Time to write those letters - Head and Neck Restraints

[Cobrar05]

if you cite other sanctioning bodies are allowing it, i will cite that other sanctioning bodies are allowing Isaacs (or at least not requiring SFI 38.1).

ok. i'm curious. please. list them.

[gran racing]

Bob, I previously listed a book from HPD ( I believe that was the source) which listed a large number of sanctioning bodies. I never would have guessed just how many existed, but again I'm talking beyond our little road racing niche. I'm sure if you are really curious, Gregg from ISAAC can provide a healthy list.

[tom91ita]

Rob,

beyond the local nascar paved 3/8" oval tracks that Dave had cited, the Midwest Council of Sports Car Clubs currently has no intentions beyond recommendations:

http://www.mcscc.org/files/GCR2011.pdf



1.3 Head and neck supports are strongly recommended for all competitors, e.g. Hans Device


i was contacted specifically by MCSCC members and told this.

i don't think my 26 year old CRX meets vintage requirements although i do intend to get a "historic" plate for one of my other CRX's for minimal summer driving....

Waterford Hills ( http://www.waterfordhills.com/ ) does not require them as far as I know (members there have also contacted me about racing with them next year as an alternate but their site also references SCCA's GCR for car rules and classing). I have started contact with them to try and confirm but also to suggest that any H&NR standard be performance based. i intend to contact the MCSCC as well for some informational opportunities in case they are thinking about just playing follow the others like SCCA.

i have personally to decided to go all in on this issue as in i am letting my SCCA membership expire this June after 25 years.

instead of two major events this year being something like the ITSPECtacular and the ARRC, i plan to run with MCSCC at Grattan and Road America.

they race on many tracks in the midwest that SCCA uses:

http://www.mcscc.org/events.php

more discussion here with regards to MCSCC as an alternate to SCCA and NASA

http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=34381&highlight=mcscc

in my best summers, i would race 4-5 weekends per summer. two at Grattan on Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends because it was ~25 miles from my folks and 2-3 at Mid-Ohio (Brat Bash & WOR Games, etc.) because it was ~100 mile from where i lived in Ohio.

i now live near Grand Rapids, MI and the MCSCC schedule with races at Grattan, Autobahn near Chicago and Road America meets my criteria considering challenging tracks and close enough for tow fuel considerations.

i now consider 2-3 weekends per year to be good and for a couple of years that meant the ITSPECtacular and the ARRC.

i am very much the "casual" twice per year racer that was discussed previously.

performance based is the only thing that makes sense to me. meet objective criteria or we headed towards SFI or FIA cage rules, etc.

afterall the cage is what the belts and HNR require to work.

[gsbaker]

There are approximately 200 formal racing organizations in the U.S. and another 200 informal clubs. Since U.S. racers make up about 2/3 of all racers, it is safe to assume there are probably another 200 foreign clubs. Let's say, to be conservative, 500 world wide.

It is doubtful that anyone can list, say, 20 clubs that mandate H&N restraints, meaning there are 480 (96%) that do not.

[Cobrar05]

ok. so i see the midwest council of sportscar clubs and thats it? there's one regional group then?

gregg, i race at vir, roebling road, cmp, road atlanta and some others. what racing club or pro racing body races at those facilities and does not mandate the device?

[Knestis]

I race at Grays Harbor, Castle Rock, Deming, and sometimes at Evergreen Speedway (all dirt tracks in Washington State). What racing club or pro racing body races at those facilities and DOES mandate the device?

See what I did there?

K

[Cobrar05]

oh, hell yea, i did. are you planning on moving to tacoma and buying a dirt car? i bet that would be fun.

[Jeremy Billiel]

jeremy, riddle me this, insurance guru...
In the past five years we've had at least three deaths in club racing, and I think they've all been the result of a major 'incident' (heart attack, seizure, etc) that occurred on track.
Hmmmmm...see, that says to me: HEY! Somethings happening here, and it's going to cost us...the club, sooner or later.

