Make Head and Neck Restraints Mandatory?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Page 9:

MEMBER ADVISORIES
4. Driver safety equipment – The CRB would like input from the membership about whether head and neck restraints should be made mandatory.

Greg,

Shoud we try and have a united front on this? Otherwise they will get letters that read like this:

To whom it may concern re: manditory H&N:

No.

Thank you,

Joe Blow.
*****************
I would think that some substance would be great and I know you and Kirk are passionate about this...suggestions?

[Greg Amy]

I would think that some substance would be great and I know you and Kirk are passionate about this...suggestions?
Well, if we were to assume a standard opinion (and that would NOT necessarily be a good assumption) then we do need to clarify points.

There's two issues here:

- One, should HNRs be mandatory
- Two, if yes to the above, do they need to conform to SFI?
- Two-point-One: If not, should SCCA require any that are voluntarily used to conform to SFI.

I suggest that if the answer to One is "yes, then Two quickly follows, as SCCA really has no choice but to require a "standard" for "required equipment". So, effectively, a "yes" answer to requiring HNRs is a mandate for SFI cert.

We need to vet this idea thoroughly.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, if we were to assume a standard opinion (and that would NOT necessarily be a good assumption) then we do need to clarify points.

There's two issues here:

- One, should HNRs be mandatory
- Two, if yes to the above, do they need to conform to SFI?
- Two-point-One: If not, should SCCA require any that are voluntarily used to conform to SFI.

I suggest that if the answer to One is "yes, then Two quickly follows, as SCCA really has no choice but to require a "standard" for "required equipment". So, effectively, a "yes" answer to requiring HNRs is a mandate for SFI cert.

We need to vet this idea thoroughly.

GA

I agree - but we must be swift in our responses.

[tom_sprecher]

How about this:

To whom it may concern regarding manditory H&N restraints:

At this point many racers no longer have the discresionary income required to race at the same frequencys as in 2007 and this is apparent in the approximately 10% decrease in entries nation wide and comments from the National Office confirming the same. It would not be an overstatement to say that race turn outs for 2009 will also decrease at least another 10%. The addition of the high cost of H&N systems will cause yet more loss of income from entries and seriously effect the solvency of many racing regions.

I ask that you do not mandate H&N restraints. Let drivers choose what level of protection and standard they want. Any discussion on the subject should be postponed until more favorable national economic conditions return or market forces drive the cost of such equipment down to a reasonable level.

Thank you,

[ddewhurst]

****- One, should HNRs be mandatory****

NO, there is nothing wrong with the issue as it stands today. MANDATORY BULLSHIT will not bring a choice of protection to drivers. ANYONE jumping on a MANDATORY band wagon is no different than the Stewards making the decision for the Knowles issue. Sometimes people need to mind their own business.

Why don't you folks who believe the HNR be manatory buy what the hell you want & write a letter sugesting the HNR be optional or none per driver choice. < That sounds like a great option to me.

Do ya think the economy has over the last 2 - 3 years had an impact on the number of racers that enter events? Just continue FORCING drivers & watch the numbers crumble furthet yet.

EDIT:
***I ask that you do not mandate H&N restraints until more favorable national economic conditions return or market forces drive the cost of such equipment down to a reasonable level.***

Tom, why even suggest options.

[Greg Amy]

From December '08 Fastrack, Page 9:


MEMBER ADVISORIES
4. Driver safety equipment – The CRB would like input from the membership about whether head and neck restraints should be made mandatory.

Discuss.

[its66]

Greg, (or Gregg-who will certainly chime in soon),

Is there any data curently available which demonstrates a need for HNR in Production based vehicles which are required to retain the factory designed "crumple zones"? What about comparisions between the needs when driving an ITC Rabbit on Sebring Shortcourse, vs a tube frame GT1 at Daytona or Charlotte?

I ask because these two situations are extremely different in the amount of force, mass, and speed potential of each vehicle. Further, If the crumble zones are retained, such as in IT, or SS, wouldn't the theoretical G's experienced by the driver be substantially lessened.

In NHRA, Higher speed potential = higher level of safety equipment. This makes sense.

Just discussing, not being a Smrt A$$. I've wondered about this often. If I were racing a 700 hp Tube frame anything, I'm sure I wouldn't even ask this question.

Thoughts

[Dave Burchfield]

What has been the impact of the H&N recommendation per the GCR over the past couple of years? Have we lost significant numbers of drivers to neck injuries in that period of time? Does SCCA do a good enough job of CYA in making the recommendation and not mandating?

Just a couple of thoughts that come to the forefront of my mind. Whatever happens, we must be certain to keep SFI out of the mix. Could this be an opportunity to get the RSI concept in front of a sanctioning body? This seems to be a real opportunity for us to institute some changes in the certification of safety equipment. SCCA has opened the door.

[lateapex911]

Sirs-

I write in response to your request for input regarding the possible mandating of head and neck restraints.

I implore you to continue your strong stance in allowing the drivers the freedom to choose the best protection for their needs, and to not mandate any device or standard.

I have used the Isaac device for over 5 years now. I had it on when contact forced me into the guardrail, sideways, at Watkins Glen, breaking my ribs. I had no issues of any kind with regards to my head or neck. Of course, thats a single case, but I mention it because the Isaac has been proven superior in lab testing in lateral impacts to every device made.

If you mandate a device, and it is SFI certified, you will force me to actually reduce my level of safety, and I will be facing a very difficult decision, whether to continue my racing with the club. Because of the other devices inferiority in lateral impacts, (which, by the way, are far more common), I will be forced to prurchase a "winged" seat, in an attempt to acheive the same lateral protection. However, my already smallish window (I'm 6'3, 200 pounds) in my coupe has now become effectively smaller, as the seat creates an additional obstacle to climb around in the event of a crash that renders my door inoperable. To me, reducing my ease of egress is a huge step backwards. Not to mention rendering a superior $700 device useless, and the need to purchase another $800 device AND a seat costing in the $700 range, for a total of $1500, That is, of course, over four race entries.

In short, please do not force me to reduce the level of safety I already have, by mandating a policy that benefits consortiums of companies, who sell equipment that havn't been proven to be the best on the market.

I strongly suggest you continue with no requirement.

Jake Gulick

ITAC member, club racer.

[Doc Bro]

Fully and completely against the idea. The problem is if the SCCA mandates HNR's then they need to cover the implications that the mandate will bring. The way to do this would be to use SFI rating as an umbrella policy. With the use of the SFI endorsement comes the exclusion of HNR's that may be MORE effective at reducing deceleration injuries but do not meet the SFI letter of the law. As we all know. This is the ONLY reason I don't currently race with BMW club...they MANDATE the Hans and the Hans only. I am so passionate about this issue that I'd rather race with improperly classified Miatas than wear a Hans!!!:)

No,no,no,no,no,no.......

R

[dj10]

Fully and completely against the idea. The problem is if the SCCA mandates HNR's then they need to cover the implications that the mandate will bring. The way to do this would be to use SFI rating as an umbrella policy. With the use of the SFI endorsement comes the exclusion of HNR's that may be MORE effective at reducing deceleration injuries but do not meet the SFI letter of the law. As we all know. This is the ONLY reason I don't currently race with BMW club...they MANDATE the Hans and the Hans only. I am so passionate about this issue that I'd rather race with improperly classified Miatas than wear a Hans!!!:)

No,no,no,no,no,no.......

R

Why can't the people that don't want to wear them sign a waiver? :shrug:That way the SCCA will be protected & we won't be forced to buy some $1000.00 pos that may or may not work.

[Spinnetti]

good god, please no. Let me be responsible for my own damn safety.

[Xian]

Letter written.

[tnord]

i was working in the garage, but saw i got an email on my blackberry and had to come post it up before anyone else sends their letters. i don't know who this michael lewis guy is, but he clearly doesn't have a clue. this was in response to my letter where i said mandating an SFI spec would be ruling out the best device on the market...


Best device on the market? That would be surprising news to F1, Indy Car, NASCAR, etc who use the HANS device, but perhaps you’re including cost which is disgustingly high for the HANS in my opinion. Can you send me info on the ISSAC? Thx
ML

when you send in your letter, send them data, links to the ISAAC website, etc. if this guy doesn't even know about the ISAAC then the BOD/CRB is clearly not informed enough to be voting on this issue.

[jjjanos]

Since I think they would be a slang name for felines about this, they would use the current SFI standard, so HELL NO. I just bought a freaking Issac this year by CHOICE.

If and only if SCCA demands a realistic H&N restraint that doesn't rely on the standard developed by the makers of HANS aka SFI's standard, then MAYBE. The standard needs to leave the design free and rely EXCLUSIVELY on measured loads.

NO MANDATED YOKE DESIGN.

I was going to invest in other safety equipment for the car. This comes down, I've got to explain to the misses why I need another H&N AND it's goodbye to the new things. Net result - I'm less safe.

Someone put-up a draft letter.

[JoshS]

I just bought a freaking Issac this year by CHOICE.

I was going to invest in other safety equipment for the car. This comes down, I've got to explain to the misses why I need another H&N AND it's goodbye to the new things. Net result - I'm less safe.

Kind of like moving in to a house next to an empty field where there are already public plans to build a race track, then complaining about the noise when it happens.

[Speed Raycer]

Letter sent.

Going to start posting on every forum that I'm a member of about this.

[GBugg]

Email sent.

[tom91ita]

i believe that this may be a foregone conclusion and the best we can hope for is to mitigate. we should present potential alternates.

below is my letter. if they must do something, then make the decision based on how well the devices perform.

my comments regarding the 20% of budget is due to no-bid insurance is based on the Harris Platform statements here:

http://www.greatlakes-scca.org/node/501

i also forwarded my letter to the recent elected Great Lakes Area Director with the following comments;


I had read your platform statement and I know that you said;

"Continuing on along the current path will not lead SCCA to the future. The current BOD is highly biased to road racing and continuing the status quo."

With regards to H&NR, I believe that the status quo is actually the most desirable. Also, I do not think that following NASA in this regard will lead SCCA to the future.

If the use of H&NR is a foregone conclusion, can we at least require that the device pass a level of performance that can protect the driver in a lateral impact situation?


To whom it may concern:

I want to inform you that I am greatly concerned about Head & Neck Restraints (H&NR) and the ability of members to choose what is best for their vehicles and class of racing. I do not want to see our club make decisions based on speculation of what lawyers may or may not do.

I am particularly concerned that the December 2008 Fastrack states that there were two requests requiring a specific Manufacturer's device.

"11. Support for mandating the HANS device (2 letters). Thank you for your input."

Some clubs have recently made uninformed decisions and declared that SFI 38.1 H&NR are required. I know because I recently let my membership in NASA expire because of this. This was after two podium finishes at the NASA National Championships in 2006 & 2007. I decided to no longer race with NASA and focus on my roots in Improved Touring in part because I wanted to be free to select what I believe to be superior technology in H&NR. Well, to be honest, also because I wanted to be free to select superior technology in tires but that was a smaller issue by far.

It is my sincere belief that NASA's decision was uninformed because it was not based on performance. And for a club that claims to be a home for performance enthusiasts to base decisions on speculation of what may transpire in a courtroom instead of the performance that will transpire in a cockpit strikes me as ridiculous.

Please refer to the link below that shows the resultant forces in a direct and lateral impact and the performance of various devices;

http://www.isaacdirect.com/ (http://www.isaacdirect.com/)

Please pay particular attention to the Lateral forces that are listed;

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

Please note that some devices actually increased the Lateral load. Has anyone that has suggested that H&NR be required actually divulged the fact that you may be placing the membership at a higher risk? And if the HANS is mandatory as requested by two unnamed members per Fastrack, you are placing me at more risk. If you are making this decision based on courtroom speculation, you might want to speculate on that for a minute.

I would not presume that there might not be pressure, either real or imagined, on SCCA to pass some sort of H&NR requirement. But, honestly, this must be a performance based decision and not some knee-jerk reaction because someone read that another club did something.

It is my understanding that SCCA’s Legal Counsel is also its Risk Manager. It is also my understanding that 20% of the SCCA budget is insurance but that this has not been competitively bid for some time. This appears to be a conflict of interest in my opinion. If this is not correct, please advise.

