Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

[Jeremy Billiel]

So after seeing another serious accident happen at NHIS this weekend, I am all but reminded that I need to stop waiting and buy something. I have heard both sides of the Isaac and HANS arguements and I have read SCCA's response. Are there any updates on SCCA changing to accept Isaac or any other manufactor not currently SFI approved?

Can anyone add any updates?

[shwah]

I have heard rumor that sfi 31 will be required soon. I like my ISAAC but will be budgeting for a HANS in the next year or so.

[lateapex911]

I dunno........

Some random thoughts...

The saftey commitee is newly formed, and needs to get the final proposal to the BoD pretty quickly if it's to be approved in time for next year. I have zero inside information on this, but I hope they are slow in that task! Currently we're under a "recommendation", and nothing more, so the Hutchens or the Isaac are fine as well as the Hans...or nothing.

I guess legally, its good practice for organizations to follow what the "standard setter" in the industry does...and in this case, the SCCA is the "standard setter". So it's not under any time pressure to act in any specific direction, at least from what I've heard. (But hey, I'm no legal beagle, so I could be all wrong)

I certainly hope that we stay the course. When ONE device is mandated, it's not a good thing.

[ddewhurst]

If the SCCA forces the members to use the HANS, the next thing the SCCA will do is force the members to add a razzel dazzel lateral head support to our seats (because the HANS reduces minimal lateral forces) or the SCCA will force members to buy the NASCAR style seat with all the hoop-de stuff.

[dj10]

If the SCCA forces the members to use the HANS, the next thing the SCCA will do is force the members to add a razzel dazzel lateral head support to our seats (because the HANS reduces minimal lateral forces) or the SCCA will force members to buy the NASCAR style seat with all the hoop-de stuff.
[/b]



I'll wear a Hans when autocrossers have to wear them! Those cones can really scuff up the armoral on your tires.

[x-ring]

I think it's pretty bad that they want to mandate an item that offers crap in the way of laterial support, and then mandate a right side net to try make up for the shortfall of the first item.

David is probably right, next thing you know we'll see a 'recomendation' that we get new halo seats...

(Sorry for the rant, I'm kind of crabby this morning)

[JamesB]

I thought the verbage recomending the side net said it was not needed if your seat had lateral support.

[gsbaker]

The BOD meets in August.

I doubt the SCCA wants to have egg on its face--ala BMWCCA--so it will probably take a pass on an '07 mandate and wait 'til the spec changes.

[RacerBill]

Gregg: Do I read between the lines that you believe that the SFI spec is going to change in the near future?

Bill "fingers crossed" Stevens

[gsbaker]

Bill,

Personally, I believe it will change in the future, but I wouldn't say it will be the "near" future. Clearly, sanctioning bodies do not like the egress clause in the SFI spec, and Joey Hand getting stuck in his fuel-drenched BMW (of all things) was the icing on the cake.

I can see sanctioning bodies ignoring that portion of the SFI spec, mandating the performance called for in 38.1, and handling the egress issue separately. That's the best of all worlds, for everyone.

Once that happens, SFI will change the spec.

[gsbaker]

BTW, we want to thank all the Isaac users out there, epecially those at IT.com where interest flared before we even had the Web site up and running. We understand the entire "approval" issue has been disconcerting, but want you to know that things seem to be trending in our favor.

Hang in there. It's like building a race car: A lot of time and a lot of effort, but the results are worth it.

[Daryl DeArman]

Hanging Mode=ON

I must be in the dark...Joey Hand (another ex-Karter from California) what happened? Is he okay?

On edit--I must be really slow today (slower than normal).

Here is a quote from an post crash interview with Hand from another site:


When it was all said and done, I came to a stop upside down. I was still in the seat, and the first thing I noticed was my right shoe was off. I blew my right shoe off and my right glove somehow. I unbuckled myself and fell down out of the car onto the roof. There was fuel running down my back and into the roof of the car, and oil and stuff. The corner workers were yelling to get out of the car because it was going to catch fire, and I couldn’t get out because my HANS device was stuck in the window net, and the window was smaller than normal.

I went back in and tried to get my helmet off and then they called me back out again, and then they finally got me out with my HANS and everything on.
[/b]

[gsbaker]

Daryl,

Joey had a big ride...

http://www.break.com/index/joey_hand_destr...w_in_crash.html (http://www.break.com/index/joey_hand_destroys_bmw_in_crash.html)

He couldn't get out because of his SFI certified HANS device...

http://www.grandamerican.com/News/Article.asp?ID=6724

[ddewhurst]

Was there a Fastrack breif on a potential date that a H & N restraint per the SIF spec is a shall ? Which Fastrack ?

[Roy Dean]

He couldn't get out because of his SFI certified HANS device...

http://www.grandamerican.com/News/Article.asp?ID=6724
[/b]

He is quoted as saying:


they finally got me out with my HANS and everything on[/b]

So it's not true that "he couldn't get out because of his SFI certified HANS device", because if it was he'd still be in there. A more accurate statement would be "couldn't get out as quickly because of his SFI certified HANS device"

Later in that artical, he is quoted again:



Q: What about the HANS Device?

HAND: That's number two for me and the HANS Device. That's the second time the HANS Device saved me. They said there's no way I could have survived the impacts without the HANS Device. It saved me again. In (a Toyota Atlantic car at) Milwaukee it saved me and here it saved me. I won't drive without it if I have a chance. Not many people can say that they hit hard enough to have a HANS Device save them twice. Whatever, we'll go on.
[/b]

[Jeremy Billiel]

We all can agree that there is no "perfect" system. Buy any of them that will save your life is important. When looking at purchasing and device I tend to lean towards the Isaac, but I also don't want to make an investment and be screwed next year, etc...

[planet6racing]

He is quoted as saying:
So it's not true that "he couldn't get out because of his SFI certified HANS device", because if it was he'd still be in there. A more accurate statement would be "couldn't get out as quickly because of his SFI certified HANS device"
[/b]

Actually, the more pertinent part is "They finally got me out..." As in, Joey could not, by himself, get out of the car with his helmet, HANS, and whatever else still on.

[x-ring]

So then an even more accurate statement would be "couldn't get out without help because of his SFI certified HANS".

[JamesB]

I think his inablity to get out was not just the HANS getting caught in the net. It was a culmination of issues. The window opening was smaller I dont know by the force of the crash or just the cage design, but if your not used to getting out of an opening smaller then when your usual entrance and exit of the car then who knows if the HANS was more then an issue beyond getting caught in the net.

Right now as the 07 season rules (my season ends before that rule takes effect.) I am limited to 3 choices, and sadly noone locally sells two of the brands so I been in a holding pattern. I might just have to take a road trip one day to a place that does carry the other brands. I am a try before you buy kind of person, and the GCR limits my choices for next year.

[gsbaker]

So then an even more accurate statement would be "couldn't get out without help because of his SFI certified HANS".
[/b]
Agreed.

With respect to the window size, I believe Joey was referring to the fact that the window opening was made smaller by the beefed up structure, which did an impressive job. As you can see from the second image here (http://www.mmsports.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4585&start=20), it was nearly untouched.

[gsbaker]

Was there a Fastrack breif on a potential date that a H & N restraint per the SIF spec is a shall ? Which Fastrack ?
[/b]
Dave,

There is no "shall", yet. I believe it was in March that the Fastrack reported that the CRB requested the BOD mandate SFI 38.1 effective sometime this November. They'll vote thumbs down, thumbs up, something in between or just pass.

I expect some members of the safety committee will push for the mandate, especially if they are HANS dealers.

[Daryl DeArman]

I'll bite...WHO has a vote in this deal that also is a HANS dealer? Talk about a conflict of interest. I hope they abstain the actual vote, even though it is quite likely they will have influence on others who do get to vote.


HANS egress issues: yeah don't blame the device...stick your head in the sand and say he didn't get stuck or he'd still be in there. He didn't get out on his own!!! What if the coroner extracted him? Would you still say he wasn't stuck because he's not still in there, his progress was only slowed? Guess I have never got my Jeep stuck in the mud either...
Or blame the window net. That's it, ban all window nets and make the HANS mandatory. :(

[gsbaker]

I'll bite...WHO has a vote in this deal that also is a HANS dealer? Talk about a conflict of interest. I hope they abstain the actual vote, even though it is quite likely they will have influence on others who do get to vote.
[/b]
We haven't confirmed anything, so I won't name names. And it's the Board that will be voting, assuming they take up the issue, not the safety committee. The subject party is not on the Board.

[CDS]

Slight thread drift here. What is the status of the right-side net requirement? Is it still just a recommendation also?

[turboICE]

He is quoted as saying:
So it's not true that "he couldn't get out because of his SFI certified HANS device", because if it was he'd still be in there. A more accurate statement would be "couldn't get out as quickly because of his SFI certified HANS device"

Later in that artical, he is quoted again:
[/b]
Well lets just say irrespective of how you want to interperet and come away from the article, on video and not subject to interpretation, from the time that the car came to a rest until the time he was out of the car was greater than 60 seconds. This was a driver who said he was awake and aware throughout. That is a heck of a long time to be on the roof of a car filled with fuel and oil in a driver suit soaked in fuel and oil. He wasn't in there for aroma therapy he was in there trying to get out and the HANS interferred with full egress.

[gsbaker]

Slight thread drift here. What is the status of the right-side net requirement? Is it still just a recommendation also?
[/b]I believe it is a recommendation only.

That also needs to be thought through. The SAE conference in 2004 was very positive with respect to test results of nets, but all the testing had been performed with high end "containment" seats that provide excellent lateral support of the upper body. To my knowledge, there has been no testing of nets with the typical road racing seat, i.e. one having less lateral support. My personal concern is that the net may hold the head while the torso takes off, resulting in an injury in the other direction. That said, the conventional wisdom is that you're probably better off with a net than without. There may be an update on this subject at this year's SAE.

If we keep going down this path, the only way you'll can get decent lateral support of the head with an SFI device is to drop another grand (at least) on a serious seat upgrade. Members are just gonna love that.

[turboICE]

My next seat is definitely going to have significantly more lateral support - but I don't think it does any favors dropping a $3000 bill all at once on members.

I believe properly installed the RH net will work quite well. I am sure there is more stretch in them than in a harness and that it should capture the shoulder and the head not just the head.

[JoshS]

Slight thread drift here. What is the status of the right-side net requirement? Is it still just a recommendation also?
[/b]
The latest information would be what has been published in the July Fastrack. Effective 11/1/06, they will be recommending a right side net. Quoting:


Item 3. In order to clarify the intent of item 13 from the March Fastrack the CRB is recommending the following language. Effective 11/1/06:
Add new section 39 to section 17 as follows:

39. INSIDE NET (Commonly referred to as a Right Side Net)
A inside net running between the main roll hoop and the dash is recommended for all production-based cars and two-seater sports racers (see
figure 5). It is recommended that the lower strand of the net pass the shoulder and run horizontally from the cage to the dash. The upper
strand should pass the Cg of the helmet in the side view. The net should run parallel to the center of the car in plan view and be as close to the
seat as possible. It is recommended that the net be tensioned tightly and have a way to quickly disconnect it in case the driver needs to exit
through the car in an emergency. Metal collars, or some other equivalent method, should be used to keep the strands of the net from moving
from where they are positioned on the roll cage. If possible, the recommended mounting method is to wrap the net strands around the back of
the seat and attach them to the main hoop upright. However, teams should consult the net manufacturer to verify their recommended method of
mounting.
[/b]

[Roy Dean]

He wasn't in there for aroma therapy he was in there trying to get out and the HANS interferred with full egress.
[/b]

Oh man, you love to twist reality to suit your needs in the worst way, don't you? I forgot, you were inside the car with him documenting the whole thing.

Listen dude, there will ALWAYS be that one percent of all accidents where a certain piece of safety equipment will end up killing somebody rather than saving them, yet you continue to press the issue that the hans is a death trap (yet you also continue to deny that you are badmouthing the hans, only trying to expose the hans dealers conspiracy that exists in yours and GBakers head).

Did Mr. Hand die? No. Did he suffer a head or neck injury? No. Was he quoted as saying his life was saved (in this accident and one other) by the hans? YES.

Lets say, for example, he was wearing an Isaac. Same crash. The Isaac saves him from deadly H&N injuries. He unbuckles his seatbelts and falls to the roof (which is now the floor).... but in his post crash daze (which he MUST have been in because if he wasn't, he could've simply pulled the hans quick releases that were on his helmet, or at the very least just unbuckled the hans posts which takes all of 1 second per side, rather than "trying to take his helmet off"), he forgets to release the Isaac tethers. Gas and oil are pouring on him as he is climing out (face first) through the door opening..... But, uh-oh... he can't get out because his helmet is holding him back! He backs into the car to either "take off his helmet" or to relieve the tension on his isaac tethers to therefore release them......

Is that not a totally plausible scenario? If it had happened that way, would you and Mr. Baker be blasting the SFI spec that legalized the Isaac?

[turboICE]

Did Mr. Hand die? No. Did he suffer a head or neck injury? No. Was he quoted as saying his life was saved (in this accident and one other) by the hans? YES.[/b]Who is being selective to twist reality here? I guess it was crowded since you were you in the car documenting the forces and what transpired. Did you measure the forces? How do you know his life was saved by HANS? How do you know injury was prevent by HANS? Your basis for your selected conclusions is no different than anyone elses - supposition based on what was obseverd and said so lets go with everything he said and everything that was seen.

Was he quoted as saying he was not able to exit the vehicle on his own because his H&N restraint prevented full egress from the vehicle? Yes.

Did the time in the video from full rest of the car to full exit from vehicle take in excess of 60 seconds while soaked in fuel and oil? Yes.

Will I be allowed to choose a product that both will prevent H&N injury, save my life and allow full egress from the vehicle? Not as things stand now.

I am not telling you not to use the H&N restraint of your choice - you are telling me not to use the one of my choice. In history which role is one that is always wrong the one preventing choice or the one seeking choice? We know which role you wish to play in your reality.

I don't care what you use - but you have no right to restrict what I use.

[turboICE]

Lets say, for example, he was wearing an Isaac. Same crash. The Isaac saves him from deadly H&N injuries. He unbuckles his seatbelts and falls to the roof (which is now the floor).... but in his post crash daze (which he MUST have been in because if he wasn't, he could've simply pulled the hans quick releases that were on his helmet, or at the very least just unbuckled the hans posts which takes all of 1 second per side, rather than "trying to take his helmet off"), he forgets to release the Isaac tethers. Gas and oil are pouring on him as he is climing out (face first) through the door opening..... But, uh-oh... he can't get out because his helmet is holding him back! He backs into the car to either "take off his helmet" or to relieve the tension on his isaac tethers to therefore release them......

Is that not a totally plausible scenario?[/b]
No it isn't - because what says he had QR? There is no mention of that it isn't like they are standard HANS requires you to pay more to have their product be safe to reach full egress. And with gloves on unbuckling the HANS posts is not simple or one second per side. He had to try and remove his helmet.

My Isaac QR are second nature - I wouldn't forget to release them anymore than forgeting to release the harness and open the window net.

But it sounds like you are saying full egress with HANS requires multiple points of release.... Hmmm.

[Peter Olivola]

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread...8054#post108054 (http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?p=108054#post108054)

[Dave Burchfield]

I have read this thread with interest for a number of days contemplating whether to comment or not. The manufacturer ofthe restraint is, in this instance not a material issue. Any quality restraint, if worn properly would have probably performed the same function.

By the way, everyone who placed a gloved hand on the car, please raise your hand(raises hand). The issue here that scares me most is the possibility of fire, and Joey Hand is SO fortunate that there was no fire. I would also have to say that PTG has much to be proud about in the quality of race cars that they build. When the team was salvaging the car, the doors looked like they could be bolted up to another car and look almost as good as new. The integrity of the driving compartment was near amazing.

As a driver and worker, I am thankful for all the safety equipment that is in use today, and use all that I can get.

All of the discussion has caused me to reflect on a conversation that I had with Dr. Melvin at the Delphi Lab during a test of a H&N system not being discussed here. I was then and am today still convinced that the SFI issue is not something that is in the best interest of the driver.

Of course, these thoughts are only my opinion...........

[turboICE]

Any quality restraint, if worn properly would have probably performed the same function.[/b]I agree 100%, the HANS likely contributed significantly to his being able to even have an interview - but so would other quality products.


The issue here that scares me most is the possibility of fire, and Joey Hand is SO fortunate that there was no fire.[/b]Which worries me as a driver that may not be allowed to choose a quality H&N restraint that I believe would allow ME to achieve full egress with more success.


I would also have to say that PTG has much to be proud about in the quality of race cars that they build. When the team was salvaging the car, the doors looked like they could be bolted up to another car and look almost as good as new. The integrity of the driving compartment was near amazing.[/b]Amazing and interesting as elsewhere there was comment that there was a reduction in the window opening that was a contributing factor.


By the way, everyone who placed a gloved hand on the car, please raise your hand(raises hand). ... As a driver and worker, I am thankful for all the safety equipment that is in use today, and use all that I can get. [/b] Ditto and as a driver I am equally thankful for people like you out there ensuring we have a fighting chance after an incident.


All of the discussion has caused me to reflect on a conversation that I had with Dr. Melvin at the Delphi Lab during a test of a H&N system not being discussed here. I was then and am today still convinced that the SFI issue is not something that is in the best interest of the driver.

Of course, these thoughts are only my opinion...........[/b]Would you describe Dr. Melvin as being supportive of a change in 38.1 or to remain in its current state? Several (who much as myself have never met him) claim that 38.1 has his unqualified blessing.

Thanks for the post, huge contribution.

[Dave Burchfield]

It would be my opinion that the window opening was reduced by the cage structure that was rather substantial. To the best of my memory, the panels around the cage, including the roof panel were not deformed to the point that would hinder escape.

Regarding the good doctor, I will just say that being offered by a respected official, I was first somewhat offended by the flip manner of comments and later concerned. I have contemplated the manner in which the comments were offered and have personal opinions, which probably should be kept that way; personal.

This whole issue has forgotten the intended purpose, and that is the safety of the driver. Since it has become a competetion, the safety of the driver has become secondary, which is unfortunate.

[Bill Miller]

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread...8054#post108054 (http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?p=108054#post108054)
[/b]


And what exactly are you trying to point out w/ this Peter? Do Hans devices save lives? Yes they do. I don't think anyone is disputing that fact.

[Peter Olivola]

Just a reminder, Bill, amidst all the conspiracy accusations, that the HANS does indeed save lives. You have a problem with that?



And what exactly are you trying to point out w/ this Peter? Do Hans devices save lives? Yes they do. I don't think anyone is disputing that fact.
[/b]

[RSTPerformance]

It would be my opinion that the window opening was reduced by the cage structure that was rather substantial. To the best of my memory, the panels around the cage, including the roof panel were not deformed to the point that would hinder escape.
[/b]

Not that it is of any importance or not... Take a look at the crash video's again, if possible on a HD TV so that you can really see the detail of the car. The Windshield was never even damaged and the roof never once touched the ground till the last very very soft roll where the car finally stoped. I would be amaizingly suprised if the cage had any sort of deformity considering:

A: Very well built car
B: The "roof" never took a hit


I am not sure I understand what is wrong with all you people and all the complaining and/or argueing so much about Hans vs. Isaac. They are both great products from what I am aware of. We have witnessed on TVor in real life plenty of reasons why they both have saved lives. If you are a Hans or Isaac wearer then support the overall cause for safety, not the product. One might be safer than the other but that is personal preference. We can all admit that both are safer than nothing.

Work on a bigger cause:

a: Make Head & Neck restraints affordable for the average or lower end club racer.
b: Help the process determine the best "restrictions" on what products actually do function to a specefic level (SFI or other). - Maybe their should be an a test that requires an exit to be made in X number of seconds.

Raymond "work together already :dead_horse: " Blethen

[Bill Miller]

Just a reminder, Bill, amidst all the conspiracy accusations, that the HANS does indeed save lives. You have a problem with that?
[/b]

Like I said Peter, I don't think that anyone is disputing that a HANS saves lives. Is it the best product out there? I don't have the answer to that question, but some have raised some significant design issues (lack of lateral support, device slipping out from under the belts).

The gist of the 'conspiracy theory' has little (or nothing) to do w/ the way the HANS functions. It centers mostly around the SFI requirement of a single point of release. Something also that has nothing to do w/ the way the HANS functions (it's interesting that Roy talks about the quick releaseses on the HANS, and then talks about someone forgetting to pull the release pins on the ISSAC).

For people to not be able to use a H&N device that's been proven to work, because it doesn't meet a standard that has requiremtnts that don't relate to performance of the device, certainly makes one wonder why the standard was written that way, or why it was adopted.

[RSTPerformance]

Like I said Peter, I don't think that anyone is disputing that a HANS saves lives. Is it the best product out there? I don't have the answer to that question, but some have raised some significant design issues (lack of lateral support, device slipping out from under the belts).

The gist of the 'conspiracy theory' has little (or nothing) to do w/ the way the HANS functions. It centers mostly around the SFI requirement of a single point of release. Something also that has nothing to do w/ the way the HANS functions (it's interesting that Roy talks about the quick releaseses on the HANS, and then talks about someone forgetting to pull the release pins on the ISSAC).

For people to not be able to use a H&N device that's been proven to work, because it doesn't meet a standard that has requiremtnts that don't relate to performance of the device, certainly makes one wonder why the standard was written that way, or why it was adopted.
[/b]


Bill-

I am a huge supporter of Isaac, but excuse my argument but... HAVING A SINGLE POINT RELEASE IS A SAFETY FEATURE that HANS has figured out. IT IS A GOOD/IMPORTANT FEATURE as it helps a driver get out faster. This is very important, but your question should be is this one feature more important than making it so the driver can attempt to get out in the first place? STOP arguing that HANS only concentrates on the single release exit, it is a lousy argument. The problem you and every other friggen person that argues about this crap needs to figure out is that yes, Hans does this right, BUT their are also other alternatives that can be as safe and most importantly will help when most people get injured/hurt- That is in the accident not getting out of the car. Lets save the people first and just have a requirement that they need to be able to get out in X number of seconds and be done with it.

Raymond "Ok done with my rant... I woke up to early" Blethen

[RacerBill]

Hey, I found 2 cents in my pocket this morning, and I don't want them to burn a hole, so here is something I have not heard mentioned. You can buy a Hans device, either the standard or the lightweight Pro model, and it comes with standard tethers. If I am not mistaken, with the standard tethers, you have to slip the tether rings off the helmet posts to release the Hans from the helmet. For an additional $105.00 you can order the 'Quick Disconnect Tether Set' that allows a driver (or emergency worker) to disconnect the Hans from the helmet by pulling TWO straps. Not to draw too many conclusions, but it looks like the manufacturer saw a need to detach the device more quickly than the original design. Can anyone comment on the difference in design from actual usage?

[dickita15]

Bill-

I am a huge supporter of Isaac, but excuse my argument but... HAVING A SINGLE POINT RELEASE IS A SAFETY FEATURE that HANS has figured out. IT IS A GOOD/IMPORTANT FEATURE as it helps a driver get out faster. This is very important, but your question should be is this one feature more important than making it so the driver can attempt to get out in the first place? STOP arguing that HANS only concentrates on the single release exit, it is a lousy argument. The problem you and every other friggen person that argues about this crap needs to figure out is that yes, Hans does this right, BUT their are also other alternatives that can be as safe and most importantly will help when most people get injured/hurt- That is in the accident not getting out of the car. Lets save the people first and just have a requirement that they need to be able to get out in X number of seconds and be done with it.

