NASAs H&NR rule

[lateapex911]

If you didn't know, NASA just jumped in the SFI pool even deeper with their Head and Neck restraint rule requiring a 38.1 standard meeting device. (HANS, R3, etc,) which essentially takes what many believe is the best unit, the Issac off the shoulders of racers. Up fronty, I should point otu that I am biased, and feel the Issac delivers better protection for our type of racing and impacts.

It's interesting to me for several reasons.
1- NASA did it first. Often they follow SCCAs lead
2- Will we see other clubs (PCA, etc) folow NASAs lead?
3 - Will the SCCA decide that if NASA is doing it then they must, or they will be thought of as negligent?

Whats the IT.com take on this?

Is it a good thing to mandate a device like this?

My take is that the 38.1 approved devices are known for being good in straight on crashes, but poor performers is side and more complex hits, and to remedy that, special seats with lateral "halos" are suggested, along with specific belts, in some cases. So the requirement represents a large expenditure, roughly $1400 dollars.
The requirement also makes the use of other systems know for superior lateral performance and equal or better straight on performance illegal.
Net net is that to meet the 38.1 peformance specs, you'd need to spend $400 - $800 , but to comply with the fulll 38.1 spec, you're looking at $1400 or so,(to attain equivilent protection).

I was considering, at Dave grans urging, going to NASAs Hyperfest this year. Now, thats a definate "not going to happen". I wonder how many racers will be put in a huge financial bind by this rule?

[mbuskuhl]

Would anyone disagree any H&N is better than no H&N? That's probably opening a can of worms.

I was going to get an ISAAC last year, then because of the NASA proposed rule went HANS. This isn't about which is better though, that's another topic. NASA also implemented the right side head restraint which is accomplished with a right side net or seat bolster, this was done last summer to address side impact crashes.

I would disagree Jake that this will be a huge financial bind. First, everyone should already have some type of H&N, if you are driving around with your head ready to flop, well... not a good idea. Second, what's the cost, a set of tires? I read HANS has a new version coming out in early January for $695, haven't looked into it though. There are all also 5 other devices besides HANS that currently have SFI approval.

I would not be surprised at all to see other organizations follow this, if it actually happens, it's not officially set to take place until June 2, 2008. I think the frustration lies with some not that an H&N is going to be required, but that some good options like the ISAAC are not acceptable. Can ISAAC get FIA approval? Are there other H&N devices with FIA and not SFI? I think NASA would amend the rules to take an FIA device.

NASA is looking at making racing safer, some may disagree with the wording of the new rule (SFI) but they are taking steps in the right direction with this, and other things.

[lateapex911]

NASA is working to protect it's money. (IMO, but I bet that the discussion centered around "risk management" and they weren't talking about the racers risk...)

Isaac can not meet the Spec, as it fails to meet two requirements:
1- single point of release means the device must be free and unencumbered when teh harness is released, and..
2- the spec requires specific architecture, including a "yoke".

As for expense, in my case, it will be pricy to attain the same level of performance that I have now, as an Isaac wearer.... as i will need to buy a device that matches the Isaac bumbers, and if thats not possible, then I need to supplement that device in other ways. To wit, and HANS or and R3 with a new seat.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It doesn't surprise me it isn't a hot topic here. IT cars don't fit well into PT so NASA isn't a primary blip on the radar of an IT driver.

Now if the SCCA goes this route, this server will overheat.... :024:

[Speed Raycer]

I was all excited to run with NASA this spring when they finally made inroads into my area of the Midwest with an event at Gateway. Already have my membership and was in the process of filling out the license paperwork. Now, I doubt I'll do it. New halo seat... no thanks, RSN... maybe, new HNR... no can do.

I've had my Isaac for at least 3 or 4 years now. Shame on me for thinking ahead.

[pgipson]

Would anyone disagree any H&N is better than no H&N? That's probably opening a can of worms.
[/b]

I'll go on record as having doubts about the need in our type of racing for H&NR systems as currently designed. The loads these devices are designed for are pretty high. The testing is all done on head-on impacts and there is little data I've seen to show safety advantages for side loads.

I'm sure Mr. Baker will be along shortly :114:

[tom91ita]

i think it is important to discuss here since there will be likely be more pressure on SCCA to adopt something.

i have starting drafting a letter and will be getting it out tonight or tomorrow. i am assuming that this should go to the BOD but will also send it directly to my local director. if any ITAC members want a copy, PM me here.

i have a good horse collar (SFI approved, just not the right one) and have specifically delayed getting a H&NR since i don't know what will be approved by both or if i will have to chose one outfit or the other.

so although i do not really care from a financial aspect, i feel strongly that the general wording as outlined by several at the "sandbox" should let the Isaac be used even if ultimately i do not buy one.

[planet6racing]

I'll go on record as having doubts about the need in our type of racing for H&NR systems as currently designed. The loads these devices are designed for are pretty high. The testing is all done on head-on impacts and there is little data I've seen to show safety advantages for side loads.

I'm sure Mr. Baker will be along shortly :114:
[/b]

Really? Next time Mr. Baker does a crash test, go see it. For the 50g pulse at Wayne State University, the sled is only moving 35 mph.

Additionally, most of the testing is done in offset conditions, not head on. I'll let Gregg fill in more.

[mbuskuhl]

IT cars don't fit well into PT so NASA isn't a primary blip on the radar of an IT driver.

[/b]

Common misconception. IT cars fit just fine in PT, in fact requiring nothing more than additional safety requirements. Crazy Joe who took 3rd this year? Andy, you even said "Joe's ITA car fits fairly well in PTE". IT cars won't be front runners unless changes are made to them, that I agree with. Changes can be simple as tire size/brand, ballast +/-, removing an OEM spoiler, and more. It may not be a blip on the radar in IT strong parts of the country (NE), but other parts NASA is attracting IT cars. Just take a look at where the posting happens in the regional forum section on this site. A little skewed? It's not all like the NE.

Number of Posts
NorthEast Division IT - 13,164
SouthEast Division IT - 4,926
MidWest, Central & Great Lakes Div - 3,211
RockyMtn & SouthWest Div IT - 265
North & South Pacific Div IT - 404

[spnkzss]

I think it should be discussed more here and not because we have a lot of cross overs. I think the sport itself has obviously started the movement and it is only a matter of time before every organization will require something.

Now I will come right out and say that I am an Isaac owner. I have been trying to be non biased about this. It is not quite working, but I'm close.

What I propose is we discuss the ramifications and the solutions to the H&N debate FOR SCCA. Forget what NASA is doing EXCEPT that they have stepped up and mandated something. That means SCCA will not be far behind. Not because SCCA follows, but for the lawyer (what is driving this everywhere) reason.

How would you right a rule for SCCA. It's coming, we all know it, how can we make the lawyers, the organization, AND the drivers happy?

Here I will start. I think there is a small list of acceptable H&N devices out there right now. Forget the SFI requirement. I think the list of acceptable H&N devices needs to be listed BY NAME in the GCR. As new devices come onto the market, drivers/members need to work with the manufacturer to PROVE their device is worthy and "they" (drivers/manufacturer) needs to apply for acceptance the same way you would classify a car. This acceptance is based on third party sled tests. Can it perform, could it save a life? Those should be teh only questions that need to be "proven".

When it comes to enforcement, enforce it the same way you enforce the suit/gloves/underwear/shoes/socks/helmet. At your annual you have to have it with your gear and checked off. Enforce it by doing random checks like NASA will do with socks on occasion.

I may be over simplifying it. Please blow my idea apart, but I believe "we" (racers) should not sit back and let the organization create the rule without our input. Let's help them.

[tom91ita]

Common misconception. IT cars fit just fine in PT, in fact requiring nothing more than additional safety requirements. ....[/b]

well they fit fine in that you have a place to run.

but my ITB/H5 1st gen crx si ends up in PTD since it starts with two ** to start vs. the 2nd gen crx si ITA/H4 starts with one *.

some fit better than others and some prep things add points that are not justified.

but at least my tires fit fine and you don't need the toyos.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Common misconception. IT cars fit just fine in PT, in fact requiring nothing more than additional safety requirements. Crazy Joe who took 3rd this year? Andy, you even said "Joe's ITA car fits fairly well in PTE". IT cars won't be front runners unless changes are made to them, that I agree with. Changes can be simple as tire size/brand, ballast +/-, removing an OEM spoiler, and more. It may not be a blip on the radar in IT strong parts of the country (NE), but other parts NASA is attracting IT cars. Just take a look at where the posting happens in the regional forum section on this site. A little skewed? It's not all like the NE.

Number of Posts
NorthEast Division IT - 13,164
SouthEast Division IT - 4,926
MidWest, Central & Great Lakes Div - 3,211
RockyMtn & SouthWest Div IT - 265
North & South Pacific Div IT - 404 [/b]

I disagree. I have run the numbers for a variety of ITA cars. The SE-R/NX2000 happen to have a favorable base class that slots them into PTE where they should be. They are the anomoly.

When you max out IT prep, it puts you at a competive disadvantage in PT - and that is OK! If you max out your PT car to whatever class you want to run, you are at a competitive disadvantage within the SCCA's structure. Two different animals.

The point was simple, IT is an SCCA class which doesn't have a direct slot over in NASA. I bet the vast majorty running dedicated IT cars don't frequent NASA races. It's not a shot at anyone - just why you don't see the kind of activity here on the subject as you do over in the Sandbox.

And to the post counts - they mirror membership numbers - at least for the SCCA.

I would run a NASA event or two if they just had a direct classing like I proposed on their site:

ITR ---> PTC

ITS ---> PTD

ITA ---> PTE

ITB and ITC ---> PTF

[tom_sprecher]

I bet the vast majorty running dedicated IT cars don't frequent NASA races. It's not a shot at anyone - just why you don't see the kind of activity here on the subject as you do over in the Sandbox.

And to the post counts - they mirror membership numbers - at least for the SCCA.[/b]

Having spent some time recently in the sandbox I would have to agree. Not to hijack the topic but it appears there may be a different demographic there as well.

Also, the post counts reflect to a large extend population density.

[gran racing]

I was considering, at Dave grans urging, going to NASAs Hyperfest this year.[/b]

Waaaaaait! Jake, I am urging you to attend the SCCA Labor Day double at Summit Point this year, not Hyperfest. Awesome, awesome, awesome event! Put it on your calendar. Maybe we can get someone here to save us a paddock spot?


Just take a look at where the posting happens in the regional forum section on this site. A little skewed?[/b]

That really doesn’t mean much. Remove Jake G., Andy and myself and those stats go way down.


well they fit fine in that you have a place to run.[/b]

I absolutely agree. Some IT cars would do well, some are poorly classed such as Tom and mine. Then again, I’ve never sent in a letter requesting NASA to look at my car closer and re-evaluate it. I distinctly remember my car being originally classed in ITA where it was way out of wack too.

Should an H&N system be a requirement?

My opinion is it should not.

[erlrich]

Waaaaaait! Jake, I am urging you to attend the SCCA Labor Day double at Summit Point this year, not Hyperfest. Awesome, awesome, awesome event! Put it on your calendar. Maybe we can get someone here to save us a paddock spot?[/b] Dave, you let us know who and how many, and we'll make sure you have space. It may be back in the woods, with the trolls, but heck they even have electricity now so it shouldn't be too bad :D You would just have to remember to not wander around after dark.

As to the H&N issue, I had never really considered NASA an alternative (since I don't drive an H car), but I still think this sets a bad precedent, and I can assure you we'll (SCCA) see this issue pop up again in the very near future.

[gsbaker]

I think you are going to see a lot of activity on this subject very soon.

[Knestis]

Sorry, what was this thread about? :blink:

I'm so freakin' tired of the SFI issue right now, I'm not even going to start here but Andy's right about the maxed-out IT-to-PT crossover issue. I had to run on 205s rather than 225s with my ITB Golf, to even stay in PTE.

You CAN RUN anything. You can't always run competitively but that's fine, if that's the way NASA wants it.

And in terms of crossover, there are a few of us who regularly do NASA events. I won't be, once the new H&N rule goes into effect.

