Racing seats with integral headrests

[ddewhurst]

Folks, following is a letter that I am about to send to my CenDiv BoD member and to the CRB. Please comment on this change/addition/my letter to the existing GCR rule 9.3.40. Seats. :D

SCCA CenDiv Board of Director member Bob Lybarger & the Competition Racing Board members:

Following is a rule change which shows up in the 2008 General Competition Rules which has zero effect towards protecting the driver and stopping the Drivers head from hitting the underside of the main hoop of the roll cage per the rule GCR 9.3.40. Seats head rest specifications. As a reminder to those who may forget, the safety seats, roll cage & other safety apparatus are implemented for protection of the driver. A basic roll cage will have five (5) planes which surround the driver. We should no more have a driver sitting under or behind the main hoop than we should have a driver sitting under or outside the side hoop. Also had we keep the main hoop diagonal attached at each end to the main hoop traveling from the upper left main hoop (drivers side) to the lower right main hoop (passengers side) providing maximum driver protection I wouldn't be writing this letter because the driver couldn't site under or behind the main hoop.

The rule is:

GCR 9.3.40. Seats (second paragraph)

A system of head rest to prevent whiplash and rebound, and also to prevent the driver's head from striking the underside of the main hoop shall be installed on all vehicles. Racing seats with integral headrests satisfy this requirement. Underline emphasis is mine.

Please explain in detail how a "racing seats with integral headrest" will stop the drivers head from striking the underside of the main hoop when people are allowed to install "racing seats with integral headrest" where the headrest is six (6) inches and further behind the trailing edge of the main hoop. If the CRB is not successful using the existing written rules within the GCR to answer my question as stated above please rewrite rule GCR 9.3.40. so that the drivers head will not hit the underside of the main hoop. Keep in mind that it's all about driver protection.

Thank you ;)
David Dewhurst
SCCA #250772

[ddewhurst]

Maybe if no one is pissing in the wind we may continue this communication.:p


erlrich: (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showuser=1167)

David - unless I misunderstand the point of your letter, I'm guessing the reason nobody has responded is that this isn't a new rule. It was just integrated with the roll cage rules in the past: from the 2007 GCR, 9.4.1.B - A system of head rest to prevent whiplash and rebound, and also to prevent the driver's head from striking the underside of the main hoop shall be installed on all vehicles. Racing seats with integral headrests shall also meet this requirement and have a support to the main hoop. Seats homologated to, and mounted in accordance with FIA standard 8855-1999 or higher need not have the seat back attached to the roll structure. The head rest on non-integral seats shall have a minimum area of thirty-six (36) square inches and be padded with a non-resilient material such as Ethafoam® Ensolite® with a minimum thickness of one (1) inch. It is strongly recommended that padding meet SFI spec 45.2 or FIA Sports Car Head Rest Material. The head rest shall be capable of withstanding a force of two-hundred (200) lbs., in a rearward direction. The head rest support shall be such that it continues rearward or upward from the top edge in a way that the driver's helmet can not hook over the pad.


ddewhurst: (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showuser=111)


Earl, my point in starting this thread is that the rule is different for 2008 but similar to past the rules. The rules writters added into the rule that a seat with an integral headrest will stop the head from hitting the underside of the main hoop, BUT WHAT THEY FORGOT OR INTENTIALLY IGNORED is that people have implemented seats where the integral headrest is six (6) inches and further behind the trailing edge of the main hoop. The rule in the past said that "A system of head rest to prevent whiplash and rebound, and also tyo prevent the drivers head from striking the underside of the main hoop shall be installed on all vehicles". The rule you posted is for previous to the GCR rule for 2008. Either way a system of head rest or a seat with integral head rest will not keep the drivers head from striking the underside of the main hoop when the head rest is mounted behind the trailing edge of the main hoop. I hoped for some good communication either way from the thread.

The rule for 2008 9.3.4. Seats (second paragraph)

"A system of head rest to prevent whiplash and rebound, and also to prevent the driver's head from striking the underside of the main hoop shall be installed on all vehicles. Racing seats with integral headrests satisfy this requirement."

My question is to anyone:

Please explain in detail how a "racing seats with integral headrest" will stop the drivers head from striking the underside of the main hoop when people are allowed to install "racing seats with integral headrest" where the headrest is six (6) inches and further behind the trailing edge of the main hoop.

If we are not understanding each other please ask or pm.

Have Fun


David






erlrich: (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showuser=1167)







Hey David, where in the GCR does it say you can mount the seat 6" behind the main hoop? Just curious as to what started this all.

[x-ring]

Hey David, where in the GCR does it say you can mount the seat 6" behind the main hoop? Just curious as to what started this all.

