January Fastrack

[lateapex911]

Major headline, for racers:

SFI or FIA Head and neck restraints WILL be required 1.1.2012

To me, this is a major point of disillusionment. To wit: One year ago, the mebers were asked for input on the subject. Overwhelmingly, racers form all points ov view were against such a mandate.

A month ago, we were asked AGAIN for input.

This time, the BoD didn't bother to wait for response. Nor did they respect the members wishes of just a year ago. Why ask for input at all?
here's an outtake from this very Fastrack, regarding the BoDs wishes when it comes to input:


The following subjects will be referred to the Board of Directors for approval. Address all comments, both for and against, to the Club Racing Board. It is the BoD’s policy to withhold voting on a rules change until there has been input from the membership on the presented rules. Member input is suggested and encouraged.Well, that paragraph flies in the face of this recent action. And it's an action that will cost racers a LOT of money. Really, if you are a BoD member reading this and voted for the mandate, it doesn't look professional, and that's being nice. While I fully recognize that leaders of an organization must at times make moves that are against the wishes of that organization for the good of the whole, I have yet to see how this is anything but "sky is falling" paranoia. Tell us about the anayisis that was performed to reach this conclusion. What are the injury and fatality statistics in club racing? What input does the insurance carrier have?*

The only good thing...is that the BoD, famous for it's constant "Ok, new rule" penchant, will flip on this one as they have on so many others.

:shrug:

* Let me go on record with wild guesses as to those questions. At the time of the vote, I bet more drivers die of individual health issues (heart attacks) while on course than any other reason. And, I bet we've seen as many fatalities due to injury to those who were wearing some form of protection as those without. I'd also bet that of those deaths, non were basilar skull fracture. (In the past 5 years, lets say, but if records go back further, I'd love to know). I'll also bet that the insurance carrier had no input in the decision, positive or negative. I get the feeling the members consulted Pete Lyons our staff member who negotiates insurance contracts, who probably said it was "a good idea".

[Knestis]

I would LOVE to have someone explain to me, as an early adopter of a non-SFI H&N system chosen based on his own review of available test performance data, how this mandate makes me SAFER.

I admit that I might have a more personal problem with SFI, having had the "every driver in the US will have to buy SFI suits - it'll be GREAT!" pitch from two Bell Racestar guys at SEMA, back in 1987 or so. I was there with a suit manufacturer I was working with at the time. We'd just left a how-do-you-do meeting with Arnie Kuhns and they were trying to convince us over drinks that it was the wave of the future. Problem is, every benefit that they described had to do with the potential to force racers to buy from SFI member manufacturers. Not a word about making them safer.

K

[RacerBill]

According to Fastrack, the CRB recommended to the Board that IF H&N restraints were mandated, only SFI/FIA approved H&N restraints be allowed. The CRB recommended that H&N restraints be strongly recommended, not mandated. At least that's what I read.

[BruceG]

I agree with Jake...wait till the first time a driver sues because they had to wear a H&N(didn't wear one before) and was injured! I use a Hans(my choice) and I think that guys in states that don't have a helmet law for motorcycles and chose not to wear one are probably missing an essential truth...but so be it. I don't know how much more or less Ken Payson would have been injured at LRP last summer without a H&N...but make it a driver choice.

Why not have a disclaimer at registration that if you chose not to wear one, you do so at your own peril. Enough big brother.

Perhaps. next the BOd should mandate astronaut type diapers for drivers so that when you piss yourself in an accident, you don't contaminate corner workers....LOL.

[erlrich]

According to Fastrack, the CRB recommended to the Board that IF H&N restraints were mandated, only SFI/FIA approved H&N restraints be allowed. The CRB recommended that H&N restraints be strongly recommended, not mandated. At least that's what I read.

You're right Bill - apparently it was the Board that decided to adopt the mandate, and by a very narrow margin - 7 to 5 IIRC, with one abstention.

[mc-integra111]

I am disturbed by this as well. I thought that the member input was that this should be recommended and not required. It does not give me a good impression of SCCA if they ask for member input and then do the opposite of what the members want. I plan on using the new CRB form to express my point of view.

[Ron Earp]

I long ago gave up the idea this was a club by members for members.

[Knestis]

I'm less worried about whether the BoD is doing exactly what "the members" want, and more worried that they aren't really looking at the complex and important questions at hand.