Raymond "Ok done with my rant... I woke up to early" Blethen
[/b]
But raymond that is the point. the single point of release we are told is the reason that Issac can not get certified. I will belive that is a reason not to use the device when they tell me that I can not use my helmet blower, radio harness and cool suit because that also violates the single point of release principal.

[RSTPerformance]

But raymond that is the point. the single point of release we are told is the reason that Issac can not get certified. I will belive that is a reason not to use the device when they tell me that I can not use my helmet blower, radio harness and cool suit because that also violates the single point of release principal.
[/b]


I understand that dick... I am a Isaac supporter and I am sure that someday I will get one somehow but what I don't understand is people bashing the Hans because they have designed a feature that is better. Knowone should be arguing that a "single release" isn't safer, they should be arguing that a "single release" limits our ability to be safer be it a head and neck restraint, radio for communications, cool suit or helmet blower to help keep the driver comfortable/alert.

The problem I have is that everyone argues what is safer, the Hans or the Isaac? That should not be the point. The Isaac/Hans debates are for the most part pathetic IMO as they are not fighting to keep us safe, but customers fighting to support thier choice in safety equipment.

Raymond

Edit: I have no problem with people debating what product is safer, as that is what this forum is for, to educate us all through debates. I just am sick of seeing Isaac users whom are upset that the Hans is SFI certified retaliating against them because of that one simple fact. I am also sick of seeing the Hans users retaliating agains Isaac because they are not SFI certified. Lets debate what actually is safe or not. If single release is safer then argue about that, and why it is or is not safer. Thier is no reason to involve company or product names. In accidents at what angle is one safe and one not safe? how hard of a hit will either one "save you?" etc etc etc.

[dickita15]

I understand that dick... I am a Isaac supporter and I am sure that someday I will get one somehow but what I don't understand is people bashing the Hans because they have designed a feature that is better. Knowone should be arguing that a "single release" isn't safer, they should be arguing that a "single release" limits our ability to be safer be it a head and neck restraint, radio for communications, cool suit or helmet blower to help keep the driver comfortable/alert.

Raymond

[/b]

I think the Isaac fan will say that the single release requirment is a cheap trick to keep thier product out of the game and that it is not safer. yes you are right that I do not have to release my Hans to be free of the car but the device stays attached to you and that makes egress harder.

the argument is about the politics. it is not a given that single release is safer. that is the argument that you dismiss.

[Bill Miller]

Bill-

I am a huge supporter of Isaac, but excuse my argument but... HAVING A SINGLE POINT RELEASE IS A SAFETY FEATURE that HANS has figured out. IT IS A GOOD/IMPORTANT FEATURE as it helps a driver get out faster. This is very important, but your question should be is this one feature more important than making it so the driver can attempt to get out in the first place? STOP arguing that HANS only concentrates on the single release exit, it is a lousy argument. The problem you and every other friggen person that argues about this crap needs to figure out is that yes, Hans does this right, BUT their are also other alternatives that can be as safe and most importantly will help when most people get injured/hurt- That is in the accident not getting out of the car. Lets save the people first and just have a requirement that they need to be able to get out in X number of seconds and be done with it.

Raymond "Ok done with my rant... I woke up to early" Blethen
[/b]

Raymond,

Where did I say that HANS only concentrates on the single-point release? What I said was, that that section of the SFI standard looks to be written around the HANS design. Single-point release has NOTHING to do w/ the way a H&N device functions. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm a HANS basher, because I'm not. I think it's an excellent product. What I have a problem w/ is being told that I possibly won't be allowed to use a device that I feel is actually a better product (addresses lateral load much better than a HANS) because of a section of a standard that has nothing to do w/ the performance of the H&N device.

I crewed for a car (K. Knestis' ITB VW GTI) at the 12hr race at Summit Point, both this year and last year. There are drivers that use an ISSAC device, and we had no issues at all w/ driver's egress from the vehicle being slowed or hindered by not having a single-point release system. It's simply pulling on a cord that's attached to the two release pins. It requires one hand and probably takes less than a second to disconnect.

And as Dick pointed out, the single-point release clause in the SFI standard means nothing when you've got other things like radios, cool suits, helmet blowers, sternum straps, window nets, etc. (and ISSAC devices) that have to be disconnected before you can get out of the car.

BTW, is that how you debate things, call people names and yell at them to stop preseneting their side because you don't agree w/ it? :018:

Bill "one of those friggen people" Miller

[Knestis]

I've been out of this fray for a while but am getting caught up enough with life that I'm able to wade back in...

Different horses for different courses.

Any H&N system, like any other safety system, is going to be a compromise. We could build street cars that would protect occupants from any incident that they might encounter on the highways but we don't, because people have to use them, cost IS a consideration, etc.

What is being argued here is being put in terms of black and white, or right and wrong, when the real solution is to accommodate "different." There's no question that, in the abstract, the time or step required to disconnect an Isaac MIGHT be a problem. Equally, there's no question that - again, in the abstract - having a Hans attached to your noggin might make it difficult to get out.

The difficulty here is that we are arguing one vs. the other, when the REAL issue is whether the consumer should be allowed to make the compromise that he/she feels most comfortable with. Some will pick the Isaac's better lateral control numbers, accepting the pins. Others may feel better with decreased lateral control (or be using other elements of a system to resolve that need) and want to stay away from being connected to the harness.

SFI won't let us make that choice.

I've told this story before but years ago I was on an ad hoc committee that was tasked with writing standards for fire system agents, installation, and usage. At the time, we had the choice of Halon 1211 or Halon 1301, each of which had very different properties. Most manufacturers were wedded to one or the other so it quickly became obvious that ANY specification that preferred one over the other - even in just one type of installation, say formula cars - would be a non-starter in the market. And any specification that simply said, "both are OK for any use" wouldn't do the consumer any good...

We wisely gave up.

K

[gsbaker]

If I may suggest, let's put some things in perspective.

First, many thanks to Dave Burchfield and all the other workers who help save drivers, regardless of the circumstances and the safety equipment being used.

Second, what is happening with the head and neck restraint issue is an old story in the product development world, i.e. the science is ahead of the rules. History is full of parallels:

<blockquote>- (Seville, Spain, 15th century or so) King Ferdinand announced today that Christopher Columbus would sail around the world, collecting all kinds of goodies along the way. Said one observer, "Yo, Chris. Yer gonna fall off, ya freakin&#39; moron!"

- (Somewhere in a soot-filled room, more recently) The Kerosene Lamp Committee announced today that Thomas Edison&#39;s new "Light Bulb" would not be certified. "It doesn&#39;t meet spec," said Crusty Rumple, Committee Chairman.

- (Grandma&#39;s kitchen, about 1958) "Shoot a basketball with one hand? Is he nuts?! Everyone knows you shoot a basketball with two hands," said Uncle Bill.

- (Mid 20th Century, somewhere in the civilized world) Generic race car driver: "The seat belt is a terrible idea. I don&#39;t want to be trapped in the car, I want to be thrown free from the wreck."

- (October 25, 2004) "2.5 Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations. "</blockquote>

All these parties had very good reasons for saying what they said. They were not part of a conspiracy. It made complete sense at the time, given what they knew. It was the right thing to say and it was the right way think, and everyone knew it. It wasn&#39;t so much that they were wrong (boy, were they), they were simply behind the curve.

We have been engaged in product development work involving extremely critical applications for over twenty years, and have seen this same pattern occur repeatedly. It&#39;s human nature. By the time the rules catch up to the science, the rules are obsolete. The joke in the medical device industry is that FDA approval is a stamp of obsolescence. In the case of H&N restraints, SFI is working with old concepts from the last millenium, thinking the safest way to go is single point release. Again, it is not a conspiracy. They are just behind the curve. Events have shown the old concept to be not only wrong, but backwards. We hope they get it fixed before the body count goes higher.

Third, Kirk is right. The real issue is choice. We are not suggesting the HANS device be banned; we are suggesting that all high performance H&N restraints be allowed. If a racer doesn&#39;t like a particular product, fine; they should not be forced to use it.

Last, we find it continually amusing that the only people who express any concern about egress with an Isaac systems are those who have never used it. It&#39;s like a virgin complaining about sex. The total number of Isaac users who have availed themselves of our return policy because of egress issues is zero. Zip, zero. zilch, nada.

[Daryl DeArman]

The problem I have is that everyone argues what is safer, the Hans or the Isaac? That should not be the point. The Isaac/Hans debates are for the most part pathetic IMO as they are not fighting to keep us safe, but customers fighting to support thier choice in safety equipment.[/b]

Raymond,

I have got to disagree. Our safety most certainly IS the point. We are fighting for a CHOICE. I want to continue to have the choice to wear the best device for my circumstances. I think it would be great if there were performance and timed egress standards that had to be met without regard to design. Let me know how that one works out.

[RSTPerformance]

Raymond,

Where did I say that HANS only concentrates on the single-point release? What I said was, that that section of the SFI standard looks to be written around the HANS design. Single-point release has NOTHING to do w/ the way a H&N device functions. I&#39;m not sure where you get the idea that I&#39;m a HANS basher, because I&#39;m not. I think it&#39;s an excellent product. What I have a problem w/ is being told that I possibly won&#39;t be allowed to use a device that I feel is actually a better product (addresses lateral load much better than a HANS) because of a section of a standard that has nothing to do w/ the performance of the H&N device.

BTW, is that how you debate things, call people names and yell at them to stop preseneting their side because you don&#39;t agree w/ it? :018:

Bill "one of those friggen people" Miller
[/b]

Bill- I respect you a lot, and I am sorry if my rant lead me to think I was tlaking about you, I wasn&#39;t. I was a bit anoyed with people in general complaining that the HANS restricted the driver from getting out of the BMW, and I am also a bit anoyed with the "other side" also complaining that the ISAAC is not safe because it is not a single release. People seem to avoid defending or debating the real issues IMO. As a FYI I infact DO think that with the ISAAC despite its "attachment system" would be easier to ger out of a crashed vehicle, unfortunatly most people (or the important people) don&#39;t feel the same. We need to work on getting that opinion changed.



Raymond,

I crewed for a car (K. Knestis&#39; ITB VW GTI) at the 12hr race at Summit Point, both this year and last year. There are drivers that use an ISSAC device, and we had no issues at all w/ driver&#39;s egress from the vehicle being slowed or hindered by not having a single-point release system. It&#39;s simply pulling on a cord that&#39;s attached to the two release pins. It requires one hand and probably takes less than a second to disconnect.

And as Dick pointed out, the single-point release clause in the SFI standard means nothing when you&#39;ve got other things like radios, cool suits, helmet blowers, sternum straps, window nets, etc. (and ISSAC devices) that have to be disconnected before you can get out of the car.
[/b]

Bill- That is two great points/arguments that need to be made by multiple people to SCCA. Somehow we need to get averyone to agree with this.




The difficulty here is that we are arguing one vs. the other, when the REAL issue is whether the consumer should be allowed to make the compromise that he/she feels most comfortable with. Some will pick the Isaac&#39;s better lateral control numbers, accepting the pins. Others may feel better with decreased lateral control (or be using other elements of a system to resolve that need) and want to stay away from being connected to the harness.

SFI won&#39;t let us make that choice.

[/b]

Thank you Kirk, you put my rant in "better terms."



If I may suggest, let&#39;s put some things in perspective.

Second, what is happening with the head and neck restraint issue is an old story in the product development world, i.e. the science is ahead of the rules. History is full of parallels:

All these parties had very good reasons for saying what they said. They were not part of a conspiracy. It made complete sense at the time, given what they knew. It was the right thing to say and it was the right way think, and everyone knew it. It wasn&#39;t so much that they were wrong (boy, were they), they were simply behind the curve.

We have been engaged in product development work involving extremely critical applications for over twenty years, and have seen this same pattern occur repeatedly. It&#39;s human nature. By the time the rules catch up to the science, the rules are obsolete. The joke in the medical device industry is that FDA approval is a stamp of obsolescence. In the case of H&N restraints, SFI is working with old concepts from the last millenium, thinking the safest way to go is single point release. Again, it is not a conspiracy. They are just behind the curve. Events have shown the old concept to be not only wrong, but backwards. We hope they get it fixed before the body count goes higher.

Third, Kirk is right. The real issue is choice. We are not suggesting the HANS device be banned; we are suggesting that all high performance H&N restraints be allowed. If a racer doesn&#39;t like a particular product, fine; they should not be forced to use it.

Last, we find it continually amusing that the only people who express any concern about egress with an Isaac systems are those who have never used it. It&#39;s like a virgin complaining about sex. The total number of Isaac users who have availed themselves of our return policy because of egress issues is zero. Zip, zero. zilch, nada.
[/b]

Thank you Greg, I enjoyed reading the post. Once again that post addresses the issues that we (consumers) should be concerned with.

Bill- Once again sorry if I mislead you or others in my post, in retrospect I am glad i made the posts, it really got this thread away from the 1 accident conversation and spelled out the key issues we do need to worry about.

Raymond &#39;I was at work way to early in the AM" Blethen




Raymond,

I have got to disagree. Our safety most certainly IS the point. We are fighting for a CHOICE. I want to continue to have the choice to wear the best device for my circumstances. I think it would be great if there were performance and timed egress standards that had to be met without regard to design. Let me know how that one works out.
[/b]


Agreed safety is most important, however the arguments have been HANS vs. ISAAC. The arguments are used to "keep Isaac out" or "bring Isaac in" as an allowable H&N restraint at sanctioning bodies. The issue in my mind for Isaac (or any other present or future companies out their) has NOTHING to do with HANS. I think Greg understands that, but I am not sure that everyone else does. If they do, sorry, maybe I am misinterpreting some things?

Raymond

[Bill Miller]

No problem Raymond, but when you said "The problem w/ you and ....", I kind of took that to be directed at me! :D :birra: :023:

[RSTPerformance]

No problem Raymond, but when you said "The problem w/ you and ....", I kind of took that to be directed at me! :D :birra: :023:
[/b]


Its been a long day...

Greg can I get an Isaac that attaches to my chair??? It would need to hold my head up when it starts to "bob" at my desk :015: I keep getting whiplash :bash_1_:

Raymond

[turboICE]

Also let&#39;s be clear on one thing - my intent is not to bash HANS. I don&#39;t want to use HANS when an alterenative that is better in my mind is available. In order to do so, I am required by others to state why I don&#39;t want to use HANS, if that is bashing so be it. But is only by being required to defend my use of ISAAC that it occurs. Stop trying to prevent me from using my choice of H&N restraint and I will never again make any negative comment about HANS. I have never in anyway suggested anyone other than ME should not be using or that anyone should not be allowed to use HANS.

Remove the necessity for me to say why I want to use ISAAC instead of HANS and I will shut my mouth about why I don&#39;t want to be required to us HANS.

[gsbaker]

Its been a long day...

Greg can I get an Isaac that attaches to my chair??? It would need to hold my head up when it starts to "bob" at my desk :015: I keep getting whiplash :bash_1_:

Raymond
[/b]
:lol:

The first time anyone actually "wore" an Isaac system was when I wrapped a harness around my office chair, installed mounts on a helmet and hooked everything up. Unfortunately, even with the wheels on the chair we couldn&#39;t get up enough speed for a valid impact test.

Yes, it was during the office holiday party, but that was just a coincidence. :) Thank heavens no one took a photo.

[Bill Miller]

:lol:

The first time anyone actually "wore" an Isaac system was when I wrapped a harness around my office chair, installed mounts on a helmet and hooked everything up. Unfortunately, even with the wheels on the chair we couldn&#39;t get up enough speed for a valid impact test.

Yes, it was during the office holiday party, but that was just a coincidence. :) Thank heavens no one took a photo.
[/b]

LOL! Sounds like one of those clips in that commercial that has the guy doing the &#39;human bowling&#39; w/ the water cooler jugs!!

Ed,

Very well said!

[Z3_GoCar]

Just Curious if anyone&#39;s tried the R3, or has concerns about it? I saw one for sale at the VARA race at Cal-Speedway last weekend. Sorry, but I&#39;m planning on doing BMW club events too so I need a SFI certified device.

James

[gsbaker]

Hey, I found 2 cents in my pocket this morning, and I don&#39;t want them to burn a hole, so here is something I have not heard mentioned. You can buy a Hans device, either the standard or the lightweight Pro model, and it comes with standard tethers. If I am not mistaken, with the standard tethers, you have to slip the tether rings off the helmet posts to release the Hans from the helmet. For an additional $105.00 you can order the &#39;Quick Disconnect Tether Set&#39; that allows a driver (or emergency worker) to disconnect the Hans from the helmet by pulling TWO straps. Not to draw too many conclusions, but it looks like the manufacturer saw a need to detach the device more quickly than the original design. Can anyone comment on the difference in design from actual usage?
[/b]
Sorry Bill. your question got lost in the shuffle.

These are popular in tight confines where, frankly, drivers expect to have to leave the HANS behind. Bobby LeBonte used them when his car caught fire in Chicago in &#39;03. We have talked to some racers (Land Speed Record and drag racers) driving non-production cars that have cages so tight they can&#39;t get out of the seat. The HANS goes in once and stays there.

HANS users who opt for these should trim the tethers as short as possible. There has been more than one case of them getting pinched under the belt and releasing.

[gsbaker]

James,

The manufacturer won&#39;t release the R3 test data, so all we know is that its upperneck load was less than 900 pounds in the offset SFI test. Isaac and HANS test at about 500#.

[Daryl DeArman]

James,

FYI, VARA allows the use of the ISAAC. I know of three just in my run group.

Were you racing, spectating or crewing?

-Daryl

[Z3_GoCar]

Hey Daryl,

I was crewing/spectating. I helped out with Rich Kirchner&#39;s FC and Tom Kuby&#39;s 911 Porsche. I was also hanging out with Kevin MacDonald, I rented his Green Monster 2002 for my Super School. The real sticking point is not VARA, where I&#39;d be running exhibition class, but BMWCCA which requires SFI cert on the H&N restraint. Kevin drove the Plavin 911 Porsche in the Sunday morning practice session which is where I saw the R3 unit. The other issue is that I need to do this in the next month as I&#39;d like to run the BMW/SCCA vintage event in September at Laguna Seca. So waiting for BMWCCA racing to change their rule is out of the question.

James

[gprodracer]

"Raymond....BTW is that how you debate things, call people names and yell at them to stop presenting their side because you don&#39;t agree w/it :018: "

Absolutely the funniest line you&#39;ve ever typed...
Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot here...Two words for you..You&#39;re black! :lol:

On a more serious note, I have no preference here, however has anyone considered the fact that Mr. Hand had just rolled 8 times end over end, and 1 1/2 times sideways? Could we all agree that the "shaken and stirred" factor could have contributed to why he had a problem getting himself out, and may have gotten him caught up in the window net? (Knocking on wood now..) I have only had one hard impact, fell out the door of my car, and walked away like a drunken soldier. I believe that the impact affected the (very ungracefully) way I exited my car. I personally believe we should have a choice, but not that this one instance should cause us to make a final decision of one device over another. We all know that each wreck is completely different, with all sorts of variables.
I&#39;m with Raymond, and others, write letters to change the written rules, and try to get them affordable for all of us!
Carry on, this is an extremely informative post! Thanks to all with the pertinent info!

With apologies to Raymond,

Mark " learning something new every day" Larson B)
CFR #164010

[Daryl DeArman]

James, you have a private message--don&#39;t want to hijack thread.

[gsbaker]

"Raymond....BTW is that how you debate things, call people names and yell at them to stop presenting their side because you don&#39;t agree w/it :018: "

Absolutely the funniest line you&#39;ve ever typed...
Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot here...Two words for you..You&#39;re black! :lol:

On a more serious note, I have no preference here, however has anyone considered the fact that Mr. Hand had just rolled 8 times end over end, and 1 1/2 times sideways? Could we all agree that the "shaken and stirred" factor could have contributed to why he had a problem getting himself out, and may have gotten him caught up in the window net? (Knocking on wood now..) I have only had one hard impact, fell out the door of my car, and walked away like a drunken soldier. I believe that the impact affected the (very ungracefully) way I exited my car. I personally believe we should have a choice, but not that this one instance should cause us to make a final decision of one device over another. We all know that each wreck is completely different, with all sorts of variables.
I&#39;m with Raymond, and others, write letters to change the written rules, and try to get them affordable for all of us!
Carry on, this is an extremely informative post! Thanks to all with the pertinent info!

With apologies to Raymond,

Mark " learning something new every day" Larson B)
CFR #164010
[/b]
Mark,

Good points.

The money issue is not trivial -- certainly not to amateur racers, which is one reason we value the feedback here at IT.com. Don&#39;t forget that we came out with the Isaac Link model last year and it proved to be the third-best product ever tested at the Wayne State Bioengineering Center lab, right behind the Isaac and the HANS.

No, the Link doesn&#39;t have much lateral support (just like the competition) but it retails for $295. If the SCCA came to us and proposed a group buy of, say, 5,000 units for members do you think we&#39;d say "Yes"? Oh, hell yes.

[Knestis]

If anyone wants first-person comparisons between the Link and the "shocker" Isaac (sorry), I&#39;ll bet that Jeff Lawton will share. He has a Link and used the Isaac in the Golf at the SP 12 hours.

Also, for the good of the order, I relocated the pin mounts on my helmet before that race, having discovered that when I lowered the seat in the new car, it put the mirror up at the very end of the range of the damper motion. I originally mounted them when we had the seat on an aftermarket Recaro slider, that was designed to install an aftermarket shell at the stock seat height. We moved it down once last season, then again this spring, so I had to revisit the alignment.

The moral of the story is, if you opt for the Isaac, put your "neutral" head position in a truely neutral position. I&#39;d use the glue answer if I did it again but in this case, I&#39;m kind of thankful that I didn&#39;t...

K

[Bill Miller]

"Raymond....BTW is that how you debate things, call people names and yell at them to stop presenting their side because you don&#39;t agree w/it :018: "

Absolutely the funniest line you&#39;ve ever typed...
Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot here...Two words for you..You&#39;re black! :lol:



Mark " learning something new every day" Larson B)
CFR #164010
[/b]

Mark,

Do you have some obsession w/ me that you follow me around the net? Get a life!

[Roy Dean]

No it isn&#39;t - because what says he had QR? There is no mention of that it isn&#39;t like they are standard HANS requires you to pay more to have their product be safe to reach full egress. And with gloves on unbuckling the HANS posts is not simple or one second per side. He had to try and remove his helmet.[/b]

Nobody said he had quick releases. But if he did, it wouldve been a no brainer. Sorry for my poor wording, but I meant it as though if he DIDN&#39;T, he could still unbuckle the hans posts in 2 seconds. They ARE that simple to remove. I&#39;ve timed myself doing it. 2 seconds for both sides.



My Isaac QR are second nature - I wouldn&#39;t forget to release them anymore than forgeting to release the harness and open the window net.
[/b]

Oh, thats right, I forgot... Only the Isaac releases are second nature. Nobody could EVER learn to use the hans quick releases or standard post release as second nature. You continue to say that you&#39;re not "bashing" the HANS, but here is more proof.