Yet, I have heard not one peep about re examining our rather loose medical standards or restricting based on stress tests etc.
Frankly, to me, the threat of some guy having a seizure entering the straight at Lime Rock and taking a right with his foot pegged to the floor, shooting down pit lane in a qualifying session scares me FAR more than some guy who spins and rams a bridge abutment and is killed because he suffered basilar scull fracture. His death is the result of an on track incident, ...whereas a medical event has the potential to CAUSE a major incident harming or killing spectators.

I'd opine it's because the medical issues are the 800 pound gorilla, and SCCA is scared silly to approach that, because it knows that requiring real stress tests and better screening will eliminate a large portion of it's driver base.*

But, tell me why actual past history and deaths has not caused our insurance to rise, but you claim lacking a hNR rule WILL cause the rates to rise, even if there are no related deaths??

Help me see the logic.

* See also Mine and Kirks separate requests for SCCA to set bail out standards and institute testing. In my case, they replied that they feared a reprisal from the ADA folk, and in Kirks case they responded that they saw no need to have exits be timed or, presumably...quick.

Guys - I can turn this thread into insurance philospophy and how a company prices a given risk, but I will not bore you with the details. My point is insurance is one of many "other" items that the club as a whole worries about and needs to understand the impact to when making decisions like this. I do not have any insider information on insurance costs other than historical costs to run races. I realize they are small, but its one piece of a large inter connected puzzle. Just as a FYI, Insurance costs are NEVER just a historical view on past loss costs. Insurance carriers ALWAYS have prospective "bets" in their pricing based on what they believe is going to happen in the future.

What lawyer in SCCA or one that works for SCCA would not recommend using an industry standard? I hear the arguments and I agree that the SFI thing is bogus, but I think everyones anger is directed at the wrong people.

if Hans are so bad than why does every single major serious organizer require them? (F1, NASCAR, etc)

[gsbaker]

if Hans are so bad than why does every single major serious organizer require them? (F1, NASCAR, etc)
They don't. Many organization that get TV time require them, but most organizations do not.

The underlying question, at least as far as this thread is concerned, is whether the SCCA, assuming a mandate is in place, will limit itself to only one sticker -- and why.

[CRallo]

Got a reply, letter #4693 has been reviewed and a response will be in the next Fasttrack...


This was my letter:

CRB and BOD,

I am writing regarding the looming H&N support mandate. As it is currently written, I am firmly against this mandate and it's language.


While I understand the need for the mandate and agree 100 percent with its intent, I believe the mandate can be much improved. The mandate should be amended to allow for devices that perform as well or better than the SFI spec requires AND have other advantages. Ratings or certs exist that are not so restrictive as the cleverly written SFI spec and these should be included in the mandate. There are a variety of reasons to support such an amendment.

- The equipment required by the SFI spec is very expensive. Obviously racing is not cheap, but that is all the more reason to avoid unneeded expense.
- Some of the SFI spec H&N restraints under perform in important categories, namely side impact scenarios. This opens a whole 'nother can of worms...
- To reach the same level of protection that other devices offer, a HANS user must purchase and install additional equipment that is not only expensive, but impedes escape from the vehicle thereby negating any advantage (on paper) the HANS has in that department. Just ask Joey Hand about his wreck at MidO...
- The SFI spec was intentionally written in a very restrictive manner, other specs/certs exist that allow for more innovation, lesser costs and ultimately more safety. These need to be considered.
- Many members have already done their homework and selected a device, like the Isaac, that they believe (and testing agrees) gives them a higher level of protection. What would you say to these people? And what would you say if, next year, they get involved in an accident on track involving a high lateral G load and are injured or killed?
- This mandate, as currently written, actually opens the SCCA to liability by restricting the use of higher performing devices.
- The SCCA will loose participation numbers($$) if this mandate goes through as written. The typical club racer cannot simply absorb the kind of cost we are talking about here. I know this because I am in that boat! If I had to spring for a HANS and a seat with wings, I would be out for half a season next year!! I could give up one extra race during a given weekend and buy a device such as the Isaac. During a time when regions are struggling to put on events that make money and the economy is on thin ice, this is simply not a good business decision. While this effect is, in theory, only short term, such effects on a business can be permanent.