It doesn't, which I think is DD's point.

[ddewhurst]

***Hey David, where in the GCR does it say you can mount the seat 6" behind the main hoop? Just curious as to what started this all.***



Earl & Ty, I'll get to the crux of the issue with two screwed up rules we have. The number one screwed up rule is the main hoop diagonal rule. Mount the diagonal from either main hoop top corner to wherever. DUH, that rule SURE don't provide maximum protection for the driver & that's the reason for the roll cage. The number two screwed up rule is the main hoop horizontal rule as ong as the horizontal may be bent. This shit of drivers sitting under the main hoop all started with Production cars & when a letter was writen the Comp Board pre CRB Fastrack response was not written relative to the written rules.

When one is allowed to implement the diagonal about any which way you want let's mount the diagonal from the main hoop upper corner passenger side to the lower main hoop brace position on the drivers side. Now lets implement the horizontal that is bent rearward 8 inches. Totally legal & we have all viewed horizontals bent rearward. Now let's mount the seat at an angle with the seat top tilted rearward untill the seat rests against the horizontal that's been bent 8 inches rearward. The drivers head is now under the roll cage main hoop & his head will hit the underside of the main hoop & NO integral or non-integral head rest per the written rules is going to stop the drivrs head from striking the underside of the main hoop.

Disagree or agree please continue the discussion.

Have Fun ;)
David

[erlrich]

Ok, I get it now. You're right, the rules are not consistent, although I would bet that the rule requiring the horozontal was never intended to allow the bar to be bent, thus allowing the driver to sit under the main hoop. I think the seat rule is reasonable; you need to protect the driver's head from rearward travel. IMO you should be targeting the cage rules. Why not just add to the main hoop rule (9.4.B.1.b) "Additionally, the top of the main hoop must be at least 2 inches above and behind the driver's helmet as illustrated in figure 10."

[mom'sZ]

Allowing the horizontal bar to be bent is important because in many cars it would be impossible to otherwise have enough room for shoulder straps to be properly installed or have some adjustment room, HANs device type seats or adjustible seat mounts for taller and shorter drivers to share a car.
Sitting behind the main hoop doesn't sound to safe, I will agree with that. Although it may provide a minuscule advantage wieght distribution wise, I see it as not worth the compromise in saftey.

[Greg Amy]

IIRC, the horizontal "tube" was added in the early 80's as a response to seatbacks breaking, causing the driver's seatback to flop back flat down and the driver losing control of the car (remember, we haven't always had carbon fiber "racing seats"). This was especially a problem in Showroom Stock cars, where the original equipment - and fragile - adjustable seats were REQUIRED (you were not allowed to change seats). The original seat back bars were actually nothing more than ~1/8"x~1" steel plate bent in the same shape as we see today, with enough strength to block an errant seatback from falling all the way back. The bend was common so that the factory seats would fit, with the caveat that any place in the cage the driver's head could strike had to be padded.

Eventually that morphed into a full same-dia-as-main-hoop tube instead of a bar.

The continuation of the horizontal bar to the passenger side was required in 1994 (?) after Jay Wright's SSB MX-3 accident at the Runoffs, where the main hoop's crossbar actually collapsed and allowed the plane of the main hoop to collapse as well. The roof came down (up?) on Jay's head and broke his neck, paralyzing him.

As noted above, the allowance of that bend - and flexibility in placement of the main hoop - is necessary to accommodate driver/main hoop placement. While we limit what kind of seats one can use (seat back-adjustable ones are no longer allowed) there will be cases where it is truly impossible to place the main hoop on the floor such that the driver is well forward of it (e.g., smaller two-seater cars).

[ddewhurst]

I appreciate ALL the history/knowledge brought forward. I appreciate the fact that we have tall drivers driving little cars from the 50's & 60's. WE should no more adjust the rules for a driver that weighs 350 pounds than WE should adjust the rules for a driver who is 6 foot 3 inches tall with his/her small car. By the way a 6 foot 3 inch driver fits very well in a Production Bug Eye with out butchering the rear bulkhead, without using the loosy goosy diagonal rule & without using the bend the main hoop horizontal. The 350 pound driver can't cross under the limbo stick at two feet, to dam bad find another sport. & let's not go into lowering the basketball hoop so a height impared person can dunk the basketball. :) ;)


Rule 2008 GCR 9.3.40. Seats (second paragraph)

A system of head rest to prevent whiplash and rebound, and also to prevent the driver's head from striking the underside of the main hoop shall be installed on all vehicles. Racing seats with integral headrests satisfy this requirement. Underline emphasis is mine.

Original question:

Taking everything (or the little) that's been said within this thread when we consider this rule ^ how will this rule keep the drivers head from striking the underside of the roll cage main hoop when the head rest is implemented behind the trailing edge of the roll cage main hoop?

