missing.

gsbaker

09-15-2006, 12:47 PM

...as long as they can get out in XX seconds.[/b]
Or as an interim step, given that some will balk at defining XX, require a subjective assessment. If the driver can demonstrate that they have given some thought, and dedicated some practice time, to rapid egress, they receive the proper checkmark at inspection time. They are getting out of their car as fast as they can, which is all anyone can ask.

Other then the Joey Hand incident. How many other incidents have been publicized that you get this grand number from? I only ask because read racing forums all the time, I read racing news every day, I only want to know where your statistics are comming from.
[/b]

That's the problem; most of these are not reported so the sample size is small, especially at the amateur level. I can think of about a dozen over the past couple of years. Some more prominent instances are listed here. (http://www.isaacdirect.com/SFI.html)

Stan

09-15-2006, 12:49 PM

Although the 19 pages of posts (so far!) prove that you guys are passionate about this issue, I am not here to debate the relative merits of ISAAC vs. the SFI standard. If indeed the BoD turned down the recommendation (which we will all read when Fastrack comes out next week), then if folks want to see the ISAAC incontrovertably legal in SCCA, the verbiage in the GCR needs to be fixed.

And with all due respect to Greg's protestations to the contrary, it is not just a few folks on the west coast. The number of releases required to get a driver clear of the seat belt and shoulder harness is the hang-up in FIA, NASCAR, ARCA, etc., and in SCCA as well.

Stan

gsbaker

09-15-2006, 01:08 PM

...the verbiage in the GCR needs to be fixed.[/b]
Most members believe that is a given.

And with all due respect to Greg's protestations to the contrary, it is not just a few folks on the west coast. The number of releases required to get a driver clear of the seat belt and shoulder harness is the hang-up in FIA, NASCAR, ARCA, etc., and in SCCA as well.

Stan
[/b]
I can't speak for ARCA (nor the other 198 US sanctioning bodies), but single release is not the issue in FIA or NASCAR as there are at least three other SFI 38.1 "certified" products that are not allowed in those series. In fact, IIRC, the same holds for 36 of 40 domestic sanctioning bodies.

SFI just doesn't matter. You can count on one hand the number of Clubs that use 38.1, and none of them are large.

JoshS

09-15-2006, 01:26 PM

2. A separate requirement defining minimum egress time requirements - since it seems like this is an issue that we care about. The number of releases (or whatever) is an weak-at-best indirect measure of the time required to get the hell out of a crashed car. Since it is the latter that we care about, rather than the former, the policy should act directly on the desired intention of the rule. Add an item to the GCR that requires that drivers demonstrate, at the request of the appropriate officials, that they can get all the way out of their car with all of their accoutrements in place. If they want to handcuff themselves to the wheel, that's their own how-do-you-do, as long as they can get out in XX seconds.
[/b]
I understand what you are saying here, but I think you're missing something. Maybe it's a 3rd item. If you are unconscious in your burning car, how long it takes YOU to get out of your own car is irrelevant, as you won't even be trying. But YOU are the only one who knows all of the ways in which you are tethered to the car. The workers will not know.

So, you have to look at this from a worker's point of view, and this is where the single point of release rule probably comes. The worker will approach the car, release the net (because it's in his way), and THEN try to release the driver from the car. It is here that a single point of release is important. I'd argue that the drink tubes, radio cords, etc, are red herrings. Those are designed (maybe there should be a separate rule) to release just by pulling. As the worker pulls the driver out, those things should disconnect.

But the worker wants one single point of release (after the net), and doesn't want to have to hunt around for other ways that the driver might be attached.

ddewhurst

09-15-2006, 01:40 PM

Paul, use whatever you care to, but as Kirk stated it's best if the letter is not a copy.

Stan, why dose the SCCA eliminate a H & N safety devise that has approx equal forward load protection & 67% greater lateral load protection? Please don't identify F1, IRL, CHAMP cars, NASCAR, ARCA & other orginizations who depend on the HANS for lateral protection because all of these orginizations have added devises within the car to reduce side loads to the drivers neck. Please don't use the one release rule as an excuse because the one release rule as it's written says NOTHING about the driver. Rules are governed by the written words correct. The rule for my ITA 1st gen rotary motor specifies no porting which neans no porting.................... Or when the SCCA rules makers read the rules do the rules have two sides. One side per the written rule & one side per the intent rule. If you say yes to the two sided rule watch the 1st gen RX-7's start whipping the CRX's.

If the rules makers change the words within the written rule with reference to the one action release I can accecpt the revised rule. & at the same time you will need to get rid of all the other crap that a driver has connected to himself.

David Dewhurst
SCCA 250772

gsbaker

09-15-2006, 02:09 PM

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/SinglePoint.jpg

No comment.

sgallimo

09-15-2006, 02:57 PM

...IF the club were to state that we needed to have egress within 15 seconds, and someone were killed within that 15 seconds, say by another car impacting the stopped car in which the driver was in the process of extricating himself from, the club is no doubt fearful that they will be taken to court for setting a standard that killed a driver....
[/b]
We're not telling them to get out of the car in the first 15 seconds, we're simply telling them that once they decide to exit the vehicle, they have to be able to do so in 15 seconds....

gsbaker

09-15-2006, 03:15 PM

Stan,

If my posts have come across as, shall we say, energetic, it's only because we have a concern that the light at the end of the tunnel, as perceived by some sanctioning bodies, may be the headlight of an oncoming train. CRB members such as yourself have a thankless job, and we would hate to see it made worse by premature decisions.

As a member, thank you for your contributions.

sgallimo

09-15-2006, 03:21 PM

I understand what you are saying here, but I think you're missing something. Maybe it's a 3rd item. If you are unconscious in your burning car, how long it takes YOU to get out of your own car is irrelevant, as you won't even be trying. But YOU are the only one who knows all of the ways in which you are tethered to the car. The workers will not know.

So, you have to look at this from a worker's point of view, and this is where the single point of release rule probably comes. The worker will approach the car, release the net (because it's in his way), and THEN try to release the driver from the car. It is here that a single point of release is important. I'd argue that the drink tubes, radio cords, etc, are red herrings. Those are designed (maybe there should be a separate rule) to release just by pulling. As the worker pulls the driver out, those things should disconnect.

But the worker wants one single point of release (after the net), and doesn't want to have to hunt around for other ways that the driver might be attached.
[/b]
Excelent point Josh but I don't agree that all of the extra non-H&N "attachments" are red herrings. Granted your generic radio connection would most likely separate while the driver was heading away from the smoking hulk but I can't imagine how much force would be required to cause the tubes for my cool shirt to separate without using their two integrated releases. Given that those cooling tubes enter the crotch of my suit down in the dark recesses of the seat, I'd say they are much more of a concern than the releases on my Isaac which are in plain sight.