If you feel compelled to do something then please consider the following:

Should this be based on the class of the vehicle? For example, Formula Atlantic has more potential for high energy impacts than Showroom Stock C. And if we are not going to consider this type of distinction, then why stop at wheel to wheel road racing. We should also extend it to H Stock Solo II. A racetrack that is specifically designed with run-off areas, guardrails, tire-walls and gravel traps cannot be compared with the immovable objects such as concrete light-pole supports in a parking lot, can they?

No doubt some of you are thinking that my comparison of H Stock to road racing Formula Atlantics is absurd. And justifiably so. Is it because of the difference in performance potential? Did we just use Performance to decide if something should be used or not be used? Then we are effectively on the same page in that the Performance of the device or vehicle should be considered.

I know that the primary sticking point with SFI 38.1 is that it requires a single release point. However, I believe that I am most at risk to a neck injury and not due to fire.

I was a trained member of an Emergency Response team at a chemical plant. We were always drilled that head and neck immobilization was crucial. I have never seen the emergency response team at a track rush to an incident and immediatley drag out the driver as quickly as possible due to a concern for fire. It has always been a measured response to assess the situation and determine if the patient needs to be stabilized while others stand by with extinguishers.

If you feel compelled to implement something, please asses the true risks and base the decision based on performance as outlined at the Racing Safety Institute ( http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/ (http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/) ) rather than at SFI where specific H&NR producers were involved with writing the requirements that improved their position in the market.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Tom

[lateapex911]

It is my understanding that SCCA’s Legal Counsel is also its Risk Manager. It is also my understanding that 20% of the SCCA budget is insurance but that this has not been competitively bid for some time. This appears to be a conflict of interest in my opinion. If this is not correct, please advise.

Tom, that's a letter chock full of interesting info, but this one caught my eye immediately.

At the risk of his web bots zooming in on the mention of his name, Matt8erg (HA! I foiled them by a graphic "slip" heh heh heh..) has done lots of digging into that very subject. I haven't seen nor read him since a wedding last April...wonder where he's been and what his digging unearthered?

[tom91ita]

more from the source from the Harris Platform document at http://www.greatlakes-scca.org/node/501 (http://www.greatlakes-scca.org/node/501) (this was for the Area 4 Director - Great Lakes)




2. Are you aware that the SCCA’s Legal Counsel is also its Risk Manager?
His salary is partially paid by commissions from the insurance carrier he
recommends. I am not implying there is anything criminal about this
arrangement; only than it is clearly a conflict of interest. Insurance
represents 20% of the club’s operating budget and we have not bid this
contract in many years. We have an insurance committee, but they never
meet. We must have separate functions of legal representation and
insurance procurement. SCCA’s President has also noted this need.

[tom91ita]

Jake,

is this you?


4. Require egress times (Gulick). This might be in conflict with the American Disabilities Act.


since the HANS may not be the best protection and the HANS is sometimes deemed dentrimental to exit times, what are to we to conclude?

being concerned about being in conflict with ADA as reason for not requiring a minimum egress time but seeking input on if we might have to use a potentially inferior device strikes me as odd......

[lateapex911]

That was me. I was attempting a "pre-emptive strike" if you wil,l at establishing a standard that would, I hoped, give us a footing should the SFI38.1 thing ever come up again. A little foundation work, but....Foiled, drat!

[tom91ita]

i decided that since i race in multiple divisions/areas, i would send a note to directors in adjacent areas.

however, i could not find a good accurate summary of this at SCCA.com. the site did not reflect the most recent elections. also, some links said what area they were and others did not.

so i grabbed the link for all via [email protected] and sent the following;



All,

I have decided to share my thoughts with all of the Board because I have hopes of running races in many areas in the future. My current goals are to run at least one event per year outside of division at venues that have a long history. Thus my travels to Road Atlanta this year for the ARRC.

I think that the fundamentals of H&NR are crucial. Please study up on this issue and require the CRB to do the same.

Any H&NR requirements that ignore the physics involved should be resisted. I know that some feel that the HANS is needed because NASCAR and Formula 1require them. However, to make no distinction between 200 mph cars that run in packs of 40+ or cars that can pull ~5 G's and Improved Touring C or Showroom Stock C shows questionable judgment.

I purchased what I thought was superior Head & Neck protection (even if it does not meet SFI 38.1). Similarly, I let my NASA membership lapse because I thought I had selected the superior road racing club. Please confirm my faith that SCCA is a member-driven organization rather than following in the footsteps of a business driven NASA. .

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Tom

[tom91ita]

received a response from one director. the gist was

"For what its worth you have my support. The lawyers will have their say and we’ll see what can be done"

[Speed Raycer]

I'm guessing I got the same director ;)


I don't have the info to show that this device is superior to the HANS
(which is the competitor I'm sure you're referring to) and I would think
there's a reason why practically every major racing organization mandates
the HANS. That is another argument for another time.

However, I am in agreement with you that each driver should be able to do as
they please. And if you feel better served with your current system, than I
support your right to use it.

Of course, Insurance co's speak louder than directors (or anyone!!) so we
shall see. I will definitely argue to keep the current rules.

Thanks for the input.

[BruceG]

Gee....do ya think that further regulation of HANS DEVICES will make those people that don't wear a helmet on their motorcycle to
reconsider? More legislation is not the answer. You can't regulate stupidity!!

Have us all sigh a waiver that we are aware of the safety concerns of not wearing the restraint and leave it at that.

Perhaps we should mandate mandatory rotor,brake pad and hub inspections before each practice by tech inspectors to protect us from our own stupidity if we don't police our own cars....yeeesh...what next.

There is an item at SPEED's website about a 20 yr old professional racer who is in critical condition in the hospital because he crashed his truck on a highway and was thrown clear of the vehicle because he didn't have his seat belt on!

Seatbelt use is mandated in every state but stupidity will always kick in.:shrug:

[SLUF]

Here is my comment sent to ALL the BOD members, CRB members, and my area director. Let us make a choice!!!!!!


"Thank you for reading my comment on mandating a head and neck restraint system for SCCA Club Racing.

I have budgeted for a winter purchase of a system and a compatible seat for our IT7/ITA RX-7 which my son and I race in the Midwest Division. Having said that we have made the choice to do so without it being mandated as I see the value these safety devices add to our passion for club racing. My son, being all of 18, does not see things near as clear as dear old dad in these matters but he's my son and I'll do the best I can to keep him as safe as possible while pursuing our club racing careers.

I would hope that if such a mandate is implemented that we racers have the widest possible choice of such devices in price and functionality. Please do not let the existing SFI spec be the driving force behind the mandate as there are other devices available which do not meet the spec and may be better suited for our class and speed of competition. Please perform due diligence when analyzing even if such a need exists to mandate such regulation. I have yet to see any hard data on club racing accidents/injuries over the last 5 years from any source, including the SCCA, which would support such a mandate. I know I have not exhausted the available databases on a study as this but I would hope that my peers at the rulemaking arm of the SCCA would put forth the effort since this decision affects us not only in the safety arena but our pocketbooks as well.

All I ask is that a reasonable analysis be performed before any decision is reached. Thanks for your time and attention in this matter.

Bud Scott
Member 87061"

[tom_sprecher]

Letter sent to CRB and Area Director.

[Dave Burchfield]

Letter sent to CRB and BOD

Response from my Director:

Dave, first of all, at this time, I totally believe that in the SCCA the use of ANY head and neck restraint should be at the option of the driver.

Secondly you hit the nail squarely on the head with your term, "artificial set of standards developed by a MARKETING ORGANIZATION promoting itself as a safety foundation.

Sorry but the SFI has no standing in my mind due to their position of conflict of interests. They did it to us on seat belts and now we are trying to roll over and do it again on restraints. Not good.


I am going to miss this gentleman......

[RSTPerformance]

I sent my letter not supporting a mandate...

Raymond

[lateapex911]

Letter sent to CRB and BOD




I am going to miss this gentleman......

Who is he, and where's he going??

[Dave Burchfield]

Jake,

He is Larry Dent, current GL Director who elected to not run for the board again.

[shwah]

Feedback that I have gotten indicates that there are some on the BoD that have concers about potential limitations of using an SFI mandate. I'm not so sure that this is the 'done deal' that some might assume.

Make sure to write your letters to [email protected] and copy them to [email protected] as well.

[jjjanos]

Kind of like moving in to a house next to an empty field where there are already public plans to build a race track, then complaining about the noise when it happens.

Well, no. They voted down the previous requirement. It's like building the house after the township already said a racetrack won't be built and then having them change their mind.

[tom91ita]

Jake,

He is Larry Dent, current GL Director who elected to not run for the board again.

Larry is a great guy and calls things like he sees them. I think he was featured quite a while ago in SportsCar. He has done a lot of racing.

He restored a Ford GT a few years back. It's a great story of how it was found under a pile of trash and yard wastes. It had been severely damaged in a fire and rolled to the back of the yard/lot and forgotten.

[pgipson]

My response. short and to the point



From:
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:31 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Head & Neck Restraint comments


The November Fast Track asked for comments regarding establishing a requirement for a Head & Neck restraint system. The current allowance that permits each racer to make a personal choice as to the appropriateness of an H&N Restraint systems seems to this long time member and sometimes racer to be a totally adequate solution. There are many excellent options for this equipment that racers are free to choose and use. And racers are also free to forgo the system should they believe their own personal choice is in their best interest. Mandating specific systems or systems that meet certain arbitrary standards would deprive racers of the ability to select for themselves that type of equipment which they feel is in their own best interest.

Sincerely

Paul Gipson

131424

[BruceG]

I second that. We all need them, we all should be wearing them...but we should be free to "choose" not legislated to wear the restraint system of our choice.

[mc-integra111]

Sent in my opinion. I would not like to see this be mandated. A recommendation is good and it allows drivers the ability to choose to use whatever they want.

[callard]

My vote sent to the CRB:
Gentlemen,
I’ve been a user of a HANS device for three years but would like to vote NO on mandatory usage. I believe that drivers should continue to have a personal choice based on independent studies rather than an SFI selected product. As more test data has become available, I believe my next device may not be a HANS. As an early adopter of available safety devices, I would like to be able to continue to use the “best” based on empirical data.
Thanks for asking for our opinion.
Chuck Allard

[lateapex911]

That's a good letter Chuck, as it shows a lack of bias.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Is it possible that the SCCA could put out a recommended list but not make them manditory? I know this is asking a lot but what are the ramifications?

How about this:

"Head and Neck restraints are highly recommended. SFI certification is also highly recommended but not manditory. Each competitor is expected to do their due diligence when selecting a H&N restraint system."

[BruceG]

I Like the wording, Andy! Perhaps just a few words of disclaimer if someone is dumb enough not to wear one,as well.

[raffaelli]

Is it possible that the SCCA could put out a recommended list but not make them manditory? I know this is asking a lot but what are the ramifications?

How about this:

"Head and Neck restraints are highly recommended. SFI certification is also highly recommended but not manditory. Each competitor is expected to do their due diligence when selecting a H&N restraint system."

Seems likely that it could get worded:
"Head and Neck restraints are highly recommended but not mandatory. SFI certification is required where a H&R is used." which is something I would prefer to avoid.



I am not in support of making me buy a H&R and will write a letter also.

But – what is the difference between mandating a belt or a helmet with a certain requirement and a H&R with a certain requirement? My first reaction is that they are the same and feel a bit contradictory for requesting a ‘hands off’ for the H&R and not for a belt or helmet.

[spnkzss]

I am writing to your request of member input regarding the possibility of mandating a head and neck restraint.

It is funny to me how times have changed. Racing has gone from a very grassroots, how do I go faster, type of mentality that required little to no safety standards to a, we (as an organization) may be held responsible for every little thing that goes wrong and must make sure legally that we are covered in every aspect possible. I understand the pressure the organization is under to make us as safe as possible and make the lawyers happy while doing it.