For the above reasons, and more, I believe a change needs to be made to the H&N restraint mandate. Such a change would benefit and be in the best interest of the SCCA organization and it's members. It could be as simple as adding one certification to the mandate. The Club would not incur more liability, in fact It would be better protected and so would it's members.

Thanks very much for taking the time to read my letter and hopefully for considering this important issue.


Sincerely,
Christopher Rallo
SCCA member 396934

[tom91ita]

stupid question time.....

can a SFI 38.1 Safety Solutions device be worn at the SAME time as the classic Isaac?

i do not intend to do this but for the concern of poor side impact with the HANS, GCR rule says you need a SFI 38.1 but does not say you can't wear anything else, right? this might address the concern about needing better seats with more side bolsters, etc.

with regards to the MCSCC being only regional, etc., NASA started because of people being unhappy with SCCA and wanting to go another direction. just because NASA was not nationwide at first should not be a reason to dismiss other organizations.

and as i recall, the SCCA VW TDI Cup mandated defNder's correct? and they appear to no longer be a player with regards to 2011 certifications. the conspiracy theorist in me would like to know how much money SCCA received in equipment and sponsorship $$ and the timeline prior to SCCA mandating the 2012 implementation of H&NR. :shrug: this seems to be an odd coincidence.

[Hoof Hearted]

The conspiracy theorist in me would like to know how much money SCCA received in equipment and sponsorship $$ and the timeline prior to SCCA mandating the 2012 implementation of H&NR. :shrug: this seems to be an odd coincidence.

Isn't there a full page hans ad in the last several year's GCR??? :rolleyes:

[Jeremy Billiel]

Got a reply, letter #4693 has been reviewed and a response will be in the next Fasttrack...


This was my letter:

CRB and BOD,

I am writing regarding the looming H&N support mandate. As it is currently written, I am firmly against this mandate and it's language.


While I understand the need for the mandate and agree 100 percent with its intent, I believe the mandate can be much improved. The mandate should be amended to allow for devices that perform as well or better than the SFI spec requires AND have other advantages. Ratings or certs exist that are not so restrictive as the cleverly written SFI spec and these should be included in the mandate. There are a variety of reasons to support such an amendment.

- The equipment required by the SFI spec is very expensive. Obviously racing is not cheap, but that is all the more reason to avoid unneeded expense.
- Some of the SFI spec H&N restraints under perform in important categories, namely side impact scenarios. This opens a whole 'nother can of worms...
- To reach the same level of protection that other devices offer, a HANS user must purchase and install additional equipment that is not only expensive, but impedes escape from the vehicle thereby negating any advantage (on paper) the HANS has in that department. Just ask Joey Hand about his wreck at MidO...
- The SFI spec was intentionally written in a very restrictive manner, other specs/certs exist that allow for more innovation, lesser costs and ultimately more safety. These need to be considered.
- Many members have already done their homework and selected a device, like the Isaac, that they believe (and testing agrees) gives them a higher level of protection. What would you say to these people? And what would you say if, next year, they get involved in an accident on track involving a high lateral G load and are injured or killed?
- This mandate, as currently written, actually opens the SCCA to liability by restricting the use of higher performing devices.
- The SCCA will loose participation numbers($$) if this mandate goes through as written. The typical club racer cannot simply absorb the kind of cost we are talking about here. I know this because I am in that boat! If I had to spring for a HANS and a seat with wings, I would be out for half a season next year!! I could give up one extra race during a given weekend and buy a device such as the Isaac. During a time when regions are struggling to put on events that make money and the economy is on thin ice, this is simply not a good business decision. While this effect is, in theory, only short term, such effects on a business can be permanent.

For the above reasons, and more, I believe a change needs to be made to the H&N restraint mandate. Such a change would benefit and be in the best interest of the SCCA organization and it's members. It could be as simple as adding one certification to the mandate. The Club would not incur more liability, in fact It would be better protected and so would it's members.

Thanks very much for taking the time to read my letter and hopefully for considering this important issue.