Additionally, while it's nice for us to bask in the fantasy that, should we be knocked unconscious, that brave, out-of breath (from just having run 350 yards carrying a fire extinguisher) corner worker is going to be able to blindly reach into the flames, flick off the belts, and drag that limp body that could out weigh them by as much as 50 to 100 pounds through that tiny window opening (of course having the car on its top with a bottom release net would certainly help). Not meaning to take anything away from us corner workers, but I've never seen any kind of worker selection criteria that took into consideration a person's ability to dead lift your average driver.

lateapex911

09-15-2006, 03:22 PM

So, you have to look at this from a worker's point of view, and this is where the single point of release rule probably comes. The worker will approach the car, release the net (because it's in his way), and THEN try to release the driver from the car. It is here that a single point of release is important. I'd argue that the drink tubes, radio cords, etc, are red herrings. Those are designed (maybe there should be a separate rule) to release just by pulling. As the worker pulls the driver out, those things should disconnect.

But the worker wants one single point of release (after the net), and doesn't want to have to hunt around for other ways that the driver might be attached.
[/b]

Josh, when i first got my Isaac, I, and Greg Amy, who wears a Wright device(?) got together and put on a little "look see" at lunch one day for the workers. I brought my car, we all suited up and demonstrated the systems, and the egress issues. Nearly every worker spent about 10 minute familiarizing themselves with the systems, and all seemed positive. When the methods of release were discussed in the case of an unconscious driver, the consensus was, "Doesnt matter...we cut though those belts in a second." When it counts, they know what to do.

Matt Rowe

09-15-2006, 03:53 PM

When the methods of release were discussed in the case of an unconscious driver, the consensus was, "Doesnt matter...we cut though those belts in a second." When it counts, they know what to do.
[/b]

Now with everything else I volunteer to do at tracks I only get to spend a weekend or two a year flagging but I have been on both sides of this discussion and can certainly agree. A couple of other points that many people may not be aware of. First, it seems that a least half the flaggers that I have met or worked with are always happy to show how big and how sharp the knife is that they carry with them. :o

Second, everyone has been happy to see and understand any type of additional restraints including the HANS, ISAAC, sternum straps and so. These people take their job seriously and as long as they have access to and the chance to see what they might have to deal with they are comfortable with that.

Finally, everything I have been told or overheard about a situation with fire is that the worker is NOT properly equipped to extract a driver. Concentrate on controlling the fire from a safe distance and wait for the cavalry in nomex, EV. If there is no threat of fire and the driver is unconscious or unresponsive, again as a worker I'm calling for EV and suggesting FCY. The last thing I am going to do is try and move the driver or release his belts. So as I see it the F/C worker issue here as a red herring. As for EV I imagine that they have training and procedures that cover dealing with the HANS (it's not possible to restrict neck movement with the HANS in place?) so similar training can be done for other devices. And at that point I don't think the EMTs should be in such a hurry.

Stan

09-15-2006, 04:09 PM

No comment.
[/b]
Well, I have a comment... <_<

Those who argue that "drink tubes, radio cords, etc, are red herrings" are, IMO, just plain wrong. In my mind those items are just as much a factor in driver extraction as ISAAC connectors, perhaps more, which is why I think the language needs brought up to date with the technology. After all, rescue workers have learned to deal with those other items without a second thought, so I doubt that ISAAC connectors are a make-or-break additional factor.

I've already said it, but it bears repeating...we need to clean up the language of the GCR to delineate seat belt/shoulder harness release requirements and separate out and deal clearly with all the other impedimentia which complicates driver extraction. If the BoD has indeed voted no on the SFI question then we are back to square one and now is the time to re-engage on refining the language to permit the ISAAC, if that is what folks want.

Stan

gsbaker

09-15-2006, 04:18 PM

Well put, Stan.

lateapex911

09-15-2006, 04:54 PM

Stan, I have to say, that's one of the most succinct and well rounded points of view I have gotten from you folks in the Grand Poobahs seat.

I hope we are at square one, and can try to let the greater good, and logic help guide us to a situation that serves the drivers in a manner that allows them to feel empowered and safe.

CaptainWho

09-15-2006, 07:05 PM

Knestis

09-15-2006, 07:26 PM

...we need to clean up the language of the GCR to delineate seat belt/shoulder harness release requirements and separate out and deal clearly with all the other impedimentia which complicates driver extraction. If the BoD has indeed voted no on the SFI question then we are back to square one and now is the time to re-engage on refining the language to permit the ISAAC, if that is what folks want. [/b]
That sums things up perfectly, Stan - thanks for being the voice putting our safety before other considerations.

However, I'd remind everyone that this is not just about the Isaac - it's just the poster child for what is currently wrong with the system. Whatever decisions get made need to leave room for future technologies that might make their way into this arena, that might make H&N systems even more effective, or to allow new safety innovations that interact with these or other systems. A new regulation that says, "this, this, and this design are all OK" comes up short if it prevents innovation down the road.

K

gprodracer

09-15-2006, 07:33 PM

And don't forget to add "and not decided by those who have a financial interest in the spec that is written"

I could have sworn I suggested that we try to get the rule in the GCR changed 5 pages ago!!

Everyone who has posted...I personally have learned volumes from this one thread. I'm with Jake...thank you all for all your expertise and insight. When we get the word (on this round of rulings) we will all have a much clearer picture of what we need to do next to get a clear, sane set of guidelines for OUR OWN SAFETY.

Respectfully,

Mark

Doc Bro

09-15-2006, 08:33 PM

Doug thanks for doing what you do to keep us safe.

Stan, Thank you. The only thing I've ever wanted is for the SCCA to let ME live by my HNR decision.

R

JLawton

09-16-2006, 06:08 AM

Doug and all the others that have responded from a workers prospective - Thanks!!

As in life, we only see our own side of the story. Hearing what you are thinking will help us help you (does that make sense?).

Good stuff!!

planet6racing

09-18-2006, 08:13 AM

As a worker, I'll give you my perspective. It's just mine. It may or may not be representative of the way other corner workers feel, but I know several that definitely feel the same way.

If you wreck and I respond, as I approach the car I'm looking for movement of any sort. If you're moving and the car's not burning, I'm going to make you do as much as possible to extract yourself with my help, because you're less likely to hurt you than I am, especially when we're both juiced on adrenaline.

If the car is burning, and you're moving, _anything_ tangles you up for basically any time at all, I'm going to cut or break it if I can. If the car is burning and you're not moving, anything I can't figure out in exactly 0.001 seconds how to disconnect, I'm cutting or breaking. I am getting your ass out of there, and doing my damndest not to burn myself up in the process.
[/b]

I'll second this. Having just finished working a vintage event (with one major incident at Road America), my knife was always with me and always sharp. If anything were to tangle while I was responding, it would have been cut before the driver even knew it. The safety team that was on station with us was of the same opinion and, if they had to, would take the roof off the car to get to you.

Harnesses can be replaced. As a worker, I want the driver out of the car and over the wall as fast as possible.