As a new father I have all of a sudden come to this need for self preservation. It’s a hard concept to grasp. Late 20 something and I’m no longer invincible. What’s worse is I have to admit it. Over the years I followed H&N debates. I watched, I learned, I researched, but I couldn’t bring myself to do anything about it. When I found out my wife was pregnant, that flipped things big time for me. I decided to go back and do my research again, this time with a different mindset of “It’s time to buy something. What is the best solution?”.

What concerns me about a mandated H&N restraint is SCCA as an organization will have to go with some sort of certified effort. You do not want people coming in and duct taping their head to the seat and calling that a H&N device. While it may work just fine, we all see some failed logic in it. Currently the only real industry standard is SFI 38.1. Unfortunately there are quite a few flaws with the 38.1 standard that eliminate some of the best performing products out there and may hinder products that have not been designed yet. Everybody falls back to the “Well all the professional series think it works.” While I agree with this and think something is better than nothing, I still believe it is my choice as to what device I feel is best for me and a device that holds a SFI 38.1 I don’t think is best for me.

While I am an ISAAC wearer (http://www.isaacdirect.com (http://www.isaacdirect.com/)) this is not my full motivation for this request. I want to be allowed to choose as it is my neck that is out there. I think this type of technology is still new and think it will continue to develop into safer and better things, but SFI 38.1 has made the development kind of stagnant due to its limitations. While I agree everyone should be wearing something, I for one cannot force people to, and understand that the only way the organization could mandate something is by requiring SFI 38.1. Since I have quite a few issues with SFI 38.1 I have to ask that a mandate not be made.

I will be happy to discuss what I feel to be wrong with SFI 38.1, but I am sure you will be getting quite a few responses on this topic explaining them. If however there are questions I will be more than happy to give my understanding of the whole topic.

Thank you for your time.

Robert Luke
WDCR SCCA Member 319613

[SLUF]

Received a reply from our area director, Lisa Noble. They ARE LISTENING and there appears to be some thought being put into this by the board members.

[tnord]

Received a reply from our area director, Lisa Noble. They ARE LISTENING and there appears to be some thought being put into this by the board members.

don't let up, i've had lip service paid to me by BOD members before. this is too important to just let the chips fall where they may.

thanks for writing, call your buddies and tell them to write, and i'll see you on the track next year. :)

[joeg]

I would rather see the Board putting pressure on the manufactureres to lower prices on H&N gear.

If they were all $150 to $200 cheaper, this would be a no-brainer, IMHO.

[gsbaker]

How about this:

"Head and Neck restraints are highly recommended. SFI certification is also highly recommended but not manditory. Each competitor is expected to do their due diligence when selecting a H&N restraint system."
That's just about perfect. Over time, all the low performance products have left the market; you cannot buy a bad H&N restraint these days. As long as there is a manufacturer's label on it and any type of certification we avoid the bungee cord and duct tape varieties.

[gsbaker]

I would rather see the Board putting pressure on the manufactureres to lower prices on H&N gear.

If they were all $150 to $200 cheaper, this would be a no-brainer, IMHO.

We will be testing a model with an introductory price of $99 soon, and it will meet industry performance standards.

[gsbaker]

We would also encourage members to offer the RSI certification as an alternative as it includes industry standard performance requirements.

http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/Head%20and%20Neck%20Restraints.html

[Greg Amy]

How about this:

"Head and Neck restraints are highly recommended. SFI certification is also highly recommended but not manditory. Each competitor is expected to do their due diligence when selecting a H&N restraint system."

Thing is, why even mention it at all if it's not mandated? Is it actually in SCCA's best interest to even formally recognize the existence of such devices without requiring them and making them meet an external specification?

Once you recognize its existence, you open yourself up to a whole 'nother can of worms...

[Flyinglizard]

Maybe they should have a fire system, along with the HANS. Most of the firesystem cars can generate enough G forces for death, along with egress time fire coverage. The IT cars are slower,catch fire more often , (except for the British production cars).
Or maybe, there should be a time limit for egress, shown at annual tech. Maybe should be 80% or less of the firesuit rating time.
MM

[shwah]

We would also encourage members to offer the RSI certification as an alternative as it includes industry standard performance requirements.

http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/Head%20and%20Neck%20Restraints.html

I mentioned this in my letter as an alternative to SFI for verifying product performance.

[spnkzss]

I received a response to my letter:


Robert,
Thank you for your very insightful and thoughtful response. Your comments reflect the type of response that is very helpful for the Club leadership to make sound decisions.

At the moment the feedback is going in the direction of strongly encouraging everyone to wear a device of their choice but to not make wearing a device mandatory.

[gsbaker]

Thing is, why even mention it at all if it's not mandated? Is it actually in SCCA's best interest to even formally recognize the existence of such devices without requiring them and making them meet an external specification?

Once you recognize its existence, you open yourself up to a whole 'nother can of worms...
I hate to admit it, but that's a good point. Similar to a local apartment that found itself in court because it referred to the community gates as "security" gates, rather than controlled access gates (or some such thing). As luck would have it, a maintenance issue required the gates be left open one night, the same night someone got mugged in the parking lot.

[erlrich]

Thing is, why even mention it at all if it's not mandated? Is it actually in SCCA's best interest to even formally recognize the existence of such devices without requiring them and making them meet an external specification?

Once you recognize its existence, you open yourself up to a whole 'nother can of worms...

I think that might be a good strategy with respect to brand new, untested technology; but for something like H&N restraints that are so commonly used, and mandated by most professional sanctioning bodies, and now by a number of amatuer bodies, I don't think you can just ignore the issue. My letter to the CRB also included the preference for leaving H&N restraints as "highly recommended" but not required.

Just out of curiosity, I searched the 2008 GCR for the word "recommend" (or "recommended") and found 125 occurrences. Just sayin'

[Greg Amy]

Just out of curiosity, I searched the 2008 GCR for the word "recommend" (or "recommended") and found 125 occurrences. Just sayin'
I'd be interested in the context of those "recommends", in terms of:

- "what" they're recommending;
- if those "recommends" are "required" in other classes (e.g., fuel cells in IT); and,
- if those "recommends" all have external specs they must meet.

Remember (at the risk of sounding like a broken record - for you younger people, that's something we used to use to listen to music), if H&NRs are "recommended" or "mandated" my prediction is that they WILL be required to meet an external spec. And, that spec is SFI 38.1...

[gsbaker]

...my prediction is that they WILL be required to meet an external spec. And, that spec is SFI 38.1...
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the spec is the problem. So, change to an equivalent spec, perhaps?

This problem, on a broader scale, will only get worse if the Club continues to support a spec monopoly.

[Greg Amy]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the spec is the problem. So, change to an equivalent spec, perhaps?
Gregg, you know where I stand. While you're pointing out what we'd LIKE to happen, I'm simply pointing out what likely WILL happen.

Here's what's got to happen:
- Short term: no mandate, no recommendation.
- Long term: change the external spec requirements/get a new spec approved. THEN worry about mandates/recommendations.

Try doing it the other way around, and you know what'll happen...

[RexRacer19]

Here is the letter that I am sending:

I am writing this letter based on your request for input regarding head and neck restraints. I am currently using a H&N restraint and feel the are beneficial to increasing the level of safety in racing. Personally, I don’t feel that safety should be mandated, and that “personal responsibility” should be the standard on which we go on. However, I realize that this is not the socially acceptable norm in this day and time.

Despite the fact that I am both a user and proponent for H&N restraints, I am very concerned about the direction that the club will take in this matter. Most every other club has adopted the SFI 38.1 standard for H&N restraints. The problem is that the standard excludes one of the best performing H&N restraints on the market, the ISAAC Device. When you go by crash performance data alone it resides at or near the top of the list in all categories. It also offers an additional benefit to the other H&N restraints in side impact crashes.

The only criteria that keeps the ISAAC from meeting SFI 38.1 is the “single point of release” clause. The ISAAC can be configured such that one easy pull of a tether will release the driver’s helmet from it. The fact that the device stays with the car is an advantage, in my opinion, for driver egress. When you consider that many drivers are hooked up to cool suits, radios, etc. the single point of release argument seems bogus. Other devices, such as the popular HANS or R3 that stay with the driver, have proven to hinder the driver’s ability to egress quickly. This is especially true on vehicles with smaller window openings. Further complicating egress issues are the seat designs that are required to “supplement” H&N restraints. These winged seats can both hamper vision and can add additional complication to egress. I find it odd that the most popular H&N restraint requires both special belts, and winged seats to provide maximum protection for the driver. In the mean time the only device excluded from the SFI 38.1 certification requires none of that to actually work better.

When I built my race car, it was built to exceed the minimum safety standards. The roll cage far exceeds the minimum standards for the class (Improved Touring). The seat is a FIA spec seat, and a substantial steel mounting frame was integrated into the chassis of the car. Care was taken in mounting the belts properly, and the car has a fire system; an item not required for Improved Touring. All of this was at extra expense to me. I applied this same logic when shopping for a H&N restraint. The ISAAC exceeds the standard and offers increased performance/benefit to the other devices on the market based on my research. Based on this, I feel that being mandated to use anything other than the ISAAC would reduce my level of safety in the car during a crash.

I realize that this is probably a difficult decision for the club. I am sure there is probably pressure to adopt a policy for the use of H&N restraints due to insurance and/or liability concerns. I sincerely hope that the SCCA will take a leadership roll if standards must be adopted by allowing other standards besides SFI 38.1 that are based on performance. Because racers should know that performance is what really matters.


Sincerely,
Jeff Underwood
BRR-SCCA
Member: 274916

[gsbaker]

Gregg, you know where I stand. While you're pointing out what we'd LIKE to happen, I'm simply pointing out what likely WILL happen.

Here's what's got to happen:
- Short term: no mandate, no recommendation.
- Long term: change the external spec requirements/get a new spec approved. THEN worry about mandates/recommendations.

Try doing it the other way around, and you know what'll happen...
A thoroughly practical approach. Patience is a virtue.

[erlrich]

I'd be interested in the context of those "recommends", in terms of:

- "what" they're recommending;
- if those "recommends" are "required" in other classes (e.g., fuel cells in IT); and,
- if those "recommends" all have external specs they must meet.

Oh, I agree, and probably the majority of those recommendations are for items optional to one class & required in another, or for optional upgrades (e.g. 6 or 7-point harness in place of the required 5-point); I was just trying to point out that it is not at all unusual for the SCCA to recommend the use of a piece of safety equipment when its use is deemed beneficial but not critical.


Remember (at the risk of sounding like a broken record - for you younger people, that's something we used to use to listen to music), if H&NRs are "recommended" or "mandated" my prediction is that they WILL be required to meet an external spec. And, that spec is SFI 38.1...

Which is why I suggested that the SCCA "highly recommend" the use of a H&N restraint as well as "highly recommending" that the device conform to SFI 38.1 - although in retrospect since the current language only recommends the use of a H&N restraint with no mention of any spec it probably would have been better to just ask that it be left as is.

[lateapex911]

We had the ITAC cn call last night, and i understand that there is a large "Voter turnout" on this one, and that's a great thing. If you haven't written, please do.

Also, I think a call or email to your local BoD person is in order. As Dickita (cha cha cha!) wisely pointed out above, history has shown that the leaders of the club are loath to go against the will of the members and make unpopular decisions. let them know where you stand on the issue.

In an ideal world, I would love to see the club issue a statement that gave some time window of the current "no mandate" stance, as I feel a lot of people are NOT buying protection because they are waiting for what they feel is inevitable. Knowing that we are good to go for the forseeable future could actually help increase driver safety dramatically.

[Cobrar05]

I wonder if the seat belt/harness or helmet requirement debate looked like this?

[Allspeed]

"I wonder if the seat belt/harness or helmet requirement debate looked like this?"

Yes it did. I remember when Nomex was first required (yes, I am that old). One quote I remember was "I can buy a new set of tires for the cost of a Nomex suit".

When Army surplus Nomex gloves were banned, a similar outcry.

When new Snell requirements appeared for the first time, more of the same.

Once drivers were reminded that a harness might help them drive the d**n car, they dropped those arguments.

Boys will be boys.

My stance is that if a head and neck restraint becomes required, ALL proven effective devices should be allowed. I don't like the possibility of hidden agendas/conflict of interests. I also don't know what the word proven means but some standard should be available.