Sincerely,
Christopher Rallo
SCCA member 396934

Chris - This statement "The mandate should be amended to allow for devices that perform as well or better than the SFI spec requires AND have other advantages." is the crux of the ISSUE. It's unreasonable to assume that SCCA has any desire, bandwidth or money to know when a device is equal to or exceeds the SFI spec.

The ONLY way to do that is with unbiased independant monitoring of devices as they become available. How would you recommned SCCA to test and know when a new device hits the market?

[erlrich]

Got a reply, letter #4693 has been reviewed and a response will be in the next Fasttrack...


Yeah, I'm sure that was an easy one: "Thank you for your input."

[erlrich]

Chris - This statement "The mandate should be amended to allow for devices that perform as well or better than the SFI spec requires AND have other advantages." is the crux of the ISSUE. It's unreasonable to assume that SCCA has any desire, bandwidth or money to know when a device is equal to or exceeds the SFI spec.

The ONLY way to do that is with unbiased independant monitoring of devices as they become available. How would you recommned SCCA to test and know when a new device hits the market?

Wow, that's just about as wrong as wrong can be. The way they would know that new devices meet the performance spec would be the same way they know the old devices meet the spec; the manufacturer (NOT SFI) tests the device and certifies that it meets the spec. Do you think the SCCA tested all of the currently available (and certified) devices?

[Jeremy Billiel]

Wow, that's just about as wrong as wrong can be. The way they would know that new devices meet the performance spec would be the same way they know the old devices meet the spec; the manufacturer (NOT SFI) tests the device and certifies that it meets the spec. Do you think the SCCA tested all of the currently available (and certified) devices?

I think you misread what I said. I am saying that SCCA has no business in the testing business, but its also not good legal practice to assume that becasue the manufactor said its better, its better, thus the need for industry groups like SFI.

[gsbaker]

RSI will verify the test data and publish the results.

[ddewhurst]

stupid question time.....
i do not intend to do this but for the concern of poor side impact with the HANS, GCR rule says you need a SFI 38.1 but does not say you can't wear anything else, right? this might address the concern about needing better seats with more side bolsters, etc.


This ^ is one good reason the SFI (HANS written rule) rated HANS should be stuck up the SCCA's legal council's a$$.

Screw this one release rule, how about the right side net? Does the recomended right side net release when one releases the driver restraint system? Does the mandatory window net release when one releases the driver restraint system? Shall I go on with the other devices that must be released?

The SCCA is covering their own a$$ (their legal council is showing the value of themselves) just like we cover our own a$$ on a daily basis with all the insurance we have. Medical, life, car/truck, home & the bigest joke of all, pet medical insurance.

[dickita15]

Got a reply, letter #4693 has been reviewed and a response will be in the next Fasttrack...



Nothing of substance in going to happen before the BOD meeting in June.

[dickita15]

the conspiracy theorist in me would like to know how much money SCCA received in equipment and sponsorship $$ and the timeline prior to SCCA mandating the 2012 implementation of H&NR. :shrug: this seems to be an odd coincidence.

Tom, don’t start that crap.

[gran racing]

I honestly feel that not mandating HNRs is the way to go, but since we have been told that's a foregone conclusion this is my letter:



Dear BOD,

I can appreciate SCCA’s desire to mandate a head & neck restraint device, but ask that we do not limit it to only devices that carry an SFI badge. This request is two part fold.

1. I propose that SCCA include head and neck restraint systems approved by SFI and allow additional systems at the Club’s discretion. This would be defined to include a maximum load and require approved lab test results to be submitted, but it allow additional designs that do not meet all of the current SFI criteria.

While I do feel there is some merit to SFI’s practices, the fact that the specification was essentially built around the HANS device is worrisome to say the least. Then to consider that only manufacturers are voting on the specification leads to further concerns.

The current practice is for SFI to review information supplied by the HNR manufacturer, and base their certification approval upon that. SCCA could require that any manufacturer that does not meet SFI’s design constraints to submit test lab results and additional information about how the device works for the Club to consider acceptance. SCCA would primarily review the load test results to ensure it meets the predefined maximum head load results (we could use the load criteria SFI uses for this). The Club would then be able to review how the overall general product is designed and attached to eliminate the concerns some have voiced. To the extreme, I’ve been told that “members could duck tape their helmet to the seat” and this review process would eliminate that issue. As part of the allowed design, include units that have two release points as explained in part 2 of this request.