K

[tom_sprecher]

I had considered running a NASA event if it was held at Road Atlanta at a convenient time financially and I could convince some of my friends to race too but since they all run formula I doubt that would ever happen.

With the HNR requirement I will stick to SCCA and so will a portion of my entry fee.

The requirement of an HNR is inevitable but after listening to some in the sandbox I think I want the option to choose from all available to the public.

[cmaclean]

I see this as 99.999% positive. The one and only blip is that there are safety devices out there that are perfectly safe and are better than the SFI certified ones and those are now illegal. If it wasn't for Greg being a smart guy and inventing such a useful device I don't really think anyone would have any valid complaints. If only the SFI would take off their blinders and remove the "single-point-of-release" nonsense we'd be golden. Since when does "unbuckle your belts, unclp your radio, unplug cool suit, remove window net, open door" constitute a single point!!!

[gran racing]

Wahoo! I&#39;ve gotten my single point release H&N undone but now am stuck trying to get out of the car wearing my HANS. <_<

[DavidM]

Let&#39;s see:

Option 1 - Leave the rule the way it is. H&N are recommended and a SFI labeled (I refuse to say certified) device is recommended. We&#39;d like you to wear a H&N, but you don&#39;t have to and, if you do, it be nice if it was SFI, but doesn&#39;t have to be.

Option 2 - H&N are required and SFI is recommended. You have to wear a H&N device and SFI is nice, but not required.

Option 3 - H&N are required and here is the list of allowed devices. You have to wear a H&N device and here are the devices we allow you to use.

Option 4 - H&N are required and the device has to be "certified" (whatever that means) by the SFI, FIA, or RSI.

Option 5 - H&N restraints are required and the device has to meet the SFI performance specification (and here are a list of devices that meet this spec). You have to wear a H&N device and that device has to meet a certain level of performance. [ Note: This does not require the device to have a SFI label, just that it has been proven to meet the performance requirements of SFI.]


Any of these would allow the Issac and other non-SFI devices. Option 4 seems shaky to me as RSI doesn&#39;t appear to be much of an organization at this point and it would probably be hard to show the "power" of their certification. Options 1 and 2 essentially allows you to use whatever device you want. Option 3 would give SCCA control over what devices are allowed, but means SCCA has to come up with some criteria for allowing said devices. Option 5 is similar to 3, but implies the use of the SFI performance criteria to be on the approved list.

I personally don&#39;t think H&N restraints should be mandated. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s smart to not use one, but I don&#39;t think it should be mandated. I could see changing the wording to "highly recommended", but stop short of requiring, and leave the recommended for SFI. If SCCA wants to require H&N restraints then I think there are several methods to allowing devices other than just SFI ones.

David

[JoshS]

I see this as 99.999% positive. The one and only blip is that there are safety devices out there that are perfectly safe and are better than the SFI certified ones and those are now illegal. If it wasn&#39;t for Greg being a smart guy and inventing such a useful device I don&#39;t really think anyone would have any valid complaints. If only the SFI would take off their blinders and remove the "single-point-of-release" nonsense we&#39;d be golden. Since when does "unbuckle your belts, unclp your radio, unplug cool suit, remove window net, open door" constitute a single point!!!
[/b]
Actually, I just looked up the actual wording. It doesnt&#39; say that there must be a single point of release. All it says is that the H&N restraint must not ADD any additional points of release.

"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."

[Quickshoe]

Okay, I&#39;ve been accused of not being able to think outside of the box before---so here it goes:

If not using anything at all or a HANS requires ONE point of release, how do you satisfy the wording of 38.1 WITHOUT having a "single point of release" ?

[mbuskuhl]

IT is an SCCA class which doesn&#39;t have a direct slot over in NASA.
[/b]


Correct, and they shouldn&#39;t. They have a place for all IT cars to run as is (+ safety requirements). NASA does not need to cater to SCCA rules and the opposite is just as true. With a NASA car, your only choice is really ITE (called ITO or ITU IIRC in some parts of the country) or SP (regional class some may have). With an SCCA car, there are numerous PT classes allowing you a better chance to run with similar cars and be competitive as is. I don&#39;t think you would propose any of the NASA classes to translate to SCCA classes so it is not right for the opposite.

[Knestis]

...as RSI doesn&#39;t appear to be much of an organization at this point and it would probably be hard to show the "power" of their certification.[/b]

Sorry but that&#39;s REALLY interesting to me. Tell me where the "power" of SFI&#39;s certification comes from?

I&#39;ll give you a clue - it&#39;s spelled out PRECISELY how much SFI certifies H&N systems, in another thread right near here... :)

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Correct, and they shouldn&#39;t. They have a place for all IT cars to run as is (+ safety requirements). NASA does not need to cater to SCCA rules and the opposite is just as true. With a NASA car, your only choice is really ITE (called ITO or ITU IIRC in some parts of the country) or SP (regional class some may have). With an SCCA car, there are numerous PT classes allowing you a better chance to run with similar cars and be competitive as is. I don&#39;t think you would propose any of the NASA classes to translate to SCCA classes so it is not right for the opposite. [/b]

Except that the IT rules are stable. Each class has a defined performance envelope. It would be easy to slot the cars in as I have suggested. The &#39;problem&#39; with PT is that each class has an infinate amount of performance possibilities. I believe it will have a &#39;popularity ceiling&#39; because every time you get to a big event, somebody will have created another &#39;combination&#39; that wasn&#39;t previously thought of.

But this isn&#39;t, nor has it ever been an SCCA vs. NASA thing. Each has it&#39;s own niche and that is fine. Just commented on why the H&N wasn&#39;t getting much play here. It&#39;s simple, most IT racers don&#39;t race with NASA as their primary organization because of the competitivness of the classings. Now on the Honda board...different story.

[DavidM]

Sorry but that&#39;s REALLY interesting to me. Tell me where the "power" of SFI&#39;s certification comes from?

I&#39;ll give you a clue - it&#39;s spelled out PRECISELY how much SFI certifies H&N systems, in another thread right near here... :)

K
[/b]

If you say something is SFI certified most people will know who that is and go "Okay. This piece of equipment must be alright to use." If you say something is RSI certified, they&#39;re going to go "I&#39;ve never heard of them. What other organizations recognize their certification?" and so on.

Do I like it? No. I think it sucks that there&#39;s essentially a monopoly on racing safety specs. We&#39;ve seen how that works. But I can understand someone&#39;s concern over using what is pretty much an unknown organization for specifying safety equipment.

You&#39;ll get no argument from me on the SFI "certification". You&#39;ll notice in my previous post I didn&#39;t use the word certify when it came to the SFI.

I think there are many ways to write a rule to allow non-SFI H&N devices. Unfortunately, up this point, it seems that SCCA leadership is more interested in trying to explain why non-SFI devices shouldn&#39;t be allowed instead of figuring out how to allow them. That is my biggest concern and I hope it changes.

David

[pgipson]

I think there are many ways to write a rule to allow non-SFI H&N devices. [/b]

SCCA doesn&#39;t need a rule to allow a non-SFI labeled H&NR device. Since the use of such a device is voluntary and SCCA has not mandated that any device used must meet any specific labeling requirement, the use of non-SFI recognized devices is perfectly acceptable.


Unfortunately, up this point, it seems that SCCA leadership is more interested in trying to explain why non-SFI devices shouldn&#39;t be allowed instead of figuring out how to allow them. That is my biggest concern and I hope it changes.[/b]

I&#39;m sorry, but I don&#39;t understand that comment. The 2008 GCR says


9.3.19. DRIVER’S SAFETY EQUIPMENT
The following required equipment shall be in good condition and free of defects, holes, cracks, frays, etc.
A. Driving suits ...Certification Patch.
B. Crash helmets ...The use of a head and neck support system is highly recommended. ...Freon based total loss helmet cooling systems are not allowed.[/b]

How does that imply resistance to non-SFI labeled devices?

In my opinion, when this issue came up last time, the club heard from individuals that wanted alternatives to an SFI device and they listened.

[lateapex911]

Because there was a rule change on the books that was going to mandate that IF a H&NR was used, that it must be SFI. That was voted down by the BoD, presumabley because of member pressure, but it left a mark on many who remember it.

The fear is that with NASA mandating SFI devices, SCCA will return to that position, or go further and require an SFI device.

[pgipson]

The fear is that with NASA mandating SFI devices, SCCA will return to that position, or go further and require an SFI device.[/b]

Clearly most of us don&#39;t know what sort of pressure SCCA may come under to require an SFI labeled device, and what their response to that pressure may be. But maybe the best action is to proactively remind the BoD and the CRB that SCCA members want a choice that includes devices that do not carry the SFI label.

After all, SCCA drivers are smarter than NASA drivers and don&#39;t need a nanny to hold their hand :114:

[gsbaker]

Clearly most of us don&#39;t know what sort of pressure SCCA may come under to require an SFI labeled device, and what their response to that pressure may be. But maybe the best action is to proactively remind the BoD and the CRB that SCCA members want a choice that includes devices that do not carry the SFI label.

After all, SCCA drivers are smarter than NASA drivers and don&#39;t need a nanny to hold their hand :114:
[/b]
I&#39;m glad someone said that.

While it&#39;s easy to bitch and moan, we need to appreciate that sanctioning bodies are caught between a rock and a hard place. The may feel pressured to meet an industry standard to cover their butts, but if they publicly admit they are adopting a "standard" to cover their butts it could come back to haunt them--especially a substandard standard.

I suspect the SCCA is more supportive of the members&#39; side of this than most members appreciate.

[Z3_GoCar]

If you didn&#39;t know, NASA just jumped in the SFI pool even deeper with their Head and Neck restraint rule requiring a 38.1 standard meeting device. (HANS, R3, etc,) which essentially takes what many believe is the best unit, the Issac off the shoulders of racers. Up fronty, I should point otu that I am biased, and feel the Issac delivers better protection for our type of racing and impacts.

It&#39;s interesting to me for several reasons.
1- NASA did it first. Often they follow SCCAs lead
2- Will we see other clubs (PCA, etc) folow NASAs lead?
3 - Will the SCCA decide that if NASA is doing it then they must, or they will be thought of as negligent?

Whats the IT.com take on this?

Is it a good thing to mandate a device like this?

My take is that the 38.1 approved devices are known for being good in straight on crashes, but poor performers is side and more complex hits, and to remedy that, special seats with lateral "halos" are suggested, along with specific belts, in some cases. So the requirement represents a large expenditure, roughly $1400 dollars.
The requirement also makes the use of other systems know for superior lateral performance and equal or better straight on performance illegal.
Net net is that to meet the 38.1 peformance specs, you&#39;d need to spend $400 - $800 , but to comply with the fulll 38.1 spec, you&#39;re looking at $1400 or so,(to attain equivilent protection).

I was considering, at Dave grans urging, going to NASAs Hyperfest this year. Now, thats a definate "not going to happen". I wonder how many racers will be put in a huge financial bind by this rule?
[/b]

I like to say too late. BMW Club Racing already requires a SFI approved H&N restraint and as of last year right side nets too. So if I race with BMW club at a SCCA sanctioned event such as the Spring Vintage Festival at Laguna Seca, then I need to bring my R3 with me, and also install right side nets now. I find it silly to argue that we as roadracers don&#39;t need this type of protection as several BMW club racers have died from basial skull fractures over this organizations short history. One occured at Buttonwillow during a test and tune day, when safety checking is at a minimum. I find it rather unfortunate that the Issacs system isn&#39;t on the approved list, but I am sure that the device that I purchased will protect me as well and actually has some pluses over a standard HANS type set up, such as working with my 3" harness and also not comming loose from stretched belts. As for the deal with the SFI, it&#39;s all a legal shell game designed to shift blame and minimize risk by a de-facto risk transfer strategy. I don&#39;t like it, but if it keeps our organization and safety equiptment manufactures in bussiness, I accept it as it is.