I agree that a device that provides lateral as well as fore and aft protection would be the most effective.

I sometimes think we've made racing TOO safe and too many "wankers" survive to procreate at a later date, producing more "wankers":D,:D,:D

I think most of us will do whatever is finally decided, as we have in the past, 'cause addicts don't have choices.

Mike

[tnord]

In an ideal world, I would love to see the club issue a statement that gave some time window of the current "no mandate" stance, as I feel a lot of people are NOT buying protection because they are waiting for what they feel is inevitable. Knowing that we are good to go for the forseeable future could actually help increase driver safety dramatically.

count me as a data point. I had every intention of buying an ISAAC this year as I just got married a month ago, so my perspective has changed. I will not buy one until we get direction.....and if the wrong direction is chosen, maybe I won't buy one at all.

[teritanz25]

It seems to me like someone is looking for this to goto a vote somehow. I just purchased a H@N systems this week. I am happy with my decision to wear one. I personally feel it is a better idea to have one than not to. But, that being said I still feel it is up to each individual to decide what is important to themselves. I hate wearing Nomex socks but do so because I am told to and that make me mad. But I also understand why I should.

So, I vote " NO " to a mandate at this time. Maybe in the future when we all have more information and also more consistent info I will change my mind.:shrug:

Thanks. You all have a great day!:)

[Cobrar05]

I face in NASA as well as the SCCA. So I have an SFI Head and Neck restraint already. So, I really don't care about this rule. The argument about taking car of your own safety, though, is bogus and a laugh. Somebody has made the same argument on any safety device that is made manditory.

Richard Petty would have raced bare handed til his last day and lets not even talk about what Dale Earnhardt would have raced without if allowed to.

I understand the complaints and the reasons for them. I would like to run a couple of Mustang Challenge races next season. They require HANS. I own a Hybrid. So, I would to change or own two pieces of equipment.

[lateapex911]

I race in NASA as well as the SCCA. So I have an SFI Head and Neck restraint already. So, I really don't care about this rule. The argument about taking car of your own safety, though, is bogus and a laugh. Somebody has made the same argument on any safety device that is made manditory.

Uh, with respect, no.

You miss the point. The issue here isn't, as you are suggesting, that a mandate will force us to spend the money on safety gear that we'd rather have for entry fees, race rubber, or beer, or that we all have a natural inclination to avoid devices to increase our safety.....it is that a mandate will force many to downgrade their safety.

Many have already, (i myself have been wearing a device for 5 or more years now..) chosen a device that has superior numbers in more modes than what a mandate will likely require. IF we have a mandate, my understanding is that the club has little option but to issue a spec, and that will be a SFI 38.1 spec. While I'd LOVE to see them suggest an RSi performance listing, or wording that requires it to meet the 38.1 performance parameters, I know better.

So, for many who currently run a state of the art device, forcing them to purchase a 38.1 compliant device requires them to also go out and get a halo seat, special belts, and the proper mounts for the above, just to get back to the same approximate position they were in before the mandate. But wait, there's more. They're actually less safe in other ways, because climbing out their window is now an order of magnitude harder, as the available real estate used to egress has been chopped by the halo seat. (And lets not even talk about the crap they'll be trying to wiggle through that reduced opening with, crap that's been shown to get caught on stuff and hang up in televised races. Hey, sure, nobody's died because they've been trapped in a burning car, but, given a choice, I'd rather wriggle through without that stuff than with it, and I think anyone who's honest would agree. less is more at that point.)

Oh, and they'll be throwing away a perfectly good device that cost around $800, and spending another $1600 or so, yet for all that money, they will be worse off. That's the icing on the cake.

So, no, this isn't just whining about raising the safety bar.



Richard Petty would have raced bare handed til his last day and lets not even talk about what Dale Earnhardt would have raced without if allowed to.Funny that you mention that. Few have had the moxie to call NASCAR on the real deal there, but they are as responsible for Dale's death as anyone, other than Dale, of course. Everyone loves dale, but his actions got this whole thing rolling. If NASCAR had drawn the line, and demanded that the belts in his car be installed correctly, and worn appropriately, he'd be alive today.

[Dave Gomberg]

...

IF we have a mandate, the club has little option but to issue a spec, and that will be a SFI 38.1 spec. While I'd LOVE to see them suggest an RSi performance listing, or wording that requires it to meet the 38.1 performance parameters, I know better
So, let's be clear here. Jake. If the club adopted a mandatory head and neck restraint rule and allowed SFI 38.1 or either RSI or a specific list of other devices (that included the ISAAC), you would be fine with that?

Dave

[lateapex911]

So, let's be clear here. Jake. If the club adopted a mandatory head and neck restraint rule and allowed SFI 38.1 or either RSI or a specific list of other devices (that included the ISAAC), you would be fine with that?

Dave

oh, ABSOLUTELY, Dave. That would be awesome. But, we've all heard in the past, that the club doesn't want to be in the business of specifying, and making standards. Now, that could be viewed as hypocritical, as there are other examples where thats currently the case, but, it has seemed that up to now, SFI has ruled the discussion.

hey, I would LOVE to be wrong, and to my eye, the club needs to concern itself with a method of allowing the devices that perform, and keeping the riff raff out.

Further, as I stated above, some form af affirmative statement would open the floodgates, allowing the masses to go ahead and purchase devices with the confidence they wouldn't own an albatross in a year.

[tom91ita]

as soon as this out http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=20133 i am getting one. i can afford a $99 "albatross" but do not want a $600 or whatever albatross.

when/if this hits the market, i think with it being so affordable, everyone will want one.

heck, i would buy one for a friend for the weekend. some spend this kind of money in a weekend on refilling the kegerator.

[Knestis]

So, let's be clear here. Jake. If the club adopted a mandatory head and neck restraint rule and allowed SFI 38.1 or either RSI or a specific list of other devices (that included the ISAAC), you would be fine with that?

Dave

You bet. My letter says exactly that. I refuse to let the Club tell me that I can't use a system that I purchased because its test results were better than the other (38.1 listed) choices.

I think it's pretty unfortunate that a large portion of the "No" letters that the Club will get, will be based on resistance to having ANY H&N system. They're potentially too valuable to ignore, and drivers dragging their heels to adopt new technologies to protect themselves is the primary reason we're in the mess we are with SFI, etc.

K

[dj10]

They can pry my gun from my cold dead hand!!!.........woops..........sorry.........wrong subject. :~)

[BruceG]

Anybody have any info on the new Defender system?

Thanks

Bruce

[JimLill]

Anybody have any info on the new Defender system?

some numbers in here........

http://www.am-rennsport.com/HNR.html

I heard they'll start shipping to customers mid-Dec

[924Guy]

My (VERY LONG-WINDED) letter sent to CRB and BOD... (yes, my boss dreads reading my emails and reports at work, too easy to type a book... I suppose I shoulda cc'd it to the ITAC?)

I am writing to address the request for comments (Nov 08 Fastrack) on the potential mandate of use of head and neck restraints in Club Racing.

Let me preface this by spelling out my experience with H+N restraints over the past 4 years or so. I bought an ISAAC early on, in '04 as I recall, and have been using it ever since. Since then, I have been in about 6 incidents, all but one of those with the wall. I also have a HANS, as I am required to for work; I work for Bosch Engineering (in Detroit) in the area of Vehicle Dynamics - specifically development and testing of stability control systems. While it's not a typically used piece of equipment in our line of work, I spent the better part of this summer in a very high performance car on the racetrack, and was required by our customer's safety standards to use one. So I have plenty of time with that system as well, though (this being a safer test environment) we were fortunate to have no incidents resulting in use of the HANS.

So my experience with the HANS is limited to "normal" on-track driving, and I cannot rate its effectiveness in an impact. However I did experience significant pinching and bruising just in normal driving, and had MANY occasions where I spent my weekends off nursing a stiff neck and pulled muscles - which I've never experienced in my racecar, despite the greater cornering ability of the latter. (The test vehicle was equipped with full race seats, 5-points harnesses, etc, so no differences there).

By contrast, with the ISAAC, I have never experienced any such strain or injury in its use - normal or during incidents.

Of the 6 incidents I referred to above, 4 were distinctly lateral impacts (angle of impact over 45 degrees from the vehicle's longitudinal axis) with impact barriers - armco with and without tires. In EVERY case, I was able to easily walk away from the impact without any injury. Indeed, I never even experienced any neck strain or other symptoms, excepting mild headaches from the worst two hits (one onto armco at 70mph, and the following impact), despite the car suffering badly. Indeed, one lateral impact into armco was sufficient to bend the rack gear in my steering rack. Not the tie rods, the rack gear itself, a very sturdy piece of metal. Another impact was strong enough to shear a front brake caliper casting outright, among other damage.

The HANS has no benefit to the user in lateral impacts; indeed, its effectiveness is limited to a very narrow cone of about ± 15 degrees, as I recall.

The last, most recent impact, one of the more spectacular incidents, occurred only a few weeks ago at the '08 ARRC Championship ITB race in Road Atlanta. On lap 4, while struggling to regain control of my car at turn 7, I was broadsided by Sam Moore in his Volvo, who had the misfortune to be following so close as to have no chance to avoid my spinning car.

The resultant impact was the one I always feared was the worst case for us club racers; spin center track and get t-boned by the next car up, before having a chance to move out of the way. Not a headlong impact into a concrete oval-track wall, as the HANS is designed for. I can't speak for most club racers, but I know I don't race on too many street courses or ovals.

The resultant impact registered at least 5g on my data acq. system (already heavily filtered), and induced a yaw acceleration that pegged my yaw rate sensor at over 90 deg/second - truly hard to imagine - and spun the car 270 degrees back the other way. After this impact, I was able to snap the car back around, find a gear, and resume forward progress. Thanks to a good bit of luck and good preparation with the right equipment, I was not only able to finish the remaining 16 laps of Road Atlanta at a competitive pace, I was in fact able to run as high as 2nd in class before succumbing to a determined challenge and coming home 3rd on the podium. Poor Sam's race, unfortunately, was ended right after the impact, as he appeared to bounce off of my car and directly into the wall just past Turn 7.

I am certain without a doubt, on review of the data and video, that I would have been lucky to avoid serious injury if I had been wearing any lesser head/neck system - let along finish the race! In such a lateral and rotational impact, the HANS, well-acknowledge to be the best of the SFI 38.1-compliant devices, can be expected to provide little to no benefit, in my opinion.

Therefore I would like to submit my opinion to the Boards that the current statement in the rules, recommending the use of a head and neck device, be /retained as-is/. If any modification is made to the current wording, the only change I could support is "strongly recommends." Any other wording, in particular to require compliance with currently-recognized standards such as SFI 38.1, will decidedly not be in our best interests as racers. As it currently stands, such a requirement will deprive us of access to one of the most effective devices currently on the market, and one that I feel in my extensive real-world crash-test experience to be the best suited for our purposes - not the needs of a professional racing organization with decidedly different venues and goals.

I would also like to remind the Boards that the safety and head and neck requirements of different constructions of vehicles require substantially different approaches. Center nets don't make much sense in single-seater formula cars.

Please do not follow the ever-increasing trend to try to absolve the Club of liability in this dangerous sport. Let us continue to make our own responsible, well-considered decisions about what equipment best suits our needs, for the cars we drive.

Instead, if any action is to be taken, /please/ put the effort and resources of the Club into encouraging the development of improved safety devices, and into improving the access of competitors to those devices - in particular, awareness and education of what devices are available, and how they're useful. I suspect if better, more complete information became available to racers about the benefits and usage of new and existing safety devices, there would be far less resistance to the implementation of safety requirements, and resulting usage would be more effective.

Thanks for your time, your attention on this matter, and your continued efforts on behalf of the Club!

[tom_sprecher]

...The argument about taking car of your own safety, though, is bogus and a laugh. Somebody has made the same argument on any safety device that is made manditory...

No offense, but to say you and I have diametrically opposing sociological views would be an understatement. I say to each his own and no one else. Too bad many in this country can not understand this concept and can not be content to leave the rest of us alone.

Damn. America used to be a great place to live and play. Not so much anymore.