2. Allow the use of the ISAAC HNR devices, including the ISAAC Link. One of the biggest problems with the current SFI certification process is the design limitations it has which includes the number of attachment point. The ISAAC devices meet the other SFI criteria but requires the individual to pull two pins versus the SFI mandated one attachment.

While SFI devices themselves can be released from one attachment point, they also require additional window nets in order to be effective and defeats the purpose of that requirement. If SCCA is concerned with how many attachments the driver can have in order to exit the car, it should take into consideration all devices (radio connection, window nets, cool suit connections, helmet blower tube). We could also look at overall egress out of the car to include that SFI systems require a full containment seat whereas the ISAAC does not due to superior side impact performance.

Thank you for taking the time to review this information.

[gran racing]

Isn't there a full page hans ad in the last several year's GCR???

So what. Space is available in the GCR for advertising, and I have to imagine another company would be accepted if interested.

Gregg, I agree that another entity to certify HNRs is needed. I'm just not sure that RSI is the current solution. Who is behind RSI now? It seems like it's all well intended, but never got too far. Have other manufacturers besides ISAAC submitted their test data including HANS or was that gathered by other means?

[mtownneon]

I think this issue exposes a larger problem within Club Racing. It isn't the issue of the rule itself so much as it's just one more thing SCCA heaps on potential participants that makes it more expensive and complicated to go racing with them.

This is supposed to be grassroots level racing, so it's akin to other local and regional level motorsports such as short track racing and bracket racing. As others here have pointed out, compared to other forms of amateur motorsports, Club Racing is much more complicated to get involved in and stay in. I came from short track racing, I only had to hold any kind of sanctioning body license once, and that wasn't a comp license, it was just an insurance license that NASCAR required all member tracks to issue to all competitors and crew. That lasted exactly one year as NASCAR started losing member tracks because of it. All I needed to compete was a valid driver's license, a car and safety equipment that would pass tech, and my entry fee which was usually nothing more than the cost of the pit pass. Same thing when we went bracket racing. If we wanted to run for division points, we would have to become NHRA members and purchase a comp. number. You only needed a competition license if your car went into the 9's in the quarter or faster.

Club Racing on the other hand, there's the required $80-$100 SCCA membership, the required additional $80 competition license fee, a physical every other year at a cost in my case of $150 office visit. Add to that you must complete 2 races every year just to keep that license. The last point is mute for most as what's the point of all of it if you don't go racing? But it is still a fixed cost to play. And that's after you spent anywhere from hundreds to several thousand dollars to take a comp licensing school. Safety equipment costs are greater because SCCA times out belts and nets quicker, and now is requiring me to purchace an HNR, one that meets SFI 38.1 which only offer me a couple of choices.

I'm another one of those occasional Club Racers. I can only afford to do a couple of weekends a year. With all the associated costs, it's making less sense as time goes on no matter how much I love doing it. I can continue to Solo it for a lot less and run it at the odd track day or time attack. I could put it back on stock springs and struts, remove some of the glass, weld the doors shut and run it as a short track car. SCCA would at that point lose another member and Club Racer it so desparately needs. I wanted to race more, not less. Some of it was the economy, some of it was circumstances changed within the Club Racing community where I live. When I decided to go this route, I could race up to 5 weekends a year within an hour drive of the house and that was a big attraction to me. That has dwindled to one weekend with another sanctioning body (NASA which I would need a 38.1 HNR to compete). Now the closest SCCA track is 3.5 hours away.

Point I'm trying to make isn't really about my plight, but using an my plight as an example of someone looking in from the outside. Someone who just wants to go racing looking at their options, why in the hell would they want to go the Club Race route? Even those who do decide that road racing is the way to go have emerging options that appear to be more affordable and entertaining. Both ChumpCar and Lemons have made huge gains in a short period of time. While the cheap car angle is jut a gimmick, they make it easier to participate. Tracks don't need the Club Racers as much any longer with growth of track days and time attacks. SCCA (as well as other "clubs") need work on making it easier to participate, not chase boogey man issues that stifle growth.