Daryl DeArman

09-18-2006, 04:48 PM

Close but no cigar, Daryl. One is a HANS dealer, but not the other.
[/b]

It was just a guess...I didn't look to see the members' names. Just figured there would be a Conflict, and I didn't think what could be a bigger conflict than retailers of the HANS...should have gone bigger with my guess.

Who knows, maybe the silver lining is that because such a huge conflict of interest exists that risk management won't allow it to happen simpy to avoid future exposure if it does....damned if you do, damned if you don't. Maybe they just go with what the members want and blame it on us! That would be cool, imagine that, 'us' responsible for our own choices...what a concept!

CaptainWho

09-18-2006, 05:16 PM

As a worker, I want the driver out of the car and over the wall as fast as possible.
[/b]

And my lily white ass about a half a microsecond behind the driver. :D

RacerBill

09-20-2006, 08:38 AM

How many of you are logged onto the SCCA website, waiting for them to post FastTrack?

gsbaker

09-20-2006, 08:44 AM

Not me. :rolleyes:

RacerBill

09-20-2006, 09:36 AM

It's up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gsbaker

09-20-2006, 09:44 AM

Kirk gets the pony! :035:

its66

09-20-2006, 09:45 AM

The following items were rejected by the Board of Directors
GCR
Item 18. Effective 11/1/06: Add new section 11 to section 20 as follows:
11. Head and Neck Restraint
The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by the SFI Foundation
and bear the SFI 38.1 label.

gsbaker

09-20-2006, 09:55 AM

Knestis

09-20-2006, 10:07 AM

Kirk gets the pony! :035:
[/b]

I'm going to call her "Appeal."

K

lateapex911

09-20-2006, 12:34 PM

Well, this is starting to look like an interesting situation. It appears that certain factions in the CRB are very desirious of the SFI mandate, although the BoD rejected it, or are being pressured from either the Safety Commitee or the clubs legal counsel..

So we get a new "recommendation", that reminds us that ....something that attaches with 'alternate' methods is 'noncompliant' with the current rules. Read what you want into the term "current", but, the rule specifically states that the belts be released with a single point of release, but it never mentions that the driver be relesed at all.

So to my reading, this advisory is either wrong, or is a defacto rules change attempt.

The cynic in me worries that the same CRB members want me to race with nothing, as opposed to my tested and proven device that I currently wear. And according to the recent survey conducted here, they want about half of us who wear a device that meets the SFI performance standard to take them off. That's about 30% of the guys racing who answered the poll here.

That's disturbing.

RacerBill

09-20-2006, 01:37 PM

Jake: I have already sent a note to the CRB asking what 'current rules' the devices that use 'alternate attaching points' are noncompliant with, and what attachment points they are alternate to. That advisory is so gray...........

M. Hurst

09-20-2006, 01:54 PM

FYI, under the CRB minutes:

MEMBER ADVISORIES
GCR
1. Those members who choose to use a head and neck restraint are strongly urged to purchase an SFI certified unit. Those devices that have alternate attachment points to the driver restraint system are noncompliant with current rules.

We've discussed this above. Be it known that Isaac systems have no "alternate attachment points". All of our attachment points are primary.
[/b]

G. Baker and I agree on almost nothing, ..But if I were a scruitineer or steward (a hypothetical situation <_< ) and handed this rule, there's no way I could interpret this as saying the Isaac is non-compliant.

I have no idea what the intent was here. Was the intent to ban the Isaac, allow it, or is it intentionally vague so it does neither?

BTW, what is an SFI certified unit? The SFI doesn't "certify", it enters into license agreements, which in the case of 38.1, includes successful frontal and offset sled testing...among other things.

Knestis

09-20-2006, 02:19 PM

... I have no idea what the intent was here. Was the intent to ban the Isaac, allow it, or is it intentionally vague so it does neither? ... [/b]
Good ol' fashioned weasel language, I think.

K

gsbaker

09-20-2006, 03:15 PM

G. Baker and I agree on almost nothing...[/b]
I agree 100%, Mike. But that's only on technical matters; your heart is in the right place.

And you have certainly nailed this one. If the CRB doesn't like Isaac systems they should have the GCR changed to reflect that position. Incomprehensible language in an "Advisory" helps no one -- and doesn't change the rules.

lateapex911

09-20-2006, 03:20 PM

Well, one thing is for sure. I'll be wearing my Isaac, and it won't come off until an official presents me with a written protest or an RFA. And then we'll go thru the paperwork mess to let the Court of Appeals rule.

tderonne

09-20-2006, 04:45 PM

I think the intent is to not allow any device that would attach directly to the seat, cage, or car.

In other words, don't duct tape your helmet to your seat.

924Guy

09-21-2006, 07:20 AM

But are the seat, cage, or car considered part of the driver restraint system?

tderonne

09-21-2006, 08:33 AM

But are the seat, cage, or car considered part of the driver restraint system?
[/b]

Not per GCR section 20, it only talks about belts.

RacerBill

09-22-2006, 06:10 AM

The following is the response that I got from an email to the CRB.

"The CRB is referring to GCR section 20.4 and any device that requires more than a single release point to free the driver from the safety harness. "

gsbaker

09-22-2006, 08:01 AM

We expect the Board, which just quashed this subject in its recent vote (it's just alternative language to the SFI spec), will send risk management down the hall to patiently explain to the CRB that if it takes safety equipment away from drivers and one is killed, the SCCA will be sued into the next dimension.

This is beginning to bore me, and the people I work with don't enjoy playing defense.

Knestis

09-22-2006, 08:31 AM

Memorize this:

... There shall be a single release common to the seat belt and shoulder harness. ...

That is ALL that the rules have to say on the subject.

If the rule needs to be rewritten to reflect the desires of the CRB, they best get on it but there are all kinds of intentions being piled onto that clause, none of which are reflective of the wording.

K

gsbaker

09-22-2006, 08:43 AM

Well put, K.

...and I've just been reminded of that old adage: When the competition is in self-destruct mode, sit down and shut up. I suspect we will just open a cold one and watch this train wreck happen.

924Guy

09-22-2006, 08:53 AM

I'm kinda bummed about this; after all that great effort, work, and results on the IT situation, the same (I assume?) CRB then heads off in this direction. Oh well. I'll continue to rely on a straightforward interpretation of the GCR, as published and updated, as approved by the BOD. :P

JamesB

09-22-2006, 09:10 AM

Oh well. I'll continue to rely on a straightforward interpretation of the GCR, as published and updated, as approved by the BOD. :P
[/b]

Pretty much the position I have taken that this point. Its been an entertaining thread to say the least.

erlrich

09-22-2006, 11:17 AM

lateapex911

09-22-2006, 12:05 PM

From the way I read the winds, I don't think you'll have to. Methinks this has been published in order to set up such RFAs at the Runoffs. Time will tell if they are actually going to get the stewards to go through with it.

Politics appear to be more important than my neck.

I hope I'm wrong on that.

RacerBill

09-22-2006, 12:42 PM

Just a quick note from the other end of the pendulum swing.