James

[gran racing]

I find it silly to argue that we as roadracers don&#39;t need this type of protection [/b]

Where is the line drawn? Why not mandiate this for PDXs / HPDEs? Need belts for that to happen? So what, make them get that type of protection and a H&N. Many people are using hand held fire bottles in their cars. Why not require a full fire system? As part of tech, why aren&#39;t we timing how long it takes for people to actually get out of the car with their eyes closed? There are numerous things that could be done to make racing safer; does that mean they should all be required? I think a H&N should be encouraged but not mandated. I for one normally find that my tow to & from the track to be the scariest part of my race weekend.

It&#39;ll be interesting to see what happens as we get closer to the summer effective date of this rule (will it actually happen?) and how it could impact the entries of NASA racers.

[pgipson]

Just in case anyone is wondering, I AM on vacation and ALL my Christmas shopping is finished. And it&#39;s to cold to work on the race car (hell, it&#39;s hardly 60 out there :P ). Therefore I have time to play on here today :114:


It&#39;ll be interesting to see what happens as we get closer to the summer effective date of this rule (will it actually happen?) and how it could impact the entries of NASA racers.[/b]

Observing the level and tone of discussion on the corporate nasa forum, it seems that everyone that comments is pretty much already committed to a HANS. Of course, comments negative toward nasa don&#39;t last long, but given their rules treatment the last few years (2 yrs on belts and window nets, mandatory right side nets, spec tires in most classes, elimination of classes, now SFI 38.1) I think the stragglers have been beaten into submission.

Unlike SCCA where lively debate is the expected norm.

[snk328is]

I just wanted to chime in and say that I recently looked into joining NASA because they are in the process of creating a spec series very similar to Spec E30, but for an E36 instead. I own a 325 so I was very excited, but then I heard about the SFI 38.1 requirement. That pretty much killed it for me. Unless they allow the ISAAC as an exception, I won&#39;t be partaking.

I don&#39;t own an HNR at the moment (been on hiatus the last two years) but I plan on buying one next year when I finally start racing again and I refuse to buy a HANS. I&#39;m planning on buying an ISAAC.

Nobu

[lateapex911]

If I were you I would forward that message to NASA...

[snk328is]

If I were you I would forward that message to NASA...
[/b]

I emailed the guy who is writing the rules for the new Spec3 series, but haven&#39;t written to anybody else in particular. I posted on their forum in the appropriate threads as well.

Any suggestions as to who else might be interested to know?

[gsbaker]

Contact information is here. (http://www.nasaproracing.com/aboutnasa/regions.html)

Thanks for letting your feelings be known.

[snk328is]

Contact information is here. (http://www.nasaproracing.com/aboutnasa/regions.html)

Thanks for letting your feelings be known.
[/b]

So Greg, is there any way you guys can join SFI and get the stupid design requirement to be changed? Sorry if the answer is somewhere out there on the Internet but I don&#39;t have the time to go searching at the moment. How about getting approved for the FIA standard?

[gsbaker]

FIA told us in 2002 that they would not consider new designs (they have a ton invested in the old one), and they have not.

SFI specs are voted on by the manufacturers only. How do you think that would work out? I don&#39;t want to insult people&#39;s intelligence, but it is naive in the extreme to think we would be welcomed in that camp. Besides, our lawyers don&#39;t like the idea.

Sanctioning bodies being sued will change it.

[924Guy]

Great, meantime we&#39;re lucky to get another year out of our superior devices? I&#39;m still wondering when my off-season upgrade budget is going to get sucked up by an overpriced piece of CF and the ISAAC goes on the shelf... :unsure:

[snk328is]

FIA told us in 2002 that they would not consider new designs (they have a ton invested in the old one), and they have not.

SFI specs are voted on by the manufacturers only. How do you think that would work out? I don&#39;t want to insult people&#39;s intelligence, but it is naive in the extreme to think we would be welcomed in that camp. Besides, our lawyers don&#39;t like the idea.

Sanctioning bodies being sued will change it.
[/b]

So are we basically waiting for somebody with a HANS (or similar 38.1 HNR) to get killed, and then count on that unfortunate person&#39;s family to sue?

Sorry to be blunt and a little extreme in my example, but my point is that while we wait for a lawsuit like the above or even some kind of class action lawsuit, nevermind the kind of money involved in something like that, wouldn&#39;t it be in your company&#39;s best interests to court other SFI manufacturers and try to "work with them"?

What does your CFO think about the viability of ISAAC as a company while it weathers the storm of major sanctioning bodies "joining the bandwagon"? Can it survive an extended legal battle? Can it survive on SCCA customers alone?

Don&#39;t get me wrong, I&#39;m still going to buy the ISAAC. However, as a potential user about to invest in a technology, I have a more than small interest in making sure my investment stays protected and more importantly, supported (replacement parts, spare parts, upgrades) and improved for the foreseeable future. I don&#39;t want to be stuck with a Betamax VCR.

Sorry for my naiveté but as an outsider to this whole deal, I&#39;m just expressing how one person might see the situation.

[lateapex911]

I&#39;m just guessing here, but I tend to doubt that Gregg is speaking based on suppositions. We really don&#39;t know what he&#39;s done, who he&#39;s called, etc in his day to day work. I imagine though, that he&#39;s been in contact with SFI, other SFI manufacturers of H&NR products, and snactioning bodies as well. Who knows, I could be wrong, and he could be sitting around eating Bon Bons and surfing YouTube and "gridgirls.com" all day!

You can see how the SFI does business...there is a certain "good ole&#39; boy" way about it.

[JoshS]

So are we basically waiting for somebody with a HANS (or similar 38.1 HNR) to get killed, and then count on that unfortunate person&#39;s family to sue? [/b]
I can&#39;t believe this. You really think that SFI devices are unsafe, don&#39;t you,despite acres of evidence to the contrary?

Look, I&#39;m not saying that the Isaac isn&#39;t also safe. But all of the innuendo suggesting that you&#39;ll die with any other system is just crazy talk.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I can&#39;t believe this. You really think that SFI devices are unsafe, don&#39;t you,despite acres of evidence to the contrary?

Look, I&#39;m not saying that the Isaac isn&#39;t also safe. But all of the innuendo suggesting that you&#39;ll die with any other system is just crazy talk. [/b]

No, but I think the point is that in some situations the data shows that the ISAAC can be better than the HANS. The beef then becomes simple. A sanctioning body has just &#39;required&#39; me to use a H&N system that was not my first choice and was &#39;better&#39; for the reduction of injury that I could or have just sustained. That to me is a dangerous proposition. This industry is just not right for a &#39;requirment&#39;.

[snk328is]

I can&#39;t believe this. You really think that SFI devices are unsafe, don&#39;t you,despite acres of evidence to the contrary?

Look, I&#39;m not saying that the Isaac isn&#39;t also safe. But all of the innuendo suggesting that you&#39;ll die with any other system is just crazy talk.
[/b]

I do not believe SFI 38.1 certified devices are unsafe. If you got that impression from my postings, I would like to set the record straight that that is not my opinion.

Rather, I believe that I can get better protection from the ISAAC device and my problem with SFI 38.1 is the fact that because of a minor technicality, the ISAAC is excluded. I would like to participate with NASA and their new Spec3 series, but unless they allow the ISAAC, they won&#39;t be seeing my membership dues or racing license dues.

[gsbaker]

So are we basically waiting for somebody with a HANS (or similar 38.1 HNR) to get killed, and then count on that unfortunate person&#39;s family to sue?

Sorry to be blunt and a little extreme in my example, but my point is that while we wait for a lawsuit like the above or even some kind of class action lawsuit, nevermind the kind of money involved in something like that, wouldn&#39;t it be in your company&#39;s best interests to court other SFI manufacturers and try to "work with them"?

What does your CFO think about the viability of ISAAC as a company while it weathers the storm of major sanctioning bodies "joining the bandwagon"? Can it survive an extended legal battle? Can it survive on SCCA customers alone?

Don&#39;t get me wrong, I&#39;m still going to buy the ISAAC. However, as a potential user about to invest in a technology, I have a more than small interest in making sure my investment stays protected and more importantly, supported (replacement parts, spare parts, upgrades) and improved for the foreseeable future. I don&#39;t want to be stuck with a Betamax VCR.

Sorry for my naiveté but as an outsider to this whole deal, I&#39;m just expressing how one person might see the situation.
[/b]
Great post. I should take this opportunity to thank everyone--users, non-users, and especially those who intend to be users--for working so hard trying to find a way to make this happen.

First, don&#39;t worry about Isaac. Of all the segments of all the markets, amateur road racing is about as small as it gets. Our CFO sleeps very well and grins like a drunken monkey. Aerospace programs average about seven years to ramp up, and arthroplasty-type medical devices don&#39;t offer solid feedback until 10+ years. Isaac will be around for a very long time. In ten years all head and neck restraints will be of the Isaac style.

In the short term:

1) NASA erred in this decision, for purely tactical reasons, and will probably reverse itself by June. The error was in not following SCCA&#39;s lead. Why? Because risk management of this sort depends on following the industry standard, and when it comes to amateur road racing SCCA is the industry standard. It is the 800# gorilla.

2) Someone is going to get hurt. Soon. And it will deal with the release issue. Just as an example, check this thread: specmiata.com (http://forum.specmiata.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/2/3779.html#000022). For over five years we have been actively telling anyone who will listen that the philosophy on this subject is wrong. Apparently, input more graphic is required.

3) SFI ain&#39;t cutting it. Santioning bodies are behind the RSI model. That&#39;s where future standards efforts will reside.

4) In spite of what Jake said, I do not eat bon bons and watch YouTube. I eat potato chips and watch YouTube. There are standards, ya know.

[erlrich]

Just as an example, check this thread: specmiata.com (http://forum.specmiata.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/2/3779.html#000022). [/b] Wow - anyone interested in this debate should read this thread; one HANS user comments about how he CANNOT get out of his seat without detaching the teathers first, and another driver talks about how he couldn&#39;t get out of his upside-down car until he took his helmet off. While I have no doubt the HANS is an excellent device for preventing H&N injuries during an accident, it&#39;s what it does for you after the accident that concerns me.

[Grumpy]

A quote from Jerry Kunzman from before the 38.1 mandate.

Hello All,

Please allow me to explain an important point here. We (NASA) have discussed the idea of mandating head and neck restraint systems for a while now. The problem is that if we mandate use of a system (any), then it leaves the door open for any homemade contraption that may arise; thus putting the onus our tech inspectors.

If we specified certain models, we would be 1) lobbied by other manufactures to include their devices and 2) lobbied by competitors to allow use of other devices not on the list or have their choice added to the list. In the latter case, the disallowance of a particular personal safety device is not a smart move and could even be a liability.

The answer is the use of standards, such as SFI. Before SFI came out with 38.1, we were in a real bind. Now all we have to do is refer to that standard, when we go to a mandate. That takes a lot of the liability off of NASA and the onus off the inspectors. Most importantly, it should also give the racers some level of comfort knowing that at least the device they have chosen meets with some known standards. This is the same with belts, helmets, and other safety equipment.

Now, down to brass tax: when and what. “When” will be determined by a number of factors, and a large factor is “industry standard.” When a safety mandate becomes industry standard, we should follow suit. As for “what,” it will be devices that have SFI tags (or possibly FIA, if they come out with something). It is our hope that more devices become approved and prices come down before mandating use of a system becomes “industry standard.”

For those of you that have a concern, I sympathize with you. It’s a balance between budget and your personal safety. You may want to bite the bullet and get a safety device now even if there is a chance you may have to discard it later. It’s your safety. If you are really that concerned, then take chance… by not taking any chances. Buy one now and use it to save your neck not your wallet. If you are not concerned, that’s a valid personal choice; and you should have no problem at this point.

Lobbying sanctioning bodies, such as NASA to allow the use of other devices without SFI tags (after a mandate takes place) is pointless. We will be using a standard or standards along with the mandate. So, if you want to lobby, you can either lobby the manufactures to get their devices certified by SFI, or lobby SFI, FIA, etc. for different criteria used in certification, so as to get more devices to pass.