Finally, the SCCA needs to rememberit is a club, not a sanctioning body. We pay dues to have a voice in how the club operates. I don't feel as though the folks in Topeka see it that way. That's fine, change the organization's structure and make it a sanctioning body and stop charging me a membership fee. In Club Racing it seems most racers behave as though that's the way it is now.

[JLawton]

This weekend I went down to Pocono. The track wouldn't open until 7:00 on the nose so everyone had to line up on a side road. As I drove down the road to get to the end of the line, I drove past hauler after hauler after hauler (like $200K+). I probably could have counted the open trailers like mine on one hand.......... And I'm thinking to myself, "these guys couldn't give a shit if they spent $1,000 every five years.........".

I don't think most of the club are shelps like us and wouldn't understand our concerns....

.

[RacerBill]

This weekend I went down to Pocono. The track wouldn't open until 7:00 on the nose so everyone had to line up on a side road. As I drove down the road to get to the end of the line, I drove past hauler after hauler after hauler (like $200K+). I probably could have counted the open trailers like mine on one hand.......... And I'm thinking to myself, "these guys couldn't give a shit if they spent $1,000 every five years.........".

I don't think most of the club are shelps like us and wouldn't understand our concerns....

.

Jeff, you hit the nail on the head!!!!! We need to require all race cars to be transported on open trailers! :rolleyes:

Just kidding, of course. But, you are right. There are a lot of members who are not as disadvantaged as a lot us us here in Improved Touring.

[DavidM]

I sent my letter straight to [email protected]. Should I also send it through the website?

I've given up on the SFI H&N rule being rescinded. What I asked for was for them to allow the Issac. I still think the rule is crap, but if they allow the Issac then that will be something.

David

[jjjanos]

Guys - I can turn this thread into insurance philospophy and how a company prices a given risk, but I will not bore you with the details. My point is insurance is one of many "other" items that the club as a whole worries about and needs to understand the impact to when making decisions like this. I do not have any insider information on insurance costs other than historical costs to run races. I realize they are small, but its one piece of a large inter connected puzzle. Just as a FYI, Insurance costs are NEVER just a historical view on past loss costs. Insurance carriers ALWAYS have prospective "bets" in their pricing based on what they believe is going to happen in the future.

So in otherwords... there ain't gonna be no lower entry fees cuz insurance costs fall.

[Jeremy Billiel]

So in otherwords... there ain't gonna be no lower entry fees cuz insurance costs fall.

I wouldn't say that.... If personal injuries that SCCA pays out on are reduced due to the effect of having a mandated HNR then the insurance costs go down. Now, whether or not SCCA passes that reduction on to the regions and thus lower entry fees or membership fees is a whole nother ball of wax! :D

[erlrich]

I think you misread what I said. I am saying that SCCA has no business in the testing business, but its also not good legal practice to assume that becasue the manufactor said its better, its better, thus the need for industry groups like SFI.

I think the part you're missing, and I probably didn't spell it out very well, is that SFI doesn't test anything, they don't certify anything, they don't monitor anything. SFI publishes a standard - as I understand it they really more or less compile information for the standards (as opposed to performing their own research) from outside sources, mainly the manufacturers of the equipment - and then it's up to the manufacturers to test and certify that the equipment meets that standard. The mere fact that a product has a SFI sticker does not mean that an independent outside agency has tested the product. In other words, we're taking HANS', or Safety Solution's, or Defnder's word for it that their product meets the standard. Just like we're taking Sparco's, and Simpson's, and Momo's word that their suits meet the SFI standard for driver's suits.

[Jeremy Billiel]

I think the part you're missing, and I probably didn't spell it out very well, is that SFI doesn't test anything, they don't certify anything, they don't monitor anything. SFI publishes a standard - as I understand it they really more or less compile information for the standards (as opposed to performing their own research) from outside sources, mainly the manufacturers of the equipment - and then it's up to the manufacturers to test and certify that the equipment meets that standard. The mere fact that a product has a SFI sticker does not mean that an independent outside agency has tested the product. In other words, we're taking HANS', or Safety Solution's, or Defnder's word for it that their product meets the standard. Just like we're taking Sparco's, and Simpson's, and Momo's word that their suits meet the SFI standard for driver's suits.