How may of the 7 that voted to support it really knows how SFI works, and what "approval" gets us...?

K

[JeffYoung]

I don't know guys. I give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I don't think this has much if anything to do with the Board kowtowing to SFI of their own volition.

It seems to me they are faced with a situation where nearly every major motorsports sanctioning body is requiring a H&N device, and most are requiring it to comply with SFI 38.1 or the FIA standards.

If they failed to follow suit, they would be putting themselves at extreme risk.

Frankly, I think the fact they held out as along as they did shows that they do listen to membership as much as the can.

P.S. Liability issues aside as a former ISAAC owner, I think we should all have the ability to review the options on H&N restraints and make an informed choice -- and live with it. Unfortuantely, that is not the way the world works.

[Z3_GoCar]

I imagine that this has come about because of pro-racings use of SFI H&N restraints for years now. The only real sticking point with SFI, other than their philosopy as mostly a marketing tool, is that the ISSACS will never be included. Then why not petition to have it added, as in " SFI, FIA, and the ISSACS"?

[lateapex911]

I imagine that this has come about because of pro-racings use of SFI H&N restraints for years now. The only real sticking point with SFI, other than their philosopy as mostly a marketing tool, is that the ISSACS will never be included. Then why not petition to have it added, as in " SFI, FIA, and the ISSACS"?

Because, if the SCCA were to that, then THEY would be making the value judgment, and their lawyers are saying that they need to use somebody elses value judgment, or they will be held liable should the grieved widow choose to sue after an unfortunate incident.

[Knestis]

I don't know guys. I give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I don't think this has much if anything to do with the Board kowtowing to SFI of their own volition.

It seems to me they are faced with a situation where nearly every major motorsports sanctioning body is requiring a H&N device, and most are requiring it to comply with SFI 38.1 or the FIA standards.

If they failed to follow suit, they would be putting themselves at extreme risk.

Frankly, I think the fact they held out as along as they did shows that they do listen to membership as much as the can.

P.S. Liability issues aside as a former ISAAC owner, I think we should all have the ability to review the options on H&N restraints and make an informed choice -- and live with it. Unfortuantely, that is not the way the world works.

Have you read the SFI 38.1 "standard," Jeff? It can be distilled down to five pieces:

1. The actual performance standard - max noggin connection compression and tension, and NIJ.

2. The test protocol - which is a rehash of the DELPHI test method applied to all H&N systems.

3. A bunch of language about licensing that is more about marketing than anything else.

4. A description of the architecture (see also, HANS blueprints)

5. A disclaimer that covers their butts while providing SCCA with no cover that I can identify, saying among other things that, The granting and assignment of the "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1" logo/designation is in no way an endorsement or certification of product performance or reliability by SFI.

We use "standard" as though the mere EXISTENCE of the standard is enough - that its substance doesn't matter. What if 38.1 said., "H&N restraint systems must be blue." Would SCCA gain any protection even if every other sanctioning body in the world adopted it? As a good lawyer, wouldn't you dig into the SFI architecture requirement if someone were burned because she couldn't get out of the window of their Spec Miata because of her HANS?

K

[JeffYoung]

That's a good point. However, and this is just my opinion, I think in today's legal climate it is "safer" for the SCCA to follow the herd than to actually do its own research and study and look into whether SFI 38.1 actually gives any value.

Right now, they can say, the "industry leader in setting safety standards" came up with it, and F1, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc. use it, and we joined them.

That "looks" a lot less risky than saying, we did our own work and despite what SFI says, and what the other sanctioning bodies have done, we are blazing our own path.

Stinks all around for everyone, and totally a product of lawyers/the legal system/insurance and "risk management.

[Knestis]

So, if we can stipulate that for the purposes of this discussion, the substance of the standard matters, on to Part B of my line of questioning:

If another "certification" process applied exactly the same performance standard (Item 1 in my list above) - arguably the most important substance of the "standard" - but wrapped it in a different management structure and leaving out the architecture requirement, where would that leave us?

Completely theoretical of course...

K

[lateapex911]

Based on the post over on RRAX, where a BoD guy is quoted as saying that the two year implementation delay is partly to allow time for standards to be modified, or for other standard bodies to be created (paraphrasing), I'd say that would be a very very good direction.

[JeffYoung]

Another good thought.