Lastly, there are a number of devices on the market. We have no way of knowing which ones were submitted for testing. Testing costs a good deal of money and it’s up to the manufactures to decide if they want to pay it and have theirs tested. The test results belong to those that pay to have the test done. So, disseminating the fact that a device failed is not likely.* The bottom line is that we don’t know which other devices have been tested or will be tested. It is possible that a lot of devices have not yet been submitted for testing.

I am sorry that this is long, but I am hoping that it will explain our position. This may be posted elsewhere and/ or forwarded; however I ask that nothing be taken out of context (please publish the whole section or message).

Jerry Kunzman
Executive Director
National Auto Sport Association

[pgipson]

A quote from Jerry Kunzman from before the 38.1 mandate.

Hello All,

Please allow me to explain an important point here. We (NASA) have discussed the idea of mandating head and neck restraint systems for a while now. The problem is that if we mandate use of a system (any), then it leaves the door open for any homemade contraption that may arise; thus putting the onus our tech inspectors.

If we specified certain models, we would be 1) lobbied by other manufactures to include their devices and 2) lobbied by competitors to allow use of other devices not on the list or have their choice added to the list. In the latter case, the disallowance of a particular personal safety device is not a smart move and could even be a liability.

The answer is the use of standards, such as SFI. Before SFI came out with 38.1, we were in a real bind. Now all we have to do is refer to that standard, when we go to a mandate. That takes a lot of the liability off of NASA and the onus off the inspectors. Most importantly, it should also give the racers some level of comfort knowing that at least the device they have chosen meets with some known standards. This is the same with belts, helmets, and other safety equipment.

Now, down to brass tax: when and what. “When” will be determined by a number of factors, and a large factor is “industry standard.” When a safety mandate becomes industry standard, we should follow suit. As for “what,” it will be devices that have SFI tags (or possibly FIA, if they come out with something). It is our hope that more devices become approved and prices come down before mandating use of a system becomes “industry standard.”

For those of you that have a concern, I sympathize with you. It’s a balance between budget and your personal safety. You may want to bite the bullet and get a safety device now even if there is a chance you may have to discard it later. It’s your safety. If you are really that concerned, then take chance… by not taking any chances. Buy one now and use it to save your neck not your wallet. If you are not concerned, that’s a valid personal choice; and you should have no problem at this point.

Lobbying sanctioning bodies, such as NASA to allow the use of other devices without SFI tags (after a mandate takes place) is pointless. We will be using a standard or standards along with the mandate. So, if you want to lobby, you can either lobby the manufactures to get their devices certified by SFI, or lobby SFI, FIA, etc. for different criteria used in certification, so as to get more devices to pass.

Lastly, there are a number of devices on the market. We have no way of knowing which ones were submitted for testing. Testing costs a good deal of money and it’s up to the manufactures to decide if they want to pay it and have theirs tested. The test results belong to those that pay to have the test done. So, disseminating the fact that a device failed is not likely.* The bottom line is that we don’t know which other devices have been tested or will be tested. It is possible that a lot of devices have not yet been submitted for testing.

I am sorry that this is long, but I am hoping that it will explain our position. This may be posted elsewhere and/ or forwarded; however I ask that nothing be taken out of context (please publish the whole section or message).

Jerry Kunzman
Executive Director
National Auto Sport Association
[/b]


E-mails and internet forums will be the trial lawyers feeding grounds.

[spnkzss]

Lobbying sanctioning bodies, such as NASA to allow the use of other devices without SFI tags (after a mandate takes place) is pointless. We will be using a standard or standards along with the mandate.


Jerry Kunzman
Executive Director
National Auto Sport Association
[/b]


AGAIN, I understand that the sanctioning bodies are stuck between a rock and a hard place, but that is a very close minded statement. If our "leaders" can&#39;t be open minded about all things then it is kind of hard make the club better. It is ok for the sanctioning bodies to be firm with their decision, but to come out and say that if you try to do something else and try to change our minds it is pointless, well.... <_<

[snk328is]

AGAIN, I understand that the sanctioning bodies are stuck between a rock and a hard place, but that is a very close minded statement. If our "leaders" can&#39;t be open minded about all things then it is kind of hard make the club better. It is ok for the sanctioning bodies to be firm with their decision, but to come out and say that if you try to do something else and try to change our minds it is pointless, well.... <_<
[/b]

To add to the above, doesn&#39;t NASA have any influence on organizations like SFI?

I know the SCCA has its problems, but as it pertains to this HNR issue, I think they did the right thing by not requiring SFI 38.1... for now.

Perhaps now is the time for SCCA racers to begin lobbying the people who they can influence most readily. Those peers who don&#39;t own an HNR, are on the fence as to which HNR to invest in and those who are thinking of getting into racing.

[Knestis]

Posted in its entirety from elsewhere...

I can see how Jerry came to his conclusion but I would respectfully submit that it lacks any substantive consideration of a few important issues.


...if we mandate use of a system (any), then it leaves the door open for any homemade contraption that may arise; thus putting the onus our tech inspectors. [/b]
Absolutely agree but to suggest that this is what those opposed to alignment with SFI are proposing is ludicrous. Arguing against well-reasoned objections by suggesting we&#39;re proposing that people be allowed to duct tape their helmets to their rollcages (a real example from this debate) is disingenuous in the extreme.


If we specified certain models, we would be 1) lobbied by other manufactures to include their devices and 2) lobbied by competitors to allow use of other devices not on the list or have their choice added to the list.[/b]
Again - that makes complete sense. But, again - that&#39;s NOT what&#39;s being proposed. To keep arguing against propositions that haven&#39;t been made is either intellectually dishonest or represents a lack of understanding of what IS being proposed.


...the disallowance of a particular personal safety device is not a smart move and could even be a liability.[/b]
This is partially correct and finally gets to the point some of us are trying to make: To disallow any particular device that has demonstrated superior performance in the same lab tests as those applied to those with 38.1 stickers is begging for a suit. This is the root of the contention that, very unfortunately, someone MAY have to do so before the sanctioning bodies will consider other options. That does NOT have to be the case, but that&#39;s the ultimate outcome absent any other consideration by NASA, et. al.


The answer is the use of standards, such as SFI. ... Now all we have to do is refer to that standard, when we go to a mandate.[/b]
This is a VERY important passage. It&#39;s a window into what Jerry (therefore NASA) and others think SFI 38.1 actually is. There is indeed a performance standard embedded in the licensing and marketing language and functions of 38.1 but it&#39;s a small portion of what gives 38.1 (and any other SFI spec) "policy power." The term "industry standard" is meaningless in this situation, by the way. 38.1 is a "standard" accepted by a group within the auto racing industry, created primarily to enact trade and marketing functions within the market. Insert your favorite VHS/Beta argument here only if you are willing to abrogate the moral high ground of actually keeping racers safer.


For those of you that have a concern, I sympathize with you. It’s a balance between budget and your personal safety.[/b]
...and sadly, this is evidence that the point is being completely missed here. I would gladly spend another $700 or whatever if I believed that what I was buying provided me with the best safety available. I will NOT go willingly to the store to spend that amount to make myself LESS safe, just to satisfy a less-than-well-considered effort on the part of some to avoid liability, and a decades-old effort to buy exclusivity in a portion of the racing market.


We will be using a standard or standards along with the mandate.[/b]
And this is all that we are asking - that NASA, SCCA, and the rest mandate the use of head and neck restraint systems that have demonstrated, under the same test conditions in the same labs, at least the minimum performance required by the text of 38.1. Set free the marketing and trade functions of SFI. Failure to do this suggests that the ultimate point here is not our safety, but is in fact some other motivation.


We have no way of knowing which ones were submitted for testing. Testing costs a good deal of money and it’s up to the manufactures to decide if they want to pay it and have theirs tested. The test results belong to those that pay to have the test done. So, disseminating the fact that a device failed is not likely.[/b]
The exactly describes the current situation with SFI, which appears to be of no concern. Again - either there&#39;s a real misunderstanding of how their system works, or someone is hoping we&#39;ll ignore it. An RSI-like system would daylight that information, taking SFI&#39;s licensing restrictions out of the picture, providing racers with actual test results. How can that be a bad thing for us?

If anyone wants to argue the proposition in bold above, please do. We (okay, "I" if nobody else gives a damn) want to understand what reasonable objections would have to be worked through for this kind of policy to come about. And please don&#39;t think this is just about H&N systems. How are you going to feel about SFI rollcages if you stay in the sport long enough?

K

EDIT - the more I puzzle on these issues, the more I&#39;d like to see the licensing agreement that sanctioning bodies sign with SFI. I would not be surprised if there were a clause in there that stipulated that, in order to invoke SFI standards (1) the organization must be a member, and (2) that by becoming a member, they effectively agree to NOT allow the approval of non-SFI-member manufacturers&#39; products. It&#39;s probably put in nicer terms but functionally, this wouldn&#39;t surprise me at all. Again - make charges of black helicopters but only if you are willing to provide me with a copy of that licensing agreement to demonstrate how wrong I am. What I describe is completely consistent with the functions of 38.1 and my personal experiences with SFI.

[Speed Raycer]

Insert your favorite VHS/Beta argument here [/b]

Interesting to note that BETA was actually a far superior quality, but us consumers know what happened there. BETA was (and still is in some areas) the broadcast industry standard until digital came along. The pro&#39;s knew what was better but the masses got to use the lesser version

[spnkzss]

To add to the above, doesn&#39;t NASA have any influence on organizations like SFI?

[/b]

Actually, no. From what has been stated in quite a few places over the last few weeks, the manufacturers set the standard with SFI. "They" work to decide what "minimum" spec "they" need to abide by. And that right there is what the main argument is with SFI....period.

[lateapex911]

Except that, there are those who proclaim to be in the know, (a HANS rep) that state the 38.1 spec was NASCAR driven.

(Now, a simpleton look shows the HANS to be pre-existing and NASCARs involvement to be that of a big bear leveraging the existing HANS product into "spec", but then perhaps I&#39;ve been watchng too many "Bourne Identity" movies...)

In the end, this is a big onion, and it&#39;s very multi layered. Howver, the more you peel, the worse it smells.

[JohnRW]

Interesting to note that BETA was actually a far superior quality, but us consumers know what happened there. BETA was (and still is in some areas) the broadcast industry standard until digital came along. The pro&#39;s knew what was better but the masses got to use the lesser version
[/b]

Nope nope nope nope nope nope nope. Gotta correct you here, lest this become a "fact, due to repetition".

Beta - as in BetaMax the home VCR tape format - was dead long before BetaCam - a completely different tape format - got full traction as a broadcast format.

While they share the same size cassette and the same width tape, they&#39;re COMPLETELY different formats.

The success of VHS is largely due to price...and the porn industry (really). Sony perceived an image problem in that industry, and dissuaded (in subtle ways) distributors from using BetaMax. VHS had an open door at that point. If you want to see the future in consumer technology, just keep an eye on the porn industry...really.

(next year will be my 30th in broadcast TV...25 of&#39;em as "Chief Engineer", "Dir. of Engineering" or "VP Engineering" in assorted places.)

[spnkzss]

In the end, this is a big onion, and it&#39;s very multi layered. Howver, the more you peel, the worse it smells.
[/b]

And I thought it was allergy&#39;s that were making my eyes water. ;)

[gsbaker]

E-mails and internet forums will be the trial lawyers feeding grounds.
[/b]
Pgipson gets it.

[Grumpy]

Pgipson gets it.
[/b]

Does anyone really believe that NASA did this without consulting their "risk management" people. You may not like what they have come up with but I think they thought this out.

[lateapex911]

Jim, of COURSE they "thought this one out"....and of course it was decided by risk management.

Thats the point. They are taking the path that they perceive to be safest....for the organization. And, by their admission, they are following the herd

(and yes, I expect to hear the arguement that "for the organization" is for the racers, because if there is no organization, there is no racing, but NASA is a profit driven organization, so the motives aren&#39;t so clear)

What many are saying is that the bottom line to many racers is a huge expense, just to take a big step backwards in real safety.

And when we talk about what will REALLY happen in court, it gets all cloudy.