Earl - You are right. Thanks for that insight. I forgot about that detail.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This weekend I went down to Pocono. The track wouldn't open until 7:00 on the nose so everyone had to line up on a side road. As I drove down the road to get to the end of the line, I drove past hauler after hauler after hauler (like $200K+). I probably could have counted the open trailers like mine on one hand.......... And I'm thinking to myself, "these guys couldn't give a shit if they spent $1,000 every five years.........".

I don't think most of the club are shelps like us and wouldn't understand our concerns....

.

How many of those were personal vs. business like ours? Bottom line is that everyone has a breaking point. You keep adding costs and you will find out you have no customers left.

[Knestis]

Tom, don’t start that crap.

It may not rise to the level of full-blown truther conspiracy silliness but it is NOT unreasonable to worry about whether rules are made keeping business relationships (sponsorship, ad revenue from pubs) at arm's length.


Gregg, I agree that another entity to certify HNRs is needed. I'm just not sure that RSI is the current solution. Who is behind RSI now?...

It doesn't matter. And every time someone asks that question, it perpetuates the misapprehension that it MIGHT or SHOULD. Hubbard Downing is "behind" SFI. That doesn't seem to queer the approach or standard in the eyes of people who support that option.


...Finally, the SCCA needs to rememberit is a club, not a sanctioning body.

SCCA is a club that masquerades as a business. NASA is a business that masquerades as a club. Both options have inherent challenges.


I don't think most of the club are shelps like us and wouldn't understand our concerns. ...

I'm increasingly inclined to agree. The rigs at the NJMP 12 hours dwarfed what we used to see at IMSA and even CART races not so long ago. The market is changing (see also, Chumpcar and LeMons).


...If personal injuries that SCCA pays out on are reduced due to the effect of having a mandated HNR then the insurance costs go down.

If you can figure out a way to prove that something DID NOT HAPPEN because of a particular action, please give me a ring. It would revolutionize the way my business works, we could get rich, and we we could get one of those big haulers... :happy204:

K

[lateapex911]

I wouldn't say that.... If personal injuries that SCCA pays out on are reduced due to the effect of having a mandated HNR then the insurance costs go down. Now, whether or not SCCA passes that reduction on to the regions and thus lower entry fees or membership fees is a whole nother ball of wax! :D
Great, .....oh, wait...not so great....
.................because you can't have NEGATIVE PAYOUTS! SCCA has never paid out a dollar that i'm aware of that would be saved by the HNR requirement.

So, our rates won't be going down.

(In addition to Kirks point about proving the relationship, etc._)

[gran racing]

That doesn't seem to queer the approach or standard in the eyes of people who support that option.

So that's makes it okay? What's to prevent Jeremy from creating a website and posting specs from online sources.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Great, .....oh, wait...not so great....
.................because you can't have NEGATIVE PAYOUTS! SCCA has never paid out a dollar that i'm aware of that would be saved by the HNR requirement.

So, our rates won't be going down.

(In addition to Kirks point about proving the relationship, etc._)


You guys are missing how insurance works.

You have a bunch of risks, lets say 100 and out of that 100 you have 5 payouts for varying degrees of damage (in this case to yourself).

There are 2 ways insurance is effected by new safety standards

1. Next year you have only 3 payouts and the severity of each one is less. Statistically it can be an anomoly or other safety improvements (HNR, seats, belts, you name it). The following year the insurance company feels like its not an anamoly and prices the product cheaper (assuming the competition also get's the market and is willing to price it lower)

2. The insurance company knows a new standard is being put in place (HNR mandate) and feels that they are willing to make a bet that they will get less than 5 payouts becasue of the new mandate.

[lateapex911]

5 payouts? What if there were none? Why would an insurance company lower it's prices? Because there's a new rule making us safer than safe??

I know, I don't get it.