I needed to test a new carburator before a full double regional weekend, so I took my car down to Columbus Motor Speedway where they were conducting an open test session. I drove up to the gate (did I mention that I have never been there before?) paid $20 for a one hour session. unloaded the car and drove out onto the track (I was waved on by pit out control person) (did I mention that the car had never been near this track before?)

No verification to see if I had any business on a race track, not one word about any proceedures, not one look at the car to see if it was safe (looks like a race car, sounds like a race car, must be a race car!!!!). I can only assume that pit out could see that I had a helmet on.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) I was in too much of a rush to realize all of this until this morning.

I was so glad to get out of there!!!!!! Alive!!!!!!!!

File this one away in the old storyies folder.

RSTPerformance

09-22-2006, 12:54 PM

Hey guys,

Would it do any good at all to send this issue through the SCCA legal system? If so, I would happy to pay the fee to have one of my buddies protest my Isaac at next weekend's MARRS event. At the very least we would find out where our region's stewards stand on the subject.
[/b]

If you do the protest, save the Stewards time and explain the entire situation and tell them no matter what decission is made someone will appeal the decision. They wont be happy that they are being used but it may save some of them a little bit of time.

On second thought why not send in a 13.9 and ask if it is legal to use an Issac? It would save a lot of time energy and guessing for all of us.

Raymond

erlrich

09-22-2006, 01:30 PM

If you do the protest, save the Stewards time and explain the entire situation and tell them no matter what decission is made someone will appeal the decision. They wont be happy that they are being used but it may save some of them a little bit of time.[/b] Trust me, I know the stewards have other duties, and I would do everything possible to make the process as quick and painless as possible.

On second thought why not send in a 13.9 and ask if it is legal to use an Issac?[/b] $25 v. $250

RacerBill

09-22-2006, 01:44 PM

Trust me, I know the stewards have other duties, and I would do everything possible to make the process as quick and painless as possible.

$25 v. $250
[/b]

(Huge tongue in cheek, please)

What's $250 to a $1,000,000 per year racing budget??

Seriously, I agree with you. Makes it seem that the National office's time is worth 10 times what a volunteer's time is worth.

gsbaker

09-22-2006, 01:46 PM

Before any of you good people (whose support is highly appreciated, BTW) begin spending hard-earned dollars and giving the Stewards something else to do, you might want to give this thing a chance to play out naturally. After all, the BoD has already said that any H&N restraint is legal, and the 20.4 wording is very clear.

Also, there are probably some things known to the BoD that are not known to the CRB, so this may be a simple matter of communication.

Gotta go. Everyone have a good weekend. :)

RSTPerformance

09-22-2006, 02:20 PM

Trust me, I know the stewards have other duties, and I would do everything possible to make the process as quick and painless as possible.

$25 v. $250
[/b]

I like Gregs thoughts, as nothing has changed from years past as of now.

But if you must I will COMPLETELY go against the idea of making a protest... I once agreed with you until I was on the other side of the fence. If you don't agree then just think about your time being wasted by someone who doesn't actually care what you say but realize that using you is a cheep way out. If you do go through with it I hope that they throw out the protest find it in vexatious or in bad faith keep your $25 and give you a repromand. Thats just my thought on it.

Reasoning for my harsh retaliation to your idea...

It has been done here before. Gather up some money from a group of people (thier are plenty on this site that I bet would contribute) and submit a 13.9. I would think that at $25 a pop it would be easy to find 10 people willing to make the donation. Also I would hope that some or all of your $250 would be returned - but I am not sure it would, I have no idea how that process works.

Wasting good peoples time to save yourself a few $$$ for not putting an effort in to get some other donations is lame IMO.

Raymond

Knestis

09-22-2006, 03:02 PM

Sorry, Raymond. That's pretty out of line.

Any steward who would let his feelings about whether I'm "wasting his time" by filing (or defending!) ANY protest within the bounds described by the GCR impact his findings, needs to find a new place to volunteer. PARTICULARLY if they start whipping out reprimands.

Questions of "good faith" don't enter into the equation if the protestor has "sound evidence" that the protestee's actions or equipment are outside of the standards imposed by the GCR or ITCS. Even if I'm honest that I'm just trying to secure clarification of an interpretation, that is a heck of a long way from "vexatious" - filing the protest for the purpose of being annoying. Whether you are annoyed or not is NOT the test there.

I've been doing this long enough - a big chunk of your lifetime, if my estimates are accurate - to have seen and grown COMPLETELY intolerent of the kind of attitude you describe. If I want to file paper and your job is to read it, you have an obligation to abide by the same rules I do, act within them, and hear the protest - as long as I've done everything within the bounds of the rules. Even if it's not convenient. Even if you are busy. Even if it cuts into your participation in the worker party.

(That last one from a real example in my past - utter crap, making beer a higher priority than questions of car legality.)

A 13.9 ruling is a weak resolution since only non-compliant rulings are published. NOTHING is gained, in terms of establishment of a precedent, if my interpretation in question is supported.

Q: Hey, first court - is my Isaac complaint with GCR 20.4? I get one of two things:

1. "No - and we'll publish that opinion so you can spend more money to appeal it"

2. Crickets chirping and no assurance that someone someday might not put me right back where I started.

K

erlrich

09-22-2006, 03:20 PM

But if you must I will COMPLETELY go against the idea of making a protest... I once agreed with you until I was on the other side of the fence. If you don't agree then just think about your time being wasted by someone who doesn't actually care what you say but realize that using you is a cheep way out. If you do go through with it I hope that they throw out the protest find it in vexatious or in bad faith keep your $25 and give you a repromand. Thats just my thought on it.

Reasoning for my harsh retaliation to your idea...

It has been done here before. Gather up some money from a group of people (thier are plenty on this site that I bet would contribute) and submit a 13.9. I would think that at $25 a pop it would be easy to find 10 people willing to make the donation. Also I would hope that some or all of your $250 would be returned - but I am not sure it would, I have no idea how that process works.

Wasting good peoples time to save yourself a few $$$ for not putting an effort in to get some other donations is lame IMO. [/b] Raymond - I usually try to avoid getting into one-on-one pissing matches with others here, but in this case I just can't seem to pry my fingers off of the keyboard...I promise after this post I'm all done.

First, I'm sorry that you would, as a steward, feel like it was a waste of your time to try and help resolve a fairly serious issue that affects many of your fellow racers. The fact is I would probably care more about what my region's stewards had to say than what the Court of Appeals might say, since they're the ones whose decisions directly affect me. And where exactly did I say that I would appeal their decision whichever way it went?

Second, how could you possibly consider it vexatious or in bad faith to try and find out whether I will be allowed to continue to wear an important piece of safety equipment? I just don't get that at all.

Third, the donation thing was tried when Greg was attempting to get a decision on the spherical bearings; if you bother to go back and check I think you'll find that I first brought the idea up at that time, and we got like 3 or 4 responses. And I don't remember seeing your name on the list at that time. Oh, but then that issue didn't directly affect you, did it? Pretty lame if you ask me.