Kirk, unfortunately, I think what that would result in is SCCA in court having to prove that one certification is better than another.

The fact that SFI is a de facto "industry standard" causes SCCA a lot of problems that are very difficult for them to get around.


So, if we can stipulate that for the purposes of this discussion, the substance of the standard matters, on to Part B of my line of questioning:

If another "certification" process applied exactly the same performance standard (Item 1 in my list above) - arguably the most important substance of the "standard" - but wrapped it in a different management structure and leaving out the architecture requirement, where would that leave us?

Completely theoretical of course...

K

[joeg]

Just get the HANS and put this to bed.

We are stuck with it. I also understand that HANS is the only FIA approved system.

If FIA has another choice that would be a consideration.

[Knestis]

Another good thought.

Kirk, unfortunately, I think what that would result in is SCCA in court having to prove that one certification is better than another.

The fact that SFI is a de facto "industry standard" causes SCCA a lot of problems that are very difficult for them to get around.

So, Part C - What if the most important aspect of the "standard" - those performance measures - were substantially HIGHER than 38.1, for some alternate option...???

What say ye?

K

[JeffYoung]

In a perfect world? I say, SCCA wins!

In a practical world, I don't want to be the guy having to prove it in court to a jury of 12. That's risky, and costly. So it becomes (right or wrong) cheaper and perceived to be safer to follow the herd.

[Z3_GoCar]

Just get the HANS and put this to bed.

We are stuck with it. I also understand that HANS is the only FIA approved system.

If FIA has another choice that would be a consideration.

HANS isn't the only option, R3 and DeFender come to mind, although I'm not sure what the status of the DeFender legal issues are. Speaking of other options, has anyone heard from Greg?

[dj10]

Why can't I just sign a release? I'ts my head & neck right....just sayin.

[chuck baader]

It boils down to "single point release" language. Hans and others have it, Isaacs doesn't: ergo, non compliant. Chuck

[lateapex911]

It boils down to "single point release" language. Hans and others have it, Isaacs doesn't: ergo, non compliant. Chuck

It's more complex that that Chuck, the language of the spec is very limiting, obviously to limit competition, and sadly innovation. Much more than the one point of release.

SFI actually has some decent specs, but this one is just awful

[xr4racer]

Not just HANS under 38.1 http://www.sfifoundation.com/

[seckerich]

My wife and I bought each other a Hans for Christmas so this Fastrack is no big deal. Made a decision after some of the recent accidents that took our friends lives that we were not racing again without doing all we could to enhance our safety program. Right side net, full fire system in every car (after Daytona fire), and redesign of seat mounting.

I would hate to see the BOD of our club make any other decision based on where we are today. Most sanctioning badies and even clubs that have racing programs are requiring the same thing SCCA is now implementing. They have neither the background or knowledge as elected representitives to go on their own and risk the assets of the club in general to appease the Anti-SFI/Hans crowd. I lost a hell of a lot more investment in RR shocks than you are on your Isaac and they didn't do a thing to save lives.

[Tom Donnelly]

I lost a hell of a lot more investment in RR shocks than you are on your Isaac and they didn't do a thing to save lives.

You and quite a few others. And there was talk on bringing RR shocks back.

The irony is there if you look. :)

I've lost a hell of a lot more investment from just dumbass driving too. And not just my own. It's all good though.

[Knestis]

My wife and I bought each other a Hans for Christmas so this Fastrack is no big deal. Made a decision after some of the recent accidents that took our friends lives that we were not racing again without doing all we could to enhance our safety program. Right side net, full fire system in every car (after Daytona fire), and redesign of seat mounting.

I would hate to see the BOD of our club make any other decision based on where we are today. Most sanctioning badies and even clubs that have racing programs are requiring the same thing SCCA is now implementing. They have neither the background or knowledge as elected representitives to go on their own and risk the assets of the club in general to appease the Anti-SFI/Hans crowd. I lost a hell of a lot more investment in RR shocks than you are on your Isaac and they didn't do a thing to save lives.

What upsets me though, Steve, is that I researched all of the options and bought the Isaac because it offered both better performance (based on sled tests) and features that I thought made it qualitatively more likely to keep me safe than other options on the market. I'm now being told that I can't use a system that is demonstrably superior in terms of actual impact performance, because the manufacturer isn't a member of a trade organization promoting its self-interests.

That's just not right.