Blame it on those who refuse to take responsiblity for their own actions, those who sympathize with them and the lawyer scum that feed upon both.

[Cobrar05]

What professional racing sanctioning bodies allow the ISAAC to be used?

Sprech: Are you suggesting member should be able to race in street clothes, without a helmet and safety belts? I don't understand where H&NR becomes anything more than the next step along those lines.

Is the SCCA mandate for a window net wrong? Is the mandate that the window net must be mounted a specific way a compound on an injustice?

[tom91ita]

My (VERY LONG-WINDED) .......

Let me preface this by spelling out my experience with H+N restraints over the past 4 years or so. I bought an ISAAC early on, in '04 as I recall, and have been using it ever since. Since then, I have been in about 6 incidents, all but one of those with the wall. I also have a HANS, as I am required to for work; I work for Bosch Engineering (in Detroit) in the area of Vehicle Dynamics - specifically development and testing of stability control systems. ......

Thanks for your time, your attention on this matter, and your continued efforts on behalf of the Club!

Vaughn,

outstanding note as few have that much experience with both devices.

and upon observation of how many times you have actually "used" the Isaac, i might give you more room on the track next time....

seriously, good note and comparision of your experiences.

tom

[tom_sprecher]

Sprech: Are you suggesting member should be able to race in street clothes, without a helmet and safety belts? I don't understand where H&NR becomes anything more than the next step along those lines.

Is the SCCA mandate for a window net wrong? Is the mandate that the window net must be mounted a specific way a compound on an injustice?

No. I do not have any stats to back up it up but I would have to believe that the odds of having an incident where a helmet, fire suit or seat belts would prevent serious injury versus a H&N system has got to be orders of magnitude greater. Given the short history that has lead to the high cost of HNR systems I feel the cost outweighs the coverage at this point in time.

Each of the items you listed can be had for in the $100 to $300 price range and I have large selection to choose from. Make HNR systems meet those same requirements and I'll buy one. Until then I am strongly opposed to the creatation of a monopoly and being forced to support it.

[924Guy]

...and upon observation of how many times you have actually "used" the Isaac, i might give you more room on the track next time....


LOL!

The ironic thing is in just about every case the impact has been precipitated by my losing control without any help or contact... :eek:

[Dave Burchfield]

After reading this entire thread as well as the entire thread over at Roadrace/Autocross, there seems to be a commonality between them, and that is the people ranting about how we SCCA racers are/whiners/clueless/unconcerned about safety/HANS haters/ISAAC lovers(your choice) are individuals who either are not SCCA racers or have an axe to gring with SCCA. Interesting..........just sayin'

[Knestis]

What professional racing sanctioning bodies allow the ISAAC to be used? ...?

Don't care. Doesn't matter.

If you'd like, I can fill you in on my personal experiences with SFI. My safety is way down the list of their priorities, and they - and their relationships with sanctioning bodies - are driving those decisions.

K

[Cobrar05]

Don't care. Doesn't matter.

If you'd like, I can fill you in on my personal experiences with SFI. My safety is way down the list of their priorities, and they - and their relationships with sanctioning bodies - are driving those decisions.

K

I see. FIA, NASCAR, IRL, ALMS and so on and so on have all shut the door on the best device for political/sales reasons?

I am not an expert on this subject, but I hope you can see where your argument has that grassy knoll tilt to it.

[gsbaker]

What professional racing sanctioning bodies allow the ISAAC to be used?
Globally? Easier to list those that don't:

1. F1
2. NASCAR
3. A smattering of smaller organizations that could be considered Pro.

No organization has ever explicitly excluded an ISAAC system.

[gsbaker]

I see. FIA, NASCAR, IRL, ALMS and so on and so on have all shut the door on the best device for political/sales reasons?

I am not an expert on this subject, but I hope you can see where your argument has that grassy knoll tilt to it.
They made their decisions in 2003, and are not motivated to open that file again. Why bother?

[gsbaker]

...IRL...
is not on the list.

[spdmonkey]

Vaughn,
I am surprised to hear of your discomfort with the HANS. My experiences are the exact opposite. As some people know I've had nearly a dozen shoulder surgeries and for the past few years its been very painful during and after the races from the shoulder harness. The pressure exerted on my shoulder has led to numerous neck aches and on bad bumps (like turns 2-3 @IRP) horrible pain. This past year I bought a HANS and the difference was amazing. For me the belt pressure is now equally distributed and at IRP I had no pain whatsoever despite running at the front of the pack. After races my neck and shoulder felt normal. It was an excellent added bonus. Maybe the issac works for some, but for me the yoke devices are going to be perfect. YMMV.
db

[lateapex911]

Vaughn,
I am surprised to hear of your discomfort with the HANS. My experiences are the exact opposite. As some people know I've had nearly a dozen shoulder surgeries and for the past few years its been very painful during and after the races from the shoulder harness. The pressure exerted on my shoulder has led to numerous neck aches and on bad bumps (like turns 2-3 @IRP) horrible pain. This past year I bought a HANS and the difference was amazing. For me the belt pressure is now equally distributed and at IRP I had no pain whatsoever despite running at the front of the pack. After races my neck and shoulder felt normal. It was an excellent added bonus. Maybe the issac works for some, but for me the yoke devices are going to be perfect. YMMV.
db

That's great, but, let's be clear, the safety aspects of the device are not causing you this new found comfort. You could achieve the exact same result merely by inserting a similar form under the belts to distribute the load.

Others are saying that the safety aspects of the HANS, DO cause discomfort...they have no other option if they are forced to wear the HANS. The architecture of the devise is the cause.

It's great that you've been able to kill two birds with one stone though! I hope you have a proper seat to go with the HANS.

[JimLill]

What I observe is that are three distinct areas to evaluate in HNR selection

1) level of protection while in seat, the sled numbers basically

2) egress in the case of an incident

3) comfort

I didn't include price although some people may consider that.

Constructive comments welcome........

[lateapex911]

What professional racing sanctioning bodies allow the ISAAC to be used?

Sprech: Are you suggesting member should be able to race in street clothes, without a helmet and safety belts? I don't understand where H&NR becomes anything more than the next step along those lines.

Is the SCCA mandate for a window net wrong? Is the mandate that the window net must be mounted a specific way a compound on an injustice?

You must have me on "ignore". Read what I wrote. Maybe that will answer your questions as to the resistance you see. Or maybe I completely mis understand your point.

As to the other clubs and their requirements, wow that's great. The homeowners association in Newport Beach, CA, where lots of rich and professional folk live, requires you to paint your house one of five colors.

Do I think they really know more?

What if the UL, back when the light bulb was first invented, got together with the bulb manufacturers, and agreed to write a spec that required all lighting sources to be able to produce XX lumens of lighting energy, use electricity, and tungsten filaments. There goes the be incentive to innovate and create LEDs, vapor lighting, HID, etc.

To suggest that we "do as the other guys are doing it" is the obvious best path, because others are doing it is to ignore some hard facts, and displays some naivety in the bigger picture, IMO. The possible path THIS new mandate could follow shows signs of being very different than the mandates of the past. If you want to que up, and follow the masses, fine. But that' doesn't break new ground, or win races.

I'm not saying this is black and white, and I do see the different sides, but that means I see alternatives as well.

[JoshS]

I bought an ISAAC early on, in '04 as I recall, and have been using it ever since. Since then, I have been in about 6 incidents, all but one of those with the wall.

Seriously? You've had wrecks 6 times in 5 years?

[924Guy]

Seriously? You've had wrecks 6 times in 5 years?

Yeah, I guess so! Mind you, I do run a rather full season - typically 8 weekends! Particularly challenging, given that I race up north!!! :blink:

EDIT - also, 3 races/weekend at nearly all weekends, and 6 are at Waterford Hills - little runoff room for errors - 22 individual races this season! IOW, that's 6 incidents, only one involving another car, in over 100 races. 6% I can live with (and more importantly, so can my wife!)

Another good reason to cut back... ;)

Still, I race with all the best safety gear, in a car that's built like a tank (apparently one of the few capable of taking out a Volvo, not that that's something to be proud of!) and I race hard and at the front...

[Knestis]

I see. FIA, NASCAR, IRL, ALMS and so on and so on have all shut the door on the best device for political/sales reasons?

I am not an expert on this subject, but I hope you can see where your argument has that grassy knoll tilt to it.

No, Rob - I can't. And I'll ignore your implication that I'm a loon, simply because I know you don't know any better.

I said PERSONAL experiences - as in meetings with Arnie K. and SFI "early adopters" of suit specifications, going back some 20 years. I'm not making this shit up, even though I am of course letting what I learned then influence my impressions now.

But believe what you want. You aren't alone in not understanding how SFI works. And you're muddling the entire conversation by putting FIA, NASCAR, IRL, ALMS, et al. all in the same basket. It's way more complex than "everyone" does the same thing.

K

[JimLill]

It's way more complex than "everyone" does the same thing.

eg: I heard that the FIA does not do sled tests of the HNR. The do analysis of the mechanics and physics involved and then do strength tests of the assembly and/or components...

these articles are interesting also..........

https://www.paddocktalk.com/news/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=77807&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

http://www.cams.com.au/content.asp?PageID=Article&ObjectID=1103

[ddewhurst]

If this dosen't open the eyes of some nothing will.

SFI spins-off from SEMA
Although a proud beginning, SFI now operates as a foundation independent from SEMA, yet dependent on all segments of the industry it serves, both for funding and participation. SFI maintains its own managerial staff and oversees technical committees. The Foundation is funded by companies which voluntarily participate in the specs program, along with financial support from member sanctioning bodies. As a result of this support, SFI has developed programs for almost eighty different products used by manufacturers, motorsports groups, and consumers worldwide.

[Knestis]

So, DD - what nut-case manifesto did you get that from...? ;)

K

[Cobrar05]

No, Rob - I can't. And I'll ignore your implication that I'm a loon, simply because I know you don't know any better.

I said PERSONAL experiences - as in meetings with Arnie K. and SFI "early adopters" of suit specifications, going back some 20 years. I'm not making this shit up, even though I am of course letting what I learned then influence my impressions now.

But believe what you want. You aren't alone in not understanding how SFI works. And you're muddling the entire conversation by putting FIA, NASCAR, IRL, ALMS, et al. all in the same basket. It's way more complex than "everyone" does the same thing.

K

I am sure its complex. I said I was not an expert. I was not calling you a loon.
I find the H&N thing a nightmare because its not uniform. SCCA guys seem to like the ISAAC. I can't use that when I run a NASA race. I can't use that when I want to run a Mustang Challenge race. I can't use my Hybrid either in those races. I have a modest budget at best. I can't afford a different H&N and helmet package for each sanctioning body I want to race with.

[lateapex911]

I can't use that when I want to run a Mustang Challenge race. I can't use my Hybrid either in those races. I have a modest budget at best. I can't afford a different H&N and helmet package for each sanctioning body I want to race with.

I guess I was thinking of the wrong Mustang Challenge race. The one I know of uses the cars built by Ford, which sold for $75K. A guy I know rents one for the season, and it works out to be about $10K a race.

if that's the same series you're going to do two events in, I wouldn't mind having your "modest budget", LOL.

[Cobrar05]

I guess I was thinking of the wrong Mustang Challenge race. The one I know of uses the cars built by Ford, which sold for $75K. A guy I know rents one for the season, and it works out to be about $10K a race.

if that's the same series you're going to do two events in, I wouldn't mind having your "modest budget", LOL.

1. A used $75k Mustang Challenge car is a lot less. A lot.
2. That $10k includes A LOT of professional race team overhead. Tractor Trailer, Max tools, Crew, Hospitality and so on.
3. The races are sprint races. 4 sessions. One set of new tires and a little more than on tank of fuel. If I wanted to run a
Mustang Challenge race I could do it for 30% of a rental. That would qualify as modest.

[Knestis]

Hey - on the egress question, note this little item in the December Fastrack:

Item 2. Effective 1/1/09: Add the following sentence to section 9.1.3.D.9.m:
If equipped, the vent window and its supporting structure may be removed.

K

[ddewhurst]

Letter sent............