I can only assume that your comment about being on the other side of the fence refers to you having worked as a steward at some point. I can only hope for their sake that the drivers in your region have never had to "bother" you with any of their petty problems. I've only met a few of the stewards in my region, but I certainly get the impression that they would be much more willing to help with this kind of thing.

To everyone else, I apologize for wasting your time with this crap. I won't let it happen again.

RSTPerformance

09-22-2006, 06:23 PM

Earl- thanks for keeping me in check :)

I was being a little harsh on my opinion, and for the record, I WOULD follow all the correct protest policies, and like all of you I am so anoyed with this rules that I would probably take 2 min of my time say it was legal and move on no harm no foul. I also fully support drivers going to stewards in advance and asking if something is compliant or not, and I truley feel that they should give thier honest opinion and that it should hold true for that entire weekend.

Examples:
1) I feel that you should be able to go to say the tech steward ask about the legality of an item and have it ok'd or not per him/her. That tech steward then should not DQ (file an RFA) on that same issue. Obviosly if another competitor makes a protest then it is up to the SOM's, not the tech steward.

2) Another example would be to go to the chief steward and ask if it was ok for you to wear your Isacc, if he/she says yes then you should be good to go and not expect any RFA's that weekend for wearing it.

With that said, filing an actual protest with another driver against basically yourself on an issue that will only give you the opinions of the handfull of stewards on the SOM that weekend is not fair to them or you. The ruling means nothing for future races thus to be reasured that you were compliant every weekend would mean that you would need to file a protest every weekend. I stand by that and I truley think that if you kirk or anyone else did this it would be the incorrect process to follow. You are educated, do the right thing.

If I misunderstood what you said earlier to mean that you would appeal it to SCCA-topeka to get an "official" or "national level" determination I am sorry. I thought in your previose posts that you wanted to achieve a 13.9 with a protest.

Also please stop making out a 13.9 as a non-valuable option. many people come here and view for education, and many of us here seem to give out bad information. To you and Greg and others that worked on the sperical bearing issue you did the correct thing and fixed things for A LOT of people.

BTW Greg, did you get your $ back from SCCA? just curiouse how that part of the process works.

Raymond "Sorry if I upset you with my strong "retaliation" I just hate people putting our workers in a cituation that is not fair to them" Blethen

PS: Kirk, if the 13.9 were to go in your favor you would recieve a letter from SCCA stating that it was legal. You could scan that letter post it here and greg could even post it on the Issac site for people to download and print out, so it isn't such a weak way to go about it, it is actually far stronger than ANY protest should be. I do give you credit though, an appeal would be published either way in fast track, but who reads the court of appeals beside you a few others and myself? (joke).

Greg Amy

09-22-2006, 06:44 PM

BTW Greg, did you get your $ back from SCCA? just curiouse how that part of the process works.[/b]

We never filed. The CRB published the "clarification" in response to member queries exactly one day before I was planning on dropping it off at FedEx... - GA

RSTPerformance

09-22-2006, 06:58 PM

We never filed. The CRB published the "clarification" in response to member queries exactly one day before I was planning on dropping it off at FedEx... - GA
[/b]

This is sooo far way off topic but I am wondering if anyone ever filed a 13.9 and got anypart or all of the $250 returned to them... I support the idea of the 13.9 a lot and want to know if it does work or not.

Anyway thanks for the reply Greg.

Raymond

Stan

09-22-2006, 07:51 PM

Yes, 2 friends and I filed a 13.9 last fall and got nothing back, except a badly worded opinion that was overturned... :rolleyes:

Knestis

09-22-2006, 07:56 PM

... PS: Kirk, if the 13.9 were to go in your favor you would recieve a letter from SCCA stating that it was legal. ...[/b]

From the 2006 GCR:

13.9. RULES INTERPRETATION
To obtain a determination on the legality of a vehicle or component,
without filing a formal protest, a competitor may request such a ruling
from the Club Racing Office. The Chairman of the Stewards Program will
then convene a first court. Their decision would then be reviewed by the
Court of Appeals . The fee for this service is $250. A portion of this fee
may be refundable at the discretion of either or both courts. Penalties
or penalty points will not be assessed in the event of a negative ruling.
A non-compliant ruling will be published; a compliant ruling will not be
published. (empasis in the original)

Really? The part in italics was added this year so you may have missed it. Of course, I may be confused in my reading of this but it sure sounds like more weasel language to make rulings that go against a 13.9 petitioner sound like a precedent, without giving them the same consideration if the ruling goes their way. Why someone would bother with this process, I have NO idea.

If I misunderstood what you said earlier to mean that you would appeal it to SCCA-topeka to get an "official" or "national level" determination I am sorry. I thought in your previose posts that you wanted to achieve a 13.9 with a protest. ...[/b]

Without filing a protest in the first place, there's nothing to appeal. Without an appeal, there's still room for reversal, even though technically an appeal finding doesn't set a precedent either. I slip in here a reminder that these policies have the potential to contribute to rules creep in a substantial way. Absent any actual precedent AND with weak enforcement at the track, we get de facto interpretations through gradual acceptance that something is OK. Something like a common-law change to the ITCS.

K

Bill Miller

09-23-2006, 09:22 AM

I like Gregs thoughts, as nothing has changed from years past as of now.

But if you must I will COMPLETELY go against the idea of making a protest... I once agreed with you until I was on the other side of the fence. If you don't agree then just think about your time being wasted by someone who doesn't actually care what you say but realize that using you is a cheep way out. If you do go through with it I hope that they throw out the protest find it in vexatious or in bad faith keep your $25 and give you a repromand. Thats just my thought on it.

Reasoning for my harsh retaliation to your idea...

It has been done here before. Gather up some money from a group of people (thier are plenty on this site that I bet would contribute) and submit a 13.9. I would think that at $25 a pop it would be easy to find 10 people willing to make the donation. Also I would hope that some or all of your $250 would be returned - but I am not sure it would, I have no idea how that process works.

Wasting good peoples time to save yourself a few $$$ for not putting an effort in to get some other donations is lame IMO.

Raymond
[/b]

Raymond,

I have to agree w/ Kirk here. If this is how you feel about the process, maybe your efforts should be focused elsewhere. I used to see a similar attitude when I was on the local VFD. Some felt that it was a waste of their time to respond to calls for activated fire alarms/smoke alarms/CO detectors. They only wanted to show up when there was some excitement. If you're going to volunteer for something, be committed to it, don't cherry-pick the stuff you want to be involved in.

Also, don't get mad at people that are working w/in the system. If it takes $25 for a protest, and $250 for a 13.9, that's the way the rules go. How can you be upset for someone taking advantage of the rules? Before threaded body shocks were allowed, people spent good money to have the threads turned off of Penske (and other) shocks, just to fit the letter of the rule. If it can go one way, it can go the other.