I, for one, don&#39;t think that, if required, you&#39;d find many risk management types who would risk their salaries on their prediction of what might happen in certain court room scenarios...the "legal bet"

.....but we are being told we must spend our salaries ....when we know we&#39;re less likely to win the safety bet.

[Knestis]

Ask Jerry to get you a copy of the sanctioning body version of the SFI licensing agreement, that NASA signed onto when it became a member. Read it critically, asking yourself what each clause attempts to accomplish. (It wouldn&#39;t hurt my feelings to be able to see it but I&#39;ll bet you a nice dinner in Danville that SFI will be VERY reluctant to make it public. Ask yourself what that means, too.

And ask if NASA&#39;s "risk management people" got to review all of the licensing agreements - including the manufacturers&#39; version - before endorsing the idea.

K

[Grumpy]

Ask Jerry to get you a copy of the sanctioning body version of the SFI licensing agreement, that NASA signed onto when it became a member. Read it critically, asking yourself what each clause attempts to accomplish. (It wouldn&#39;t hurt my feelings to be able to see it but I&#39;ll bet you a nice dinner in Danville that SFI will be VERY reluctant to make it public. Ask yourself what that means, too.

And ask if NASA&#39;s "risk management people" got to review all of the licensing agreements - including the manufacturers&#39; version - before endorsing the idea.

K
[/b]

And you do the same with SCCA. Then we&#39;ll compare notes.

P.S. Where in Danville can you get a nice dinner. :114: :023:

[pgipson]

Does anyone really believe that NASA did this without consulting their "risk management" people. You may not like what they have come up with but I think they thought this out.[/b]

Nahh, thinking it out implies full understanding of the ramifications of all actions (remember the Law of Unintended Consequences). My guess is that NASA painted themselves into a corner. They were thinking they could continue to impose rule upon rule on their Customers (it worked with all the rest -- why not this?). They had, after all, given fair warning in the past that this is what they would do. After publicly stating such, they were stuck. Can&#39;t back down now.

They have built a pretty solid bedrock of "NASA does no wrong" adherents. And, along the way, found effective ways to marginalize their critics. And they have implemented quite a few restrictions that have been accepted by most of their participation base (spec tires, right side nets, seat bolsters, 2 year window nets, 2 year belts, lats minute rules changes, lax rule enforcement, lack of adequate "due process"). And while most of their participants will probably embrace this new rule (and the others to follow) a few will grumble and complain and look for alternatives.

What&#39;s interesting is that the NASA business model is totally non-dependent on racers for sustainability (at least that seems to me to be a very obvious conclusion). Yet their primary customer base is least well served by their adoption of safety standards. At the very least one would expect that NASA will have to, at some point, require all HPDE and TT participants to wear some sort of H&NR system that is independent of racing shoulder harnesses.

It would be interesting to know who they use as their "in house" counsel and what other role that person (or firm) may play. You often find risk mitigation activities are managed solely by the legal staff, and I don&#39;t think NASA has much in the way of "technical" staff. I would hazard a guess that risk management is delegated exclusively to their liability underwriters.

[Grumpy]

It would be interesting to know who they use as their "in house" counsel and what other role that person (or firm) may play. You often find risk mitigation activities are managed solely by the legal staff, and I don&#39;t think NASA has much in the way of "technical" staff. I would hazard a guess that risk management is delegated exclusively to their liability underwriters.
[/b]

Instead of hazarding a guess of this, why don&#39;t you contact them and ask and then tell us what you have learned?

[pgipson]

Instead of hazarding a guess of this, why don&#39;t you contact them and ask and then tell us what you have learned? [/b]

For a public organization that would be a sound recommendation, but NASA is a private company. I would expect their response (as would be mine) would be "None of your business". So why go to the bother. It&#39;s only an academic question anyway, as the answer has no bearing on the subject under discussion.

[Knestis]

Figured I&#39;d go for the Hail Mary first. Who knows - weirder things have happened and I might be completely underestimating the current SFI administration...

To: [email protected]
Re: Membership agreements

As a NASA and SCCA member, I would be very interested to read the agreements
that these organizations entered into, to become SFI member sanctioning
bodies. Would that be possible? I would equally enjoy the chance to review
the terms of manufacturer membership - the licensing agreement described in
the various spec&#39;s - again, if an example could be made available?

If you aren&#39;t able to provide these, can I get them from the clubs and
manufacturers?

Thanks in advance,

Kirk Knestis (a longtime racing safety nerd)

[lateapex911]

Mr Knestis:

Thankyou very much for your interest in the SFI. The items you refer to are legal documents and are considered private matters between the signed parties..

Thankyou for your interest, and safe racing!
SFI

[Racerlinn]

Mr Knestis:

Thankyou very much for your interest in the SFI. The items you refer to are legal documents and are considered private matters between the signed parties..

Thankyou for your interest, and safe racing!
SFI
[/b]

PS - go F yourself.
:P

(Kirk, I personally appreciate your continued fight on this - you do it very well and are able to vocalize points in a much better manner than a lot of us that agree with you. My letter to SCCA is on the way).

[lateapex911]

Just to be (extra ) clear, That&#39;s not what I want you to get in return, kirk, but, sadly, that&#39;s what i&#39;d bet my money on.

I second the "attaboy" comments.

[JimLill]

Kirk, Your website doesn&#39;t get mentioned.........., so here:

http://www.headrestraint.org/

Some other info here:

http://www.trackpedia.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=120

and

http://www.trackpedia.com/wiki/Head_and_Neck_Restraints

[gsbaker]

I don&#39;t believe any agreement with the sanctioning body would be of that much interest. Of maximum interest is the question, Why join? Seriously. What possible benefit is there?

If you want to reference an SFI spec, just do it. How can a sanctioning body reduce its risk exposure by joining an organization that writes design specs for safety equipment? Good grief, writing the design spec carries more liability than manufacturing the product.

Does anyone "join" FIA? In like fashion, no one "joins" RSI.

(Kirk, da man! :026: )

[gsbaker]

Except that, there are those who proclaim to be in the know, (a HANS rep) that state the 38.1 spec was NASCAR driven.

(Now, a simpleton look shows the HANS to be pre-existing and NASCARs involvement to be that of a big bear leveraging the existing HANS product into "spec", but then perhaps I&#39;ve been watchng too many "Bourne Identity" movies...)

In the end, this is a big onion, and it&#39;s very multi layered. Howver, the more you peel, the worse it smells.
[/b]
The HANS and Hutchens devices were in use in NASCAR post Earnhardt. NASCAR wanted to get rid of the Hutchens (good idea) by a ban meant NASCAR was engaging in product evaluation (=risk). Enter SFI.

[gsbaker]

Does anyone really believe that NASA did this without consulting their "risk management" people. You may not like what they have come up with but I think they thought this out.
[/b]
With all due respect Jim, it was cursory at best. NASA said, "Hey, we need insurance," and went to a carrier(s) who asked, "Do you subscribe to the industry standard?" NASA said, "Sure. We&#39;re even members of SFI." The carrier looked around, saw a bunch of SFI labels and cashes the premium check.

The carrier did not ask, "You guys wouldn&#39;t be engaging in gross negligence by way of ignoring safer products just so you could CYA with a label, would you?" Why did they not ask this question? Because gross negligence leads to punitive damages and, in most states, insurance carriers are not allowed, by law, to cover punitives--it won&#39;t cost them a dime extra.

A jury comes back with $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and the carrier says, "Here&#39;s your check." The jury then adds $20,000,000 punitive and the carrier says, "Good luck, and have a nice day."

And heaven help any NASA officers/agents/stockholders/franchisees who may also be HANS/R3 dealers.

Someone needs to get their head in the game.

[Knestis]

...Of maximum interest is the question, Why join? Seriously. What possible benefit is there? ...[/b]
That&#39;s what I&#39;m trying to understand. My education has left me solidly of the belief that language matters, and that it&#39;s possible to make sound inferences from documents re: the actual intentions of a person or organization. It is NOT incidental, for example, that only a relatively small portion of the actual text of 38.1 describes the test protocol and thresholds. SFI wouldn&#39;t have gone to all of the trouble to put the rest of that stuff in there if it didn&#39;t matter to them. I&#39;m hoping that the licensing agreements will help clarify the bigger picture - the "why join?" question included. The answer to that particular question then gets at the real motives of the sanctioning bodies and manufacturers, and there&#39;s a chance that racers won&#39;t be thrilled to understand them.

(Disclaimer - I DO have preconceived notions about what we might find in those docs, based on my personal experiences and evidence to this point. It&#39;s been pointed out that my suppositions aren&#39;t enough, however so we go looking for the actual factual.)

Contrary to the belief of some, I don&#39;t actually think there&#39;s some giant conspiracy driving sanctioning bodies&#39; decisions on safety equipment. I frankly think that they just do the easiest thing and cross their fingers. Following "industry standards" becomes a game of monkey-see, monkey-do.

And to hopefully dispel an assumption that might underly some comments here, I am NOT framing this as a NASA-vs.-SCCA thing. I think I&#39;ve demonstrated no ironclad loyalty to one or the other: I&#39;m an equal-opportunity critic. :) Each sanctioning body is in a different place in terms of their expectations of safety gear - NASA got out in front on seats and right-side nets, for example - and progress on this front is a good thing. They are also very different kinds of organization, which bears on the policies and practices of each.

Each has however opted to join SFI. It will be informative to the discussion to find out what they agreed to, and maybe why they did so.

K

[tom_sprecher]

Contrary to the belief of some, I don&#39;t actually think there&#39;s some giant conspiracy...[/b]

Whatever happened to Mattberg? :lol:

In restrospect he did offer a different viewpoint and was entertaining at times. In a way I kinda miss him and kinda don&#39;t.

[gsbaker]

Contrary to the belief of some, I don&#39;t actually think there&#39;s some giant conspiracy driving sanctioning bodies&#39; decisions on safety equipment.[/b]
Agreed. I suspect that, at one time, sanctioning bodies found an affiliation with SFI to be an asset. That is no longer the case.

[lateapex911]

And to hopefully dispel an assumption that might underly some comments here, I am NOT framing this as a NASA-vs.-SCCA thing.
K [/b]

I agree with that. NASA might have, for whatever reasons, done it first, but I think SCCA made a feeble attempt to do something similar even earlier. But the wording of the proposed rule was absolutely bass ackwards. (It recommend that you use a device, but if you did, it must be 38.1. Which meant that anyone currently using a davice had to take it off if it wasn&#39;t 38.1)

I think the BoD got hit with a groundswell of opposition, and backed down.

But, I fear it is only time until the other shoe drops.

This SFI/liability issue isn&#39;t limited to any single sanctioning body, it&#39;s systemic.

[lateapex911]

Whatever happened to Mattberg? :lol:

In restrospect he did offer a different viewpoint and was entertaining at times. In a way I kinda miss him and kinda don&#39;t.
[/b]

According to the records, he was here at 12:26PM, EST, on 12/31/07.

[JimLill]

Another related org

http://www.motorsportsafety.org/index.php

[Grumpy]

With all due respect Jim, it was cursory at best. NASA said, "Hey, we need insurance," and went to a carrier(s) who asked, "Do you subscribe to the industry standard?" NASA said, "Sure. We&#39;re even members of SFI." The carrier looked around, saw a bunch of SFI labels and cashes the premium check.
The carrier did not ask, "You guys wouldn&#39;t be engaging in gross negligence by way of ignoring safer products just so you could CYA with a label, would you?" Why did they not ask this question? Because gross negligence leads to punitive damages and, in most states, insurance carriers are not allowed, by law, to cover punitives--it won&#39;t cost them a dime extra.

A jury comes back with $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and the carrier says, "Here&#39;s your check." The jury then adds $20,000,000 punitive and the carrier says, "Good luck, and have a nice day."

And heaven help any NASA officers/agents/stockholders/franchisees who may also be HANS/R3 dealers.

Someone needs to get their head in the game.
[/b]

I can&#39;t believe you are posting what NASA said, not knowing what NASA said. I find this totally unprofessional. Your scare tactics are worse. I don&#39;t mind debating this with you but this is ridiculous.

Say what you want about this. I am done.