You claim that the Isaac is second nature (which it probably IS), yet the HANS can&#39;t possibly be second nature... Please. At least there are other Isaac supporters who can plainly admit that there isn&#39;t much difference between the two releases. They even admit that vehicle exit without touching the device is possible with a HANS, while it is NOT possible with the Isaac...

Is it possible that a HANS can impede a driver&#39;s exit from a burning car? You bet. Is the same true for an Isaac? If your answer is anything other than YES, then you are delusional....

[lateapex911]

Oh, thats right, I forgot... Only the Isaac releases are second nature. Nobody could EVER learn to use the hans quick releases or standard post release as second nature.

You claim that the Isaac is second nature (which it probably IS), yet the HANS can&#39;t possibly be second nature... Please. .....


Is it possible that a HANS can impede a driver&#39;s exit from a burning car? You bet. Is the same true for an Isaac? If your answer is anything other than YES, then you are delusional....
[/b]


I can&#39;t say what was in the original writers mind when he wrote what you are quoting Roy, but just to put the point in perspective....

Yes, both the HANS and the Isaac can be equipped with similar releases, and both users can use them in similar ways. But....with the Isaac, it is second nature, habititual behavior, because that is the only method practiced when leaving the car....every single time. When you practice something and repeat it ad nauseum, it becomes nearly muscle memory. In situations where your mind isn&#39;t formulating plans, and is just reacting, habit can be a good thing. You are more likely to do the same thing you always do.

That said, of course a HANS wearer can (and arguably should) get in the same practice. Drill drill drill.

But, from what I&#39;ve seen in person at both Pro and ametuer levels, and On TV at all levels, there is very often a lot of "dorking around" wth the HANS when exiting the car.

Why? We&#39;re lazy? We think we spent the money and therefor our safety is covered? We don&#39;t think about the role WE play in the process? I dunno.....but I sometimes grab my stuff and strap in the car in the shop and watch the second hand on the wall clock as I time my exits. My car has double release nets, for instance. Why?? I won&#39;t have to dork with it as much when I&#39;m upside down...I&#39;ve got a release in the right position regardless. Practice makes better...assuming that perfection is unobtanium!

Point being that, I think that the Isaac forces you to do your homework, and thats actuallly a bit of a safety feature in and of itself.

Honestly, I&#39;m of the camp that thinks performace is the bottom line. Prove you can get out of the car in a certain time period. Will it eliminate issues with crumpled cars upside down? Not entirely, but it will force drivers to practice egress, and to think about it.

[gsbaker]

Head and neck restraints are a lot like women, Roy. There are many drab ones, but every now and then you run across a hot blonde, or a hot brunette or a hot redhead -- and of course they all want you. They all have their pros and cons, but at least you have a choice.

TurboIce&#39;s complaint is that he may be stuck with a brunette when he wants a blonde. It&#39;s like someone has passed a law against excess happiness.

(I&#39;m going to regret this post. ;))

It goes to a fundamental question of logic: What good comes of limiting drivers&#39; access to high performance safety gear?

And forget the release issue. That is pure speculation from nonusers which is 100% counter to the field experience. If you posed that theory at a scientific conference you would be laughed out of the room. Every time a driver gets trapped in a car by their H&N restraint it is an SFI certified device. Get it?

Is it conceivable that a driver could somehow get trapped in his car by an Isaac system? I can&#39;t see how, but let&#39;s say it&#39;s possible. What happens then? Then the corner workers have to help him out -- just like Joey Hand.

[gprodracer]

Bill,

I compliment your sense of humor, and you say I&#39;m "following you around the net". I drive in IT occaisionally, and I drive my GP car as often as I can. Hence I read both the websites. Not a real stretch there.

On to the topic. Thank you Greg, for keeping us club racers in mind about the $$ factor, as I have not yet been able to afford any head and neck device. I&#39;m going to show my age, but does anyone remember Eric Dickerson, a running back in the NFL years ago? He wore every single piece of protective equipment he could strap on his body (lineman shoulder pads and neck collars, a helmet with every facemask bar allowed on it etc.) because he wanted every advantage to continue his career he could get.
I mention him because I am a believer in that philosophy. What we do as our "hobby" can, bottom line, get us killed. Brutal, but that is the fact. I try (on a very small budget) to get the very best of any safety equipment I can afford. At this time, the Hans is something I can not afford without it seriously impacting whether or not I can meet the requirements to keep my National license. I REALLY want to buy a system, but alot of us simply don&#39;t have $900 lying around.
Please don&#39;t use the "racing is expensive etc." argument, as expensive is a relative term. I am not a proponent of either device, as I don&#39;t have enough technical knowledge to judge them. I am however, a proponent of being allowed to have a choice in what I use. For example, IMO I think it is insane to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but will defend a persons right to do so.
In OUR club, at this point a restraint system is not mandatory yet, but I would hate to see it become a rule with only one product being allowed. Please don&#39;t make this a "Spec HANS" club. Give us the pertinant facts, and let us make our own choice.
That&#39;s my time, but I&#39;ll be here all week.

Thanks Greg and all you others (you too Bill), for all your informative posts, because these boards are invaluable for the knowledge we gather!

Mark P. Larson
CFR #164010

[Bill Miller]

At this time, the Hans is something I can not afford without it seriously impacting whether or not I can meet the requirements to keep my National license. I REALLY want to buy a system, but alot of us simply don&#39;t have $900 lying around.
[/b]

You don&#39;t need to spend $900, you can get an ISSAC Link for under $300. That&#39;s less than the cost of two tires.

[gprodracer]

Bill,

Thanks, several have PM&#39;d me about that option. I am just worried that I buy the ISSAC, and SCCA makes restraint systems manditory, but requires the SFI label, hence the "Spec Hans" statement. I would like to have the option of making my own (un)educated decision. I agree that the "Link" is an excellent alternative, with an affordable price.

[Bill Miller]

Mark,

If the SCCA goes that route, and will only let you wear an SFI-certified H&N device, or none at all, they&#39;ll have to DQ me at every race, or lose a member. They do not want the liability exposure that not letting someone make their own choice will give them, especially on an optional device.

[R2 Racing]

If the SCCA goes that route, and will only let you wear an SFI-certified H&N device, or none at all, they&#39;ll have to DQ me at every race, or lose a member.[/b]
Bill, don&#39;t think for a second that you&#39;ll be alone in doing so. If it ever comes to that, I think that&#39;s a story that will become quite common.



Cool thread & a good read.

[turboICE]

You continue to say that you&#39;re not "bashing" the HANS, but here is more proof.[/b]Again with the selectiveness of what you want to read and respond to. As long as I am being forced to defend my desire to use ISAAC and to not use HANS - I am forced to point out the differences that concern me. As I said before if anyone wants to take that as bashing then so be it. Stop making me defend my desire and I will stop talking about HANS. (It is funny how you can use the observation of selected statements as proof, but somehow observation of drivers being inhibitted by HANS to exit a vehicle as not being proof of similar strength.)


You claim that the Isaac is second nature (which it probably IS), yet the HANS can&#39;t possibly be second nature... Please. At least there are other Isaac supporters who can plainly admit that there isn&#39;t much difference between the two releases. They even admit that vehicle exit without touching the device is possible with a HANS, while it is NOT possible with the Isaac...[/b]Greg covered this, could HANS release be second nature - sure. Is it - not in my observation, drivers aren&#39;t releasing they are trying to exit with HANS installed it isn&#39;t second nature for them. Release is second nature to EVERY ISAAC user.


Is it possible that a HANS can impede a driver&#39;s exit from a burning car? You bet. Is the same true for an Isaac? If your answer is anything other than YES, then you are delusional....[/b]It has been observed with HANS. I can neither see any way for ISAAC to interfer, nor has it ever been observed. Does that mean it isn&#39;t possible at all I suppose not - but I would love to see what the little helmet mounts would catch on to prevent egress. If ISAAC could ever interfer with egress once released then so could the HANS posts.

If you want to respond to me again at least include a response to this as well next time - I choose ISAAC - why is it you are so dead set that I shouldn&#39;t be allowed that choice and should be forced to use an egress inhibiting yoke system (SFI 38.1)? What is your interest in prventing me my choice? Are you affiliated with HANS? Are you affiliated with someone that sell HANS, either through direct interest or sponsorship? Why exactly would you care if there are drivers who prefer to use a device that functions to its intended purpose that is their preference? Because your positions are taken from an emotional vested interest not from supported logic.

If your interest is that I not "bash" HANS, once again stop making me defend my choice of ISAAC. Because I can not respond with "I just want to use ISAAC." I have to point to why I am making that choice - I have tried HANS and was not comfortable with my ability to achieve full egress and I have seen others that needed desperately to fully egress not able to because of HANS.

BTW as I have stated before 38.1 is perfect for open cockpits - I feel that it inadequately addresses ALL the issues of closed cockpit cars which we field on the race track and its limiting of options is a poor result not a positive one.

And if you continue to think the purpose of my posts is to solely "bash" HANS, replace every instance of HANS with "SFI 38.1 required yoke device". HANS is not my issue, being required to wear a yoke that does in actual practice prevent full egress is.

[JamesB]

the problem I see is every time this debate comes up its pro or against HANS. I would love to hear any imput from racers actually using the R3 or the Hutchens II.

[gsbaker]

James,

Agreed. There are no bad H&N restraints.

[JamesB]

anything is better then nothing, you and every other vender has already proved that on the sled.

Due to the current rule set to go in effect I have to narrow my focus to SFI stickered, sorry thats the breaks, I dont want to show up and have an official rule otherwise.

I just would love to hear from users other then ISAAC and HANS so I can try to make an informed decision. But I might have to make a few small road trips or see if resellers can at least let me purchash, try the device on an strap into my car and return it if its not going to work for me.

[Phat-S]

Mark,

If the SCCA goes that route, and will only let you wear an SFI-certified H&N device, or none at all, they&#39;ll have to DQ me at every race, or lose a member. They do not want the liability exposure that not letting someone make their own choice will give them, especially on an optional device.
[/b]


I thought about this quite a bit when the issue first came up some time ago and although it would pain me to do so, I would also follow suit if I were denied the right to wear the equipment I deem necessary for my safety on track. I consider the Isaac to be an integral part of my (very safety conscious) race car - I would have the same issue if the SCCA forced me to remove part of my cage or inboard net.

[erlrich]

anything is better then nothing, you and every other vender has already proved that on the sled.

Due to the current rule set to go in effect I have to narrow my focus to SFI stickered, sorry thats the breaks, I dont want to show up and have an official rule otherwise.

I just would love to hear from users other then ISAAC and HANS so I can try to make an informed decision. But I might have to make a few small road trips or see if resellers can at least let me purchash, try the device on an strap into my car and return it if its not going to work for me. [/b] James - have you checked out the ISAAC yet? If not, make sure to come by and try mine out at the next MARRS.

[JamesB]

Earl, yes I actually did try it on last year. And I was considering it as a purchase sometime in my rookie year. However, then fastrack came out proposing the rule as strongly recomended but must be 38.1 stickered. Since then I been weary as to how it could be ruled at any race I entered with SCCA if I did not have a 38.1 stickered device. So as I have only tried on a HANS and ISAAC so far its due to lack of access to an R3, Hutchens II, or the new Hutchens Hybrid.

[Bill Miller]

This just in from the August FasTrack as a submitted for the BoD for approval.


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.[/b]

Keep those cards and letters comming! If this passes, I will save myself some money next year by not renewing my license. :angry:

It simply amazes me that they think nothing is better than something that doesn&#39;t have an SFI sticker on it. :018:

[lateapex911]

This just in from the August FasTrack as a submitted for the BoD for approval.
Keep those cards and letters comming! If this passes, I will save myself some money next year by not renewing my license. :angry:

It simply amazes me that they think nothing is better than something that doesn&#39;t have an SFI sticker on it. :018:
[/b]
So, let me get this straight....as of 11/1 (The ARRC), I put my Isaac on the shelf, and go with nothing?

Hold on phone&#39;s ringing.....hey! It&#39;s NASA calling??

Sad thing is everyone will now follow the chicken shit SCCA lawyers lead.

THIS is the worst day in the clubs recent history...........

Common sense takes a direct kick to the nuts.

(As an aside, everyones pointing at Joey Hands wild ride. They all say how his SFI device saved him. Really?? How the F%^k does anyone know that?? A wild ride to be sure, but I&#39;ve seen Sprint car drivers do that every weekend since the begining of time, and be ready to race in the next heat in a backup car...wearing nothing more than a foam collar. So unless somebody has some real data on neck loads IN that crash, I aint listening to the moth flapping masses. On the other hand, it&#39;s undeniable that his SFI device had a strong role in trapping him in a car filled with gas and oil.)

[JamesB]

I really don&#39;t think that they think SFI is better. After all the debates I agree its a CYA for a litigation centric society in the US. Common sense is coffee is hot yet people sued over it. common sense is that parents should have their kids at home by a reasonable hour, yet we have curfew laws.

[Bill Miller]

I just sent my letter in to the CRB stating that I opposed the proposed change, and that the day I was told I couldn&#39;t wear my ISSAC, that would be the day I cancelled my SCCA membership.

And while I understand the litgious (sp?) nature of today&#39;s society, all they had to do was say that the stongly recommend the use of a H&N device, and left it at that. It&#39;s an optional item, and you let people make their own decisions as to wearing one or not, and which one to use.

[lateapex911]

And another thing...SFI doesn&#39;t certify the device, do they?? So the wording essentially eliminates every device...

And.....I should apologise for mis reading the exact wording originally, as I see this is just a repeat of what was published in February, and I thought, at that point, that the SFI part was a recommendation, not a requirement.


I would say that, if this is passed, I will need to give significant consideration to my future in the SCCA.

[ddewhurst]

Folks read the hand writting on the wall. The HANS is only a start. The right side net is only a start. The $2,000 seat. The friken HANS provides minimal lateral load reduction therefore the friken lawyers will make sure we are safe in their eyes by forcing WE THE PAYING MEMBERS to buy all kinds of other $hit because the HANS provides minimal lateral support.

Hey, I totaled a ITA car last year & survived with zero after effects including no bruises or red marks wearing no H & N support. The impact was sideways/backwards wher my right side helmet kissed my right shoulder & then the left side helmet bounced off the paded side hoop three times. What the FUNK would the HANS have done for me ? .................NOTHING

I got away with it once but I&#39;ll not try for twice. When my new car is complete count me with an ISAAC or GONE from SCCA.

Now that YOU guys have got me really pi$$ed it&#39;s time for a letter to every but head within the SCCA who I beleive has something to do with this sorry a$$ed issue. :mad1: I will ask them to state ALL load reduction
specifications for ALL the H & N systems for all SCCA members to view within the SportsCar rag.

[turboICE]

So, let me get this straight....as of 11/1 (The ARRC), I put my Isaac on the shelf, and go with nothing?

Hold on phone&#39;s ringing.....hey! It&#39;s NASA calling??

Sad thing is everyone will now follow the chicken shit SCCA lawyers lead.

THIS is the worst day in the clubs recent history...........

Common sense takes a direct kick to the nuts.

(As an aside, everyones pointing at Joey Hands wild ride. They all say how his SFI device saved him. Really?? How the F%^k does anyone know that?? A wild ride to be sure, but I&#39;ve seen Sprint car drivers do that every weekend since the begining of time, and be ready to race in the next heat in a backup car...wearing nothing more than a foam collar. So unless somebody has some real data on neck loads IN that crash, I aint listening to the moth flapping masses. On the other hand, it&#39;s undeniable that his SFI device had a strong role in trapping him in a car filled with gas and oil.)
[/b]

Unfortunately:


Originally posted by &#39;NASA 2006 GCR&#39;
IMPORTANT NOTICE: It is expected that use of a head and neck restraint system or device, meeting SFI 38.1 may become mandatory for all road race series as soon as January 1st, 2007.Each year they change the year until SCCA does something, then I would expect NASA to follow suit within months if not less.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lateapex911]
And another thing...SFI doesn&#39;t certify the device, do they?? So the wording essentially eliminates every device...[/b][/quote]It kinda got blown by but that was the first thing I said when the FasTrack came out with the recommendation. The wording unequivacly would require a H&N device which does not exist at all despite all of us understanding what they meant. When will someone that can write what they mean or mean what they write start working for the CRB?

[gsbaker]

For the most part, I&#39;m going to stay out of this because you guys are on a roll, but Dave has just made a brilliant observation:


...I will ask them to state ALL load reduction specifications for ALL the H & N systems for all SCCA members to view within the SportsCar rag.
[/b]
Has anyone, including the SCCA, seen any data from SFI--or anyone else for that matter--that demonstrates any SFI "certified" products actually passed the test?

[JamesB]

I sent my letter of comment against this due to competitve products without approval already purchased.

this thread is like racing, we are now back at the same point in this discussion. I am out, I will await the outcome of the BoD vote before I bother to spend money on my H&N. I already planned on one, and I dont have any die hard ties to any vender. Legal to the rules is all I care about.

[dickita15]

while I agree with all you guys that choice is good, todays fastrack is just a summary of all the things the CRB has sent to the BOD over the last 6 months to vote on at there August rules meeting.

call or write you director. they will vote on this at there August meeting, (that meeting is usually the first weekend in August)

[turboICE]

SFI Foundation does not certify anything and explcitly states such in their licensing.

Manufacturers certify their equipment&#39;s compliance with an SFI standard. As written SCCA just negated the use of any H&N restraint.


14.0 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS
Testing procedures and/or standards contained in this specification are intended for use only as a guide in determining compliance with the minimum performance requirements as defined herein. The granting and assignment of the "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1" logo/designation is in no way an endorsement or certification of product performance or reliability by SFI. SFI, its officers, directors and/or members assume no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for failure or malfunctions of a product under this program.[/b]


All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by the SFI Foundation and bear the SFI 38.1 label.[/b]

Buzz, no product is certified BY the SFI.

[DavidM]

I sent my letter in last week opposing the rule. I will continue to wear my Issac regardless of whether the rule passes or not. If it becomes an issue I will either head to another organization or seriously consider filing a class action lawsuit against SCCA (how&#39;s that for litigation). This issue makes me wonder if the people who run this organization have a clue (or are politically motivated by various equipment manufacturers).

As a note for you people who have yet to send a letter. I sent mine to both [email protected] and [email protected]. It appears that both those addresses just go to some administrative mailbox that some dude looks at and then forwards on as he sees fit. I suspect that my e-mail was only forwarded to the CRB and not the BoD based on the reply I recieved. I would suggest sending your e-mail directly to BoD members if you want them to read it. I will be forwarding my original message directly to them.

David

[lateapex911]

Or, hit your regions website and call your local BoD person.

[gprodracer]

Damn, it appears that my fears have come to pass. "Spec Hans" is now a requirement. (this is not a HANS bashing post, for any who might take it that way. The HANS is an excellent product) We all know that a H&N system will become a requrement as soon as the first neck injury happens, and SCCA gets sued.
Greg, if you&#39;re reading, I did some research, and I&#39;m certainly interested in your product. Here is where I start asking dumb questions..

What is it going to take to get your product SFI "certified"? I&#39;m sure it is expensive, but is that the only thing that is keeping the ISSAC from getting certified? (I&#39;m not implying that you aren&#39;t willing to spend the cash, you are in business to make a profit just like everyone else, just wondering if there are other factors that we aren&#39;t aware of) What are the other factors (if you can state them, you won&#39;t offend me if you say "None of your business", or "It&#39;s way too complicated")

If it is strictly a dollars and cents thing, (again, if I&#39;m getting too much into your business, just say so..no problem, I&#39;m just throwing out ideas here!) how many more guarenteed sales would you need to overcome the $$ problem? No specifics, "a crapload more than we currently have" will suffice.

Quitting the SCCA is really not an option for me, but I 100% agree with the need for viable options to this new rule!
The next letter I&#39;m writing is to the CRB to voice my STRONG opposition to this rule.
To all the posters, keep us all updated as to what you are doing to help stop the madness.

Thanks,
Mark P. Larson
CFR #164010

[88YB1]

So okay I&#39;m new to SCCA. Second year member. Who is my director and how do I contact him? I searched the SE Division and national web pages but could not find any information concerning elected leaders. I am an Isaac Link user and would like to continue to use it. If someone can point me in the right direction I will add my vote of opposition to the SFI spec.

Chuck
PS: can we get the Isaac FIA approved?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Here is your second choice...



http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/group.asp?GroupID=R3



AB

[gprodracer]

Andy,

As I have done before, I didn&#39;t express my point well enough. The R-3 is an excellent product as well.
Let me try again, although I&#39;m not sure if this is 100% what I am trying to get across.

The "Spec $1000 (insert product name here) Classes". I would just like to get an answer, from anyone who is involved in the rule making process, how they came to the conclusion that no H&N device is safer for us drivers than having the choice to use a non SFI rated one?
I am not crying "poor pitiful me!", but they have priced a considerable amount of members out of the market, not to mention making all of the drivers that have already invested in other systems now have very expensive canopy tie downs
If it is a legal "we are afraid of being sued over the non SFI rated products" situations, well...I may not like it, but someone officially state that.
People who are considering leaving SCCA, please don&#39;t! Lets all contact some people, and see how things came about, and what we can do to work something out. There has got to be some sort of compromise!
Mark

[lateapex911]

I can&#39;t speak for Gregg, but I know that there are a few hurdles to getting an SFI spec.

Go here: http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1...ecification.pdf (http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1_Head_Restraint_Specification.pdf)

Basically, they state that to meet their requirements, the device must rest on the shoulders and realease with the release of the belts.

There&#39;s more, but it clearly was designed with very specific design parameters and requirements, and I&#39;d be shocked if wasn&#39;t done with input from the designers of the HANS.

To me, I think requiring the unit rest on the shoulders and the one release mandateare effective at eliminating other designs, such as the Isaac.

There are perfomance levels that need to be met, with SFI personel in attendance, as well as money paid in exchange for the use of the SFI logo.

I think the list of current products that meet the spec are the HANS, the Hutchens II and the R3.

To me, it would seem that SFI can choose what to or not to approve. I didn&#39;t study the spec in great depth, but devices like the Issac appear to be longshots for approval.

[Bill Miller]

Can you say "restraint of trade" lawsuit? I know that people in Topeka can! :018: :119:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Can you say "restraint of trade" lawsuit? I know that people in Topeka can! :018: :119: [/b]

Hubberbucket! (You have to talk with Bill in his own language...) :)

Spec Tires are a restraint.

No Bias plys are a restraint

Certified harnesses are a restraint

Certified helmets are a restraint

...and the list goes on and on. Line are drawn in the sand everywhere in the GCR. This one is no different than saying your M rated helmet isn&#39;t good enough. Sure it&#39;s better than nothing but it ain&#39;t good enough. They drew there line and it sucks it seemingly eliminated a good alternative but it&#39;s the line. Where would you draw yours - because one does have to exist.

[Phat-S]

Hubberbucket! (You have to talk with Bill in his own language...)

Spec Tires are a restraint.