I'm actually a bit surprised that you wouldn't be in favor of this approach, as it gets things on record, and is the least costly to the people involved. I think that's a good thing. It's one of the reasons I got involved w/ the ITR AdHoc, I thought it was in the best interest of the Club and the Category.

ddewhurst

09-23-2006, 11:36 AM

***until I was on the other side of the fence.***

Raymond, if your mental make up has changed since you crossed the fence maybe you need to come back to the original side of the fence. If your mental make up has changed as per your previous description/above posts I would be more concerned about other decisions you may be involved in on your new side of the fence.

Anothers persons view ;)
David

ps: It's my rule understanding from talking wth Topeka that rule 13.9./$250 don't mean diddle untill a protest is filed.

x-ring

09-25-2006, 08:24 AM

David: As I understand it, the filer of a 13.9 gets a letter from Topeka with the findings of the first court, headed by the chairman of the stewards program, and the findings of the COA. The filer then keeps his letter, assuming the decision went his way, to show to the SOM should he be protested for this item at a future race to support his position of legality.

Kirk: As for a the publish / not publish thing, I *believe* this is to protect a competitors prep secrets. If you, for example, notice a chink in the rules armor that you want to take advantage of, but are unsure of the legality of doing so, you may file a 13.9 request. If it is held to be non-compliant you will recieve a letter to that effect, but it will also be published in FasTrack, so everyone knows it's been looked at and found non-compliant.

If the proposed action is found legal, you will recieve a letter from the COA telling you so, but no notice in FasTrack, so that your new prep secret is still secret.

Anyway, that's how it went on an SM action in my division earlier this year. YMMV.

gsbaker

10-16-2006, 02:11 PM

Back on topic, we are not aware of any problem at the runoffs in terms of the CGR. The same with NASA at Mid-O.

erlrich

10-16-2006, 02:49 PM

Back on topic, we are not aware of any problem at the runoffs in terms of the CGR. The same with NASA at Mid-O. [/b] Gregg, just out of curiosity do you have a rough idea of the numbers of ISAAC users at those events?

gsbaker

10-16-2006, 03:41 PM

Gregg, just out of curiosity do you have a rough idea of the numbers of ISAAC users at those events?
[/b]That's very hard to say. We know generally what style of racing customers engage in, but it's impossible to know how many end up at those two events.

It was interesting the unsolicited e-mails we received from users saying they were going to use their Isaacs come hell or high water. More than enough for someone to find an Isaac system and make a test case if they were so inclined.

We know that tedious safety rule debates are not the most important topic when everyone is having fun at the Big Show, but it is interesing that we have heard nothing so far. Then again, it's only Monday. Maybe there was a big knockdown, drag out fight at the grid and no one has made been bail yet. :)

anrkii

10-17-2006, 02:30 AM

Ignorant Noob here:

I was considering an isaac device, due to being brand new and having budget issues. do you guys, in your opinion think that the isaac device will be illegal, and not allowed to use in the near future?

also, doesnt drilling holes in the shell of the helmet for the mount "decertify" it?

JLawton

10-17-2006, 05:57 AM

Ignorant Noob here:

I was considering an isaac device, due to being brand new and having budget issues. do you guys, in your opinion think that the isaac device will be illegal, and not allowed to use in the near future?

[/b]

Um, see the previous 22 pages................. <shrug> :P

leggwork

11-26-2006, 02:05 PM

just to extend this mother of a thread - the Leatt brace has now achieved SFI 38.1 certification - quite a different device from the others - no tethers to restain side-to-side motion, and provides some lateral support as well.
cheers,
bruce

http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1

http://www.leatt-brace.com/ the Moto-R is the car version.

Ignorant Noob here:

I was considering an isaac device, due to being brand new and having budget issues. do you guys, in your opinion think that the isaac device will be illegal, and not allowed to use in the near future?

also, doesnt drilling holes in the shell of the helmet for the mount "decertify" it?
[/b]

regarding drilling holes decertifying the helmet - I was told that the Snell certification applies to the area above a certain line on the helmet. The anchors are attached below this line so don't affect the certification.
cheers,
bruce

dj10

11-26-2006, 04:09 PM

just to extend this mother of a thread - the Leatt brace has now achieved SFI 38.1 certification - quite a different device from the others - no tethers to restain side-to-side motion, and provides some lateral support as well.
cheers,
bruce
http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1
http://www.leatt-brace.com/ the Moto-R is the car version.
regarding drilling holes decertifying the helmet - I was told that the Snell certification applies to the area above a certain line on the helmet. The anchors are attached below this line so don't affect the certification.
cheers,
bruce [/b]

Why would they want you to replace this every 3 years? More money for them? I do like the idea of head movemnet.

gsbaker

11-26-2006, 04:34 PM

I was told that the Snell certification applies to the area above a certain line on the helmet. The anchors are attached below this line so don't affect the certification.
[/b]You have been misinformed. The Snell certification can be void regardless of the location.

leggwork

11-26-2006, 06:22 PM

You have been misinformed. The Snell certification can be void regardless of the location.
[/b]

hmmm, this is a reply I got from Joe Marko about a year ago about helmet warranties and snell certification ...

> Bell and a few other manufacturers have stated that installing HANS clips in
> their helmets voids their warranty. With regard to SNELL, it does NOT effect
> the SNELL rating as the test part of the helmet for the SNELL rating does
> not cover the lower parts of the helmet where the HANS is mounted. SFI and
> the other sanctioning bodies in the US do not have a problem with the HANS
> installation recommendations. SFI, NASCAR, IRL and others have tested many
> different helmets with the HANS with no real issues.
>
> Most of the statements by helmet manufacturers are for product liability
> legal issues.
>
> So installing the clips will NOT VOID THE SNELL RATING but may void the
> factory warranty on the helmet. Many helmet manufacturers such as Arai,
> Simpson, Soumy and others are pre-installing mounting points and or clips. I
> expect that we will see more of this in the future.
>
> Joe Marko
> HMS motorsport

gsbaker

11-26-2006, 07:13 PM

Per Snell:

"Cosmetic changes to certified headgear are permissible. Such changes are generally limited to marking or trimming the headgear with manufacturer approved paint or tape. Otherwise, modifications to certified headgear effectively create new configurations which shall not have the confidence and certification of the Foundation until properly evaluated. Manufacturers must not place the Foundation's certification label in any modified headgear without the Foundation’s written authorization."

gprodracer

11-26-2006, 08:58 PM

Gregg,

By your Snell Foundation quote, then all the helmets with microphones, and radio equipment installed by the radio manufacturers have voided the Snell rating also? That being said, what does that really mean? Has someone sued the Snell Foundation, and Snell stated that the rating was void due to a unapproved hole drilled into the helmet?
I'm confused...can you share any insight on this? If you void the Snell rating, what does that really mean to us average racers.
Thanks,
Mark

gsbaker

11-27-2006, 08:43 AM

Gregg,

By your Snell Foundation quote, then all the helmets with microphones, and radio equipment installed by the radio manufacturers have voided the Snell rating also?[[/b]
Apparently. That is how most people interpret the Snell language.