[gsbaker]

I can&#39;t believe you are posting what NASA said, not knowing what NASA said. I find this totally unprofessional. Your scare tactics are worse. I don&#39;t mind debating this with you but this is ridiculous.

Say what you want about this. I am done.
[/b]
Don&#39;t shoot the messenger. Do you want to hear it from me or someone else?

[jjjanos]

Actually, I just looked up the actual wording. It doesnt&#39; say that there must be a single point of release. All it says is that the H&N restraint must not ADD any additional points of release.

"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]

Here&#39;s a dirty little secret...If I release my belts wearing an ISSAC or a HANS Device, I have disengaged the HaNRS in a manner satisfying the requirements given above. The SYSTEM is disengaged. It is inoperative. It is NFG.

So, either ISSAC is crying foul for no reason other than not wanting to pay the per unit fee or SFI is certifying devices in an arbitrary and capricious manner. BOTH systems are disengaged when the belts are released.

[jjjanos]

Does anyone really believe that NASA did this without consulting their "risk management" people. You may not like what they have come up with but I think they thought this out.
[/b]

I think the odds are not as low as you would like to believe. I&#39;ve worked NASA events as a flagger and if their "risk management" people saw what happens on track and how the folks in the tower deal with it, their "risk management" people would have heart attacks.

No enforcement of the no passing under a yellow rule.
About 10 cars blowing 2 flag stations displaying red and spinning into the grass at Summit Point&#39;s Turn 8 to avoid the traffic stopped there, yet not one of those drivers were punished for endangering workers or fellow drivers.

[lateapex911]

Here&#39;s a dirty little secret...If I release my belts wearing an ISSAC or a HANS Device, I have disengaged the HaNRS in a manner satisfying the requirements given above. The SYSTEM is disengaged. It is inoperative. It is NFG.

So, either ISSAC is crying foul for no reason other than not wanting to pay the per unit fee or SFI is certifying devices in an arbitrary and capricious manner. BOTH systems are disengaged when the belts are released.

[/b]

I&#39;ll bite. I know you have some legal chops, but...

let&#39;s say I am Isaac. I&#39;ve paid my SFI membership fee. (presuming they accept me)
I submit my product. Do you think it will pass?? Really? Do you think the SFI is going to agree with your definition of their rule? I seem to recall that, somewhere in their specs, they reserve the right to refuse "certification", and they don&#39;t need to justify that refusal to anyone.

Further, the specs go on to use the term "main unit" when describing the design architecture of the device. Perhaps I&#39;m being simple, but to my eye, the Isaac doesn&#39;t have a "main unit" ...

Don&#39;t you think Isaac would have submitted the device if it thought there was a snowballs chance in hell it would pass? Gregg might be a bit boisterous in his online presentation, but I&#39;ve never thought he was an idiot.

I also seem to recall somewhere in the hundred threads on this over almost 5 years, the Gregg has stated that he has had discussions with SFI, and they have told him not to bother, the Isaac will not be considered in it&#39;s current design. Gregg please correct me, as I would not want to speak out of place.

[jjjanos]

Oh, I know where the blame lies - SFI. I only included all options to forestall people providing them for me.

The language is very clear - the system (not the driver) must be disengaged. It is in the ISAAC. That means SFI is being arbitrary. That&#39;s a serious no-no and, having had my annual anti-trust lecture, smells of a trade organization (SFI) boycotting a particular company. The "reserve the right" language doesn&#39;t get them out of the pickle, especially since sanctioning bodies are using SFI as a standard.

It means that the standard isn&#39;t a standard. It is what SFI wants to certify as passing the specification and there goes the legal cover for the sanctioning bodies.

[gsbaker]

It means that the standard isn&#39;t a standard. It is what SFI wants to certify as passing the specification and there goes the legal cover for the sanctioning bodies.[/b]
Thank you.




Gregg might be a bit boisterous in his online presentation...[/b]
I should tone that down. But it&#39;s hard to resist pounding the table when you hear the whistle blowing--that would be the whistle of the oncoming train, which has a headlight that is being mistaken for the light at the end of the tunnel.


I also seem to recall somewhere in the hundred threads on this over almost 5 years, the Gregg has stated that he has had discussions with SFI, and they have told him not to bother, the Isaac will not be considered in it&#39;s current design. Gregg please correct me, as I would not want to speak out of place.[/b]
Correct.

[JohnRW]

"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 haven&#39;t looked it up, but Josh posted ^^^this^^^ language as from the spec.

So...now somebody is trying to craft an argument that Isaac actually does meets this requirement, because the spec requires just the "system" to be released, and that system "release" does not necessarily include actually letting a driver get out of the car. Let&#39;s see...belts are released, your head is still screwed inside a helmet, which is still attached to the belts...but it shouldn&#39;t be a problem cuz DAMMIT, YOU&#39;RE RELEASED.

Wow. Stay away from court rooms. In fact, stay away from sharp objects. Maybe stick to finger paints.

Mr. Baker - didn&#39;t you previously (a few years ago...) engage in racing web-board discussions about how you had a fix "in the works" for this "single release" issue ? What became of that ?

[Knestis]

... having had my annual anti-trust lecture, smells of a trade organization (SFI) boycotting a particular company. The "reserve the right" language doesn&#39;t get them out of the pickle, especially since sanctioning bodies are using SFI as a standard.

It means that the standard isn&#39;t a standard. It is what SFI wants to certify as passing the specification and there goes the legal cover for the sanctioning bodies.[/b]
"Quoted for truthiness" - S. Giles

This whole issue spins around the word "standard" like an axis. We need to be a LOT more clear - regardless of which side of the various issues we fall on - about how we are defining this term. "Design, performance, and licensing terms agreed to by a portion of the suppliers in a market" defines a very different axis, than does "maximum acceptable neck load under a defined test protocol."

K

[tom91ita]

"maximum acceptable neck load under a defined test protocol."[/b]

i really like this. i think i will borrow and expand it. ;)

[jjjanos]

So...now somebody is trying to craft an argument that Isaac actually does meets this requirement, because the spec requires just the "system" to be released, and that system "release" does not necessarily include actually letting a driver get out of the car. Let&#39;s see...belts are released, your head is still screwed inside a helmet, which is still attached to the belts...but it shouldn&#39;t be a problem cuz DAMMIT, YOU&#39;RE RELEASED.

Wow. Stay away from court rooms. In fact, stay away from sharp objects. Maybe stick to finger paints.[/b]

My apologies if the exact wording in what is required to pass the test offends you. The spec clearly says "system". It does not say "driver". The SYSTEM is only engaged when the belts are fastened.

When you are acting like the safety police and setting testable, reproducable requirements for devices that meet the requirements you set, the exact wording of what you require is the ONLY thing that matters because the wording of the standard is GOSPEL.

If SFI wanted the driver&#39;s head/neck to no longer be attached to the vehicle upon release of the safety belts, then THAT is exactly what they should require. Requiring disengagment of the "system" is an entirely different kettle of fish.

The certification process is arbitrary, unscientific and non-reproducable. It smells of FTC violations.

[raffaelli]

Carefull...you might be out of context :026:





:lol: :lol: :lol:

[gsbaker]

The certification process is arbitrary, unscientific and non-reproducable.[/b]
That has always been the case.


It smells of FTC violations.[/b]
Any in particular? (Just making a list and checking it twice.) :114:

[Knestis]

I got a huge kick out of the suggestion that RICO might apply. :P Lots of legal chutes and ladders but 3x damages...?

K

[JohnRW]

I&#39;ll stick with my previous admonition regarding sharp things and paint.

[gsbaker]

Mr. Baker - didn&#39;t you previously (a few years ago...) engage in racing web-board discussions about how you had a fix "in the works" for this "single release" issue ? What became of that ?
[/b]
Yes, in 2005. We built two versions of an SFI-compliant Isaac system and tested at Wayne State and Delphi. We had the same results you get with any SFI design: Lateral load reduction is terrible, and the belts come off at Delphi.

It has been thoroughly documented that the SFI design is a lightweight concept from the last millennium. Please, no more e-mails suggesting how we can meet SFI specs. You&#39;ll have better luck contacting Ferrari with suggestions on how they can meet the Yugo spec.




I got a huge kick out of the suggestion that RICO might apply. :P Lots of legal chutes and ladders but 3x damages...?

K
[/b]
A civil filing will claim conspiracy. Whether the combination of bodies and money is sufficient to attract a politically ambitious federal prosecutor is another matter.

Now, back to sharp objects and finger paint. ;)

[leggwork]

as long as we&#39;re talking about imprecision in the spec leading to arbitrary decisions...



2.2 Separate Restraining Devices:
...
B. The main device shall be a mechanism held tightly to the driver&#39;s torso by
seat belts or other strap systems such that the reactive load carrying
components move directly with the torso and controls head, neck, and
torso relative positions during forward or off-center impact situations.[/b]
the hans does not technically move "directly" with the torso - the mechanism of action is to allow the shoulders to slide down the front arms a bit and the device stays back with the belts and the tethers tighten. Something like the R3 does move directly with the torso.




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.[/b]
does anybody seriously think that the Hans and R3 etc allow freedom of movement of the head under ALL race and associated conditions? e.g. entering the track at an angle and having to look over your shoulder, looking both ways in the paddock, etc. You can partially make up for those things with mirror placement and flaggers, but the device itself does not really pass this provision.

[gsbaker]

<blockquote> A stunned Brad Jones was trapped in the stricken car for several minutes. Rescue teams rushed to his aid as petrol poured out of the battered car. "You are just stuck in there," he said. "You feel absolutely helpless. You can&#39;t get out and I felt that if it burst into flames I just would have died." Jones said the compulsory Head And Neck Support (HANS®) safety device, a neck brace that limits the movement of a driver&#39;s head, had made it difficult for him to escape the car. "I unbolted myself and undid everything and I was standing on the door, but with the HANS® device you can&#39;t reach up to get out," he said. "It is a very claustrophobic thing and you can see liquid (petrol) coming out all over the place. I shut the engine down straight away, but of course everything is still pretty hot. I had to wait for someone to come and open the door for me." - Brad Jones, V8 Supercar driver, New Zealand, 2005</blockquote>

[JohnRW]

Yes, in 2005. We built two versions of an SFI-compliant Isaac system and tested at Wayne State and Delphi. We had the same results you get with any SFI design: Lateral load reduction is terrible, and the belts come off at Delphi. [/b]

Is this a failure of the SFI spec, or a failure of your design ? Other systems have passed these tests...how can that be "the same results you get with any SFI design" ? When you designed that system, what was your position on the system being "released" ? It certainly seems to have changed today.



It has been thoroughly documented that the SFI design is a lightweight concept from the last millennium. [/b]

Can you direct us to that documentation ? We would all like to see it.

[tom91ita]

JohnRW,

i interpreted his reply that the numbers achieved were similar to what the HANS and other current SFI approved achieved and had substantially higher side loads, etc. than the Isaac.

and i am not an Isaac owner (or any other H&NR), etc., just an interested observer.

i have to admit that each design seems to have major pros and cons but that is why i think the driver should be able to choose based on the whatever device has demonstrated to achieve certain loads using accepted testing methods. and based on the rest of the system they have in their car.

Kirk, you said it much better earlier.


"maximum acceptable neck load under a defined test protocol."[/b]

Tom

[gsbaker]

Is this a failure of the SFI spec, or a failure of your design ? [/b]
It&#39;s a failure of the SFI design. The spec includes design criteria, remember?


Other systems have passed these tests...how can that be "the same results you get with any SFI design" ?[/b]
Because "passing the test" means only Fz and My loads under the respective thresholds, which we can do. It does not, however, give any consideration whatsoever to the other seven primary head loads, the principle loads existing in the axial, sagittal and coronal planes at the head-neck junction, nor keeping the belts on the body. Niggly stuff like that.


When you designed that system, what was your position on the system being "released" ? It certainly seems to have changed today.[/b]
We were neutral on it. Initially we were for it (pre any design or testing), then EMTs convinced us otherwise, then we thought we should give the idea a chance, then we witnessed it not working and ran away as fast as possible.