***Item 2. Effective 1/1/09: Add the following sentence to section 9.1.3.D.9.m:
If equipped, the vent window and its supporting structure may be removed.***

As much as some of you guys (not you K) dislike the Spec Miata I believe this ^ is a trickle down safety rule from Spec Miata. :023:

[lateapex911]

Letter sent............

***Item 2. Effective 1/1/09: Add the following sentence to section 9.1.3.D.9.m:
If equipped, the vent window and its supporting structure may be removed.***

As much as some of you guys (not you K) dislike the Spec Miata I believe this ^ is a trickle down safety rule from Spec Miata. :023:

You're right. The original request was for SMs to get the allowance when running in IT. But, it is a good idea, and therefore, it will be implemented across the board.

[lateapex911]

1. A used $75k Mustang Challenge car is a lot less. A lot.
2. That $10k includes A LOT of professional race team overhead. Tractor Trailer, Max tools, Crew, Hospitality and so on.
3. The races are sprint races. 4 sessions. One set of new tires and a little more than on tank of fuel. If I wanted to run a
Mustang Challenge race I could do it for 30% of a rental. That would qualify as modest.

Hey, it's modest for my pal who runs the season, LOL. I'd love to have a part of his "modest'!

The series isn't even a year old, yet...what are used ones selling for? Is the series growing next year?

[88YB1]

Letter sent yesterday. opposed to mandated H&NR. Pro choice.:024:

Chuck
ITA#34
Atlanta Ga

[Cobrar05]

Hey, it's modest for my pal who runs the season, LOL. I'd love to have a part of his "modest'!

The series isn't even a year old, yet...what are used ones selling for? Is the series growing next year?

There are four cars on the market that I know of. All around the $50k mark. All not selling. There built 77 of the cars and have more than half that number still unsold.

Its a buyer's market. The price of a used race car will drop further.

[spnkzss]

What professional racing sanctioning bodies allow the ISAAC to be used?



I am still having a big problem with this statement cause everybody keep saying. Just because it is DOESN'T make it RIGHT.

[evanwebb]

On the off chance that anyone would like to get back on-topic, I posted this also on the Prod website:

Just a note, if the HNR requirement is for an SFI 38.1 rated device there are several available on the market so the choice is not just the HANS. I am especially interested in the new DefNder unit which seems to have very good numbers especially in the angle/side impact scenario. Lots of people also like the ISAAC which is not SFI rated, hopefully some provision can be made there.

In terms of making the devices mandatory, maybe just ponder this: if you have a HNR already or plan to purchase one, the "rational consumer" theory of economics would seem to indicate that you should be in favor of making the devices mandatory in SCCA since there is no downside to having your marginal insurance risk reduced by having everyone on the grid wearing one (and thereby reducing risk by some amount.) If you wear one and a competitor doesn't, and that person is injured and insurance rates go up then your total cost goes up more. I don't think anyone expects that our insurance rates will go down if we are all racing wearing HNRs, the risk is rather that the current rates will go up if we don't and there are preventable injuries incurred.

In a perfect world we would have unbiased medical opinion to evaluate whether a HNR would have helped in cases of club racing accidents (SCCA, NASA, BMW, etc.) and that would help us objectively quantitatively evaluate how much extra risk we are incurring by not mandating these devices. I don't know of any such study, maybe someone on here knows of any studies or at least collection of statistics across multiple club racing organizations?

Lastly, if your opposition to these devices is based on some past event where you hit a wall with your racecar and walked away without a scratch, please don't be convinced that you have a superhuman neck and you don't need an HNR. You got lucky that time, relatively minor changes in the impact geometry might have resulted in large increases in the loads imparted to your body and you might be telling a significantly different story today. Just think about it a bit...

I've worn the HANS and the ISAAC (borrowed from friends) in the past and really its not a big deal, try it before you make a statement like "I'm not interested in racing while wearing one of those devices", borrow a HNR from a buddy at the track and wear it for a couple sessions and see what if anything you specifically don't like about it, there is probably a workaround like the sliding tethers or quick release for the HANS or using a different type of device like the damper-based ISAAC or the devices that are securely attached to the driver only like the R3 and Hybrid systems.

I'm buying an HNR before next season...

[evanwebb]

Gregg have you guys looked at doing a device that would incorporate your dampers and a wearable brace like the R3?

[924Guy]

Good call, Evan, about what this would likely mean to our rates... doubtful to think that they'd ever go down, only not go as high as quickly.

However, and this seems a little surprising from someone who's not only aware of but has in fact used an ISAAC, your rational theory concept does not include any factor for the fact that those of us who have already purchased safe, effective, functional, non SFI 38.1-compliant devices would be SOL if a mandate is applied, and out of pocket the cost of these devices, since we'd have to now replace them with compliant devices. So your model is in fact a bit over-simplified, IMO.

As for your follow-on question (if the ISAAC damper technology has been applied to a brace or collar type of base) - well, I don't mean to speak for Gregg, but I'm pretty sure he already pointed out that it's ruled out thanks to patents...

It's good to hear you'll be buying a device... but are you truly satisfied with the options available now? Will you still be if they have to be 38.1 compliant? Before the Defender showed up, I wasn't; now I'm a little more hopeful.

[tom91ita]

.....I'm buying an HNR before next season...

i am too. i plan to buy it early in 2009 (birthday present/excuse). after the 2009 GCR is issued.

i expect that it will not be SFI compliant. it will be from Isaac. and it will be the least expensive variant that meets a performance level that i deem is appropriate.

and if i am SOL due to changes in the future, i will give up one race event that summer to fund any replacement if i continue to race.

[DavidM]

I am sure its complex. I said I was not an expert. I was not calling you a loon.
I find the H&N thing a nightmare because its not uniform. SCCA guys seem to like the ISAAC. I can't use that when I run a NASA race. I can't use that when I want to run a Mustang Challenge race. I can't use my Hybrid either in those races. I have a modest budget at best. I can't afford a different H&N and helmet package for each sanctioning body I want to race with.

I'm not sure how this is an issue. You want to race with those other organizations so you have to get an SFI device, which is perfectly legal in SCCA. Some of us don't care about racing with those other orgs and would like the choice of using a non-SFI device in SCCA. You would still be perfectly legal with your SFI device with any of the options being proposed. Where's the issue?

David

[evanwebb]

Hi Vaughan, just to clarify about the "rational consumer" thing; I wasn't necessarily expecting that a mandate to use a HNR would have include the SFI 38.1 compliance, I really hope it doesn't. I agree that if the mandate includes the SFI compliance then all ISAAC & other non-SFI solutions (Wright device, etc.) would be, as you say, SOL. And that would be a damn shame in many ways. I haven't looked at the RSI deal for quite awhile and I've forgotten what its all about, I'll have to look again: IMHO the standard the motorsports organizations are using should be on the ability of the device to mitigate the medical consequences of various types of impacts and that is not necessarily the exclusive focus of the 38.1 standard.

Of course most real consumers & markets have a significant percentage of irrationality acting much of the time ;-) I just thought I'd bring up the Econ 101 topic for consideration...

I'm kinda psyched about the DefNder considering its price but I would really like to see some feedback from people who have used it (or at least worn it for awhile...) The pictures sure are flashy!



Good call, Evan, about what this would likely mean to our rates... doubtful to think that they'd ever go down, only not go as high as quickly.

However, and this seems a little surprising from someone who's not only aware of but has in fact used an ISAAC, your rational theory concept does not include any factor for the fact that those of us who have already purchased safe, effective, functional, non SFI 38.1-compliant devices would be SOL if a mandate is applied, and out of pocket the cost of these devices, since we'd have to now replace them with compliant devices. So your model is in fact a bit over-simplified, IMO.

As for your follow-on question (if the ISAAC damper technology has been applied to a brace or collar type of base) - well, I don't mean to speak for Gregg, but I'm pretty sure he already pointed out that it's ruled out thanks to patents...

It's good to hear you'll be buying a device... but are you truly satisfied with the options available now? Will you still be if they have to be 38.1 compliant? Before the Defender showed up, I wasn't; now I'm a little more hopeful.

[BruceG]

Anyone else see the Formula VEE race at the Nationals on the SPEED chan?

There was an off course incident between 2 VEE's where one of them had a major rollover. If ever there was an example for the need for HNR(which the driver did not have), this was it. During rollover, the driver had so much side to side head and neck movement that it is a wonder he walked away from it. Absolutely scary!!

[Greg Amy]

During rollover, the driver had so much side to side head and neck movement that it is a wonder he walked away from it. Absolutely scary!!
The HANS H&NR does nothing for side-to-side head restraint...in fact, as far as I know, *no* SFI 38.1 H&NR restricts side-to-side head movement.

Hey, just sayin'...

[BruceG]

Hi Greg. Thanks for the HNR info. Don't know how much a HNR would have protected this driver but it definately would have helped.

[spnkzss]

Hi Greg. Thanks for the HNR info. Don't know how much a HNR would have protected this driver but it definately would have helped.

And unfortunately that "understanding" is why some of us are trying to make sure 38.1 is NOT mandated.

Yes, that was ugly with LOTS of neck movement.

[Greg Amy]

And unfortunately that "understanding" is why some of us are trying to make sure 38.1 is NOT mandated.
In fact, Bruce, I was wearing a HANS during my big crash at the Glen last September.

In the video you can see my head move laterally SIGNIFICANTLY, farther than I ever thought it could. My head hit the diagonal rollcage tubing THREE TIMES; that tube is/was so far away from my head that we NEVER thought it would get there, and it was not protected by padding.

I'll have to see if Cameron has those video screen shots hanging out somewhere...

Everyone should get it out of your minds that an SFI H&NR is for lateral movement; it's not. Its primary - I'd even call it exclusive - function is to stop forward momentum of the head/helmet in forward impacts only. If you're worried about lateral movement, you need to be looking at "halo" seats, and the formula guys need to be looking at getting their heads inside the cockpit openings (like they do in Indy, F1, etc. That's why they have those inserts that clip in after the driver ingresses...) - GA

[BruceG]

Really good point Greg!! Obviously, he had some fore and aft movement as well, since it was and end over end flip(Steve Saslow, I believe)but your point about the halo seats is well put. You must have experienced a similar side to side motion and it is scary to watch...much less experience!!

Thnaks again for all your relevant imput.

Bruce

[ddewhurst]

Turff protection.................:shrug:

According to Jayski HANS alleges Innovative Safety makers of the defNder device have infringed on HANS patents for head and neck restraint devices.

“We and our licensees have invested significantly in the invention, innovation and continued development of proprietary head and neck restraint technologies,” said Mark Stiles, Chief Executive Officer of HANS Performance Products. “When others make use of our patented technology, we will always take aggressive action to protect our investment, including the enforcement of our legal rights.”

[quadzjr]

shouldn't of they taken a quicker action? Why wait untill they have a booth @ PRI? I believe this is why they have patent attourneys. Maybe they are worried about the possiblity of this H&N system becoming successfull.. especially with it's initial 500 dollar price tag. So with a possiblity draining the company in both time and money by holding it up in court? Just thinking..

However if there is a legit patent infrigment, then Defnder needs to take responsibility.. and either pay for the use of the patent.. or redesign there system.

I spoke with the rep @ defnder and tired the system on. If was quite comforable..

From what I heard at another vendor a system similiar to the Issac system was used years ago in drag boat racing and are no longer used, but that is just what I heard. I would take that just like I am.. with a grain of salt.

[jdrago1]

Hey guys, This is the first time on this forum for me. I only know those who were/are involved in SM. Since accepting the position on CRB, I will try and cruise a few other of the forrums. I know IT is near and dear to Peter's heart, so he will keep this covered more than likely.
Travis linked me to this thread this weekend, I have read 90% of it. This was brought up at the PRI show this weekend as well. Of the drivers attending, ALL wore a H&N of some sort less any mandate, except the CRB chairman :shrug:

Mostly just wanted to introduce myself here. If you guys have questions or concerns, send me an email as I will likley not check this forum all that often.
Thanks
Jim Drago

[email protected]

[Greg Amy]

Jim, you're a brave man...I like it... ;)

Welcome.