That being said, what does that really mean? Has someone sued the Snell Foundation, and Snell stated that the rating was void due to a unapproved hole drilled into the helmet?[/b]
Snell doesn't have much of a choice in this regard; nor does any manufacturer for that matter. The product has been tested and shown to work as originally designed. Because no one knows how the end user intends to modify it, they are forced to say "Don't modify it."

I seriously doubt that something as small as a hole for a drink tube would constitute a serious structural deficiency. However, I have seen photos of a female driver with a 2-3" diameter hole in the back of her helmet to accommodate a ponytail. As soon as you start drawing a line you get in trouble, so most manufacturers just avoid that whole can of worms.

This is one reason our adhesive is so popular. It works on any helmet and the only modification (removal of the gel coat and paint) is cosmetic.

If you void the Snell rating, what does that really mean to us average racers.[/b]
Not much. It becomes a matter of don't ask, don't tell. The insurance carrier probably requires safety gear to be "certified", so the sanctioning body puts it in writing. Commons sense tends to prevail at the track level. Drink tubes are okay, ponytail holes are not.

leggwork

11-27-2006, 09:55 AM

fwiw, Joe Marko just reiterated his opinion that mods in the lower 2" of the helmet do not invalidate the snell cert. I can see how a ponytail hole would be over the top!

<blockquote>SNELL does NOT invalidate helmets that have been “modified” in areas of the helmet where the structure of the helmet are not covered by their test area. If this was the case, every person who puts a radio system, water system, or air system, in the lower two inches of the helmet would also be violating the SNELL certification. This is simply not the case as the SNELL certification does not extend to within 2” of the bottom edge of the helmet.
Joe Marko
HMS motorsport</blockquote>

gsbaker

11-27-2006, 10:24 AM

fwiw, Joe Marko just reiterated his opinion that mods in the lower 2" of the helmet do not invalidate the snell cert. I can see how a ponytail hole would be over the top![/b]
Got that right! :)

Joe is free to believe whatever he wishes.

The Snell Foundation's Web site is here (http://www.smf.org/). Click on Standards >SA/K2005 > Modifications. Does it say anything about where the modification is located? Nope.

JimLill

11-27-2006, 01:02 PM

quick link..........

http://www.smf.org/standards/2005/sak2005/...l#MODIFICATIONS (http://www.smf.org/standards/2005/sak2005/sa_k2005_final.html#MODIFICATIONS)

lateapex911

11-27-2006, 01:06 PM

leggwork

11-27-2006, 01:41 PM

FYI the 38.1 sled test results and videos are now posted on the Leatt site. Interested in hearing others opinions.
cheers,
bruce

just to extend this mother of a thread - the Leatt brace has now achieved SFI 38.1 certification - quite a different device from the others - no tethers to restain side-to-side motion, and provides some lateral support as well.
cheers,
bruce

http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1

http://www.leatt-brace.com/ the Moto-R is the car version.

cheers,
bruce
[/b]

gran racing

11-27-2006, 02:32 PM

Does Joe have any direct relationship with Snell - on their board or something else? Just curious how he's involved with the process other than being a retailer of safety equipment.

lateapex911

11-27-2006, 03:52 PM

That's a very interesting point Dave.

I am trying to understand that as well as a few other points that are related.

Joe, and Arnie Kuhns are two of three mebers of the SCCA Saftey Commitee. I am unsure exactly what the safety commitee is charged with, and the limit, or power of their responsibility. It is obvious though, after researching a bit, and reading the notes in Fastrack, that they are involved in the recommendations that have resulted in harness and head restraint issues.

As you may well know, Arnie Kuhns is the President of SFI. SFI, for those who don't know, create, with the input of manufacturers, and other industry leaders and experts, standards that safety equipment must meet. Sanctioning bodies use those standards as minimums in order to conduct activities that are thought of by the court system as reponsibly safe, in an attempt to sheild themselves from liability.

(A standard of particular interest to many here is the 38.1 standard for head and neck restraint. SFI consulted with the designers of the HANS system to create the standard. There are those that find such a narrow consultation and the resulting standard that essentially mandates the basic architecture to be a bit "cozy" - clearly the standard promotes sales of the HANS system - and has as a side effect, the real world limitation of design of safer systems.)

I've asked for legal commentary to this point of a "liability sheild" before, and haven't had anyone add anything that was particularly illuminating, especially as to the mechanism of liability protection. But I digress....

I am very troubled that SCCA has decided to staff a commitee with the majority vote (2 of 3 members) that is so clearly biased. SFI makes it's money from manufacturers, and sanctioning bodies, and of course it is in it's best interst to promote SFI certified items and manufacturers. And of course, a retailer of safety devices has a very obvious vested interest as well.

That's not to say that Arnie or Joe are, or are not, purely serving for the safety of the sport with no concern to their personal profit, but that's nearly irrelevant when such obvious conflicts of interest exist, and the appearance of the impartiality of the commitee is long forgotten.

A side note as to the operation of the ITAC, the commitee I serve on. It is made up of, and this varies over time, 6 -9 members, and the makeup of the members seeks to result in a varied body with members from different IT classes and geographic regions. In cases where a specific member has a vested interest in the outcome of a vote, he is consulted for his opinion, but stays out of actual voting. It is rare that his vote would swing the tide one way or another in actuality as most votes aren't that close, but the mechanism exists to ensure commiteee impartiality. In a committe of 3, having 2 voters need to abstain effectively cancels the constructive effect of the commitee...the checks and balances just aren't there. It's hard for me to imagine many votes that the safety commitee could have that wouldn't be of particular interest to at least one, and probably two of it's 3 members. Now, I don't, as I said at the start, know the responsibilty, nor the operational mandates the commitee is charged with, or operates under, if any, so I can't say that the make up is a definate problem.

But..it sure looks that way, and that in itself is a huge problem.

leggwork

11-27-2006, 04:45 PM

Does Joe have any direct relationship with Snell - on their board or something else? Just curious how he's involved with the process other than being a retailer of safety equipment.
[/b]
Hi Dave,
I don't know if he has any direct relationship with Snell or not. Here is a bio written last year over at www.justracing.com when he was a guest "speaker". The transcript is an interesting read also.
cheers,
bruce

<blockquote>JustRacing is proud to welcome national motorsports safety expert Joe Marko to JustRacing Seminars! Over the past 10 years Joe has spent a significant amount of time studying safety systems in motorsport applications - in particular harnessbelts, head and neck restraint systems, helmets, rollbars, and seats. He is the Schroth representative to SFI and works closely with the Technical Directors of NASCAR and IRL on harnessbelt specific issues. Joe and his crew also work directly with individual teams on the specification and installation of their harness installations. This season over half of the NASCAR NEXTEL Cup drivers and ChampCar drivers are wearing Schroth Harnessbelts.