No Bias plys are a restraint

Certified harnesses are a restraint

Certified helmets are a restraint

...and the list goes on and on. Line are drawn in the sand everywhere in the GCR. This one is no different than saying your M rated helmet isn&#39;t good enough. Sure it&#39;s better than nothing but it ain&#39;t good enough. They drew there line and it sucks it seemingly eliminated a good alternative but it&#39;s the line. Where would you draw yours - because one does have to exist.
[/b]
It seems vastly different than items 3 & 4 and I am not sure 1 & 2 are in the spirit of the argument. An M rated helmet doesn&#39;t meet the minimum standard for a standard piece of equipment. Certified harnesses do not meet a minimum standard for a standard piece of equipment. To disallow a sled tested (and in my case, well crash tested) piece of recommended and voluntary additonal safety equipment is tantamount to disallowing wearing a helmet if it were not a Shoei or Arai.

I cannot help but feel some are being penalized by this rule for taking initiative to make themelves safer. If the SCCA&#39;s stance is that I cannot wear an Isaac Device (which I personally have tested in a very profound way and I don&#39;t know that the BoD has) and must run nothing or purchase a Hans or R3, that&#39;s not remotely akin to dictating the minimum standard helmet or belts I run in the car.

[gprodracer]

Andy,

Excellent, and intelligent replies as usual. Here are some not so intelligent responses, but help us all out with them please.
Spec tires, a restraint, but voted on by the members.
No bias ply tires, a restraint, but voted on by the members of the affected classes.
Certified harnesses, a restraint, but the option of no harnesses at all, is not allowed, period. You either have the restraints that are allowed, or you are not allowed to race..period.
Certified helmets, you must wear the certified helmet, but the option of wearing no helmet, or any other helmet is not allowed, and you do not race.
Head and neck restraints. You are STRONGLY recommended to wear one (but not required to).
If you do wear it, it must be brand X,Y, or Z ONLY. All other brands, even though they have proven to be effective in preventing head and neck injuries, are now ILLEGAL according to the new rule, and you are not allowed to race. WTF???
I realize that H&N systems will probably become manditory in the future, but why are the ones that are not brands X,Y,and Z the only ones that are allowed now? To me, some protection is much better than none at all, and this new rule is outlawing systems that have proven test results that they provide excellent protection, but haven&#39;t recieved SFI certification yet. I would prefer to drive my street car with seat belts that don&#39;t meet the SFI specs than be told that I can only drive my car with SFI belts, or drive with no seatbelts at all.
Am I making any sense at all?
Help us all out here please!
Thanks,
Mark

[pgipson]

This is my e-mail to the CRB (and my BoD member, my Re and another BoD member I know very well)


Item 18 on page F-6 of the August 2006 Fast Track (reproduced below) appears to be in error in at least 2 ways.


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.

First, the section only recommends the use of a Head & Neck restraint system. Since a system is not required, the competitor is free to either choose to use a system or not, depending on their own personal preference. This is the only item of safety equipment that is afforded such treatment. I think that either a positive declaration is required (shall use) or the GCR should be silent on the issue. The approach my club has taken is neither “fish nor fowl” and is not appropriate. My personal opinion is that the GCR should be silent on this subject.

Second, the requirement that any Head & Neck restraint system used must be certified by the SFI is a fallacy since the SFI does not certify that products meet specifications. SFI develops and administers the specifications. Manufacturers self-certify compliance of their products to the appropriate specifications. SFI is not a testing house and does not issue “certifications” of products. This is obvious in reading paragraph 1.2 of SFI 38.1

“ … Certification that products meet such minimum standards is made by the product manufacturer and products are not certified, endorsed or approved by SFI under this program. …”


As you can see, the proposal as written would eliminate the use of all available Head & Neck restraint systems since none are certified by SFI to meet 38.1. The manufacturers of each system that bears the SFI 38.1 label have certified to SFI that their products are in compliance.

Since the intent seems to be to keep the use of Head & Neck restraints optional and still educate the driver community to the perceived benefits of such devices, perhaps better wording for Item 18 might be:


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 manufacturer to meet the impact performance requirements published in SFI Foundation specification 38.1 dated 25 October 2004.

Thanks for your time and consideration of these thoughts.

Sincerely

Paul Gipson
AZ Region SCCA
Member # 131424
Spec RX7 # 11[/b]

[Bill Miller]

Hubberbucket! (You have to talk with Bill in his own language...) :)

Spec Tires are a restraint.

No Bias plys are a restraint

Certified harnesses are a restraint

Certified helmets are a restraint

...and the list goes on and on. Line are drawn in the sand everywhere in the GCR. This one is no different than saying your M rated helmet isn&#39;t good enough. Sure it&#39;s better than nothing but it ain&#39;t good enough. They drew there line and it sucks it seemingly eliminated a good alternative but it&#39;s the line. Where would you draw yours - because one does have to exist.
[/b]

While I understand your position Andy, I don&#39;t think it applies. As of now, it&#39;s an optional piece of equipment, I&#39;m not sure a line does have to be drawn. And while lines do get drawn, there&#39;s a track record of drawing them in the wrong place.

[shwah]

As I said in page 1, I expect to be purchasing a HANS in the next year or two.

When these conversations come up, the good folks who brought us the ISAAC always say to wait and see. That part of the process is just about done. The next step will be call and order. The shame is that every time I have seen the question asked about what could, or is being done to meet the specification with ISAAC, those same folks go dead silent.

Putting our head in the sand won&#39;t change where we end up. I certainly don&#39;t think it is an ideal place, but overall the collective racer&#39;s necks will be safer. Individually those of us that chose to protect ourselves too soon with the wrong product (you know, the one that approaches the root of the problem by controlling accelleration rather than position, and providing good side load protection) will loose a bit of safety and a sizeable chunk of cash.

I figure I will try to sell my ISAAC to a &#39;track day&#39; guy when the time comes. The shame is that I just glued ISAAC mounts to my SA2005 helment for this season, and may have to replace that too. :bash_1_:

[Andy Bettencourt]

You guys all make good points. My of-the-cuff comments were aimed at Bill&#39;s &#39;restraint&#39; of trade issue. I don&#39;t think that applies. There are plenty of things we can&#39;t buy in SCCA.

Having said that, H&N stuff is getting more common. People are using it with great results. Let me pose an extreme - and stupid example.

I rig up a home-made H&N system. It&#39;s made up of a an extra seat-back-brace bracket that I rest my helmet on and have my crew guy duct tape my helmet to. This piece of flat steel is what is attached to my noggin.

The point is that this is the most rediculous attempt at a H&N system. Is it better than nothing? Nope. So these things seemingly need to be policed. How do we do it? Lord knows we don&#39;t need individual local interpretation on these things so some sort of standard needs to be applied.

That standard is the SFI rating. Yes it sucks for users of excellent equipment that isn&#39;t SFI rated, but to me it isn&#39;t as backward as some people make it out to be.

[RSTPerformance]

sorry if this has been asked before.... but

What/who makes or sets the SFI standard?

Why did someone who set the SFI standard decide that it had to be a single release? (IE where did the influence come from?)

Raymond

[erlrich]

sorry if this has been asked before.... but

What/who makes or sets the SFI standard?

Why did someone who set the SFI standard decide that it had to be a single release? (IE where did the influence come from?)

Raymond [/b] Raymond, as I understand it the SFI writes the standards with help from it&#39;s participating members, who also happen to be the manufacturers of the safety equipment. This is from SFI&#39;s website:

<span style="color:#ff0000">- new product!"

</span></span><span style="color:#330033">So what you have is the companies (some of them) getting together with the standard-writing organization to write the standards for their own products. Now I&#39;m just a dumb accountant, but I do seem to recall hearing a term in some of my auditing courses that seems appropriate here - "conflict of interest".

[Eagle7]

Letter sent to my BOD member (requesting a NO vote). Response received was in total agreement.

[Knestis]

Ack. I&#39;m way too busy to be able to devote the kind of thinking to this issue that it deserves right now but, at the time SFI 38.1 was written, there was really only one player in the market - the Hans.

There are all kinds of complaints possible here and we are really in a policy hard spot. Among other things, if the Isaac manufacturers compromised a design that their R&D says provides the best noggin control, just to meet the SFI rule, their lawyers could fairly become VERY worried about liability exposure. Picture the plaintiff&#39;s lawyer:

"So, Mr. Baker - am I to understand that you knowingly sold a head and neck support system that did NOT peform in your tests, as well as your original system? That you willfully put Mr. Jones&#39; neck on the line by marketing &#39;safety equipment&#39; that you KNOW wouldn&#39;t protect him to the full extent possible?"

For its part, SCCA needs the liability coverage afforded by SFI. SFI LOVES that whole deal because it generates revenues from us racers (indirectly) through the manufacturers. We are forced, in essence, to patronize them. The manufacturers generally think the deal is OK because they just pass the costs on to us, and they get to indemnify themselves by adhering to "industry standards."

The people who get dicked on this deal are the end users, because we are collectively too damned lazy to make our own smart decisions regarding safety equipment, and take responsibility for getting hurt if worst comes to worst. If ALL racing safety stuff were optional AND we (and our estates) would quit being so litigious, we wouldn&#39;t be here. But we are.

The only real solutions to the impass are...

** Convince SFI to do away with the misguided "single point of release" standard. If time of egress is really the issue, sanctioning bodies should make it a performance test for all drivers (like FIA does for F1 cars), in their unique cars, with their unique physiques and all of the crap they hook to themselves. They are not likely to do this, I don&#39;t think for the bizarre reason that by enforcing their own standard, they take on more liability than they would by not having ANY egress standard. Picture that courtroom again - "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the plaintiff is is going to prove to you today that the Sports Car Club of America let my client&#39;s husband burn to death, by specifying an emergency egress standard, that HE MET during technical inspection, but that did not save his life in an actual fire situation..."

** Convince Isaac to build a system that meets that requirement. I can understand how they&#39;d be equally reluctant to do that (see above).

** Convince SCCA to allow any system that meet the actual head-and-neck protection performance standards of the SFI rule. This might work...

Like others, I&#39;m going to continue to use my non-SFI system next year because test data suggests that it provides me with the best protection in MY situation, in MY car. I hope that the stewards at races I attend will understand that by telling me to remove it, they make my day in court (or my surviror&#39;s) even easier than the cases described above. Or I invoke the "driver comfort" clause of the ITCS.

K

[RSTPerformance]

Raymond, as I understand it the SFI writes the standards with help from it&#39;s participating members, who also happen to be the manufacturers of the safety equipment. This is from SFI&#39;s website:

<span style="color:#ff0000">- new product!"

</span></span><span style="color:#330033">So what you have is the companies (some of them) getting together with the standard-writing organization to write the standards for their own products. Now I&#39;m just a dumb accountant, but I do seem to recall hearing a term in some of my auditing courses that seems appropriate here - "conflict of interest".
[/b]


Greg (Isaac)-

Can you add to this? If the SFI specs are created by the members of "SFI" then why are you and/or someone from the company a member? I would think that if you were a member you might be able to get things changed and could have prevented what is happaning (A good product being "outlawed").

I agree that SCCA NEEDS to have a "line drawn" as Andy points out. I would also think that with the line drawn exceptions can be written into the rule when a proven company presents itself to SCCA. We see this in the GCR now... An example would be "certified" Driving Schools.

Raymond

[cherokee]

Do other racing orgs. have to abide by the SFI deal, what about the folks in europe, is there a FIA spec for H&N? I would think that there would be. Are there any others then SFI and FIA?

Perhaps if it said that it had to meet SFI or FIA or whatever specs it would be ok. That should keep the example that Andy talked about above from being an issue and only good products that did testing would be ok.

I am not happy about it, but if that is what it takes I will do it, and I would think that NASA or whoever will be right behind. People are sue happy look at the story about the track day Porsche deal. You know it is only a matter of time before it happens, and they are trying to cover the bases. Just like with the belt rule, they are just trying to be covered when the lawyers get going. Anyone that thinks the lawyers will not get going after John Doe hits the wall and Mrs. Doe trys to sue the pants off the SCCA is living in a dream world, it is going to happen.

I will give them (Topeka) a chance, this rule is not final they tossed it out to get input. I would think they want to know our point of view. I am not up to speed enough to offer much on this, but most think that something is better then nothing as long as it is a quality, tested, something.

[gsbaker]

Great observations but lousy timing. I can&#39;t do much with this now, but I must say that threads such as this are why this board is so good.

Two quick points:

1. Sanctioning bodies do not like SFI. It&#39;s a point of reference but they are not obligated to follow any SFI spec. Judging by their reactions, I (personally) believe SFI has overplayed its hand in that the vast majority of sanctioning bodies (all but BMWCCA, IIRC) have ignored a spec which is nearly two years old--and the more field experience that is collected the worse it looks.

2. We have an SFI design but we refuse to bring it to market just to meet the spec. As with all "certified" designs, it loses the belts. It&#39;s less safe, and we are not in the business of making less safe safety products. Asking us to change our designs to become SFI compliant is like asking Ferrari to dump its product line and build a Yugo.

Good stuff.

[Daryl DeArman]

Do other racing orgs. have to abide by the SFI deal[/b]

NO. Nobody has to, all organizations that adopt the SFI deal do so voluntarily, probably under advisement by council and their risk management people.


what about the folks in europe, is there a FIA spec for H&N?[/b]

YES there is. &#39;Amazingly&#39; the FIA spec also dictates design features that exclude everything except the HANS. Interestingly, none of the F1 teams that I am aware of use a HANS like you or I would be able to buy. They modify the HANS design to meet their own requirements and then &#39;buy&#39; the rights to use the HANS name on the device. That way HANS can say all the F1 drivers use a HANS. One can look at the technical specs for the FIA approved devices and you will see all the F1 team versions approved as different HANS models...wonder why a standard HANS wasn&#39;t good enough for them? Perhaps there was an egress issue? Or a can&#39;t put my head where I can see issue? Or a the belts might come off issue? Or....

[lateapex911]

Some general reactions to points raised:

-Regarding the setting of the standard.

The SFI is the classsic middleman, and have carved themselves a great niche in the system. Their science behind 38.1 was largely based on the studies of the same folks that designed the HANS system. I think history will show that the HANS was designed before the 38.1 standard, so it is no coincidence that the standard in effect madates a HANS, or a HANS clone. It&#39;s so obvious, that in my eyes, it&#39;s a racket, plain and simple. Confict of interest? You bet.

That standard, in my opinion, is actually HARMFUL to our (the racers ) safety. Why? Because the standard is so limiting, and rigid, and leaves the certification up to the whim of the SFI organization that it is a huge limit on the product category&#39;s development. BETTER devices CAN&#39;T be introduced...only those of the same architecture as the standard madates are worth making, because if there is no end market, there is no point in making a better solution.
-
(And yes, I admit that within the restrictive architecture of the SFI spec marginal improvements can be made, but no really significant developments are to be had. It&#39;s a system that stifles innovation and large scale safety improvements)

-Regarding lawyers:

In some ways, the "Jury of our peers" is really backfiring, because idiots are awarding large settlemnts that fly in the face of common sense. If the lawyers weren&#39;t making money hand over fist in cases like this, we&#39;d have no cases like this.

It is ironic to me, that some moron poured coffe on herself, claimed she had no idea it was hot, and now I need to throw away an arguabley superior product and am forced to choose either nothing, or something inferior.

The dumbing down of our society is really pissing me off.


-Regarding the decision:

The BoD will certainly get a letter from me, and I will discuss it with my local BoD man, Bob Introne. But I fear that the BoD may be forced to adhere to what the clubs councel advises.


-Regarding other club options:

Sadly, the SCCA is seen in this industry as the "Standard setter"...other clubs can, in court, utilze an effective defense if brought on a liability case, of stating that their rules mirrored those of the SCCA. Once SCCA madates the 38.1 or nothing rule, other clubs will follow in record time.


-Regrding the rulebook.

If passed, it&#39;s HANS or HANS clone or nothing. But the next step is the dropping of one little word.."Recommended". Then it&#39;s HANS or HANS clone or no racing.

[Andy Bettencourt]

2. We have an SFI design but we refuse to bring it to market just to meet the spec. As with all "certified" designs, it loses the belts. It&#39;s less safe, and we are not in the business of making less safe safety products. Asking us to change our designs to become SFI compliant is like asking Ferrari to dump its product line and build a Yugo.
Greg,
Good stuff. [/b]

While I applaud your fundamental stance on your product, I liken it to cage rules. I know nothing about building cages. With only 8 points to work with, there are people who design and build this stuff that provides excellent safety within the rules. If we were allowed 10 points, 12 points, 14 points, I bet even I could design a safer cage - but there are limitations.

Do yourself - and all of us a favor...bring the best product to market you can within the existing guidelines and you will continue to be the man here with the IT guys. When or if the spec evolves, you will either be ready or you can move with it to continue to provide us with top-notch stuff at affordable prices.

AB

[m glassburner]

So If I read this right....If I wear my hutchens I device after 11/1/06 I could be disqualified
for trying to protect my own neck ?? :018: Or not wear anything at all ?? That&#39;s crazy <_<
Who do I need to contact to let them know how I feel ? :wacko:

[Andy Bettencourt]

So If I read this right....If I wear my hutchens I device after 11/1/06 I could be disqualified
for trying to protect my own neck ?? :018: Or not wear anything at all ?? That&#39;s crazy <_<
Who do I need to contact to let them know how I feel ? :wacko: [/b]

The same people you should always contact when you have something you want to weigh in on. The CRB and your local BoD rep.

AB

[sgallimo]

While I applaud your fundamental stance on your product, I liken it to cage rules. I know nothing about building cages. With only 8 points to work with, there are people who design and build this stuff that provides excellent safety within the rules. If we were allowed 10 points, 12 points, 14 points, I bet even I could design a safer cage - but there are limitations.

Do yourself - and all of us a favor...bring the best product to market you can within the existing guidelines and you will continue to be the man here with the IT guys. When or if the spec evolves, you will either be ready or you can move with it to continue to provide us with top-notch stuff at affordable prices.

AB
[/b]
So Andy, what do you do when the best product on the market doesn&#39;t fit within the guidelines?
The option that you left out is to "fix" the bad guideline....

[gsbaker]

...Do yourself - and all of us a favor...bring the best product to market you can within the existing guidelines and you will continue to be the man here with the IT guys. When or if the spec evolves, you will either be ready or you can move with it to continue to provide us with top-notch stuff at affordable prices.

AB
[/b]
Andy,

I understand completely. Clearly, the best solution for all, particularly for Club officials who have a tough job, would be for us to develop an SFI version of the Isaac designs--especially if the concept could be retrofitted for existing Isaac customers. The problem is that we spent the last half of &#39;05 doing just that and were left with the same old SFI design problem: We lose the belts, just like HANS, R3, HII and whatever else qualifies.

Our lawyers do NOT like the idea of detuning the product just so we can make more money, and that&#39;s putting it mildly. Kirk&#39;s post above was spot on--except he didn&#39;t mention the money part.

Plaintiff&#39;s counsel: "So, Mr. Baker - am I to understand that you knowingly sold a head and neck support system that did NOT peform in your tests, as well as your original system? That you willfully put Mr. Jones&#39; neck on the line by marketing &#39;safety equipment&#39; that you KNOW wouldn&#39;t protect him to the full extent possible?"

Mr. Baker: "Yeah, everyone and their brother pretty much knows that that design concept sucks, but we sure made a ton of money with it!"

We feel very badly for Isaac users, actual or potential, who are stuck, but the decision has been made.

As far as the SCCA BoD votes goes, I don&#39;t really see this as being a difficult decision. The low-risk thing to do is simply not consider the proposal, or vote No. The biannual SAE Motorsports Engineering Conference is coming up in December and I&#39;m sure there will be papers presented on this subject. There is no value in voting in August to implement a rule change effective in November when that rule may look silly at month later.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Plaintiff&#39;s counsel: "So, Mr. Baker - am I to understand that you knowingly sold a head and neck support system that did NOT peform in your tests, as well as your original system? That you willfully put Mr. Jones&#39; neck on the line by marketing &#39;safety equipment&#39; that you KNOW wouldn&#39;t protect him to the full extent possible?"

Mr. Baker: [/b]

"No sir, Mr. Counsler. We produce 2 versions of the Issac currently. The first, which the Plaintiff was wearing, meets the highest industry standards for safety to date, and is the miaximum (as it were) required by the sacntioning body he was running with. The second, exceeds all current standards but is currently not certifed for use by said sanctioning body."



So Andy, what do you do when the best product on the market doesn&#39;t fit within the guidelines?
The option that you left out is to "fix" the bad guideline.... [/b]

Can&#39;t that be said for almost any part on any of our cars?

[RSTPerformance]

"No sir, Mr. Counsler. We produce 2 versions of the Issac currently. The first, which the Plaintiff was wearing, meets the highest industry standards for safety to date, and is the miaximum (as it were) required by the sacntioning body he was running with. The second, exceeds all current standards but is currently not certifed for use by said sanctioning body."
[/b]


Gregg I got to say I love your company, however I do have to agree with Andy on this one.

Advertize in advance the two (or three) products you make and advertize that the better product(s) are available but are not SFI sertified because they do not meet the 1 release requirement and thier for are not legal in SCCA, Nascar, American Le Mans, etc...

This might help sales to the people racing in series that do not have a requiremnts and this would put pressure through public advertizements out that says that ALL (NOT JUST SCCA) is keeping us (drivers) from being as safe as we could be.



Raymond "If Isaac had a SFI model I would have given my CC # a long time ago, but with these additional rulings I think I made the right choice to hold off a bit" Blethen

[gsbaker]

Andy & Raymond,

You guys are a hard sell, I gotta admit. Well done.

Have a good weekend!

[gprodracer]

OK,

Here&#39;s my "Holiday Inn Express" knowledge again. Andy, your reply in court might work in "regular" court, (but I doubt it), like the initial OJ Simpson trial (sorry, best example I could think of) but if everyone remembers, he was found guilty in civil court. In civil court, percentages of responsibility are what is considered when awarding damages (some small experience here). A quick example would be if a lawyer asks the jury " Mr X was wearing Mr Bakers product when he died, what percentage of responsibility does Mr Baker have, when he sold Mr X that product, knowing full well that Mr Baker knew was not the safest product his company sold?". I am personally responsible for a sticker on a product now, that is the equivalent to the labels on blow dryers that say "Do not use this product while standing in a tub of water".

If the family sues for $100 million in a civil suit, and Greg is found guilty of 20% responsibility ( the family sues the tire company, the car manufacturer, the SCCA, etc. a tactic called the "shotgun lawsuit" approach),
Greg is responsible for $20 million, and even if he has $10 million insurance coverage, he will be responsible for the rest.

A really crude example, but I hope you all get the picture. We have a lot of stupid people who serve on juries out there.

My 2 cents.

Mark

[Andy Bettencourt]

Mark,

Cool example but I will disagree (not with the % and money stuff because I know nothing about that) in principle.

I just don&#39;t buy the &#39;but it wasn&#39;t the safest product your company sold&#39;. There are plenty of products and manufacturers that sell stuff in teirs...

What if a Motorcycle rider dies in an accident? Does he have grounds to sue Bell becasue he was wearing a DOT certified unit instead of the &#39;better&#39; Snell certifed unit?


The best helmet may not guarantee survival in all accident situations, but on the basis of ongoing research done by the Snell Memorial foundation since 1957, a Snell-certified helmet is indisputably better in severe impact conditions than one not meeting this standard. In fact, Snell requirements are among the most stringent in the world — much more stringent than the legal D.O.T. standard.[/b]

Can you win a suit if someone wears a half helmet (skull cap) as opposed to an open face? How about open face vs. full face? What if that rider drives off the road and dies because he got hit in the eye with a rock? Bell responsible for his death because they sold him the &#39;lesser&#39; helmet - even though his DOT skull cap met the laws for the state he was killed in?