[IPRESS]

Jim will really try to see all sides of most issues so I would say he will be a friend to the IT world.
From what I heard at the meeting I feel progress on a mandatory rule will move forward, but with a lot of fact gathering. The one thing that kept coming up was "Industry Standard". And in our racing world the "Industry Standard" for safety items seems to be SFI rating. That kept coming up in conversations from several speakers from the floor. I brought up that a number of IT racers are huge fans / users of the Issac and don't want to be forced to change. (That didn't get a very positive response due to folks not having the info that is on here.)
Peter was there and probably has a better recall of what was said. I left feeling that at somepoint H&N will probably be required, but it may take time to get it all sorted out.

The so called Big T in the punch bowl seems to come from the SFI stuff, which due to most all organizations recognizing that as the "Industry Standard" sort of forces our organ ization to fall in line. (JMO)

As I said above, Jim is a very good guy and is grassroots racing to the core. I think with the addition of him to Peter & Chris we have some very IT friendly folks in a good position.

[shwah]

Jim,

Nice to see you here. Hope to see you at the track in CenDiv next year as well. Thanks for stepping up an volunteering your time.:happy204:

[tom91ita]

Jim,

thanks for jumping in. i am assuming you got my note since i believe it went to the CRB although i am unsure if it went to the newest members since i received a response from one member that did not run for re-election.

i appreciate anyone's involvement in these informal settings and want to apologize ahead of time for any thing that might not come across as intended. hard to capture humor or sarcasm sometimes when you don't know someone's sense of humor.

i was very encouraged that SCCA bid out the insurance and the news was posted elsewhere that it came back pretty well. but it was also my understanding that the insurance was not bid as with or without SFI H&NR, etc. it is also my understanding that it is based primarily on loss experience/history.

if the loss experience is what drives this, then i think the Isaac with its better performance should be allowed (some might say mandated). i am not in favor of any brand or any style being mandated. i can understand if one is required. i would not have an issue with a requirement of must protect against XY g impact with a maximum force of YX Newtons, etc.

if based on performance, it should be easy to justify to the membership. and if a $99 version of protection comes on the market soon, it will likely cause a large increase in the membership that has one and further improve the safety of the drivers and help control the insurance costs.

in case you had not seen the buzz on the potential $99 version:

http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=20133

anyways, welcome!

tom

[gsbaker]

i was very encouraged that SCCA bid out the insurance and the news was posted elsewhere that it came back pretty well. but it was also my understanding that the insurance was not bid as with or without SFI H&NR, etc. it is also my understanding that it is based primarily on loss experience/history.
We have spoken directly to the insurance carriers about this and been told in no uncertain terms that their only concern is injuries. They don't care about stickers.


in case you had not seen the buzz on the potential $99 versionFor the record, that is an introductory price and the product is very real. It will ultimately be priced under $200, though.

(Welcome, Jim. I've enjoyed your postings at SM.)

[evanwebb]

Hi All, I post here a copy of a segment of this same discussion that is going on over at the Prod forum. Phil Creighton is a member of the (BOD or CRB?, not sure which) and his response to this whole discussion seemed not very well thought-through to me, hence my response which I provide here as some of the more masochistic amongst you (Greg? Kirk?) might be interested.


philip creighton
Joined: 17 Dec 2002
Posts: 105
Location: Georgia
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:42 am Post subject: Insurance and Hans At this point the reason for the insurance reduction for the Club can be summed up principally in that its a soft insurance market compared to last year plus our history of claims over the last few years had improved.

While I can't see the immediate mandating of head and neck restraint devices (yes there are other than HANS out there) I also can't see mandating something in the future that does not comply with an "industry standard". Why? Because it takes away one more avenue in a lawsuit - you don't have to defend the specification of the device that you have mandated. We have done it with Snell for helmets, SFI for belts and arm restraints and FIA for various items. I understand that the only specification for HANS is SFI at the moment but I believe 12-13 devices have met that spec at the moment. One can argue the relevance of the tests that SFI or others conduct all day long but at present it is the only recognized standard in the USA. Pretty soon we will be the only sanctioning body that does not mandate it - which will not be a comfortable position to be in.


evanwebb
Joined: 29 May 2003
Posts: 133
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:18 am
Phil, the only way I can characterize that type of logic about the assumption that a H&N mandate must also involve SFI 38.1 is "lazy". If the SCCA mandates H&N restraints, and if the hypothetical situation you refer to comes about then you will be defending in court one of two positions depending on whether you decide to mandate an SFI device or leave the choice of H&N restraints open to other devices that may perform better: 1) Why did the SCCA mandate a restraint and not mandate the standard?, or 2) Why did the SCCA mandate the standard and disallow the competitors the freedom to choose the best performing device available?

I would say that (2) is more easily defensible. The defense of (1) involves proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, a negative. That is, if the competitor that was (presumably) killed leading to the lawsuit & trial had been wearing a 38.1-compliant device then he would have lived. Can you prove this? Doubtful. Defense of (2) only involves raising enough doubt that the competitor might have lived if he had been wearing a hypothetical device which has so much better performance that it would have saved his life. Why only a hypothetical device? Because there will be a reasonable argument to be made that the existence of the 38.1 standard would have stifled innovation into better technologies because there was no market for it. And yes the decision of the SCCA is big enough in the US market to have that be a very real business issue. The fact that there are devices that already exist that have better performance than various 38.1-compliant devices only strengthens this argument because it will be a piece of cake to gather thousands of affidavits of racers who will say that they have not bought any H&N restraint because it is a substantial investment and they did not have confidence that their sanctioning body (the SCCA) would continue to allow it. Myself included.

There is a ton of information out there; probably the best, most in depth discussion anywhere has taken place on the IT forum. If a bunch of IT guys sitting around blabbing on the computer can develop a substantial pile of reasons why the SFI is a joke in many ways, and the 38.1 standard does not cover a lot of ground that should be covered in a so-called "standard" on that subject, and whatever lawyers you might hire in a lawsuit can't, well then you have hired yourselves some half-assed lawyers...

Look, in the end, it is the moral responsibility of the SCCA to "do the right thing". If that means take every effort to inform the membership of the issue and how they can voluntarily protect themselves then you guys could certainly do a helluva lot more in terms of discussion and education. Maybe even mandatory education but voluntary compliance. That is a defensible position. If the decision is made to put forth a mandate, then a substantial education effort plus a mandate that DOESN'T involve SFI 38.1 would satisfy that criterion as well because it would allow the competitors to review all the data and make the best choice considering all the factors that are relevant to them.

This is an extremely important issue, please don't just do what others do. That is the path to the Enron collapse, the mortgage underwriting crisis, and the Bernie Madoff fraud scandal.

PS just because something is an industry standard doesn't mean it is worth something. Standards evolve and are replaced in a way that trails the technology. Devices developed to a standard trail the leading edge of performance. Standards exist in order to make profitable development of products easier, not to enable innovation. The responsibility of the SCCA is not to advance the interests of the safety industry, it is to advance the interests of its members.
_________________
Evan Webb
MARRS HP #86 VW Scirocco
Tres Tortugas Motorsports
Bildon Motorsport

[RacerBowie]

That's just grand. So all of us who wrote to Phil Creighton about this apparently didn't make our case nearly well enough to help him get properly educated.

[gsbaker]

Phil needs to call the insurance carriers and ask what would happen if SCCA adopted a spec that excluded safer products--and then listen to the "gulp" coming over the phone.

Seriously. Don't listen to anyone (including me) other than the carriers.

[924Guy]

Evan - you make out some good points. First off, the responsibility of SCCA to educate its members. Seems like that has been lacking, given that past safety equipment reviews in SportsCar, our official publication, have omitted the ISAAC device (in the list of H+N devices - article predating 38.1). I wonder if they still do? Or maybe ISAAC isn't paying enough advertising bucks??

Other point - industry standards. Very good point. Compare to other auto-related standards: so many FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) - the meat I get to deal with at the day job all the time. Roof crush standards on trucks comes to mind, but it's one of the lesser-known ones.

In this case, we're talking about not even so much as an industry standard, but a Federally-mandated standard!

That didn't save Ford from some serious hell in court over the Firestone tire debacle; somehow arguing that the Exploders met all applicable Federal vehicle safety standards etc. didn't save them from being held liable. Lack of tire pressure monitors, standard stability control, etc - hey, the technology's out there, why don't you have it?

So, perhaps the arguments coming from the CRB/BOD may be a little lazier than prudent...

[tom91ita]

wow, now there is a prod guy calling me, an IT driver, a blabbler on a computer. i love it!:happy204:

great note. but it is dissappointing that our previous notes did so little.

vaughn, good analogy for the ford explorer & tires.

i wonder if jet aircraft would have been developed if airplanes had been held to an SFI propeller design...

p.s., if NASA is the leader in this, why aren't we all flocking there? or should we?

[Knestis]

SportsCar very specifically favors advertisers in its "guides." I've had personal experience with that. Beyond that, it's all been said in this forum a thousand times, and we've made our case to the club - at least I hope we all have. If they decide to restrict options - current, that is - with demonstrated advantages in performance AND put in place huge disincentives to innovate, it's a very bad move. It will not of course be the first bad move made by management in the name of expediency and/or butt covering.

K

[irondragon]

Seems to me that while SCCA has been debating the need for mandatory H&N devices for a while, the current urgency derives from NASA's decision to require them.
It may be that NASA regrets that decision, but this is not the year for SCCA to follow it.

First, there seems to be a lot of disagreement on just which devices will be acceptable.
There are quite a few out there but evidently only one acceptable to SFI.
If SCCA determines that SFI is the standard to follow, then that should be made known along with an encouragement to all H&N device providers to get their products in compliance.
But don't shut out all but HANS, because the others haven't done it yet.
This just stifles development. Given some time, the serious providers will deal with SFI. Then there will more and better devices to choose among.

Second, for very real economic reasons, this is just not the time to do it. We are all in favour of safe racing. No one is AGAINST the concept of preventing injuries.
But a many of us are FOR a lot of things, and safe racing is just one of them; also included are the availability of $$ to spend on racing in the immediate months to come.

Fact is, while racing may drive some of us to irrational economic behaviour, there is a finite amount of money that each of us can spend in a year.
The 2009 season looks to be one that is short on $$.
So the idea of a mandatory expenditure of $600-800 on a bunch of questionably needed neck hardware just means that for some drivers there will be a couple of events for which there is no entry money. Not the year to mandate new expensive gear.
Let's wait a bit and take a look at what is really needed and what might become available to meet the needs.
Bill Miskoe

[gsbaker]

Seems to me that while SCCA has been debating the need for mandatory H&N devices for a while, the current urgency derives from NASA's decision to require them.
It may be that NASA regrets that decision, but this is not the year for SCCA to follow it.
That is an excellent summary of the current situation. NASA had absolutely nothing to gain by their decision, and should have followed SCCA's lead.


]First, there seems to be a lot of disagreement on just which devices will be acceptable.
There are quite a few out there but evidently only one acceptable to SFI.
If SCCA determines that SFI is the standard to follow, then that should be made known along with an encouragement to all H&N device providers to get their products in compliance.
But don't shut out all but HANS, because the others haven't done it yet.
This just stifles development. Given some time, the serious providers will deal with SFI. Then there will more and better devices to choose among.

Second, for very real economic reasons, this is just not the time to do it. We are all in favour of safe racing. No one is AGAINST the concept of preventing injuries.
But a many of us are FOR a lot of things, and safe racing is just one of them; also included are the availability of $$ to spend on racing in the immediate months to come.

Fact is, while racing may drive some of us to irrational economic behaviour, there is a finite amount of money that each of us can spend in a year.
The 2009 season looks to be one that is short on $$.
So the idea of a mandatory expenditure of $600-800 on a bunch of questionably needed neck hardware just means that for some drivers there will be a couple of events for which there is no entry money. Not the year to mandate new expensive gear.
Let's wait a bit and take a look at what is really needed and what might become available to meet the needs.
Bill MiskoeBill,

Agreed. This is the same logic that drove the establishment of RSI, and it came in large part from sanctioning bodies--including SCCA. Since RSI acts as an umbrella organization with certification based on performance only, it covers all the test criteria while leaving drivers with a complete choice of all products that meet industry standards.