Joe has been involved with numerous Dynamic Sled bed tests of Schroth Harnessbelts and HANS Head and Neck restraints at Delphi Automotive both privately and in conjunction with NASCAR and IRL. He authored the 2005 SCCA ProRacing GCRs and the 2006 BMW CCA Club Racing GCRs for harnessbelts and head and neck restraints. HMS has also conducted independent helmet/airbag testing at Delphi to address the questions of open vs. full-face helmets in cars with airbags.

He is currently one of six people that make up the SCCA National Safety Committee which advises the competition board on needed changes. In addition, Joe is the current National Safety Steward for BMW CCA Club Racing.

He has run seminars for SCCA (Pro and Club) on proper use and installation of harnessbelts, seats, and HANS and is a regular presenter to PCA, BMW CCA, and Quattro Club chapters around the country on topics of safety in racing and drivers schools.

A member of SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), he holds a Bachelors degree from Siena College and a Masters Degree from Cornell University. He is Co-Chair of Boston Chapter BMW CCA Drivers Schools and a frequent instructor with BMW CCA, PCA, and Ferrari Club.

Joe is the owner of HMS Motorsport, Ltd., the US importer of Schroth Racing Restraints and RIMO karts. HMS Motorsport is the "Official Safety Equipment Supplier to BMW Club Racing" and an annual sponsor of numerous driving events put on by local BMW CCA regions.</blockquote>

gsbaker

11-28-2006, 08:47 AM

...But..it sure looks that way, and that in itself is a huge problem.[/b]
Expect to see more of this. HANS claims over 100 dealers.

gran racing

11-28-2006, 09:08 AM

Thanks Bruce - just wasn't sure what his background / involvement was.

Wreckerboy

11-28-2006, 12:15 PM

Thanks for the background - it's very enlightening, almost frighteningly so.

I want to assume that based upon his professional chops, he does what comes naturally for a living and to contribute to the sport by doing the right thing based upon what he knows. I'm not quite that naive anymore, however, and share the concerns voiced above about potential conflicts of interest. His BMW affiliation might also help, at least in part, to explain why BMWCCA adopted the SFI spec as well.

leggwork

11-28-2006, 07:45 PM

contributing to the SFI decision in BMWCCA club racing (this is conjecture, not direct knowledge)
-the first death in BMW CCA club racing occurred last year - some believe an HNR would have helped
-insurers were threatening dramatic increases
-the 800 member CR organization has zero resources to be able to devote to assessing HNR's, so they chose a defensible standard

If Joe comes off as a hans cheerleader, a large part is because he has directly witnessed the before and after results.

That bio from justracing.com says that the SCCA safety committee is made up of 6 people. I don't know where to look up committee memberships to confirm.
cheers,
bruce
p.s. I don't own a Hans

Thanks for the background - it's very enlightening, almost frighteningly so.

I want to assume that based upon his professional chops, he does what comes naturally for a living and to contribute to the sport by doing the right thing based upon what he knows. I'm not quite that naive anymore, however, and share the concerns voiced above about potential conflicts of interest. His BMW affiliation might also help, at least in part, to explain why BMWCCA adopted the SFI spec as well.
[/b]

JimLill

11-28-2006, 08:03 PM

Club Racing Safety Committee
Joe Marko
Arnie Kuhns
Ed Ozment <-- husband of Terry Ozment, Director of Club Racing

gprodracer

11-28-2006, 09:05 PM

Damn,
Where is Matt Weisberg when we need him!!!!???
Oh, that's right, he's debating the insurance money disparity in another thread! :lol: :rolleyes:
Who says nepotism isn't alive and well in our club.
No offense to Joe, Bruce and others who are looking out for "our" welfare..
OK, since we notice these things, the question is.."What do (or can) we do about it?"
Jake, or anyone else, we've fought for a choice up to this point..
What can we do next to get Topeka to listen? I will state again that I truly appreciate everyones input in this discussion, and I have learned 100% more than I would have by researching all this on my own. We need to keep writing those who we voted into power to express our opinion, as that is the only way we will be heard.
Keep on letting your feelings be known.
Answers or opinions?
Mark

x-ring

11-29-2006, 08:48 AM

I was chatting with Brian Culbertson outside Tech-Majal one evening at the runoffs and he indicated that the CRB would be receptive to a H&N that was certified to a different standard, maybe ANSI as Kirk brought up some time ago (or was it ASTM?).

Anyone here have any dealings with that group?

gsbaker

11-29-2006, 10:21 AM

JimLill

11-29-2006, 04:36 PM

I think it was ASTM. I have no idea how that organization works, but it's worth looking into if the CRB is receptive.

We find that most sanctioning bodies deal with SFI only because there is no alternative in some matters.
[/b]

a few possible alternatives here:

http://auto.ihs.com/news/newsletters/auto-...3-standards.htm (http://auto.ihs.com/news/newsletters/auto-july03-standards.htm)

dj10

11-29-2006, 05:14 PM

Hi Dave,
I don't know if he has any direct relationship with Snell or not. Here is a bio written last year over at www.justracing.com when he was a guest "speaker". The transcript is an interesting read also.
cheers,
bruce

<blockquote>JustRacing is proud to welcome national motorsports safety expert Joe Marko to JustRacing Seminars! Over the past 10 years Joe has spent a significant amount of time studying safety systems in motorsport applications - in particular harnessbelts, head and neck restraint systems, helmets, rollbars, and seats. He is the Schroth representative to SFI and works closely with the Technical Directors of NASCAR and IRL on harnessbelt specific issues. Joe and his crew also work directly with individual teams on the specification and installation of their harness installations. This season over half of the NASCAR NEXTEL Cup drivers and ChampCar drivers are wearing Schroth Harnessbelts.

Joe has been involved with numerous Dynamic Sled bed tests of Schroth Harnessbelts and HANS Head and Neck restraints at Delphi Automotive both privately and in conjunction with NASCAR and IRL. He authored the 2005 SCCA ProRacing GCRs and the 2006 BMW CCA Club Racing GCRs for harnessbelts and head and neck restraints. HMS has also conducted independent helmet/airbag testing at Delphi to address the questions of open vs. full-face helmets in cars with airbags.

He is currently one of six people that make up the SCCA National Safety Committee which advises the competition board on needed changes. In addition, Joe is the current National Safety Steward for BMW CCA Club Racing.

He has run seminars for SCCA (Pro and Club) on proper use and installation of harnessbelts, seats, and HANS and is a regular presenter to PCA, BMW CCA, and Quattro Club chapters around the country on topics of safety in racing and drivers schools.

A member of SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), he holds a Bachelors degree from Siena College and a Masters Degree from Cornell University. He is Co-Chair of Boston Chapter BMW CCA Drivers Schools and a frequent instructor with BMW CCA, PCA, and Ferrari Club.

Joe is the owner of HMS Motorsport, Ltd., the US importer of Schroth Racing Restraints and RIMO karts. HMS Motorsport is the "Official Safety Equipment Supplier to BMW Club Racing" and an annual sponsor of numerous driving events put on by local BMW CCA regions.</blockquote>[/b]

Hell I want to hear from Bill Simpson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!