Maybe my anti-letigeous nature is clouding my perception of the reality of this.

[Z3_GoCar]

Andy & Raymond,

You guys are a hard sell, I gotta admit. Well done.

Have a good weekend!
[/b]

Gregg,

I&#39;d add my voice to the SFI model too, not because it&#39;s the best, but because it&#39;s what&#39;s required already by the BMW club, and soon SCCA. Now I agree that there&#39;s a huge conflict of interest, but, I&#39;ve got to go with what&#39;s already approved. So it looks like I&#39;ll probably go with an R3 as we&#39;ve got a local source, and I&#39;ll need it by the end of September...

James

[gprodracer]

Andy,

While I agree with the principal of what you are saying, and is the IMHO correct way of looking at things, it is not what happens in real life. I am with you on the anti lawsuit belief, but in todays society, nobody is responsible for anything they do, especially when it comes to injury or death. It is ALWAYS someone elses, or some products fault. In my case, a young person fills her compact car with gas and is under the influence of an excessive amounts of drugs, and alchohol. She drives to her grandmothers home (where she lives also) and pulls into the garage, and shuts the garage door. She gets out of her car, enters her house, and goes to sleep with her boyfriend. Her grandmother is in bed, also asleep. Oh, did I mention that she was so messed up that she LEFT HER CAR RUNNING IN THE GARAGE WITH A FULL TANK OF GAS??? I (my company at the time) installed the A/C and heating system in that house. All three are found dead 2 days later of carbon monoxide poisoning because SHE LEFT HER CAR RUNNING IN THE GARAGE, and the exhaust seeped in thru the furnace. In your (or anyone elses) opinion, am I responsible for the 3 deaths? (as a side note, the grandmother was a WWII Jewish survivor of the Nazi gas chamber death camps) Her family lawyer used the "shotgun" method, and sued the homebuilder, my company, the furnace manufacturer, the car manufacturer, the door manufacturer, and several other companies involved with the building of the home.
I know that my companies, the builders, and the furnace manufacturers insurance companies rolled over and paid MILLIONS to settle out of court, as they determined that it would be twice as expensive for it to go to trial, and have average jurors determine the settlement amount. As I said, you don&#39;t have to be found guilty of anything, just partially (in someones screwed up mind) at fault.

Am I bitter? Hell yes! I feel horrible about the families losses, but there are 179 other homes in that subdivision that were built in the exact same manor, following the exact same building codes, with the same furnaces installed 100% to the manufacturers instructions.

Please excuse the rant, but this is the way society operates today. It truly sucks, but anyone who thinks this doesn&#39;t happen EVERY DAY to someone is is badly mis-informed (no insult aimed at you or anyone). I also don&#39;t want any lawyer to think that I&#39;m putting any blame on them...you are all just doing your jobs as well.
Crap, to answer your question, yes, anyone can sue anyone, or any company for anything...any time for any reason, all they have to do is convince a judge to allow them a hearing.

Thanks for letting me vent, I feel a little better now!
Mark

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am with you 100% and I know it works like this. Bottom line for me? I liken the &#39;rolling over&#39; of the insurance companies to bitching about an illegal car and not protesting it. If you are innocent, prove it. If you think someone is guilty, prove it.

I know, I know...but I still feel Isaac can have two different levels of product, just like seat mfgs, helmet mfgs, etc.

AB

[sgallimo]

I just can&#39;t help but feel that you&#39;re asking Gregg to make an inferior product because of a badly worded SFI spec.

The single release clause has no more business being in the SFI 38.1 spec than a pants pocket specification would in the driving suit spec.

[Speed Raycer]

I just can&#39;t help but feel that you&#39;re asking Gregg to make an inferior product because of a badly worded SFI spec.

The single release clause has no more business being in the SFI 38.1 spec than a pants pocket specification would in the driving suit spec.
[/b]
:happy204:

Agreed!!! I can&#39;t believe what I&#39;m reading from Andy. I usually agree and trust in your responses, but your responses about dumbing down Greggs product line have me floored.

Gregg, stick to your guns and build the best products you can.

If the SCCA is sooooo scared about lawsuits, let&#39;s think about who the big bad lawyer would call up next after hearing Greggs response.

Big Bad Lawyer:"Mr. Baker, you mean to tell me that the sanctioning body wouldn&#39;t allow a safety device that was possibly better than the device that was allowed ?"
Mr. Baker: "That is correct"
BBL: "The prosecution would like to call to the stand (Insert name of perspiring SCCA person here)"

What about when the widow testifies that her poor husband wasn&#39;t allowed to use the device and it was sitting in the trailer after he was told to remove it or he wouldn&#39;t be allowed to race?

As I stated in my letter to the crb: I&#39;ll continue to wear my Isaac device. I bought it based on my own research before anybody was "suggesting" to wear one. When I&#39;m told face to face that I can&#39;t race while wearing it, the SCCA will loose my membership fee&#39;s, and unfortunately, my region will loose my entry fee&#39;s, a fairly dedicated T&S Chief, Region Webmaster, Club Race Committee member and F&C fill-in. All because the higher ups have stuck their heads up their collective arse and won&#39;t change the way a rule is written.

[gsbaker]

...but I still feel Isaac can have two different levels of product, just like seat mfgs, helmet mfgs, etc.

AB
[/b]
Ah, but SFI doesn&#39;t feel that way about H&N restraints. Sanctioning bodies that typically see lower impact levels have asked SFI to develop a second tier (for lack of a better phrase) spec for low impact environments. Our understanding is that the idea didn&#39;t fly.

Apparently only the best will do... but wait, that can&#39;t be right. Oh, I know, I know! It has to be really, really good, but not too good. Yeah, that would explain everything. :rolleyes:




Big Bad Lawyer:"Mr. Baker, you mean to tell me that the sanctioning body wouldn&#39;t allow a safety device that was possibly better than the device that was allowed ?"
Mr. Baker: "That is correct"
BBL: "The prosecution would like to call to the stand (Insert name of perspiring SCCA person here)"

[/b]
Bingo. We&#39;re not sure that has sunk in. Some sanctioning bodies may remain clueless.

To be fair, however, don&#39;t forget how the CRB request started: Racers began showing up with homemade H&N restraints. So we now have this scenario...

BBL: "So ( Insert name of perspiring SCCA person here), you allowed the now deceased driver to race with his helmet chained to the roll cage, knowing that this could induce a dangerous head load as his body went forward during a crash?"

[tom91ita]

if we use the smaller chain like used with commercially avaiable swingsets, wouldn&#39;t that work?

the chain would not be strong enough to really tug that hard without deforming and absorbing energy. besides, they have been used with tires in other forms of endeavors:

https://secure11.nexternal.com/shared/Store...=products%2Easp (https://secure11.nexternal.com/shared/StoreFront/default.asp?CS=swingworks&BusType=BtoC&Count1=433864772&Count2=351005196&ProductID=65&Target=products%2Easp)


i think i could fit my helmut into the center and not need the SFI rollbar padding either.

tom

[Andy Bettencourt]

I hear you all. I guess I just don&#39;t see it as dumbing it down. I see it as building the best product you can given a set of parameters, and that parameter is the SFI spec required by SCCA.

[Phat-S]

I hear you all. I guess I just don&#39;t see it as dumbing it down. I see it as building the best product you can given a set of parameters, and that parameter is the SFI spec required by SCCA.[/b]

Dumbing down or not, it seems like it doesn&#39;t follow precedent.

As I see it, my rollcage is mandated to use a specific material (DOM Seamless) and based on the car&#39;s weight, it is mandated a specific set of tubing parameters and it has to meet some general guidelines as to design. Mine is welded so it must meet American Welding Society&#39;s Structural Welding Code for Tubular Structures. But nowhere do I read that it must have an SFI stamp on it. Ironically, I could have a cage made of ERW if I registered it prior to 2003. But I cannot wear an Isaac Device from November 2002??? Am I stretching the parallel here?

What about seats? Does the Current GCR say anything about SFI approved seats? Last I recall, it only specified that my "FIA" seat doesn&#39;t require a back brace but I am fairly certain, nothing stipulates a seat meet any other specification if braced properly. Does the bracing require SFI approval or must it only meet the aforementioned requirements for welding?

Fuel cells are required to conform to an FIA standard, not SFI. Are belts and window nets the only thing - until this proposal - that had to meet SFI specifications? Even helmets - as was brought up a page or so back - need not meet an SFI specification do they? They must meet a Snell Foundation specification no? I am fairly certain that tires must meet a DOT certification but nothing above that.

I guess for me, if the SCCA wanted to implement rules pertaining to something like the Isaac device, they would be following precedent to specify the construction standards and the grade of materials used. They could, as it is for fireproof materials, specify alternative options "OR any SFI 38.1 approved device" or in the case of belts, specify an alertnate approval mechanism (FIA belts do not implicitly meet SFI 16.1 ourside of the GCR do they?). I would presume that Gregg would be willing to provide the SCCA with test results or make a unit available for independent testing. But the idea of disallowing the use of a device does not seem to follow how the SCCA regards other types of safety implements.

Not really trying to be an ass but this whole thing is kind of baffling to me.

[Bill Miller]

Adam,

You raise excellent points. :023:

[ddewhurst]

Adam, your not being an a$$ at all. There was/is a GCR rule that ya can&#39;t drill holes & do other $hit to youir helmet. That is, untill the HANS came along & now IIRC ya can drill holes in your helmet at the discretion of the local SCCA tech inspector. Talk about people being an a$$.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dumbing down or not, it seems like it doesn&#39;t follow precedent.

As I see it, my rollcage is mandated to use a specific material (DOM Seamless) and based on the car&#39;s weight, it is mandated a specific set of tubing parameters and it has to meet some general guidelines as to design. Mine is welded so it must meet American Welding Society&#39;s Structural Welding Code for Tubular Structures. But nowhere do I read that it must have an SFI stamp on it. Ironically, I could have a cage made of ERW if I registered it prior to 2003. But I cannot wear an Isaac Device from November 2002??? Am I stretching the parallel here?

[/b] I&#39;ll just address one, as I se them all as the same. - then I will step away as I am clearly in the minority.

The SFI stamp is the required certification for your H&N. Snell is the required certification for your helmet. There are plenty of other certs that have to be met.

As to the cage, you COULD build a safer one...but you are only allowed 6 points plus an optional 2 forward bars for a total of 8. If you had unlimited latitude on attachment points, do you think you could build a better unit? If you designed such unit for say, another racing series, for 1st gen RX-7&#39;s - would you then stop selling your SCCA version because it then became your &#39;dumbed down&#39; version that was known not to protect as well?

I think the difference here is perception and the starting point. The &#39;better&#39; product was here first so people think it&#39;s a big deal to build a different version to fit rules. Just because the first one was over-engineered to the current spec doesn&#39;t make the second one a liability. If you can&#39;t build a good one to the spec, then don&#39;t. Just because it isn&#39;t as good as the first doesn&#39;t make it crap. It just makes it the best you can do within the guidlines - just like the cages.

Again, philisopically, I am with you all. The cert needs to be fought and addressed but I just see it a different way in the end.

[Knestis]

What Andy may do best, that makes him effective in his position, is approach questions like this pragmatically. I think that he sees the futility in windmill-jousint, while some of us are still struggling with thing outside of our influence...

K

[lateapex911]

Of course i understand the pragmatics of the issue...........

But I am enraged at the possibility that a lawyer, who honestly doesn&#39;t give two craps about my safety has allowed a specification that was intentionally written to create profits for one company, to dictate that I now have to reduce my comfort and safety level in the racecar.

It&#39;s a disgusting example of cloaked greed at every turn, and knee jerk protectionism in this final chapter.

[ddewhurst]

Options:

A. Join the party line...........(The insurance/lawyer /SCCA/Andy :P .)

B. Be pi$$ed because the party line didn&#39;t allow wiggle room in the H & N restraint rule for equal or better H&N restraint systems.

Has the SCCA ever printed the load reductions of all the H & N restraint systems for member viewing ?

Has the SCCA ever asked the insurances company actuaries for their data that shows a need for a H &N restraint syatem that has minimal laterial protection ? If they have, have they shown the data to SCCA members ?

How many broken neck/deaths to date within the SCCA because of the lack of H & N system ?

What&#39;s accecptable ? 1 broken neck/death in a 1,000,000 accidents ?

What we need to do is quit bitching & look at some numbers. I don&#39;t have the numbers.

I also don&#39;t like the restrictions the SCCA has put upon WE the MEMBERS.


K, is that outside our influence or outside our control ? Always the soft approach....... :unsure:

[gsbaker]

Andy,

The pragmatic perspective is to minimize the Club&#39;s risk by voting No.

There is absolutely no evidence that a homemade design would injure a driver when he would otherwise be safe without it. He uses it, he dies; he doesn&#39;t use it, he dies. Where&#39;s the delta?

One need not be a rocket surgeon to see that all the risk is in voting Yes.

[gsbaker]

"Has the SCCA ever printed the load reductions of all the H & N restraint systems for member viewing ?"

No, but it&#39;s out there, you just have to dig it up. We grew weary of constantly rummaging through test reports, so we put some graphs together for our own use. So, allow me.

From Wayne State:

http://isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/WSUFz.GIF

Here is the source of the data for each product, from left to right:

Product/ Source
Baseline/ SAE Paper 2004-01-3516, Melvin et al
Hutchens/ SAE Paper 2004-01-3516, Melvin et al
D-Cel/ SAE Paper 2004-01-3516, Melvin et al
Wright/ WSU test NCRST - 76
G-Force/ Company advertising
White/ Catchfence article of 6 August 2002 (http://www.catchfence.com/html/2002/mt080602.html)
Isaac Link/ WSU test NCRST - 148
HANS/ SAE Paper 2004-01-3516, Melvin et al
Isaac/ SAE Paper 2002-01-3306, Baker


From the SFI test at Delhi:

http://isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/SFIFz.GIF


And my personal favorite:

http://isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/SFIMx.GIF

IIRC, the lateral head torque chart from WSU tells the same story, but I can&#39;t locate it at the moment.

[Phat-S]

I&#39;ll just address one, as I se them all as the same. - then I will step away as I am clearly in the minority.

The SFI stamp is the required certification for your H&N. Snell is the required certification for your helmet. There are plenty of other certs that have to be met.

As to the cage, you COULD build a safer one...but you are only allowed 6 points plus an optional 2 forward bars for a total of 8. If you had unlimited latitude on attachment points, do you think you could build a better unit? If you designed such unit for say, another racing series, for 1st gen RX-7&#39;s - would you then stop selling your SCCA version because it then became your &#39;dumbed down&#39; version that was known not to protect as well?

I think the difference here is perception and the starting point. The &#39;better&#39; product was here first so people think it&#39;s a big deal to build a different version to fit rules. Just because the first one was over-engineered to the current spec doesn&#39;t make the second one a liability. If you can&#39;t build a good one to the spec, then don&#39;t. Just because it isn&#39;t as good as the first doesn&#39;t make it crap. It just makes it the best you can do within the guidlines - just like the cages.

Again, philisopically, I am with you all. The cert needs to be fought and addressed but I just see it a different way in the end.
[/b]

Well don&#39;t step away because you are the minority by all means, it is often one person, one step, one word that starts the trip of a thousand miles (for better or worse).

The current language says an SFI stamp is the required certification for your H&N. You will go zero disagreement w/ me on that. I am suggesting that H&N devices should follow other elements defined in the GCR as having an alternate approval mechanism (see fire protection, fire bottles, cage materials, seats).

I am not saying that the SCCA must request a rewrite of SFI 38.1, I am saying that by precedent, they could say "all devices that meet SFI 38.1 are approved AND additionally, the following ..... are also approved devices." I actually think the language on fire suits and suppression is written something very much like that.

I am trying to avoid the whole chicken and egg thing (rule vs. product) because IMO, if you introduce that, I and a lot of other folks would be grandfathered in (another precedent set by SCCA&#39;s rules) by the time at which we adopted use of these safety devices with regard to the rules change (or even the GCR&#39;s "recomendation"). But to argue this makes it a self-centered argument which this really isn&#39;t for me. I think the argument should be about my and EVERYONE&#39;s safety and choices in how they persue their safety. If there are others out there - yet to purchase a H&N restraint - that feel like I do regarding the Isaac device, they should be allowed to wear it as well.

Heck, I have a Momo Nomex driver suit but would I rather have a PBI / Kevlar suit? You betcha. Luckily due to how the rules are written, PBI/Kevlar doesn&#39;t need to be detuned to meet rules. I happen to use a combination of Halon remote & Chemical handheld in-car. Nonetheless, I am happy the rules allow my friends to run AFFF too. My point here is that there are new/old/more obscure means of getting to the same result for safety - I just wish SCCA&#39;s rationale on H&N restraints followed suit.

IMO, its a nonsensical rule to ONLY allow SFI 38.1 spec - especially considering what the spec is based on (the ONLY is the important word here).

BTW, regarding the "As to the cage, you COULD build a safer one...but you are only allowed 6 points plus an optional 2 forward bars for a total of 8." This is really not applicable to the discussion as that speaks to a competitive performance advantage in several aspects. And believe me, I don&#39;t think anyone that&#39;s seen my car thinks I skimped anywhere on cage. But luckily the SCCA gave me lattitude to take full responsibility of my safety within the confines of my cage - they even had "recommendations" on what I needed. Likewise, at one point, the SCCA recommended I use a H&N restraint ... and at one point, they gave me lattitude to take full responsibility of my safety within the confines of that decision as well.

[ddewhurst]

Greg, thanks for the data. May I use the data within my letter as long as the data source is not identified ? I had viewed/read some of the data. Please forgive my ignorance but what is the White system ?

[gsbaker]

Greg, thanks for the data. May I use the data within my letter as long as the data source is not identified?[/b]
Okay by us. Or, you can hold off for a few days so we can give you direct references, such as WSU/Delphi test numbers, SAE papers etc. We are sending a letter to the SCCA and will need to compile those anyway. Your choice.


I had viewed/read some of the data. Please forgive my ignorance but what is the White system?[/b]
The world&#39;s first head and neck device, tested by George White around 1979. It resembles a Hutchens harness but the fabric is Kevlar, which is very rigid.

George is Da Man in my book. When I say he "tested" it, I mean he personally tested it -- by driving a Cadillac into a concrete wall. On purpose. He was so intent on not lifting he broke his right femur and tibia.

Check the video here. (http://www.speedwaysafetyequipment.com/)

[gsbaker]

Post #141 edited to include source.

[lateapex911]

In every endeavor, there&#39;s a fine line between "Hero" and "moron", LOL. Glad he ended up on the right side of that line.

That was a serious hit.

[Catch22]

I&#39;ve stayed out of this until now, but this whole thing really really bothers me.

Like Adam, my significant other has unfortunately also crash tested an Isaac. She had an offset front hit at a very high speed into the concrete wall on the inside of turn 12 at Road Atlanta at last year&#39;s ARRC. The mark is still there.
She climbed out of the car and walked away. She will gladly and quickly tell you that she is positive the Isaac kept her from taking a helicopter ride (or worse) that day.
The sled testing backs that up. The Isaac is at a minimum as effective as a HANS and its easily argued that its BETTER than a HANS. The single point release issue is (pardon my french) complete bullshit.
What I&#39;d like to see is testing of drivers climbing out of spec miata windows on a stopwatch. One wearing an Isaac and the other a HANS. I promise you my money is on the Isaac wearer getting out faster.

So, in short, if SCCA&#39;s lawyers convince our rules makers that we can no longer use a device that is so completely proven to work... A device that we know first hand saves necks... We are done racing with SCCA. Which means we are probably done racing period since I&#39;m sure all other bodies will follow the SCCA lead.

My letter has been sent, but I have a feeling it&#39;ll be akin to pissing into a hurricane.

Me = Disgusted and Disappointed

[Hracer]

I can&#39;t argue with the good points Andy is making. However, I&#39;m pretty sure he (and anyone else in favor of this) will also agree that any hypothetical scenario that does not allow a proven system such as the Isaac to be used while filtering out the "dangerous/homeade" one out there, yet does allow using *no* h&n system whatsoever, is simply put: stupid. Or in more PC terms, greatly inadequate.

I do not know the best solution to solve this absurd scenario, but a few simple-minded suggestions do pop up. Why must there be only one single standard that&#39;s deemed acceptable in this case? Why not allow other standards to judge the merits of a h&n system? The possiblity is there that there might even be superior standards that can be applied as a substitute to the present one. This is just a superficial, un-informed suggestion, but a rather simple and straightforward one to what, and I&#39;ll say it again, is a scenario that screams in your face stupid. It&#39;s a shame SCCA has adopted and is sticking by such an absurd position. There *must* be alternatives. IMHO, the only reason why something won&#39;t be done in this case is because "they" - whomever this ought to represent - do not *want* to do anything about it. If that is indeed the case, it will send a powerfull message to all the members of the club, regardless of the specific issue is at hand, or which "side" you are on that particular issue. It is a matter of principle.

[tom91ita]

..... Why not allow other standards to judge the merits of a h&n system? .....[/b]

i agree. and that standard should be something like passing some maximum force test per a 3rd party crash test. i will write the director for my area and suggest that they accept a criteria such as the following:

A maximum Neck Tension (Fz) of 3000 Nm (achieved by 2 of 3 devices)
A maximum Lateral Force (Mx) of 40 Nm (achieved by 2 of 3 devices)

or perhaps something like 50% less than no protection, i.e., baseline for both criteria

this type of a standard essentially eliminates the homemade devices and should provide a basis for the lawyers. if a manufacturer cannot meet both criteria, they may have to go back to the drawing board. and then with this type of standard, i would expect to see some competition between products as they extol the virtue of how far below the maximums they could achieve.

fwiw, tom

[ddewhurst]

When WE look at the primary reason for the use of a H & N restraint system ask yourselves which system without EXTRA goodies offers the most protection to the driver.

IMHJ getting out of the car is a secondary issue. WE have ALL read about some secondary issues of getting out of a car after an accident.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I can&#39;t argue with the good points Andy is making. However, I&#39;m pretty sure he (and anyone else in favor of this) will also agree that any hypothetical scenario that does not allow a proven system such as the Isaac to be used while filtering out the "dangerous/homeade" one out there, yet does allow using *no* h&n system whatsoever, is simply put: stupid. Or in more PC terms, greatly inadequate.

[/b]

Let me first say that I am NOT in favor of this. I just tend to look at stuff from a different perspective. The problem is that the SCCA would have to set up it&#39;s own certification system (or adopt an industry standard one - is there?) and have every H&N set up out there tested in orderto approve it. If there is no governing body now, are we to think the SCCA can do it - and do it right?

It&#39;s about that line in teh sand again. We have to use someones line, or draw our own. What is the best use of club funds? If you think this is a good use, write in!

[Knestis]

The Club would not have to do the testing. It could mandate that the testing be undertaken using a standard set of protocols (like SFI&#39;s perhaps, hmm??) at any of an approved list of facilities equipped for the job. (There are only a handful.)