Can you direct us to that documentation ? We would all like to see it.[/b]
Well, for those inclined toward the graphic, one could start with Chad McQueen&#39;s cervical spine X-rays. For the numerically inclined, we would suggest SAE paper #2006-01-3631, from which the following are extracted:

<div align="center">http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart10.GIF

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart9.GIF

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart17.GIF</div>

[M. Hurst]

. For the numerically inclined, we would suggest SAE paper #2006-01-3631, from which the following are extracted:....


[/b]

From SAE:

"SAE Home > Publications > Papers

SAE Technical Papers

Title: Comparative Performance of Racing Head and Neck Restraints
Document Number: 2006-01-3631

Author(s):
Gregg S. Baker "

[gsbaker]

From SAE:

"SAE Home > Publications > Papers

SAE Technical Papers

Title: Comparative Performance of Racing Head and Neck Restraints
Document Number: 2006-01-3631

Author(s):
Gregg S. Baker "
[/b]
Suggesting?

Should we ignore those papers authored by Hubbard?

[JohnRW]

It has been thoroughly documented that the SFI design is a lightweight concept from the last millennium. Please, no more e-mails suggesting how we can meet SFI specs. [/b]

I believe that M. Hurst&#39;s point is that, while you made the claim above, the only "documentation" you&#39;ve provided us is a document of YOUR presentation at an SAE conference. Where is the "thoroughly" part ?

Several posters here are in the academic world - isn&#39;t it true that it&#39;s actually considered unacceptable to cite your own work as proof/justification in your own work ? Haven&#39;t tenured professors been dismissed for precisely that ?

Your anecdotal comments aside, we can drawn no conclusions about the mechanisms of Chad McQueen&#39;s injuries, since he wasn&#39;t really a fully-instrumented test dummy, but rather just a driver involved in a horrific crash that caused him multiple grave injuries.

Your point ?

[jjjanos]

Several posters here are in the academic world - isn&#39;t it true that it&#39;s actually considered unacceptable to cite your own work as proof/justification in your own work ? [/b]

No. In many instances, a particular author may be the only person working in that area. AFAIK, there has been no article published or presented at a conference that refutes the evidence presented. That makes it definitive until challenged.

The HANS is designed to pass the "spec". Or, more accurately, the spec was designed to pass the HANS. HANS doesn&#39;t protect against lateral loads, so the spec ignores them.

[wepsbee]

Okay guys, I am totally lost. I am a Newbie in NYR with a grand total of 2 races in the books. I have a limited budget, ie no sponsors, but want to race safely. I do not have any H&R in the car now. Do I have to get a full blown system or can I reasonably become more protected with a cheaper system.

[leggwork]

here is a link to a page that discusses most of the alternatives
http://www.trackpedia.com/wiki/Head_and_Neck_Restraints



Okay guys, I am totally lost. I am a Newbie in NYR with a grand total of 2 races in the books. I have a limited budget, ie no sponsors, but want to race safely. I do not have any H&R in the car now. Do I have to get a full blown system or can I reasonably become more protected with a cheaper system.
[/b]





The HANS is designed to pass the "spec". Or, more accurately, the spec was designed to pass the HANS. HANS doesn&#39;t protect against lateral loads, so the spec ignores them.
[/b]


You know what is weird is that the earlier designs of the Hans had a large collar extending to the sides and provided lateral support. I&#39;m guessing that all the work in the 90&#39;s on formula-type cars which have inherent lateral support from the cowl got them off track (ha, ha)
bruce

[JohnRW]

No. In many instances, a particular author may be the only person working in that area. [/b]

Definitely not the case here.


AFAIK, there has been no article published or presented at a conference that refutes the evidence presented. That makes it definitive until challenged.[/b]

"IT" being what, exactly ? Nobody is challenging any data in his presentation. Mr. Baker made this statement:


It has been thoroughly documented that the SFI design is a lightweight concept from the last millennium. [/b]

OK...where is the thorough documentation ? Just his own paper presented at a conference ? Really ? That&#39;s it ?

I&#39;m curious about your statement here:


The HANS is designed to pass the "spec". Or, more accurately, the spec was designed to pass the HANS. HANS doesn&#39;t protect against lateral loads, so the spec ignores them.[/b]

I have previously been active in a large industry ANSI/ISO international standards organization, including serving several terms on it&#39;s international BOD. I&#39;m a little familiar with how standards evolve. That would be a pretty grave violation of standards development protocol. Yeah...I know...SFI doesn&#39;t claim to conform to ANSI or ISO requirements. But...you&#39;re suggesting an intentional act where lives (and not just money) are at stake. Is your statement above factual, or just a guess ? When the spec process started, did they even care about lateral loads ? Do they now ?

Regardless of whatever conspiracies we can imagine, I still have a fundamental problem (and apparently, SFI does too) with having your head & neck connected to the vehicle by a separate system that may not be as elastic as the rest of the "driver containment system".

[gsbaker]

"IT" being what, exactly ? Nobody is challenging any data in his presentation. Mr. Baker made this statement:
OK...where is the thorough documentation ? Just his own paper presented at a conference ? Really ? That&#39;s it ?[/b]
:lol: You didn&#39;t read it, did you? We did no testing whatsoever for that paper. It is a compilation of data from previous papers, most authored by Hubbard and Melvin, with a sprinkling of other tests thrown in.


I still have a fundamental problem (and apparently, SFI does too) with having your head & neck connected to the vehicle by a separate system that may not be as elastic as the rest of the "driver containment system".[/b]
Having a little trouble with the Fd=Cd*v part?

[wepsbee]

leggwork
Thanks for the help!!

[JimLill]

John,

Your writing bring up an interesting idea. Why shouldn&#39;t SFI be ISO 9000 certified? That would bring some independent oversight to this whole thing.........

ISO 9000 cert is not ISO standards, see

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/manag...0_iso_14000.htm (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_standards/iso_9000_iso_14000.htm)

After all, SFI is about what amounts to safety quality, quality is what ISO 9000 is all about

[gsbaker]

SFI isn&#39;t certified. I love it.

[JimLill]

You didn&#39;t read it, did you? We did no testing whatsoever. It is a compilation of data from previous papers, most authored by Hubbard and Melvin.
[/b]

While I know you can&#39;t post the entire paper due to the stingy SAE, as author surely you can post the Reference: listing

[JohnRW]

It has been thoroughly documented that the SFI design is a lightweight concept from the last millennium. [/b]

The statement above is, apparently, your own conclusion. Do any of the other authors in this discipline come to this same conclusion, including those you cite in your presentation ? If not, then "thoroughly documented" really falls apart.

Don&#39;t get smarmy. You made a very broad statement, and I asked to justify that broad statement. Who else actively working in this area has made the claim that 38.1 is a "lightweight concept from the last millennium" ?



Your writing bring up an interesting idea. Why shouldn&#39;t SFI be ISO 9000 certified? That would bring some independent oversight to this whole thing.........
[/b]

That&#39;s why I brought it up. IMO, SFI should be able to survive an ANSI audit on its standards processes. Can they ? Who knows. They would certainly be more credible if they carried an ANSI or ISO certification.

Snell Foundation seems to have ANSI certification (they allude to ANSI in some of their documents)...why shouldn&#39;t SFI ?

[gsbaker]

The statement above is, apparently, your own conclusion. Do any of the other authors in this discipline come to this same conclusion, including those you cite in your presentation ? If not, then "thoroughly documented" really falls apart.

Don&#39;t get smarmy. You made a very broad statement, and I asked to justify that broad statement. Who else actively working in this area has made the claim that 38.1 is a "lightweight concept from the last millennium" ?
[/b]
It&#39;s clearly a lightweight performance, and it&#39;s clearly from the last millennium. We&#39;re talking facts.

[Darryl Pritchett]

[quote]SFI isn&#39;t certified. I love it.

My question is Issacs ISO 9000 certified? They are in a manufactures role which is where the true origin of ISO9000 was founded.

[gsbaker]

While I know you can&#39;t post the entire paper due to the stingy SAE, as author surely you can post the Reference: listing
[/b]

Sources for Wayne State University Bioengineering Center tests:
1. Baseline: SAE Paper 2004-01-3516, Melvin et al
2. Hutchens: SAE Paper 2004-01-3516, Melvin et al
3. D-Cel: SAE Paper 2004-01-3516, Melvin et al
4. Wright: WSU test NCRST – 76
5. G-Force: Company advertising
6. White: Catchfence article of 6 August 2002
7. Isaac® Link™: WSU test NCRST – 148
8. HANS®: SAE Paper 2004-01-3516, Melvin et al
9. Isaac®: SAE Paper 2002-01-3306, Baker

Sources for SFI-Dlphi tests:
1. Baseline: Product Brochure, LFT Tech, Inc.
2. White: Delphi Test #IS2CF014
3. Leatt: Delphi Test #XXXXXXX
4. Isaac®: Delphi Test #IS5AF044
5. HANS®: Delphi Test #IS5BF006

These are the most recent papers. Their bibliographies reference works dating back 15-20 years.

[JohnRW]

It&#39;s clearly a lightweight performance, and it&#39;s clearly from the last millennium. We&#39;re talking facts.
[/b]

That&#39;s not an answer. You&#39;re good at non-answers. Are you being recreationally evasive, or do you have some "dirty little secret" ?

I&#39;m actually stunned that you&#39;re just discovering that SFI doesn&#39;t have ANSI or ISO standards certification. Is this Isaac thing a part-time job for you ?

[gsbaker]

That&#39;s not an answer.[/b]
You can&#39;t look at data and come to a scientific conclusion on your own? 90% of the readers here look at those load charts and say to themselves, "Damn, even the Leatt beats the HANS..." You wouldn&#39;t call that lightweight?

[Knestis]

Got my Happy New Year letter from NASA Mid Atlantic today. Here&#39;s my response to competition@, chris@, and [email protected]...

>> Racers, please remember that all NASA Competition Licenses expired on December 31st!!!

While I certainly don&#39;t expect that it will change anyone&#39;s mind about the policy, I&#39;m disappointed that the SFI H&N system mandate is going to keep me from competing in NASA events for the foreseeable future.

It might be that I know too much about SFI from past experiences with them but at the end of the day I&#39;m simply not comfortable under the circumstances, compromising the tested superior levels of performance afforded by my current system to "backdate" to an inferior product as demanded by the new rule. While my personal experience in the racing safety business tells me that it&#39;s not a critically considered decision, I do recognize the rationale behind the rule change and further understand that it&#39;s entirely my choice to not participate in NASA MA races. I&#39;m choosing my personal safety over races - and racers - that I&#39;ve enjoyed in the past, and I will miss them.

Under the circumstances, it really doesn&#39;t make sense to renew my membership and license either so I&#39;ll be letting both lapse. I remain hopeful that circumstances will change in the future and despite my deep doubts, sincerely wish that this situation works out for the best for all involved.

Regards,

Kirk Knestis

[Knestis]

...Several posters here are in the academic world - isn&#39;t it true that it&#39;s actually considered unacceptable to cite your own work as proof/justification in your own work ? Haven&#39;t tenured professors been dismissed for precisely that ? ...[/b]
As one of those academic types, I don&#39;t think that&#39;s what Gregg is doing, John. He&#39;s simply pointing us at the only published comparison of available data that&#39;s been made public, so far as I know (and I&#39;ve actually looked). From the abstract:

<blockquote>Subsequent to the presentation of papers regarding head and neck restraints at the 2002 and 2004 SAE Motor Sports Engineering Conference and Expositions, additional testing of both then-existing and newer designs has been conducted at multiple test facilities. This paper consolidates the results of those tests with the results of previous tests, published and unpublished. (Baker, 2006)</blockquote>
I&#39;ve never presented at SAE (have for national associations in my own field, though) so I don&#39;t know precisely what their review process is, but typically presented papers run through enough of a filter that crap doesn&#39;t get accepted. And SAE isn&#39;t a nickel-and-dime operation.