I'm a very simple person, convince me I'm wrong & I'll drop the subject.

Have Fun;)
David

[Greg Amy]

...how will this rule keep the drivers head from striking the underside of the roll cage main hoop...
David, you're playing word/mind games here. The rule is a legacy function of how we got here today, something that was not done "clean sheet". It just carried over.

Something you probably don't realize: the "underside" of the rollcage refers not to the bottom side of the tubes, but to all the structure/tubes underneath the main hoop. In other words, it refers to all the stuff that you could hit should your seatback fail. That reference was there as a way for your headrest to keep your helmet from hitting anything (except the headrest, of course) as the seatback fell backwards. so your whole premise is a tad bit flawed, as it's based on errant info...

However, I think everyone here will agree with you that the answer to your above question is: it won't. You're not wrong, and you "win"; no one's gonna argue against you on the point.

Personally, I don't feel strongly enough about it, but you obviously do, so you're the man to make it happen...So, instead, why not re-write the rule and present it to the Club Racing Board, explaining to them why you think the rule needs to be changed? Note this is not a change from prior practice with the new rollcages re-write, so a rule changed will be required... - GA

[pdqracer]

Perhaps I'm missing the point. Is not the reason for the head rest to prevent fore and aft movement of the head? Does not the shoulder/crotch straps prevent movement of the body from leaving the seat and thus "not" hitting the roof/roll bar?:026:

[erlrich]

Ok guys, David is trying to make a point, and we're not helping at all by agreeing with him :D

David, I don't think anyone is arguing that the seat rule does prevent the driver's helmet from striking the underside of the main hoop, but does that mean you want to throw out the rule? I guess the only thing left unanswered is what would you like the CRB to do about it? How could you rewrite rule 9.3.40 to make it impossible for the driver's helmet to contact the main hoop? Your letter tells them what's wrong, but not how to fix it.

[ddewhurst]

***Perhaps I'm missing the point. Is not the reason for the head rest to prevent fore and aft movement of the head? Does not the shoulder/crotch straps prevent movement of the body from leaving the seat and thus "not" hitting the roof/roll bar?***

The short answer is NO. The belts strech like crazy. Please google Issac & watch their crash videos.:D

Greg, I appreciate the history.:023: BUT as far as driver protection, wrong answer. The rule words have been and are "prevent the drivers head from striking the ubderside of the main hoop". Being proactive with driver protection will absolutly minimise having further drivers being paralized. You always bring up the subject with Jay. < That is harsh, but it's a fact.

***Your letter tells them what's wrong, but not how to fix it.***

Earl, telling the CRB how to fix something is like trying to tell a police officer how to fix something.

The fix part is real simple except it would require the Comp Board from past /CRB current to admit that they do not always have the drivers protection at the for front Sometimes they don't want to slap up a who's who's among drivers of the SCCA. The roll cage job 1 (one) is to protect the driver. The driver should fit within the five (5) planes of a roll cage. Let's stay with production based cars for this discussion please. Opps, time for a :D.

With the above said let's rewrite the loosy goosy main hoop diagonal rule & rewrite the main hoop horizontal rule. Main hoop diagonal shall have zero bends and be implemented in all production based cars from the main hoop upper corner drivers side to the main hoop lower corner passengers side. Diagonal tube end location with respect to the corner apex is +/- six (6) inches. The main hoop horizontal shall have zero bends, bla, bla........... With the two rules rewritten the friken seat can't be implementd such that the driver head could strike the underside of the main hoop. The two rules could be rewritten as required to keep the driver within the five (5) palnes of the roll cage for maximum driver protection.

HELP rewrite the roll cage rules to proactively protect drivers.

Have Fun;)
David

[Speed Raycer]

I'd have to say I'd rather see a rule stating the position of the seat forward of the hoop rather than mandating no bends in the harness bar (when there's a hoop diagonal). I don't do it often but there are just some cars/seats/ driver combo's where there's no way around it. IIRC, FIA, Rally America have min & max distances for the seat back to hoop.

Although with a straight bar rule, it'd make my life easier. "Sorry. You'll have to return that $1500 FIA seat w/ the head bolsters and shoulder supports and buy a $300 Kirkey intermediate for your Viper Sir."

[ddewhurst]

Scott, I could care less what the rule words specifies EXCEPT that the written rules words are such that the drivers body parts are 100% WITHIN the inside surfaces of the five planes of the roll cage. :D WE sure don't wan't drivers like this :026:who are missing or have faulty body parts.

That's why I finished up my last post with, "HELP rewrite the roll cage rules to proactively protect drivers".

Have Fun;)
David