If the ONLY complaint about SFI 38.1 is the single point of release requirement, SCCA could simply require that system manufacturers wishing to be listed as approved submit sled test data that comes in under the same threshold required by 38.1. NOT demonstrate SFI compliance, merely perform to the level required for it.

That would be the simplest solution - adopting all of the impact-pertinent requirements of 38.1 (a) without muddying the water with the egress issue (to be addressed by a SEPARATE rule, if it&#39;s perceived as important enough), (b) without imposing SFI "certificiation" costs on its members, and (c ) providing pretty much the same level of legal protection...

If we want an EXTRA measure of safety - both in impacts and in court - the Club could easily mandate ADDITIONAL performance benchmarks beyond the SFI-spec minimums. If some set of new minimums is demonstrably above the standards for 38.1 (in terms of type of hit, or degree of head load reduction) it seems like it would be a long legal row to hoe, to try to prove the Club negligent in its rules-making if it exceeds the "industry standard."

K

EDIT - OR the GCR could simply require "any SFI 38.1 approved head and neck system, or [insert approved manufacturer/models here], as they may be demonstrated to meet all of the performance requirements of SFI 38.1, except for the single point of release."

[tderonne]

Lot&#39;s of reading here.

I like Adam&#39;s approach. Why can&#39;t everyone simply ask for the ISAAC to be allowed? Plenty of data to show it works. No risk of allowing dangerous homemade devices. Sets the precedent for other devices to be allowed on a case by case basis.

Too easy?

[gsbaker]

Kirk&#39;s idea works well. The icing on the cake would be to expand things even further without sacrificing safety, although this may be a big first bite for any sanctioning body...



...The problem is that the SCCA would have to set up it&#39;s own certification system (or adopt an industry standard one - is there?)...[/b]
In effect, yes. When I first met Drs. John Melvin and Paul Begeman at the WSU lab they were talking about this issue of drawing a line and told me that people wanted designs that were good for a 100G impact, i.e. would have an Fz no greater than 4,000N (the injury limit) at 100Gs. That translates to 2,000N on WSU&#39;s 50G sled. This was prior to the construction of the Delphi sled, but it has still proven to be valid. How do we know? Because every design that has tested under 2,000N at WSU passes the SFI tests at Delhi. There&#39;s your industry standard/line in the sand.


..and have every H&N set up out there tested in order to approve it....[/b]
Already done (see first chart above). Topeka gets a copy of all test reports and lists approved designs. To quote John Belushi in Animal House, "Don&#39;t cost nuthin&#39;."

Also, it may not be a bad idea if SCCA puts together a fund to test homemade designs. After all, if 80% of the Clubs 9,000+ racers are eventually forced to buy an SFI "certified" prouduct at ~$850, their wallets are going to be lightened over $6 million. $6MM buys a lot of crash tests.

[Bill Miller]

What&#39;s going to be real intersting is the first time someone experiences a severe head or neck injury while wearing a HANS (either due to torsional loads, or due to the device slipping the belts). The lawyers will have a field day w/ the SCCA, especially if alternate products like the ISSAC are not approved.

"So Mr. SCCA President, your organization mandated that any H&N device used by competitors in your events meet a standard, even though that standard did not address torsional loads. You also excluded a product that showed comperable force reductions to the premier certified product, and additional showed significant reductions in torsional loads over this same premier certified prouduct? And isn&#39;t it also true that members of your organization have actually prevented drivers from using this alternate device and were given the option of either buying a device w/ inferior performance or using no H&N device at all? No further questions."

[Greg Amy]

Sorry, I&#39;m late to the game (been busy...)


Item 18. Effective 11/1/06...All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by the SFI...[/b]

Said differently: effective 11/1/06, Greg Amy stops wearing his Wright Device sled-tested and -proven head and neck restraint and starts to use...nothing.

Way to go, Buck.

GA

[Catch22]

Sorry, I&#39;m late to the game (been busy...)
Said differently: effective 11/1/06, Greg Amy stops wearing his Wright Device sled-tested and -proven head and neck restraint and starts to use...nothing.

Way to go, Buck.

GA
[/b]

Or you could just come autocrossing and karting with Renee and I.

[JuanPineda]

A lot is written here and on Isaac&#39;s web site about single point of release being the reason for its not meeting SFI requirements. However, that is not the only reason. Another more serious issue, from SFI 38.1:

Direct attachment to react loads to a fixed point or points on a vehicle structure or restraint webbing will not be acceptable because of the potential for torso displacements with respect to these points.

With Isaac, the critical case would be a side impact, or multiple impact (roll/endo), where harness slips off the shoulder and pulls the driver&#39;s head sideways, potentially causing injury where none would have occured otherwise. Hans, Hutchens and R3 are all attached to the torso, and don&#39;t have that problem.

-Juan

[Greg Amy]

Oh, no, he&#39;s crossed over...IN BEFORE THE LOCK!!!

[gsbaker]

Oh, no, he&#39;s crossed over...IN BEFORE THE LOCK!!!
[/b] :lol:

[RSTPerformance]

A lot is written here and on Isaac&#39;s web site about single point of release being the reason for its not meeting SFI requirements. However, that is not the only reason. Another more serious issue, from SFI 38.1:

Direct attachment to react loads to a fixed point or points on a vehicle structure or restraint webbing will not be acceptable because of the potential for torso displacements with respect to these points.

With Isaac, the critical case would be a side impact, or multiple impact (roll/endo), where harness slips off the shoulder and pulls the driver&#39;s head sideways, potentially causing injury where none would have occured otherwise. Hans, Hutchens and R3 are all attached to the torso, and don&#39;t have that problem.

-Juan
[/b]


Juan-

Interesting observation. However I have NEVER had my belts even come close to slipping off my sholders. I do see how it is possible... Has ANYONE ever experienced this in an accident? If the belt were to slip off the sholder are you a gonner anyhow? Maybe the Isaac actually would ensure that the belt couldn&#39;t slip of the sholder, making both the H&N system safer as well as the belts?

If that was the major concern (belts slipping) I would also think that Isaac could make a strap behind the head that would/could keep the belts from coming apart.

Ayway good observation, and probably an easily convinsable one to those who "jump to conclusions" without investigating (you first fooled me until I thought about it).

[Bill Miller]

A lot is written here and on Isaac&#39;s web site about single point of release being the reason for its not meeting SFI requirements. However, that is not the only reason. Another more serious issue, from SFI 38.1:

Direct attachment to react loads to a fixed point or points on a vehicle structure or restraint webbing will not be acceptable because of the potential for torso displacements with respect to these points.

With Isaac, the critical case would be a side impact, or multiple impact (roll/endo), where harness slips off the shoulder and pulls the driver&#39;s head sideways, potentially causing injury where none would have occured otherwise. Hans, Hutchens and R3 are all attached to the torso, and don&#39;t have that problem.

-Juan
[/b]

Interesting point Juan. I believe the issue has been raised before about the belts slipping off a HANS device. To the best of my knowledge, and from what I&#39;ve seen, the HANS depends on being &#39;captured&#39; by the belts to provide protection. If you were wearing a HANS, and it was not &#39;captured&#39; by the belts, I don&#39;t believe it would do anything to reduce the load on the neck. I&#39;m sure Mr. Baker can comment more on this.

[lateapex911]

Well, a HANS not captured under the belts is useless...actually less than useless, it&#39;s a big old hunk flailing about.

If we&#39;re going to discuss why the Isaac isn&#39;t SFI certified/able, lets not stop there. How about the mandate that requres a yoke? Umm..there&#39;s no "yoke" in the Isaac Ive ever noticed. And as tests have shown, retaining the yoke so that it remains effective through the crash event remains problematic. And there are more.

When you read the standard, you are struck with the impression that it was seemingly written to exclude any device that isn&#39;t a HANS or a HANS clone.

Yet, the best innovations and inventions in history have come about in standard free environments. The problem with THIS standard, and there are many, is that it is excessively restrictive, and allows limited solutions to the problem.

The single biggest detriment to the pursuit of better saftey in this areana is the standard that all devices need to meet...(for apparent snactioning body inclusion) but the madated architecture precludes exceeding.

The Isaac doesn&#39;t need fixing...test results have shown that...it&#39;s the antiquated and self serving standard that&#39;s broken.

[JuanPineda]

RSTperformance, I think you have to be careful drawing conclusions from theorizing. Belts stretch a great deal, and the torso shifts a lot in a big crash. Look at times 6:10 and 10:25 in this video just to see belt stretch:

> http://www.logician.com/Videos/NASCAR_2003_Safety_Update.wmv

Fact of the matter is that SFI consider the Isaac practice of tethering the head to the shoulder strap unsafe because it can cause large forces on the neck, and that is another reason why Isaac cannot pass SFI. I would trust the experts on this point.

Bill. regarding the argument of Hans slipping out of the harnesses, there is a huge body of emperical evidence that Hans is highly effective despite this argument. Perhaps the argument is flawed?

-Juan

[Knestis]

...and just like that, we are back to the point where someone is telling me that I can&#39;t make a choice - that the Hans is just better - based on all kinds of factors beyond noggin control test data.

Pardon the potentially sensitive comparison but it&#39;s a lot like religion. One point of view says, "you can have whatever faith you want, leave me to make my own choices." Another says, "my faith is right, the rest of you are wrong." If the Hutchens is best for you, in your car, in your circumstances I would NEVER suggest that you shouldn&#39;t be allowed to use it.

OF COURSE the SFI likes the Hans. It wrote the 38.1 around its design. The specification should define performance, NOT how that performance is achieved. If egress is an issue, write an egress performance standard (like F1 uses).

And it&#39;s disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that shoulder harnesses slipping off of the body poses a huge threat to Isaac users, when so much energy has been expended arguing that shoulder harnesses slipping off of yoke-type systems either doesn&#39;t happen or isn&#39;t a risk if it does.

Kirk (who&#39;s always extra-skeptical when someone&#39;s second post, on their first day of board membership, is taking a strong stand on a commercial position)

[JuanPineda]

If we&#39;re going to discuss why the Isaac isn&#39;t SFI certified/able, lets not stop there. How about the mandate that requres a yoke? Umm..there&#39;s no "yoke" in the Isaac Ive ever noticed. And as tests have shown, retaining the yoke so that it remains effective through the crash event remains problematic. And there are more.[/b]

There is nothing in SFI 38.1 that mandates a yoke.



When you read the standard, you are struck with the impression that it was seemingly written to exclude any device that isn&#39;t a HANS or a HANS clone.[/b]

Clearly untrue. The R3 and Hutchens II are also SFI certified. They operate much differently than Hans.



The Isaac doesn&#39;t need fixing...test results have shown that...[/b]

Jake, have you read Baker&#39;s SAE report presenting the test data, or are you just getting this from the Isaac marketing pitch? The test report is not very convincing. I think that&#39;s why Isaac has no support among Baker&#39;s peers in the motorsports safety community.

-Juan

[Greg Amy]

TOPIC WARNING!!!

I don&#39;t usually do this, but I&#39;m calling Juan out to everyone. Note that Juan just signed up for this forum today. Juan is notorious on the Spec Miata forum (and others) on this topic, and he and Gregg Baker have had some drag-out arguments over this topic. He trolls looking for Gregg simply to argue with him. In the end they usually devolve into Juan getting nasty and Gregg dropping out of the discussion.

DO NOT FEED THIS GUY!!! Beware that he is *ADAMANT* about his positions on this topic and HE WILL NOT BE DISSUADED! You will NOT be able to change his mind and you are WASTING your time, energy, and brain cells to even try.

If you still feel the need to do this, then read the following in full; that&#39;ll give you a good idea of what&#39;s coming:

http://forum.specmiata.com/cgi-bin/ultimat...=1;t=001114;p=0 (http://forum.specmiata.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001114;p=0)

If you still feel the need to argue with him, well, you have mental issues.

DO NOT FEED THIS GUY; Bill Miller that means you, too!

[lateapex911]

There is nothing in SFI 38.1 that mandates a yoke.
[/b]
Wrong...although the term "yoke" isn&#39;t specified. Splitting hairs here..they mandate a "Main unit. (section 2.2)B:"The main device shall be a mechanism held tightly to the drivers torso by seat belts or other strap systems..."



Clearly untrue. The R3 and Hutchens II are also SFI certified. They operate much differently than Hans.
[/b]
Again, splitting hairs...the basic methodology of those devices is worlds apart than that of the Isaac. "Much differently"? No.



Jake, have you read Baker&#39;s SAE report presenting the test data, or are you just getting this from the Isaac marketing pitch? The test report is not very convincing. I think that&#39;s why Isaac has no support among Baker&#39;s peers in the motorsports safety community.

-Juan
[/b]

I don&#39;t have the SAE report in front of me, but my memory from reading it&#39;s excerpts led me to a different conclusion than you.

My conclusion was holistic one, taking more factors into account then mere numbers. I chose a device that is arguabley as good or better than most on the market, and I chose it for MY situation. If my situation was different, I might have chosen differently. Standards aren&#39;t capable of choosing the best product for my situation..they seek to boil all situations into the same pot.

Your comment on Mr. Bakers standing is laughable...why do I care if Melvin is buddy buddy with Gregg? This aint about much more than lawyers, guns and money........



On edit:

LOL Greg..I thought I remembered the name and the tone....fair enough, you&#39;re right..but we were writing at the same time. Nuf said...it&#39;s all about choice.

[Catch22]

But Mr. Amy...
The more batshit crazy and unswayable a person is, the more fun it is to argue with them.

Don&#39;t go fun stealing. Damned cajun bassard.

[RSTPerformance]

Greg or others... not to keep this going but I do have a question... I watched the video&#39;s Juan posted and thought about his comments on belts stretching... While I see his point I would also argu that if my belts stretched that much my nugan would be implanted on my windshield and my chest would be through the stearing wheel so this might all be a moot question but...

1. The Isaac attaches to the belts correct?
2. If the belts were to stretch so that your sholders moved forward say 6" (no idea if that is realistic or not), would the atachment point also move on the belts?
2a. If it does move on the belts does the friction of its movement also infact work as a positive coushining the load on your nogin?
2b. If it does not move on the belts than is your head pulled back?


Greg- sorry about all the questions, I applaud your continued efforts in this area. I think it all helps people like me (who have been hit in the head to much) fully understand how your system works, and why it should be a legal option.

Raymond

PS: Where is the Hans, Hutchinson, White, etc. reps and why are then not ever chiming in on things? Anyone know specific e-mail addresses to people in each of those companies whome we can write to and get thier input?

[JeffYoung]

If the belts loosen, the Isaac attachment point will move along the belt.

Juan&#39;s point to me is totally bogus. If I have come out of the shoulder belts, I&#39;ve got way bigger problems than the Isaac being attached to them.

[RSTPerformance]

If the belts loosen, the Isaac attachment point will move along the belt.

Juan&#39;s point to me is totally bogus. If I have come out of the shoulder belts, I&#39;ve got way bigger problems than the Isaac being attached to them.
[/b]


Thats what I thought... Thanks Jeff!!!

so stretching belts has either has no effect or may actually help the performance of the Isaac?


Raymond

[JuanPineda]

Jake, There&#39;s no conspiricy here. It&#39;s a stretch to say that SFI is biased toward Hans. SFI 38.1 allows many types of devices, as is evidenced by the certification of Hans, R3, and Huthcens II. Other devices like the original Hutchens, G-Force, D-Cell, Wright, etc. would also be allowed if/once their performance is good enough. The only device that does not seem to conform to SFI is Isaac. The reasons for that are well documented.

About the SAE report on Isaac, I suppose you also remember that Isaac actually broke in two of the three tests, and further that the report was a feasibility study? No testing was done on side or rear impacts, or for sensitivity to conditions, like belt tightness, neck length, etc. That is not what I would consider sufficient testing for human use. The lack of support for Isaac by the expert community only reinforces this conclusion. You should read the full SAE report, not just excerpts. Has anyone else here actually read the report?

Jeff, Raymond, Consider a side impact. There is nothing that holds the belt opposite the impact side to your shoulder. The Isaac anchor cannot slide perpendicular to the strap. This is probably the case you have to worry about. Maybe there are other situations too. There are sound reasons for the SFI spec.

Knestis, The difference between belt slippage in Hans vs. Isaac is that in Isaac it can potentially cause injury due to the displacement of the torso relative to the anchor point. Hans won&#39;t cause an injury in that case. Whether Hans is ineffective in that case has not been shown. There is a lot emperical evidence that Hans is highly effective, regardless of any belt slippage argument.

GregAmy, I recall that you got pretty animated in that thread on specmiata.com. Here&#39;s a quote from someone else&#39;s point of view in that thread: "At what point has Juan called anybody a liar or defamed gbaker? The only one that seems to be throwing those terms out is you greg amy. You have just as much right to post your opinions here as anybody else, but YOU crossed the threshold." Let&#39;s try to keep to the subject this time.

For those of you that don&#39;t know me, I usually post on specmiata.com, even though I also race my my Miata in ITA, as well as SM. I race in SCCA, SFR region, SM/ITA91. I have no economic interest in H&N restraints. Just trying to add some perspective on a sometimes poorly understood subject. Thanks for listening.

-Juan

[Daryl DeArman]

Thanks for the warning Greg, I am not mentally ill...just too lazy to read the other thread.

A couple of flaws in Juan&#39;s argument.

1) The ISAAC does not have a "Direct attachment to react loads to a fixed point or points on a vehicle structure or restraint webbing will not be acceptable"...the end of the Isaac that captures the harness is not a fixed point or points, nor is it a direct attachment.

2) In any endo/multiple barrel roll or whatever scenario you invision where the harnesses come off of the shoulder, how is the HANS continuing to offer protection? In my mind, the only SFI approved device that may be of some use in load reduction at this point would be the R3. Further, the ISAAC design should help reduce whatever likelyhood there is of the belts coming off in the first place.

Use your HANS, sleep with your HANS, do whatever you wish with your HANS, just allow me the choice to protect my own ass with the best equipment I believe I can get.

[Catch22]

OK, for the hell of it lets look at a belt stretching Oh-My-God-I&#39;m-Gonna-Die crash and tumble...

1. I hit something really hard. My belts stretch far enough to come off my shouders (thus making them slack... Right?) as the car starts rolling.
2. OK, with an Isaac my head is now attached to loose belts, thus rendering it useless, and I have no shoulder harnesses on. I&#39;m obviously in big trouble and my Isaac isn&#39;t going to help me. But I don&#39;t see how having it attached to now loose and ineffective belts is going to hurt me any worse.
3. Now imagine the same situation with the HANS. My belts are off my shoulders meaning they are now off the HANS as well. This means that it is no longer any more effective in helping me survive than any other device.

It seems to me that neither device helps nor hurts if you get yourself in this situation. They both likely did their jobs in the initial impact and then were rendered useless by the loss of the shoulder harnesses shortly after that impact.
So I can&#39;t picture how this argument is in any way valid at all.

Look, we&#39;ve crash tested an Isaac device in our family and we aren&#39;t at all happy with the idea of someone telling us we can&#39;t use it. Not only that, but Mr. Baker happened to be at that race and knew the driver was wearing his device. Instead of heading for the gates after seeing the car do a high speed offset frontal into a concrete wall, he was one of the first on the scene to make sure Renee was OK and inspect his device. How often have you seen a representative from another HN manufacturer do that???
If you like your HANS, great, but stay away from my choices in this area.

[JeffYoung]

Juan, for a rear impact, the ISAAC seems equally effective as for front. The shocks are supposed to be mounted near the mid point in their range of travel, giving (in my very limited view of the matter) protection against the head snapping backward in the event of a rear end collision.

For side impacts, if the belts stay on, and like others I have a hard time envisioning situations where they would not, I believe rigidity of the upper torso/neck would be a good thing, no?

Last, I&#39;ve seen the videos of the HANS slipping out from under the belts. I did not like it. After watching that, reading some, and talking to folks using both, I determined that for me, in most cases, it appeared the ISAAC offered the most protection. The HANS is good, not taking away from it, but I&#39;m unsure as to the reasons for your apparent crusade against the ISAAC and Gregg. Gregg has been (for me anyway) very forthcoming with information, support and advice, and seems incredibly knowledgeable about the issues in play here. NO ONE in their right mind would wade into the business of trying to develop new and somewhat untested safety devices for club racers, given the potential liability, without fully looking at the issues. That I am sure of.

I&#39;m comfortable with my decision to go ISAAC. I&#39;m still getting comfortable putting it on and wearing it, but I am convinced it is at least marginally better than HANS from a safety perspective.

[TimM ITB]

OK, I normally steer clear of this kind of "stuff", fun to read at times, but it can get overly heated, strained, etc. But this time it&#39;s different. This is dangerous territory for us as individuals and for our club as a group. This important issue needs more time and study, and then a properly crafted requirement with the input from the club members, manufacturers, testing agencies or facilities, and (I hate to say it) legal counsel. Not enough of ANY of the above has been put into the current proposal up for vote IMHO.


Today, this is a bad, poorly constructed, poorly written and potentially catastrophic (to the SCCA and its Board - for so many of the litigation-possible scenarios already portrayed in previous posts) requirement. So, it is incumbent upon ALL of us us to write to our SCCA representative and let them know that we feel that they should vote NO on this. Plain and simple. If we do this one thing - send an email to our regional and/or national representative of OUR CLUB then they will get the message.
It is for all our own good!! It is OUR CLUB!![u]. A "no" vote will simply give our Board the time that they need to put all of the feedback to good use. It won&#39;t mean that the SCCA mandating the use of an H&N system is going to go away in the future, only that they can go "back to the drawing board" and get a better requirement put together.

I wrote an email and sent it to Bob Introne last night. I found his email address on the SCCA website.

Took about 10 minutes total.

This is too important to let go. It deserves everyone&#39;s attention. Please send an email!!

Thanks for listening.

Tim Mullen

[Eagle7]

Emails to your BoD are definitely being read. I got a nice reply from my BoD member, he forwarded it to the entire BoD, and I got a reply from Jeremy Thoennes. Sounds like Jeremy needs a little more convincing, so keep those cards and letters coming.

[pgipson]

Emails to your BoD are definitely being read. I got a nice reply from my BoD member, he forwarded it to the entire BoD, and I got a reply from Jeremy Thoennes.[/b]

I haven&#39;t recieved a reply yet from either the CRB or from either Board member I copied. Maybe a repeat to all Board members is in order? Is the Board meeting next week?

[Z3_GoCar]

It&#39;s already too late for anyone racing BMW club, it&#39;s SFI approved or sitting it out and not running. If for no other reason Gregg, you should have already developed the link to access that market. Since you&#39;ve not got the product that is approved and stamped by you with the SFI sticker, I&#39;ll have to go elsewhere. The reason I don&#39;t like the HANS is that it bares down on one of the weakest most vulnerable bone in the human body, right in the middle. Has anyone looked at what would happen and how effective the HANS would be on a driver with a broken coller-bone? Also, it&#39;s not like I want to run the full BMW season, but there are a few events that I&#39;d like to run, plus it&#39;ll give me more opportunities to schedual races. It&#39;s almost inevitable that the club will require the SFI sticker, they&#39;re already required in the Pro series, and the longer you go without the fewer people that you&#39;ll reach. Sure the design criteria is constrained by requirements that seen unneccessary, but just like when you develop anything else, those are the constraints and if you design outside of it then be prepared for rejection, no matter how good your design is. Maybe they should have put in a provision that the restraint work even if or when the belts break. From what I&#39;d heard this is a very real possibility as the H&N restraint&#39;s are tested to 100g&#39;s where as the belts are only tested to 70g&#39;s. Isn&#39;t that right?