K

EDIT - To be clear, I don't give much of a damn about the $350/year I have to set aside to pay for this decision. That is NOT what this is about.

[gran racing]

I too bought an Isaac because it provides better protection. That's the primary reason I'm upset about this new requirement, along with the fact is was put out for membership feedback and this is NOT what membership replyed back with. Why even ask us then?

For me, yeah, the $350 a year does also bother me considering last year I could only afford three race weekends.

[Andy Bettencourt]

While one of the most expensive routes, I feel that my R3 and my Racetech H&N seat provide the ultimate in crash protection. It's not ALL about the restraints when you think about multiple crash situations.

[Knestis]

While one of the most expensive routes, I feel that my R3 and my Racetech H&N seat provide the ultimate in crash protection. It's not ALL about the restraints when you think about multiple crash situations.

VERY TRUE. I'm a seat snob, too, and advocate that a good safety system starts right there. Seat mounts are part of that.

I've never used a Racetech seat but they seem to be of EXCELLENT quality.

k

[NORRIS]

Off the thread a wee bit. But also in Fastrack:

On Friday October 16, 2009, during the non-SCCA track test day at Sebring International Raceway, an SCCA member entered
the facility without signing a waiver. After the test day was completed, this individual drove his personal vehicle onto the portion
of the course not in use for the SCCA event, lost control, and subsequently died when his vehicle caught fire.

This is bad. Anyone know what happened here?

[JeffYoung]

The story was posted somewhere. Guy had some mental issues, and was drinking. Took his pickup on track late at night, crashed, and I think caught on fire and wouldn't get out.

Guy obviously had some problems.

[BruceG]

The story was posted somewhere. Guy had some mental issues, and was drinking. Took his pickup on track late at night, crashed, and I think caught on fire and wouldn't get out.

Guy obviously had some problems.

Either that or he was a member of the France family!

[lateapex911]

Steve, to further Kirks point, those of us that did the research made the call based on lots of factors. I feel strongly that I am SAFER now then I will be when the SFI mandate arrives. Why? Because of lateral protection issues with the SFI products. To achieve the same protection that I currently enjoy, I'll need a new seat. But the new seat will reduce the available real estate of the window, which is an escape route. So, While I might get the same crash and impact safety, I'll go backwards in my ability to get out of the car. And while money isn't everything, the total change will be in the $1600 range easily, (Seat, mounting, SFI device, etc) NOT including the money I've already spent.

I hear you on the RR dampers thing, but you can't use that to justify something else. That was a bad move, I understand why they did it, but I think it was misguided.

[iambhooper]

That's just not right.

K

EDIT - To be clear, I don't give much of a damn about the $350/year I have to set aside to pay for this decision. That is NOT what this is about.

There are 2 references in this thread to "$350/yr"... what are you talking about? Are we going to have to pay some extra fee to go race? If that's the case... then it might be time to go to the other side.

hoop

[erlrich]

There are 2 references in this thread to "$350/yr"... what are you talking about? Are we going to have to pay some extra fee to go race? If that's the case... then it might be time to go to the other side.

hoop

They're talking about the money we'll all have to set aside to pay for the new H&N restraint. Most systems run $600-$800, and we have two years to save for them.

[RacerBill]

How about a redesign of the Isaac, so that the release teathers tie into the seat belts and release when the seat belts are released. Would this not qualify as a 'single point of release?

Seriously, I will be writing a letter to the SFI requesting that 38.1 be changed in order to permit devices that afford greater protection to the driver in crashes involving lateral contact with other objects. I think that it is very interesting that some specifications are viewable on the SFI website, and others - noteably 38.1 - are not. Does anyone know what changes were made to the specifications in March 2009?

[seckerich]

Steve, to further Kirks point, those of us that did the research made the call based on lots of factors. I feel strongly that I am SAFER now then I will be when the SFI mandate arrives. Why? Because of lateral protection issues with the SFI products. To achieve the same protection that I currently enjoy, I'll need a new seat. But the new seat will reduce the available real estate of the window, which is an escape route. So, While I might get the same crash and impact safety, I'll go backwards in my ability to get out of the car. And while money isn't everything, the total change will be in the $1600 range easily, (Seat, mounting, SFI device, etc) NOT including the money I've already spent.