The problem that Gregg&#39;s paper is trying to overcome is the same that something like RSI would try to redress: Under the SFI regime, there&#39;s no incentive for any of the manufacturers - or for SFI - to provide any real data to the public. That some of the information shared here had to come from a manufacturer&#39;s advertising, and other from web news sources, is NOT a condemnation of Gregg&#39;s effort to pull together data: It&#39;s an indictment of the system that we&#39;re currently stuck with.

K

[tom91ita]

Kirk,

I would be very curious if you get any answer. I highly doubt it.

I wrote a letter last fall after the NASA Nationals because I was unhappy with the tires and contingencies. I wrote a letter to TOYO describing why I thought there should have been some type of contingency.

This was mostly because the Toyo Contingency offered for a Regional race with 3 competitors is more than that offered at the Nationals.

Regional Contingency:

5+ STARTERS: 1st = $150, 2nd = $100, 3rd = $75, 4th = $50, 5th = $25
4 STARTERS: 1st = $40, 2nd = $20, 3rd = $10, 4th = $5
3 STARTERS: 1st = $20, 2nd = $10, 3rd = $5

National Contingency: $0 (there is a minimum of 10 starters required to be eligible)

I waited over a month thinking I would at least get a "Thanks for your interest in Toyo Tires" letter and then forwarded a copy of the letter to several high level NASA folks.

I received one note back.

So I regret that I can not now say I will not be racing NASA in 2008 because of the H&NR because I already quit because of the tires. Although there was one race I was planning on due to the proximity to my house before the membership runs out.

I guess the H&NR is the icing on the cake.

Although I could remove the cage, netting, harness, etc. and run TT I suppose.

Tom


back on topic after a slight detour for tires above:

what is the percent of NASA on-track participants that are HPDE and TT vs. wheel to wheel?

because HPDE and TT are not required to use H&NR (or other gear other than stock), only wheel to wheel racers.

i think one reason that NASA is getting out the requirement on this is that it impacts a lower % of the membership right now. everyone knows that to go wheel to wheel, you need more gear and no one disputes that you need whatever is required for that class and thus is seen as more acceptable.

for example, i know that to take my IT car to Production requires a cell and fire system. that is known and it is my decision to make either way. it is a known requirement/cost to participate in that class.

my hypothesis is that the requirement of a H&NR is seen as less acceptable to the SCCA on-track membership since it will impact a much higher percentage, essentially all.

any thoughts?

tom

p.s., if i have misread the HPDE rules, I will edit/delete this post immediately.

[jjjanos]

Definitely not the case here.
"IT" being what, exactly ? Nobody is challenging any data in his presentation. Mr. Baker made this statement:
OK...where is the thorough documentation ? Just his own paper presented at a conference ? Really ? That&#39;s it ?[/b]

It - his article. The data have been presented at a conference. The data have not been challenged. They devices have been tested. How many authors need to perform the same tests? Unless they think the cited author is in error, they won&#39;t reproduce his results. If subsequent studies find identical results, the authors won&#39;t publish or present because conferences/journals want original work.



I have previously been active in a large industry ANSI/ISO international standards organization, including serving several terms on it&#39;s international BOD. I&#39;m a little familiar with how standards evolve. That would be a pretty grave violation of standards development protocol. Yeah...I know...SFI doesn&#39;t claim to conform to ANSI or ISO requirements. But...you&#39;re suggesting an intentional act where lives (and not just money) are at stake. Is your statement above factual, or just a guess ? When the spec process started, did they even care about lateral loads ? Do they now ? [/b]

SFI publishes standards that its members can satisfy or at a level that its members want. It is a membership organization and does not set independent standards. In fact, by its own admission, it sets standards both at the request of its members and with member input. This particular specification was instigated at the request of NASCAR with the almost certain intent of having an existing device meet that standard. NASCAR was interested in basal skull fractures as a result of numerous deaths of high-profile drivers impacting concrete walls in near perpendicular crashes. The goal was to provide CYA for those types of accidents.


Regardless of whatever conspiracies we can imagine, I still have a fundamental problem (and apparently, SFI does too) with having your head & neck connected to the vehicle by a separate system that may not be as elastic as the rest of the "driver containment system".[/b]

From where does this come? I believe the criticisms of the spec deal with the lack of lateral impact protection and the unneeded, counter-productive, and unwritten requirement that the driver must be free to exit the vehicle upon release of the belts.

[snk328is]

Got my Happy New Year letter from NASA Mid Atlantic today. Here&#39;s my response to competition@, chris@, and [email protected]...

>> Racers, please remember that all NASA Competition Licenses expired on December 31st!!!

While I certainly don&#39;t expect that it will change anyone&#39;s mind about the policy, I&#39;m disappointed that the SFI H&N system mandate is going to keep me from competing in NASA events for the foreseeable future.

It might be that I know too much about SFI from past experiences with them but at the end of the day I&#39;m simply not comfortable under the circumstances, compromising the tested superior levels of performance afforded by my current system to "backdate" to an inferior product as demanded by the new rule. While my personal experience in the racing safety business tells me that it&#39;s not a critically considered decision, I do recognize the rationale behind the rule change and further understand that it&#39;s entirely my choice to not participate in NASA MA races. I&#39;m choosing my personal safety over races - and racers - that I&#39;ve enjoyed in the past, and I will miss them.

Under the circumstances, it really doesn&#39;t make sense to renew my membership and license either so I&#39;ll be letting both lapse. I remain hopeful that circumstances will change in the future and despite my deep doubts, sincerely wish that this situation works out for the best for all involved.

Regards,

Kirk Knestis
[/b]

Kirk,

I wrote to Jerry Kunzman about SFI 38.1. At one point he offered to speak with me on the phone, as he stated he could not always put some things down in writing. (Liability reasons?) I did appreciate the fact that his responses were very quick and he seemed like he cared.

The general impression I&#39;m getting at this point in time is that NASA will not change their SFI 38.1 requirement (no big surprise) and no amount of lobbying will change anything.

I&#39;m going to begin focusing my precious time and energy beginning prepping for the 2008 race season (my first in ~2 years) and that means that I will be seeing some of y&#39;all in ITR!

Now my only problem is that there are hardly any IT racers in the Central Division, according to the 2007 results. Anybody know why? (I just moved to this area from New England.)

Nobu

[tom91ita]

...snip...
The general impression I&#39;m getting at this point in time is that NASA will not change their SFI 38.1 requirement (no big surprise) and no amount of lobbying will change anything. ...snip...
[/b]

the only change i would expect is if and when they extend it to TT and HPDE.

if you remove your safety equipment back to stock, you can run your car most likely faster and not use the H&NR. but you will have the TT stickers on your car.

on the one hand, i think NASA is getting out front on this by adopting something. whether SFI is the best or not is really another debate. but to have TT on track in some cars going 140+ and not need a H&NR and have to have it for my 105 mph car, just seems wrong.

i think i will get some "Isaac Equipped" type stickers made that say "TT Equipped" and put some TT stickers on top of my car. they must generate some type of force field at speed to need such minimal safety gear.

[Knestis]

...The general impression I&#39;m getting at this point in time is that NASA will not change their SFI 38.1 requirement (no big surprise) and no amount of lobbying will change anything. ...[/b]
He actually issued a written statement saying exactly that. Make no mistake - I&#39;m not trying to change his mind: I&#39;m just explaining why I&#39;m choosing to not run with NASA at this point. They make their choices and take what comes, so do I.

K

[924Guy]

It - his article. The data have been presented at a conference. The data have not been challenged. They devices have been tested. How many authors need to perform the same tests? Unless they think the cited author is in error, they won&#39;t reproduce his results. If subsequent studies find identical results, the authors won&#39;t publish or present because conferences/journals want original work.
[/b]

This is perhaps getting to the root of the most aggravating thing here... I think the strategy Hubbard/Downing et al are employing is to try to ignore challenging the ISAAC directly (which is to say, on technical merit), and simply undermine the ISAAC business case commercially - by forcibly taking away the market. They&#39;re very active at the top level in ensuring that all H+N specs are written to allow their device and explicitly exclude the ISAAC.

That&#39;s marketing strategy like Microsoft and Oracle use, pretty underhanded IMO. Maybe it&#39;s the engineer in me, but want to employ the best device based on a cost-effective evaluation of the technical merits of all available options. That&#39;s why I do have a permanently installed fire system, yet use the stock fuel tank designed by some very good German engineers some 30 years ago.

Hubbard/Downing, instead, appear to prefer to market to the end user (in addition to the aforementioned strategy) by getting all the "big name" safety experts - existing or created - on board with their product. And I do mean, "on board."

I have met and talked with both John Melvin and Tom Gideon; John is actually the Safety Chair and one of the DE instructors for my PCA region, and Tom I&#39;ve met through racing - NASA, specifically. I have the utmost respect for their experience, knowledge, and their efforts to improve racing safety (not to mention Dr. Melvin&#39;s efforts to teach my wife how to drive my racecar! ;) ).

Yet in asking both of them about the ISAAC, directly, I&#39;ve gotten nothing concrete in why a HANS is better, or why an ISAAC system is bad. Just hand-waving, "bad mojo" you-don&#39;t-wanna-use-that kinda stuff. Very disappointing. You really think this is over my head? Prove it!?! I&#39;ve even heard the same thing from someone else who just so happens to work in the crash sled at Wayne State - bad juju. WHY???

I&#39;m no child; don&#39;t patronize me.

I&#39;m mature enough to make the decision to get behind the wheel and put my life in danger with my hobby; respect me enough at least to allow me to decide on my own.

I guess that why, while he regularly oversteps the bounds between defending his design and marketing, I will continue to have appreciation for Gregg&#39;s contributions to this subject.

<\soapbox>

[Knestis]

I got a nice note from Jerry K. @ NASA today. I won&#39;t quote it since I didn&#39;t ask for permission to do so but he was respectful of my decision to opt out of running their events.

K

[spnkzss]

I was thinking about this and wondered, does anyone truly feel the ISAAC to be unsafe? Is there any liable reason sanctioning bodies couldn&#39;t include Isaac? State something like SFI 38.1 or Isaac? How many doors does that really open?

[downingracing]

Looking at the 38.1 definitions, how do the &#39;other&#39; H/R devices meet this:

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.

[lateapex911]

Matt, ask SFI to define "Free"...
I suspect you will get no answer, or a rather vague answer.

That&#39;s one of the issues with the spec...it&#39;s open to judgement, and the SFI is the judge, and the jury.

[Knestis]

I was thinking about this and wondered, does anyone truly feel the ISAAC to be unsafe? Is there any liable reason sanctioning bodies couldn&#39;t include Isaac? State something like SFI 38.1 or Isaac? How many doors does that really open?
[/b]

Viewed simplistically, I can understand how the sanctioning bodies want to be able to simply refer to "an industry standard." They are trying to avoid picking and choosing, or setting their own specifications, thinking that it puts them in a vulnerable liability position.

I personally think that they can get the butt-coverage that they need through more flexible - albeit more complicated - processes.

K

[spnkzss]

I personally think that they can get the butt-coverage that they need through more flexible - albeit more complicated - processes.

K
[/b]


As some have stated (whether the logic is right or not is irrelevant) that maybe the 38.1 isn&#39;t as butt saving as they think. If that is remotely true maybe the more complicated process for true butt covering is needed.

[gsbaker]

As some have stated (whether the logic is right or not is irrelevant) that maybe the 38.1 isn&#39;t as butt saving as they think. If that is remotely true maybe the more complicated process for true butt covering is needed.
[/b]
Good point. Like my Grandma used to say, "Make sure the light at the end of the tunnel is not the headlight of an oncoming train."

[spnkzss]

Good point. Like my Grandma used to say, "Make sure the light at the end of the tunnel is not the headlight of an oncoming train."
[/b]


:happy204:

38.1 ========== choo choo. All aboard.

[Knestis]

In an effort to consolidate discussion about RSI and what it might take to make it work, we&#39;ve established a temporary home at...

http://roadrace-autox.com/bbs/forums/threa...posts=3&start=1 (http://roadrace-autox.com/bbs/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=6668&posts=3&start=1)

You are <strike>welcome </strike>encouraged to participate!