Note, Edited to add BMWCCA racing rules clarification:

Is the Isaac device an approved head and neck restraint? 1/23/06

Request: With regard to the Isaac device, it specifies it meets SFI 3.8 (http://www.isaacdirect.com/index.html ). So, is it reasonable for me to plan on using an Isaac?

Clarification: As stated in Safety 10. Head and Neck Restraints:
“Effective April 1, 2006, all racers must use a Head and Neck Restraint meeting standards SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858-2002. The SFI standard can be found at:
http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1. ”
The Isaac device does not have an SFI 38.1 certification. While their website claims that their device "meets or exceeds the performance requirements of SFI Specification 38.1" it has not actually passed the tests, and is therefore not currently SFI 38.1 certified. Once this device (or any other device, for that matter) is actually certified by the SFI as meeting 38.1 it is automatically approved for BMW Club Racing.

[shwah]

Jake, There&#39;s no conspiricy here. It&#39;s a stretch to say that SFI is biased toward Hans. SFI 38.1 allows many types of devices, as is evidenced by the certification of Hans, R3, and Huthcens II. Other devices like the original Hutchens, G-Force, D-Cell, Wright, etc. would also be allowed if/once their performance is good enough. The only device that does not seem to conform to SFI is Isaac. The reasons for that are well documented.[/b]

For a guy with a reputation for liking to argue, I am surpised that you could not even acknowledge the facts in your own post...in the same paragraph :wacko:

As you state the original Hutchens, the D-Cell and the Wright device do not conform to the SFI specification. So the ISAAC is not the only device that does not conform. It is however the only device in that group which has theroetical, empirical lab test and empircal track test performance on par with or better than the HANS.

If you like to drag this argument around the internet, that&#39;s your deal. I like the ISAAC. I bought one after researching what works best for me. I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express, but I do have a BS Physics and BSME and pay my bills as an R&D Engineering Manager. I am qualified to decide what I want to use to protect my neck. In the most basic sense a device that controls accelleration (the dangerous part of f=ma when it comes to our bodies and crashes) is one that truely addresses the root of the issue. That is the one that I chose, rather than one that controls position.

Having said all that, as noted in my previous post, I plan to budget for a HANS in the next season or two. I am disappointed with the lack of proactive response to this issue by Mr. Baker et al. The writing has been on the wall for months. It sucks that my club won&#39;t let me make this choice. It also sucks that this has been a very likely scenario for the past year or so and my equipment manufacturer has chosen to wait for the requirement to magically change.

[lateapex911]

Chris, your background will allow you to read the spec better than most of us normal civilians. Have you read it? If not, here it is: http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1...ecification.pdf

When I read it, I scratch my head trying to come up with an Isaac solution, but it&#39;s a tough one.

[turboICE]

Juan the facts are simple. The day SFI 38.1 was issued only one product could meet their requirements - HANS. Every other product had to be redesigned - all were redesigned with yokes.

There are no coincidences.

[ddewhurst]

Will someone please help me understand the following from the 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.

This is the issue I need to understand. "without reliance on helmet impact into structures or nets." How can lateral loads be reduced with a HANS without helmet impact into structures or nets ? It&#39;s known that the HANS by it&#39;s self will not reduce lateral loads.

[gsbaker]

Will someone please help me understand the following from the 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.

This is the issue I need to understand. "without reliance on helmet impact into structures or nets." How can lateral loads be reduced with a HANS without helmet impact into structures or nets ? It&#39;s known that the HANS by it&#39;s self will not reduce lateral loads.
[/b]
They are ignoring lateral loads.



...I am disappointed with the lack of proactive response to this issue by Mr. Baker et al. The writing has been on the wall for months. It sucks that my club won&#39;t let me make this choice. It also sucks that this has been a very likely scenario for the past year or so and my equipment manufacturer has chosen to wait for the requirement to magically change.
[/b]You are probably not aware that we first recommended a quantitative performance measure to SFI in 2002. You are also probably not aware that over the past year we have tested an SFI version of the Isaac system using multiple protocols in multiple crash labs, in each case comparing the test results to those of the HANS device and the Isaac system. We discovered that we could pass the load tests, but the resulting design changes would lose the belts on a simple 30 degree offset test, just like the HANS device.

What happens when you lose the belts in anything other than a head-on impact? Well, we could ask Dr. Adam Zimmerman, a 39 year old physician and father of two. Oops I forgot, we can&#39;t do that. Dr. Zimmerman died of head injuries last fall while using a SFI 38.1 certified H&N restraint (HANS). Corner workers said he "came through the belts."

Or we could ask Chad McQueen. In January, Chad had a side impact while practicing for the Rolex at Daytona and broke his neck in two places. Another SFI 38.1 certified device, of course (HANS). Fortunately, in Chad&#39;s case we may be able to talk to him soon. He should be getting out of the hospital any day now. Yeah, he&#39;ll exit in a wheelchair and may still be wearing one of those halo things screwed into his skull, but physical therapy can do wonders these days.

If your H&N restraint positively captures the belts (thereby violating section 2.5 of SFI Spec 38.1), two very good things happen:

1. Your belts stay where they belong, helping keep your body in the seat

<div align="center">http://isaacdirect.com/images/SFIBoth.jpg</div>

, and

2. There is a massive reduction in lateral head torque, helping keep your head on top of your neck

<div align="center">http://isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/SFIMx.GIF</div>

I&#39;m sorry that we cannot help you with the rule makers, but we are not going to produce a product that kills drivers--we don&#39;t care how many stickers we can get.

[turboICE]

dd, Remember that 2.1 is a qualitative manufacturer representation - lateral loads are not measured quantitatively for 38.1.

It isn&#39;t the only qualitative manufacturer representation in 38.1 that is questionable with HANS.

2.4 The Head and Neck Restraint System must be designed and manufactured to allow freedom of movement of head, torso, arms, etc., commensurate with operating a race vehicle under all race and associated conditions.

Try and look towards turn out on any tight turn in HANS - it aint happening when installed with the minimum slack that produces the maximum reduction in H&N loads. At least for me my passenger side mirror could only be seen by turning my eyes because my head couldn&#39;t turn far enough to get a proper look anywhere near my passenger A pillar.

It is pretty clear that when HANS wasn&#39;t confident they asked SFI for qualitative standards to be held to - not quantitative ones. You know things like being about to get out of the car with a single point of release - qualitative for HANS because apparently in actual practice QR are not convenience they are necessary.

[Bill Miller]

Not even worth it.

[Darryl Pritchett]

Man this is one long thread. I have skimmed through most of it and the two H&N systems talked about are the Hans & the Isaac. I currently have no H&N restraint system and have been considering the G-Force one mainly because I have a G-Force helmet. I have not read any comments about this system and if it is any good at all. My concerns with it are the fact it only rest behind your shoulders and in a violent crash with roll overs I could see this coming out from behind your shoulders a doing nothing at all for protection after that. Is there any commits on this system.

[Doc Bro]

I really think it is unfair for a sanctioning body to determine what is right for an individuals health and welfare. Look at roll cages. The SCCA mandates some of the basics but allows freedom in many other aspects. This piece of equipment is arguably more important than an HNR.

This HNR issue reminds me of the recent ban on Foie Gras by the city of Chicago. Are you kidding me? The alderman feels goose liver is bad for you so you can&#39;t have any? What happened to caveat emptor?

I like the ISAAC. I use one. I served on the head and neck trauma team at a Level 1 trauma hospital. I watched Dr. Adam Zimmerman die in front of me at LRP last year. (He was wearing a HANS). I made my decision...I have to live with it.

Societal laws dictate minimal levels of behavior not maximal...ie Don&#39;t beat your wife...it doesn&#39;t say you have to treat her well, you just can&#39;t beat her!

Why then does the SCCA feel the need to dictate a maximum by which all will adhere? (SFI 38.1 is not a minimum in this case because it is qualitative and not quantitative) Why dictate this and not a spec roll cage design. Oh sure I know there will be naysayers like all cars are different, buy I think all people are different and should be allowed freedom of choice.

I think this was cowardly by the SCCA. I understand why but I still think it was cowardly.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

This HNR issue reminds me of the recent ban on Foie Gras by the city of Chicago. Are you kidding me? The alderman feels goose liver is bad for you so you can&#39;t have any? What happened to caveat emptor? [/b]

Except in this example, the alderman isn&#39;t providing an insurance policy on you after you partake...


I like the ISAAC. I use one. I served on the head and neck trauma team at a Level 1 trauma hospital. I watched Dr. Adam Zimmerman die in front of me at LRP last year. (He was wearing a HANS). I made my decision...I have to live with it.

Societal laws dictate minimal levels of behavior not maximal...ie Don&#39;t beat your wife...it doesn&#39;t say you have to treat her well, you just can&#39;t beat her!

Why then does the SCCA feel the need to dictate a maximum by which all will adhere? (SFI 38.1 is not a minimum in this case because it is qualitative and not quantitative) Why dictate this and not a spec roll cage design. Oh sure I know there will be naysayers like all cars are different, buy I think all people are different and should be allowed freedom of choice.

I think this was cowardly by the SCCA. I understand why but I still think it was cowardly.

R [/b]

The SCCA needs something to hang it&#39;s hat on for insurance purposes. The only place right now is the SFI spec. The beef isn&#39;t with the SCCA so much as the spec they have to work with. THAT is what needs to get changed - and the mfg&#39;s need to do that, no?

Greg Amy made a great point to me yesterday. The SCCA (IMHO) did fall down in a big respect - either spec the requirment to were a H&N and the spec or just remain silent on the issue. Don&#39;t dictate something that is just &#39;recommended&#39;. If it&#39;s so important to legislate, then make it manditory or stay out of it until you want to. We are just in a holding patter until they become maditory. Hopefully the spec will be better thought out - or a different spec we can build and buy to will be available.

[gsbaker]

...Don&#39;t dictate something that is just &#39;recommended&#39;. If it&#39;s so important to legislate, then make it manditory or stay out of it until you want to. We are just in a holding patter until they become maditory. Hopefully the spec will be better thought out - or a different spec we can build and buy to will be available.
[/b]
We could not agree more. One of those cases where the best thing to do is nothing.




I like the ISAAC. I use one. I served on the head and neck trauma team at a Level 1 trauma hospital. I watched Dr. Adam Zimmerman die in front of me at LRP last year. (He was wearing a HANS). I made my decision...I have to live with it.
[/b]
Guess which product is used by one of Chad McQueen&#39;s docs?



Man this is one long thread. I have skimmed through most of it and the two H&N systems talked about are the Hans & the Isaac. I currently have no H&N restraint system and have been considering the G-Force one mainly because I have a G-Force helmet. I have not read any comments about this system and if it is any good at all. My concerns with it are the fact it only rest behind your shoulders and in a violent crash with roll overs I could see this coming out from behind your shoulders a doing nothing at all for protection after that. Is there any commits on this system.
[/b]
It works fairly well on the crash sled. Frankly, I&#39;m puzzled why it doesn&#39;t work better. The company will not release test results, so I can&#39;t comment further.

[Doc Bro]

Except in this example, the alderman isn&#39;t providing an insurance policy on you after you partake...

While I agree with that statement...it is still a case of "protecting us from ourselves"The SCCA needs something to hang it&#39;s hat on for insurance purposes. The only place right now is the SFI spec. The beef isn&#39;t with the SCCA so much as the spec they have to work with. THAT is what needs to get changed - and the mfg&#39;s need to do that, no?


Totally depends on how you look at it. I believe the SCCA is just as vulnerable by holding to the "yet to be entirely agreed upon" SFI mandate. If I were to die using a HANS, Vic and my family know EXACTLY what to do and where to go for the "real story".
Greg Amy made a great point to me yesterday. The SCCA (IMHO) did fall down in a big respect - either spec the requirment to were a H&N and the spec or just remain silent on the issue. Don&#39;t dictate something that is just &#39;recommended&#39;. If it&#39;s so important to legislate, then make it manditory or stay out of it until you want to. We are just in a holding patter until they become maditory. Hopefully the spec will be better thought out - or a different spec we can build and buy to will be available.
[/b]


I think Greg&#39;s point has been made many times before and is the best possible approach to the situation. The fact of the matter is that noone knows for sure what is best. The SCCA should just leave it alone.

Remember Andy,
First butter was BAD for you, and margarine was king. Then they told you trans fats were deadly and you should avoid them or else you would die. Now, butter doesn&#39;t look so bad except for the fact that it is loaded with saturated fat problems. Now they play side by side in the dairy department both of them eagerly awaiting our demise.

I have to go now... I&#39;ve got the radio blasting near the tub and my cigarrettes are getting wet, and my heavily butterd toast is getting cold ....I forgot to mention I have no GFI outlets near my tub!!! :P

[mgyip]

Edited to keep controversy to a minimum.

[gsbaker]

Edited to keep controversy to a minimum.
[/b]Don&#39;t do it on my account, please. The post reflects a certain perspective, which is probably shared by others.

[lateapex911]

The internet is an interesting place. In life, you can&#39;t take back what you say. It appears on the internet, you can. Sorta. I read it. It was very critical, and at times acerbic. But, it appears he wishes it to not be discussed. OK.

But I will add a comment or two.

I think Gregg Baker is passionate about his business and racing.

I think that in product development worlds, certain products become the defacto standards. Kleenex, Xerox copies, etc. Are there better tissues than Kleenex? Probably.

I think Gregg is aware that there are many sides to the issue, and seeks to remind us that all is not always as it seems. The big name isn&#39;t always the only or best choice. The first post I read from him was: "I recommend you get a system...any legitimate system. Nearly any system is better than NO system."

Finally, remember that roadracing represents a fraction of the racers in America. And IT racers?? LOL...we&#39;re a drop in that small bucket. I hear it asked why the HANS or R3 makers never post here. Why would they?? It&#39;s not worth their time, to be honest. And I suspect Gregg doesn&#39;t do it for business reasons either. If he did the math and ananyzed his time spent here vs his profits from units sold to us, I doubt he could make a case.

He&#39;s here, I think, because he likes us, racing in general, and is passionate.

[Eagle7]

...The beef isn&#39;t with the SCCA so much as the spec they have to work with. THAT is what needs to get changed - and the mfg&#39;s need to do that, no?[/b]
Why in the world would they do that? Change a spec that excludes your most competent competitor so he can kick your butt in the marketplace? Seems like the only way to fix this is to have a spec written by an independent body AND critiqued by the open market. SFI has lost all credibility in my mind.

[Doc Bro]

Why in the world would they do that? Change a spec that excludes your most competent competitor so he can kick your butt in the marketplace? Seems like the only way to fix this is to have a spec written by an independent body AND critiqued by the open market. SFI has lost all credibility in my mind.
[/b]


Exactly!!

This is evidence based not hard science based. There is a very big difference.

Hard science involoves repeating a theory...not only by the theorist but by others... in the same fashion with the same results being returned.

The nature of this (ie market interests and exclusivity, and profits) shifts it dramatically to evidence based. Which is why the SCCA should have refrained.

Evidence based science goes sorta like this (exaggeration) ; We can cure your appendicitis with our new magic pill. We know this because we&#39;ve done it a number of times....(that number is zero....)but it is a number. And we can prove it!


R

[Andy Bettencourt]

What I meant was that the OTHER manufacturers need to lean on the SFI to allow a spec that better serves the potential market. The more H&N&#39;s sold with the SFI label, the more money they make.

HANS doesn&#39;t want it to happen, but Issac and the reast of the great unwashed need to fight. The SCCA needs a spec. Is this not the only one?

[lateapex911]

Andy, remember that HANS essentially wrote the spec...and is a large financial buddy to the SFI. It&#39;s not in the best interest of the SFI to rewrite the spec. I&#39;m guessing here, but I doubt seriously if the SFI would entertain for a second any mods to the specs. They might go so far as to solicit the opinions of the experts in the field, but remember, they are the guys who largely designed the HANS.

Maybe I&#39;m naive, but it appears like a pretty tight knit bunch to me.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Then Jake, we are in a lose-lose spot. There is no solution.

The SCCA can&#39;t help get a new spec written because it&#39;s next-to-impossible - but they need a spec to satisfy the insurance liabilities all our families could benefit from should the worst happen.

What is the next step? Buy a H&NR that meets the spec - or wait until the spec changes and you have the ability to buy &#39;brand I".

What is the solution we as members can recommend? Not just &#39;this sucks&#39;.

[Greg Amy]

I suspect the only "answer" to this issue is a boycott of sorts.

I have written an email to the BoD - copying Thoennes, the CRB, and SCCA&#39;s Club Racing director - letting them know that if they pass this rule as written I will continue racing, but with no HNR at all versus my current Wayne State University Bioengineering Center-tested - but not yet SFI-approved - HNR. I also forwarded this email to SCCA&#39;s President and CEO, Jim Julow, and SCCA&#39;s Risk Manager/Legal Counsel Pete Lyon.

If this act - coupled to Kirk&#39;s idea of MAKING them make you remove it, then appealing all the way to the Appeals Court and getting it on the written record that they forced me to remove it - doesn&#39;t make the lawyers shivver, then truly nothing will.

Hear ye, hear ye: I will be appearing at the ARRC Runoffs in November wearing my Wayne State University Bioengineering Center-tested Wright Device (http://www.over40racing.com). I will attempt to wear it to every session at that event. If I am forced to remove it before being allowed on the track I will protest. If I lose the protest I will appeal to Topeka. It will be on the record.

If this happens, the SCCA - seriously - better pray to their gods of choice that nothing happens to me, for I will be leaving a notarized and witnessed letter of my desires and intentions with my wife as to how to proceed.

If this is the legal game we have to play, then let&#39;s run with it. - GA

[gsbaker]

...What is the solution we as members can recommend? Not just &#39;this sucks&#39;.
[/b]
Good point Andy. It reminds me of my first Boss after college. His favorite saying was, "If you come to me with a problem, please bring along an answer." To that end,

Short term: Do not adopt the pending proposal. It doesn&#39;t solve a real problem, and it might create some.
Longer term: Base any mandate on a completely transparent protocol to which most products have already been tested, say 2,000N on the WSU sled. (That&#39;s probably excessive for road racing, but approximates the SFI 38.1 level of protection.)

Headrestraint.org can collect the data from manufacturers and make it publicly available in summary form. If a manufacturer refuses to turn over their test results, they are not on the SCCA approved list. When it comes to amateur road racing, the SCCA is the 800# gorilla. It calls the shots and is completely within its authority to adopt or create any standard(s) it chooses.

Short term? Skip it.

[lateapex911]

Andy, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for something that is so obviously flawed. At this point, I am with Greg. Greg, there will be two of us on the same grid, I&#39;ll be polite, but firm.

Greggs solution makes sense.

[Catch22]

Well, the letters have gone in from this house.
Hopefully others are following suit.

For now I think thats about all we can do.

[Bill Miller]

I just confirmation on mine from John Bauer.

As a side note, it looks like Juan realized that no one is buying his line.

[R2 Racing]

Greg, there will be two of us on the same grid, I&#39;ll be polite, but firm.[/b]
Count me in on that grid too.

I have a question about the issue brought up on the possibility of a torso shifting and pulling at least one of the belts off of the shoulders. Am I the only one who uses a locking strap across their chest that locks the two shoulder straps together? Say for example that I get into a hard lateral crash and my torso is thrown to the right. With my locked strap across my chest, wouldn&#39;t my left shoulder strap follow the right shoulder strap wherever it goes? I think it would; it has to. Then if it does, there&#39;s your solution to that arguement: get better belts.

Edit - To give a better image of what I&#39;m talking about, here&#39;s a picture of the exact belts I use:
http://69.13.85.250/images/TeamTech-harness.jpg

[lateapex911]

Kevin, thats the "Sternumstrap", correct??

I had heard (warning, unsubstantiated rumour) that the strap could increse injuries.

But I don&#39;t understand how it connects/releases. Does it meet the one release rule??

[Knestis]

Greg&#39;s described exactly what I was thinking - polite but resolute, like taking a conscientious objector stance. "I&#39;m sorry but thinking about my wife and loved ones, I can&#39;t take it off based on my own research and informed best judgement."

Andy admonished us (elsewhere, I think) to not simply make asses of ourselves, or take our frustrations out on the worker bees assigned to look after us at the track. This approach is consistent with that good advice.

Re: Gregg&#39;s suggestion about headrestraint.org, it was originally envisioned as a clearinghouse for some common pieces of data, price, functionality, etc., pulled together and made available for free to allow consumers to pick the system that best fits their needs.

I pretty much gave up on the effort, having had next to no response from manufacturers willing to share data, and only a small response from racers asking questions. Isaac - not surprisingly - was more than willing to send their stuff, the only other being a Harry Kintzi, MD, who has a design patented and on the drawing board, but not yet to market. Without representative data from other companies, I KNEW that the effort was setting itself up for accusations that it was just an Isaac marketing exercise, so I pulled the plug.

This was, I confess, partially because I&#39;ve was massively busy this past winter and spring, and had to decide whether the world cared enough for me to spend time doing it - if there would be a return on the effort. I was left thinking "no." I refunded the $ donations we&#39;d received and quit worrying about it.

I met Arnie Kuhns 20 years ago or so at SEMA, when SFI was first getting into the business of suit specifications. I didn&#39;t like the "foundation&#39;s" approach then (working for a manufacturer) and I don&#39;t like it now (as a consumer.)...

By the way, I find it interesting that the SCCA - TO THIS DAY - has equivalent suit specifications in the GCR, right along side the "required" SFI minimums. Obviously, there&#39;s no perception that offering a non-SFI way around the suit requirement is putting the club&#39;s future at risk.

...but anyway, what he had then was the support of a core group of manufacturers and sanctioning body folks, who saw a mutual benefit to what he proposed. We don&#39;t have that clout (we&#39;re fighting it) but what we might have is enough frustration to encourage SCCA to consider a set of PERFORMANCE STANDARDSand corresponding test protocols defined by a third party (headrestraint.org?). No fees collected, no stickers. Just a defined set of minimums with the .org maintaining the test data for public review? It&#39;s a big step beyond what we originally envisioned but...is it feasible??

There was a time 40 years ago when Kuhns was just some guy at the race track, too...

K

[Bill Miller]

Kevin,

IIRC, sternum breakers, errr, I mean &#39;sternum straps&#39; were not legal in SCCA up until only a few years ago. Some of you old-timers chime in. As Jake said, these have been reported to actually contribute to injuries. When I was crewing for my friend&#39;s short-track car, one of the drivers was involved in a pretty solid head-on shunt. Waffled the car, and he ended up breaking his sternum and several ribs. He was wearing belts w/ a sternum strap (note: it was a conventional latch buckle rather than velcro). I would never wear one.

[DavidM]

Hear ye, hear ye: I will be appearing at the ARRC Runoffs in November wearing my Wayne State University Bioengineering Center-tested Wright Device (http://www.over40racing.com). I will attempt to wear it to every session at that event. If I am forced to remove it before being allowed on the track I will protest. If I lose the protest I will appeal to Topeka. It will be on the record.
[/b]

I&#39;ll be at the ARRC wearing my Issac. I will be protesting as well if forced to remove it. IF this rule passes, it would be something of a statement if a large portion of the IT field was kicked off grid because of their H&N restraints.