I hear you on the RR dampers thing, but you can't use that to justify something else. That was a bad move, I understand why they did it, but I think it was misguided.

I know what you mean about exit window size. Some of the halo seats give you very little room to get out if you sit close to the wheel. We had the same problem with some of the drivers in the GT cars and went with the Sparco slider as it is a FIA style captive design slider. I have seen them take some serious hits including Nick Hams cart wheel at miller and come out intact. One big bar in the front slides the seat back quick. We have them in our cars now. Don't get me wrong, I think you should be able to use the device you choose but lawyers (sorry Jeff Y) have screwed up the reliance on personal responsibility.

[Mike Mackaman]

This infatuation the world has developed with political correctness is taking us to hell in a handbag. And that bus is being driven by lawyers. I like and respect a large number of lawyers. The actions of the few should not spoil the reputation of the whole. It all comes down to personal accountability. A lawyer who files a frivolous law suit should be stomped just like someone who does something incredibly stupid should be held accountable. A business that can't make it should go under, and those who can run a business profitably should reap the rewards. As much as that crowd in Washington refuses to believe it, right is right, wrong is wrong, it always has been, it always will be!

Mike

[iambhooper]

They're talking about the money we'll all have to set aside to pay for the new H&N restraint. Most systems run $600-$800, and we have two years to save for them.


duh! i guess i missed out n the obvious. thanks for the clarification.

so, in 2 years time, i will have to replace a helmet (SA2000), suit and add a HnR... nice!

maybe it's time to go back to autocross!

hoop

[lateapex911]

I know what you mean about exit window size. Some of the halo seats give you very little room to get out if you sit close to the wheel. We had the same problem with some of the drivers in the GT cars and went with the Sparco slider as it is a FIA style captive design slider. I have seen them take some serious hits including Nick Hams cart wheel at miller and come out intact. One big bar in the front slides the seat back quick. We have them in our cars now. Don't get me wrong, I think you should be able to use the device you choose but lawyers (sorry Jeff Y) have screwed up the reliance on personal responsibility.

In talking with seat manufacturers at PRI, I learned a new FIA standard is forthcoming. Racetech seats (?) (Australian) told me there is no way they can pass the test without back support. So, depending on sanctioning bodies adoption of the standards, sliders may become a thing of the past.

[SPiFF]

FIA 8862-2009

Seats started to be used in WRC this year.

* Integral head & shoulder restraint
* seat life up to 10 years
* load tested on specific parts of the seat (head, shoulder, pelvis) instead of just a load test with a dummy.

Looks like a good improvement for seats. I'll look for one of these to replace my FIA 8855-1999 RaceTech.

[seckerich]

In talking with seat manufacturers at PRI, I learned a new FIA standard is forthcoming. Racetech seats (?) (Australian) told me there is no way they can pass the test without back support. So, depending on sanctioning bodies adoption of the standards, sliders may become a thing of the past.






my slider system has a shoulder support that disengages when you pull the seat lever. Still has a lock so it will meet the new standard. Engineers have too much time on our hands.:D

[lateapex911]

my slider system has a shoulder support that disengages when you pull the seat lever. Still has a lock so it will meet the new standard. Engineers have too much time on our hands.:D

Very nice. beyond the desire/capability/affordability of most racers, though, I'm afraid. Which is too bad, because it means the egress area gets reduced. (And for guys like me, my seat is pretty fab back, reclined and on the floor in order to give me enough space to fit. barely. As it stands, it's a bit of folding to get me in with teh door open,...

Speaking of too much time on your hands....picture? wink wink. Exhaust...nudge nudge.. ;)

[tom91ita]

This infatuation the world has developed with political correctness is taking us to hell in a handbag. And that bus is being driven by lawyers. I like and respect a large number of lawyers. The actions of the few should not spoil the reputation of the whole. It all comes down to personal accountability. A lawyer who files a frivolous law suit should be stomped just like someone who does something incredibly stupid should be held accountable. A business that can't make it should go under, and those who can run a business profitably should reap the rewards. As much as that crowd in Washington refuses to believe it, right is right, wrong is wrong, it always has been, it always will be!

Mike

agreed!

class action lawsuit re: ford explorer netted the lawyers $25 million and only $37,500 in redeemed coupouns for owners;

http://overlawyered.com/2009/07/few-plaintiffs-in-ford-case-use-coupons-as-lawyers-reap-millions/