With an RSI mandate there are no tradeoffs; no sacrifice of safety, no limitation of choice, no conflict of interest and no money changing hands. It's almost too easy.

(http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/Head%20and%20Neck%20Restraints.html (http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/Head%20and%20Neck%20Restraints.html))

[tderonne]

Re. NASA and HANS.

How come HPDE entrants don't have to use one? Same car (sometimes), same track, same day, same insurance policy, but no H&N required?

[dj10]

Re. NASA and HANS.

How come HPDE entrants don't have to use one? Same car (sometimes), same track, same day, same insurance policy, but no H&N required?

HPDE is not a race.......therefore you can't get hurt.B)

[tom91ita]

.... NASA had absolutely nothing to gain by their decision,

i disagree a bit. i think NASA's "business" model of a racing organization vs. the "Volunteer / Club" model of SCCA means that NASA wants the cost of more protection to always rest with the driver rather than NASA. e.g., hire more corner workers is a cost to them, etc..


Re. NASA and HANS.

How come HPDE entrants don't have to use one? Same car (sometimes), same track, same day, same insurance policy, but no H&N required?

the better question is why Time Trial cars, that are competing for best time, do not require cages, window nets, etc.

actually, see "business" model above because it would mean fewer entrants and less $$. this is a very fundamental difference in how the organizations behave, imho.

[JohnW8]

When ever I run in a PDX I wear my race gear (firesuit, nomex undies, gloves, etc., etc.)and other drivers might point and laugh at my get-up, while they have short sleeve shirts and jeans on, I tell them the potential fire in the car doesn't know this is only a PDX. That usually shuts them up and sends them off looking for
a long sleeve shirt.

As for the head and neck, i want it to be my decision and not
a club mandated requirement. I will err on the side of safety, everytime.

[Philip Creighton]

Its a pity that my further response was not added so here it is:
Evan
Thanks for the detailed reply - Most people believe that in this litigious society that having a standard for a mandated safety device largely eliminates the need to argue the standard yourself if it came to court. It has certainly been the case with helmets over the years. The freedom question tends to be ignored by heirs and assigns when their loved one is dead or injured and legally I don't think your perception is correct.
As you say standards evolve and maybe by the time anything is done there may be other standards than SFI out there, or a different SFI standard.
I take your point about education but I'm not sure what form that could take in our Club - we could make a strong recommendation in the GCR but beyond that I would assume that the competitor infrastructure would do it by word of mouth.
Phil

I would add this,
I have no doubt that the wave of sanctioning bodies mandating something will eventually carry us along if we are the last one standing,so to speak - in spite of all our homegrown experts we do get advice on liability issues and the law and I stand by the issue of "industry standards". Read my post above. I am not sure which devices meet any recognized standards or whether other standards are applicable at this point - I leave that to the CRB to analyze and make recommendations. I understand from the posts that the ISAAC is not SFI approved and why.
Phil
Area 12 Director

[tnord]

Philip -

1) Most importantly, it's NOT an industry standard, it's a HANS standard. they wrote it.
2) Do you want to tell us how many lawsuits are brought against SCCA currently? Do you really think that will change by an idiotic SFI mandate? Would you like to share the basis of any of those lawsuits? I bet there have been exactly -0- on the basis of no HNR requirement.
3) in my best motherly tone of voice....."if all of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?"

[tom91ita]

......
As you say standards evolve and maybe by the time anything is done there may be other standards than SFI out there, or a different SFI standard.......

Phil,

thanks for jumping in. but with regards to other standards, there is RSI (Racing Safety Institute);

http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/Head%20and%20Neck%20Restraints.html

[Knestis]

...or Phil, we could adopt the PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS from the "industry standard" - the only ones that should matter - and not buy into the market-restraint and innovation restricting design architecture rules of 38.1.

SFI proponents suggest that these restrictive design features are about getting out of the car but if we care about egress, which I've argued for ages we should, we do that with a separate rule that really gets to that point.

Jake G. proposed that and got some silly reaction about being ADA compliant. We already waive rules to allow hand controls where appropriate and the same could be accomplished with egress requirements, if we were so inclined.

By the way, I got picked at "random" (with my Isaac) for the NASA bailout test at a race last spring. I got out of my car from everything hooked up (except my drink tube, since it was a qualifying session) to on the tarmac in less than 8 seconds. Only about 1/2 second of that was disconnecting the head restraint.

I could draft the rule for you in 10 minutes if you want an example. Eight of those minutes would be finding the current rule in the GCR to cut out for modification. :)

K

[raffaelli]

ADA compliant race cars? Seriously?:blink:

[jjjanos]

Jake G. proposed that and got some silly reaction about being ADA compliant. We already waive rules to allow hand controls where appropriate and the same could be accomplished with egress requirements, if we were so inclined.

ADA requires reasonable accomodation. Hand controls are a reasonable accomodation. Being required to allow the blind to race is not. Allowing pro golfers to use carts between holes is a required accomodation - though the PGA disagreed. The question is whether egress requirements are reasonable. Civil Rights litigation is expensive. If you win, you pay your own costs. If you lose, you pay for the costs of both parties and maybe even damages.

Some think being able to get out of a car in X seconds would be a reasonable requirement because of fire. What a court would rule is less certain. Given the low incidence of fires, there's little benefit in applying the rule even if you win a potential case.

That's also why the single-point release rule is stupid. There's no reason to have it.

[raffaelli]

ADA requires reasonable accomodation.


In a race car? Huh?

[gsbaker]

ADA requires reasonable accomodation. Hand controls are a reasonable accomodation. Being required to allow the blind to race is not. Allowing pro golfers to use carts between holes is a required accomodation - though the PGA disagreed. The question is whether egress requirements are reasonable. Civil Rights litigation is expensive. If you win, you pay your own costs. If you lose, you pay for the costs of both parties and maybe even damages.

Some think being able to get out of a car in X seconds would be a reasonable requirement because of fire. What a court would rule is less certain. Given the low incidence of fires, there's little benefit in applying the rule even if you win a potential case.

That's also why the single-point release rule is stupid. There's no reason to have it.
Well put. Nevertheless, there is value in underlining the importance of egress, which is why some have suggested a subjective measure, e.g at the annual inspection the driver demonstrate that they are exiting as rapidly as possible. This approach can reasonably accommodate everyone.

This entire SFI/egress thing has been inverted for years. People have it backwards. Kirk can invest 0.5 seconds in disconnecting his Isaac systems and be guaranteed his H&N restraint won't trap him in his car. Ask the guys half way down this page if they think that's a good idea: http://www.isaacdirect.com/SFI.html

And with incidence of fire so low, why jeopardize impact protection by possibly losing a belt? If you die on impact you don't care about egress.

[jjjanos]

In a race car? Huh?

You bet ya.

Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.
- Wiki

It all hinges on what the trial judge, the Appeals Court and the SCOTUS considers reasonable accomodation for that particular business. Doesn't matter if it's bungee jumping, a restaurant or massage parlor.

[raffaelli]

You bet ya.

Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.
- Wiki

It all hinges on what the trial judge, the Appeals Court and the SCOTUS considers reasonable accomodation for that particular business. Doesn't matter if it's bungee jumping, a restaurant or massage parlor.


A race car is not a place of public accomodation, the race track park is.

[lateapex911]

So, there's quite a fiasco afoot it appears with the latest Sportscar magazines story on safety gear. It's SFI only. The writer and publisher state that they requested samples of products and the only companies to get theirs in before teh deadline were SFI, so the story morphed into an SFI only one. Isaac was in the process of shipping theirs, it appears, but the writer told them not to bother, it was too late.


Here's where the story is breaking:

http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?p=517120&posted=1#post517120

I suggest you read it.

I'm trying to remain unbiased, but the publishers remarks have been a bit flippant, and remaining objective is difficult.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that the entire Head and neck story is a very interesting one, and a real reporter would have dug deeper and presented all sides. I haven't read the story yet, but knowing that it's SFI only isn't a good start.

My greater concern is that the evident "company line" taken by the publication is an indication of the mindset of the Club.

[Knestis]

You'll get different answers from different people (at different points in history), if you ask them about the degree to which SportsCar is an organ of the SCCA. Frankly, there's enough "strategic ambiguity" there to allow either folks to bend the answer whatever way fits their policy intentions.

K

[ITA_honda]

Honestly, as good of a device as HANS is....I dont think they should make is manditory. when I first started to race, I didnt use one. I had to save up money for it. Entry fees, tires etc were all I could afford. I couldnt afford it and I know there are more racers out there that are working off a budget and all they can afford is the entry fees and tires.

I think that it should still be optional.

[ddewhurst]

I read the SportsCar article.

I read the autoraceautox thread.

I also wrote a letter several months/a year ago when the "Editor asshat" wrote a SportsCar article specifying how to disable the ignition switch when the rule stated that one SHALL remove the ignition switch. Editor asshat got his undies all wound up & printed a cut version of one of my e-mail memos to him in SportsCar. Same magazine, same article writers, same not whole deal with no data, same crap.

***Asshats*** < I like that a lot.:D

Several days before receving the latest SportsCar I resent some H&N restraint data to my BoD member. He also received & responded to my H&N letter which was sent months back to the BoD. My BoD member responded stating that HE is in ageement that the SFI devices are not the only choice. HE spent MANY years driving a FV.

How about EACH of you ask your BoD member where they stand on the H&N restraint issue (SFI).

Oh crap I almost forgot there was someone identified in the autoraceautox thread as Mr. Ozment. Mr. Ozment is a Terry & Terry is not a guy. She is the SCCA VP of Club Racing. :o

Because the safety data directed my purchase I own an Isaac.

[Gregg]

My areas's BoD member stated to me just this past Friday that, given the feedback that was solicited, the general feeling amongst the BoD is to recommend use of some sort of H&N equipment (not specific type, model, or trade group), but not to mandate it unless the insurance carrier makes it a pre-requisite for coverage.

But away from the reliance on SFI for H&N specs and now fire system specs, I find it troubling that SCCA is offering a "Club Racing SFI Tech Inspector Exam" and a "Shop Talk SFI Solo Exam" at the Nat'l Convention next week for a whole host of reasons.

[JohnRW]

But away from the reliance on SFI for H&N specs and now fire system specs, I find it troubling that SCCA is offering a "Club Racing SFI Tech Inspector Exam" and a "Shop Talk SFI Solo Exam" at the Nat'l Convention next week for a whole host of reasons.

Set the Way-back Machine, Sherman. There has been a "Club Racing SFI Tech Inspector Exam" program in place for a bunch of years. I took it for grins at a NEDiv Roundtable or MiniCon 4-5 years ago. Little did I know that I'd been given a ride on a black helicopter. Wonder if they used one of those "alien probes" on me ?

[Racerlinn]

I've sent yet another "against mandated NHR" email to the BoD, copying my NEW area director. For those that have sent them before, remember that we have some new BoD directors that were not around during the last round of member comment.

[Gregg]

Set the Way-back Machine, Sherman...Wonder if they used one of those "alien probes" on me ?
Sounds like a fractured fairy tale to me.

And the question remains, "Why?"

[gsbaker]

My areas's BoD member stated to me just this past Friday that, given the feedback that was solicited, the general feeling amongst the BoD is to recommend use of some sort of H&N equipment (not specific type, model, or trade group), but not to mandate it unless the insurance carrier makes it a pre-requisite for coverage.
When the insurance carriers are made aware that SFI excludes superior designs they fall back on, "We just want no injuries," and find RSI certification completely acceptable.

If a mandate is put in place it should be for any product (there are no bad ones), or ones that meet FIA, RSI or SFI specs.

[BruceG]

When the insurance carriers are made aware that SFI excludes superior designs they fall back on, "We just want no injuries," and find RSI certification completely acceptable.

If a mandate is put in place it should be for any product (there are no bad ones), or ones that meet FIA, RSI or SFI specs. Greg.....Why was the Isaac not included in the recent SCCA article?

[lateapex911]

Bruce, reread starting at post 152, and use the link. The writer and editor weigh in.....

[BruceG]

Thanks for the info, Jake.