David

[Andy Bettencourt]

So it may be possible to &#39;buy&#39; a championship in ITA if I purchase a HANS...:)

Letter sent to the CRB and my BoD guy for a cease fire.

[Bill Miller]

I&#39;ll be at the ARRC wearing my Issac. I will be protesting as well if forced to remove it. IF this rule passes, it would be something of a statement if a large portion of the IT field was kicked off grid because of their H&N restraints.

David
[/b]

You know, that might just be fun. Kirk, how much to rent Pablo for the ARRC?

[R2 Racing]

Kevin,

IIRC, sternum breakers, errr, I mean &#39;sternum straps&#39; were not legal in SCCA up until only a few years ago. Some of you old-timers chime in. As Jake said, these have been reported to actually contribute to injuries. When I was crewing for my friend&#39;s short-track car, one of the drivers was involved in a pretty solid head-on shunt. Waffled the car, and he ended up breaking his sternum and several ribs. He was wearing belts w/ a sternum strap (note: it was a conventional latch buckle rather than velcro). I would never wear one.
[/b]
The sternum strap on these belts is velcro and made of the same webbing as the rest of the harness, so I have to believe that it will flex a little. Plus everything that you see in that picture that is red is foam padded. So I think that they wouldn&#39;t end up doing any additional damage to my chest than just having standard belts would. But if there is a chance, is it any worse than the chance of your shoulder belts falling off of your shoulders without it?

Jake, I suppose they do not meet the one release rule. But it&#39;s very second nature to me - as my left hand releases the belts, my right hand is opening that strap and then unplugging my radio (more evidence that the idea of "one release" isn&#39;t very realistic). I&#39;m very use to the whole process and can get it all done awfully quickly.

[lateapex911]

Kevin, I&#39;m sure that you are used to the get out drill, and I&#39;m sure you know I&#39;m not calling you out on it. I was just wondering if you&#39;d had any official "commentary" on them from gridworkers and the like.

Proponents of the "One release rule" state that things like drink tubes, radio harnesses. air tubes, window nets aren&#39;t actually restraints...that what is being referred to by that rule are things that restrain you, like belts and anything attached to belts.

Others think that anything that restrains you from leaving the car and needs to be manually removed for egress IS a restraint.

In either case, it would seem to me that the strap fits into the most restrictive definition, but if it&#39;s allowed, then certainly a HNR should be as well, if we&#39;re being logical.

[itracer]

Vel·cro (vlkr)
A trademark used for a fastening tape consisting of a strip of nylon with a surface of minute hooks that fasten to a corresponding strip with a surface of uncut pile. This trademark sometimes occurs in print in lowercase.

Sounds like more than a single point of release.

Letter sent and reply back from my area Director.

[shwah]

Thanks for the forthright response Gregg. That is the kind of information I was looking for. You are right, I probably could have gleaned it myself, but I am glad you shared it. :birra:

[R2 Racing]

Kevin, I&#39;m sure that you are used to the get out drill, and I&#39;m sure you know I&#39;m not calling you out on it. I was just wondering if you&#39;d had any official "commentary" on them from gridworkers and the like.[/b]
I&#39;ve never had a grid worker or a tech steward ever take a second glance at it. Actually, if they ever say anything, they comment on how nice the belts are.

[mgyip]

Proponents of the "One release rule" state that things like drink tubes, radio harnesses. air tubes, window nets aren&#39;t actually restraints...that what is being referred to by that rule are things that restrain you, like belts and anything attached to belts.[/b]

Not that I want to get involved in this debacle but what you&#39;ve posted is exactly the thought behind the "single point of release" rule. The window net is a restraint as is the recommended right-side net - the latest ruling of having the window net drop down befuddles me though - I&#39;d rather that it fall AWAY from the vehicle (read: fall up) when the vehicle is inverted.

Having watched Puskar Motorsports at Nelson last weekend, they have an "extricator" who removes the driver from the vehicle. Aside from his belts, when the "extricator" pulls the driver, everything else WILL break away which is how those periphreals are designed. For example, F.A.S.T. specifically states that their water line connectors are break-away in case the driver needs to exit the vehicle NOW.

[Racerlinn]

My letter was just sent opposing the rule as well as requesting that an inclusion list of tested products be used rather than the SFI cert.

[dj10]

Say for example that I get into a hard lateral crash and my torso is thrown to the right. With my locked strap across my chest, wouldn&#39;t my left shoulder strap follow the right shoulder strap wherever it goes? I think it would; it has to. [/b]



If it doesn&#39;t you won&#39;t have to worry about anything again.



Does it look like that the SCCA will make the HANS devices mandatory soon?

[erlrich]

If it doesn&#39;t you won&#39;t have to worry about anything again.
Does it look like that the SCCA will make the HANS devices mandatory soon?
[/b] Dan, I get the impression that there are many within the SCCA who would like to see that happen. I also strongly believe that the current proposed rule is intended to be the first step in that direction. I have no doubt that if this one passes a mandatory SFI certified H&N restraint won&#39;t be far behind. That will be a sad day for me, as I really enjoy racing with the guys I&#39;m racing with now.

On a related note, can any of our attorney racers here explain what the difference would be, from a legal liability standpoint, between requiring that racers use an SFI certified device and simply recommending that they use one? There are other instances in the GCR where a safety measure is recommended, I don&#39;t understand why that wouldn&#39;t work in the case of H&N restraints.

[dj10]

Dan, I get the impression that there are many within the SCCA who would like to see that happen. I also strongly believe that the current proposed rule is intended to be the first step in that direction. I have no doubt that if this one passes a mandatory SFI certified H&N restraint won&#39;t be far behind. That will be a sad day for me, as I really enjoy racing with the guys I&#39;m racing with now.

On a related note, can any of our attorney racers here explain what the difference would be, from a legal liability standpoint, between requiring that racers use an SFI certified device and simply recommending that they use one? There are other instances in the GCR where a safety measure is recommended, I don&#39;t understand why that wouldn&#39;t work in the case of H&N restraints.

[/b]



How about signing a waiver, would or could that do it? Although, I&#39;m not a supporter of the manditory H&N restraint I do believe it has it&#39;s place in HIGH speed cars, as seen in pro racing, T1, GT1 etc. I just would like to make my own decision when I feel it is right for me to use it without some organization manditating it.

[lateapex911]

Not that I want to get involved in this debacle but what you&#39;ve posted is exactly the thought behind the "single point of release" rule. The window net is a restraint as is the recommended right-side net - the latest ruling of having the window net drop down befuddles me though - I&#39;d rather that it fall AWAY from the vehicle (read: fall up) when the vehicle is inverted.

Having watched Puskar Motorsports at Nelson last weekend, they have an "extricator" who removes the driver from the vehicle. Aside from his belts, when the "extricator" pulls the driver, everything else WILL break away which is how those periphreals are designed. For example, F.A.S.T. specifically states that their water line connectors are break-away in case the driver needs to exit the vehicle NOW.
[/b]

And the flipside is the rest of the world.

I&#39;ve watched Pro drivers, guys who get in and out of cars for a living....guys who are as cool under pressure as anyone, have their heads or bodies stuck in cars after incidents, and it&#39;s happened for all the items that need releasing to get out of the car. Sure, a radio connector pops right out when pulled from the right direction... and it&#39;s easy to set it up so that it will always pull from the right direction, but lots of teams haven&#39;t set it up that way. Hence guys get their heads stuck in the car after a crash. The HANS is no different.

The one point release rule is a total joke, as evidenced by Kevins sternum strap. (Sorry Kevin). Heck, grid workers are actually complimenting him on it, even though by the strictest definition, his restraints now require TWO points of release. Huh?? Should this mandate come to pass, these will be the SAME grid workers who will take an Isaac from his car to protect him from having too many points of release, but won&#39;t say "Boo" about his sternum strap!?

The bottom line here is that the SCCA has a set of requirements that were written long before things like HNRs were around, and they&#39;ve essentially closed their eyes to the release rules&#39; hypoctrical nature.

For the SCCA, now is the time to step back and look at the big picture. Use common sense in the rules. Mandate double buckles on window nets (like mine), mandate methods of drink tube, radio harness and air tube connections. But don&#39;t keee jerk reaction HNRs situation requiring 38.1 devices, then further knee jerk it by realizing the huge weakness in lateral impact protection 38.1 devices provide by then requiring huge "wing" seats....which would make the already difficult egress issue even worse.

This is that point in time where we will look back a year from now and say, "That&#39;s when we got in this mess".... Let&#39;s control our destiny, let&#39;s think big picture and not just react out of fear.

[mgyip]

I&#39;ve watched Pro drivers, guys who get in and out of cars for a living....[/b]

I&#39;ve worked with some of those Pro drivers and my job is to get them in and out of the car. We find that our drivers get "stuck" b/c they don&#39;t want to break the equipment - radio connections, etc.

Back to the issue at hand - I agree that SCCA is behind the times and I don&#39;t want any sanctioning body to mandate which HNR device I must use nor do I want them to mandate that I must use one but that&#39;s a separate issue. The more mandates and regulations, the more of a PITA for me as a racer.

[Xian]

I&#39;ll be at the ARRC wearing my Issac. I will be protesting as well if forced to remove it. IF this rule passes, it would be something of a statement if a large portion of the IT field was kicked off grid because of their H&N restraints.

David
[/b]
Same here. I&#39;m guessing that nothing will be said about the Isaac... I think there are too mayn people who currently use them for the SCCA to start policing them.

Christian, who will continue wearing his Isaac until they pull him from the grid.

[ddewhurst]

Letter sent with positive fedback returned. If your on the fence & have not written YOUR letter do it quickly because I beleive each letter will count.

David Dewhurst
SCCA 250772

[erlrich]

Letter sent with positive fedback returned. If your on the fence & have not written YOUR letter do it quickly because I beleive each letter will count.

David Dewhurst
SCCA 250772 [/b] Hmmm, I&#39;ve sent letters to the BoD and my region&#39;s director, and have heard nothing back from either...

Maybe I should use some other salutation than "Dear A**hole". :rolleyes:

[ddewhurst]

With respect to my H & N restraint letter I received a second positive stroke this a.m. GET YOU LETTERS SENT TODAY.

[Speed Raycer]

With respect to my H & N restraint letter I received a second positive stroke this a.m. GET YOU LETTERS SENT TODAY.
[/b]
Dave, shoot me a copy. I&#39;d like to see what you wrote that&#39;s getting you good responses. All I got wasthe form response & one positive response (from my VOTE NO perspective), but the details were a little disheartening (some apparent misinformation about the Isaac)

[mustanghammer]

I do not support the SFI 38.1 requirement. I sent my e-mail to the BOD but was not specific to the devices I prefer or whether or not I agree with SFI 38.1. To me, that isn&#39;t the point of this issue. Mandating a spec for a recommended piece of safety gear isn&#39;t logical.

I compared this to recommended Fuel Cell specifications for IT cars. IT cars don&#39;t have to have cells but the driver may install a non-FIA cell (JAZ, RCI, etc) if they wish.

[Bill Miller]

I do not support the SFI 38.1 requirement. I sent my e-mail to the BOD but was not specific to the devices I prefer or whether or not I agree with SFI 38.1. To me, that isn&#39;t the point of this issue. Mandating a spec for a recommended piece of safety gear isn&#39;t logical.

I compared this to recommended Fuel Cell specifications for IT cars. IT cars don&#39;t have to have cells but the driver may install a non-FIA cell (JAZ, RCI, etc) if they wish.
[/b]


Yet another great example of why this rule would be silly. :023:

[jjjanos]

Can you say "restraint of trade" lawsuit? I know that people in Topeka can! :018: :119:
[/b]

SCCA would not be violating the various anti-trust laws. SCCA could mandate that you use a suit produced by X, shoes made by Y and a helmet made by Z for the same reason that Bridgestone is the only tire allowed in CART.

The only one who might be in violation is the SFI Foundation and then only if they set the standard in collusion with a manufacturer.

Frankly, I find the requirement that...

"Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations."

is a bit arbitrary and capricious given that drivers attach other things to their helmets that require more than the release of the seat belts to get out.

I also am troubled by the cost of SFI 38.1 compliant restraints versus other systems whose performance appears to be as good or better but which fail because of the single-point of release requirement.

Having discovered the availabilty of a restraint system for considerably less than $1,000, I intended purchasing such a system this racing season - greatly increasing my level of personal safety. Upon learning that these less expensive but just as effective devices might not be SCCA legal and surmising that SCCA ultimately will mandate that I use the far more expensive SFI 38.1 compliant systems, I no longer intend to purchase a system at this time. Consequently, the rules process has acheived a result contrary to its intent and instead of increasing my safety, it has reduced it.

[mustanghammer]

Yet another great example of why this rule would be silly. :023:
[/b]

Thanks. I think we need to keep our argument simple.

I also pointed out that the club will be held liable if an ISSAC, Hutchens, Wright, White, etc owner dies on the track when they were not allowed to use said safety device. Any loving spouse or parent would sue the club blind for that one!

[sgallimo]

"Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations."
[/b]
I&#39;ve said it before. I think the Isaac fits this requirement. To disengage the Isaac head and neck restraint system during emergency situations, no additional motion is required other than the release of the seat belts. The spec doesn&#39;t differentiate between "releasing the belts from the head and neck restraint system" and "releasing the seat belts from the driver".

And we don&#39;t even have to address the notion that a worker cutting the belts with a knife constitutes a "release of the seat belts" and of their attendant head and neck restraint system.

[mustanghammer]

How is this for service!

I totally agree with your well thought out note. Larry Dent,
Director Area 4

On Jul 28, 2006, at 11:28 AM, scott peterson wrote:

> Dear BOD Members
>
> I do not support this proposal.
>
> Head and Neck restraints are a recommended piece of
> safety gear. Limiting the use of this RECOMMENDED
> safety gear to products that only meet SFI 38.1 is not
> logical. For example Fuel Cells are recomended for
> IT cars. However there is no requirement that if a
> fuel cell is used that it meet FIA specifications.
>
> A fatility that could have been avoided through the
> use of a H&N restraint that the driver owned but
> wasn&#39;t allowed to wear (not SFI 38.1 approved) will
> cost this club dearly. The club and it&#39;s members
> would be better served by making no decision in this
> matter.
>
> We should use our club&#39;s leadership in american road
> racing to force the safety industry to require better
> and fully disclosed testing which would result in
> better safety standard specifications.
>
> Scott Peterson
> #175876

[gsbaker]

:happy204:

[RSTPerformance]

Thanks. I think we need to keep our argument simple.

I also pointed out that the club will be held liable if an ISSAC, Hutchens, Wright, White, etc owner dies on the track when they were not allowed to use said safety device. Any loving spouse or parent would sue the club blind for that one!
[/b]


I wonder how many drivers whome get hurt in anyway will all of a sudden become would have been users?

I wonder how many HANS users whome get hurt in anyway will all of a sudden become I would have been a user if...?

I am sure that in the near future someone will see the jackpot at the end of the rainbow and a simple neck cramp (that never existed in the first place) will become a major $$$ lawsuit...


As for my letter...

I played things a little different and in my letter first I stated that I oppsed the rule and then I asked 6 simple questions for clarification on why they were making these dicesions and how it would benefit the members or the club as a wole. I figure any decision or recomendation has an explination and that we deserve to know and understand it explained directly from those who are making the decisions. This isn&#39;t to say that I don&#39;t trust any of you!!! :wacko: Actually I do trust most of you, but I want to here what "they" have to say about it. I will let you all know what I learn!!!

Raymond

[Xian]

How is this for service!

I totally agree with your well thought out note. Larry Dent,
Director Area 4[/b]
Don&#39;t feel too special... he sent me the same response today :P

FWIW, one of Larry&#39;s duties is as Liaison to the SCCA&#39;s Insurance Committee... I suspect insurance is one of the many reasons behind the pending rule addition.

Christian

[Dave Zaslow]

I&#39;ve sent my letter.

I also ran across another device from South Africa:

http://www.leatt-brace.com/r_product.asp

Dave Z

[Knestis]

Took a lot of thinking but my letter is finally off.

In looking back at this strand, it just ISN&#39;T possible to "keep it simple." If I were a Director worried about the Club&#39;s liability exposure, and someone wrote me a letter explaining that it was stupid to "recommend" H&N systems but require that they be 38.1-compliant in cases where a driver chooses to use one, I could VERY easily decide that the best answer is to quit dinking around and simply require SFI systems of everyone, starting in November 2007.

It is absolutely necessary to address the complexities of this issue, take control of the situation, and put drivers&#39; safety TRULY ahead of other interests, including protecting the Club from liability.

K

[gsbaker]

...Just a defined set of minimums with the .org maintaining the test data for public review? It&#39;s a big step beyond what we originally envisioned but...is it feasible??

There was a time 40 years ago when Kuhns was just some guy at the race track, too...

K
[/b]
Yes, it is very feasible. We continue to be told that the only reason SFI is attractive is because there is no alternative industry standard that could be considered. Take the Niki approach; just do it. Post just the facts, data you know to be either peer-reviewed or taken from the crash sled DAS. Keep it simple. One chart to start.

I think you&#39;ll be surprised at the reaction.

[RSTPerformance]

I&#39;ve sent my letter.

I also ran across another device from South Africa:

http://www.leatt-brace.com/r_product.asp

Dave Z
[/b]



Interesting... Dave thanks for keeping us updated!!!

Raymond

[ddewhurst]

****I could VERY easily decide that the best answer is to quit dinking around and simply require SFI systems of everyone, starting in November 2007.***

K, I would hope that you used some data to come to the conclusion that you could VERY easily decide ^. :P

If I were King (Man law) I could VERY easily make a data decision to chose three H & N systems & say you SHALL use one of the named H & N systems. The King rule leaves politics out of the equasion.

Primary function of a H & N system is to eliminate neck injurys................

Secondary function of a H & N system is to allow the driver to egress from the car. (Joey Hand, nuff said.)

[Knestis]

Problem is, Dave that the primary POLICY ISSUE in the minds of the current decision-makers might not be in line with the primary purpose of a head-and-neck system. That was the upshot of my letter - that SFI 38.1 is thought to serve an apparent (if untested?) indemnification purpose, and gets tangled up in secondary purposes (egress, mandate of particular design features) to the potential detriment of actually serving your stated first purpose.

The Club has to get its goals and priorities (what we policy geeks talk about as "intentions") straight for this policy implementation - and communicate them with the membership - before it gets wound up in the detail language of the rule.

K

[Dave Burchfield]

"I agree. I will vote no on SIF certification. Larry Dent, Area 4 Director"

Count one for reason and good judgement.

[lateapex911]

The Club has to get its goals and priorities (what we policy geeks talk about as "intentions") straight for this policy implementation - and communicate them with the membership - before it gets wound up in the detail language of the rule.

K
[/b]

Well, it seems to me that there are three groups involved here. (Excluding the obvious manufacturers).

The club

The racers

The SFI

What are the intentions of each??

The racers want the freedom to protect themselves, and in the way that they see fit. In other words, each wants to choose the level of protection, ease of use, and expense that he sees best. It&#39;s safe to assume that we as racers are fine with being told what that level of protection needs to be at a minimim.

The Club wants to protect itself from liability. (It does this in the interest to protect us, the members, so that we have a club to race with in the future, and that other on going interests of the Club are not affected.)

The SFI wants to......hmmm.....???? This is where it gets cloudy in my mind. Well, I know the SFI collects money (from a diverse group of interested parties) in exchange for creating safety standards, and for managing the manufacturers&#39; compliance to those standards. Interestingly, it collects from manufacturers, as well as it uses the same manufacturers to help in the actual creation of the certification standards.

I called SCCA tech advisor Jeremy Thoenis today, about some other business, and discussed the HNR thing brieflyI left with the impression that he felt that there wasn&#39;t any option other than to mandate SFI devices...at least eventually. He cited the fact that all other major sanctioning bodies have allready adopted such rulings, and that the club has no way to set their own standards. I commented that the problem with the recommendation on the books for voting was that it would actually reduce the safety level of SCCA drivers, and that the SFI specs went beyond concerning themselves with the actual performance of the devices and into the realm of the design and architecture of the devices. I suggested that the club use the SFI performance standards as a way of allowing certain devices, but he stated that the one point of release rule was part of the specification. He reminded me that my issues weren&#39;t with the club, but with SFI, and that the club has no other viable option.

Of course, I see his point...to a degree.

But I was left with two glaring, and nagging thoughts.

First, our converstion kept coming back to the clubs position, and the fact that the SFI was the only option, rather than discussing the real issue.....better safety for the drivers. (I know, at this point, it&#39;s obvious, that that&#39;s really not the issue.)

Secondly, I have no idea how, or why, the clubs counsel feels so compelled that the SFI is the only and best legal umbrella. To me, it is patently obvious that the SFI isn&#39;t an organization that is completely altruistic. I wish I could understand the mechanism that our club sees that they (and I guess, the entire world) feel is so ironclad.

We have lots of sharp minds on this site, and a number of lawyers. I have expected to read a somewhat confusing (to me, LOL) explanation of the legal implications and the sound and fast legal reasons the SFI is the all singing, all dancing, get out of jail free trump card somewhere in this or another thread, but so far, I&#39;ve missed it.

Anyone care to fill me in?? Please???

[gsbaker]

I called SCCA tech...there wasn&#39;t any option other than to mandate SFI devices...the club has no other viable option.[/b]
You could put a cardboard stand on a street corner, label it "Chuck&#39;s Lemonade and Head Restraint Load Data" and have them lined up around the block.

[ddewhurst]

***Have any of you who will vote to make the SFI specification 38.1 mandatory for all SCCA Club Road Racers viewed any data from accident history within SCCA Club Road Racing that shows a history of drivers breaking their necks or any data that shows SCCA Club Road Racers who have had an accident had acquired injuries because they didn&#39;t have a one release motion to free themselves from their race car ?**

One small part of my letter to SCCA.

Can anyone provide data to answer the two questions within my questions to the SCCA voters? No maybe or what if, pure facts.

Within NASCAR they had several facts (4 IIRC) that they needed something in a hurry. The had a need.

[gsbaker]

Dave,

2-3 years ago there was a fatality involving a side impact in a Corvette. Although Zimmerman raced SCCA, his crash occurred at an EMRA event, IIRC.

[Greg Amy]

During last week&#39;s National event at LRP I had a quick conversation with two BoD members. One indicated he was unaware of the issue until the emails and letters starting coming in, the other indicated he was undecided on the issue and is learning more. Both seemed empathetic to the issues brought up such as those expressed in this topic. I explained my thoughts on the subject and both thanked me for the input. It seems this will be a pretty interesting fly-on-the-wall discussion at *that* BoD meeting.

I also had a hypothetical discussion with an NER steward about my thoughts on "civil disobedience." He agreed that it puts the club in a tight spot: allow me to race with the device contrary to the GCR and he gets his and the region&#39;s butt handed to him; make me remove it and I get hurt and the club as a whole in is trouble. He also pointed out that if he allows me to race and I still get hurt they&#39;re probably ALL in trouble...

I&#39;d suggest continuing with emails clearly stating your reasons for opposition. In the end it may do nothing more than delay the implementation, but at this point time is a good thing in order to encourage discussion and options...

Greg