[Jeremy Billiel]

5 payouts? What if there were none? Why would an insurance company lower it's prices? Because there's a new rule making us safer than safe??

I know, I don't get it.

My example is an example with too small data to be statistically relevant. Look at the point

[Knestis]

So that's makes it okay? What's to prevent Jeremy from creating a website and posting specs from online sources.

If those specs - by which I presume you mean performance test results - are certified results released by the manufacturer then they are not only NOT worse than what SFI does, they are BETTER. With SFI we don't actually KNOW the results - just that SFI has seen the test results and that they exceed the minimum threshold.

Besides - that's not the issue that I was arguing. His complaint was about "who is behind" the standard.

The whole moving target game on this issue is maddening. Every one of these issues has had a completely reasonable resolution put forward at some point in the ongoing conversation. Opponents tend to argue each resolved issue by looping back to one that they've conveniently forgotten has been covered before.

K

[gran racing]

But what are the actual numbers being presented and put your speculation aside. If SCCA's insurance states that by not implimenting a HNR mandate, the Club's insurance rates will be increasing in 2012 by $150,000 then state that. If it's out of fear for future litigation, than that's different.

Do you know the actual details on our insurance policy and specifically how this will impact the bottom line?

Are there other areas that could provide better returns? If you want to continue talking about insurance, what about as Jake mentioned protection for the several instances of heart attacks and potential deaths or injuries to others as well?

LOL Kirk. I'm not arguing against RSI, I just don't really know much about it and can understand people questioning it's validity. I'm going after a resolution which involves putting to rest other people's concerns. I don't apologize for being able to see their side on this and want to dig for more information.

[Knestis]

My example is an example with too small data to be statistically relevant. Look at the point

The point - I think - is that to date I have NEVER heard anyone (EDIT - anyone in the know, that is) argue that adopting 38.1 lowered our insurance costs. There's a world of difference between that and "risk management" or Lawyer for "avoiding losses due to legal action."

It's like conjoining the issues of about "health insurance coverage" and "the cost of health care." They are related but they are not the same thing.

K

[Cobrar05]

i am not sure what the rigs say about our sport. part of it is the quality of the hand me downs we are getting. it wasnt too long ago where the nascar hand me downs were dually and gooseneck things. now they are big rigs.

part of it is the number of track support operations that are out there that service things like spec miata where a tractor trailer and a 44ft/dually package will bring 14 miatas to vir or road atlanta for just one team.

being in north carolina and traveling I40 often, the big rigs hauling late model stock car racers out of charlotte is outragious.

for a low budget racer like i am i have a huge rig. 38ft aluminum trailer and a dually f350. but its also a nascar roush/fenway hand me down where i paid for both what the trade in was on the truck alone. at the race track i can often look big budget while i am nearly broke.

you know what they say about appearances

[Jeremy Billiel]

But what are the actual numbers being presented and put your speculation aside. If SCCA's insurance states that by not implimenting a HNR mandate, the Club's insurance rates will be increasing in 2012 by $150,000 then state that. If it's out of fear for future litigation, than that's different.

Do you know the actual details on our insurance policy and specifically how this will impact the bottom line?

Are there other areas that could provide better returns? If you want to continue talking about insurance, what about as Jake mentioned protection for the several instances of heart attacks and potential deaths or injuries to others as well?

LOL Kirk. I'm not arguing against RSI, I just don't really know much about it and can understand people questioning it's validity. I'm going after a resolution which involves putting to rest other people's concerns. I don't apologize for being able to see their side on this and want to dig for more information.

Dave - We are going too far down a rat hole and no I do not know the specifics about the insurance program and possible outcomes. I do work in the industry though and if SCCA is not asking that question they should be.

Again - My only point is this is much bigger than this single thread is making it.

[gran racing]

When talking to people who even have these big rigs, most also tell stories about how they started and worked their way up. I can think of numerous people who started on shoestring budgets and over time, became one of those guys with a decent trailer. However they certainly did not start there. This is one of my concerns; will we further deter these future addicts?

[Jeremy Billiel]

When talking to people who even have these big rigs, most also tell stories about how they started and worked their way up. I can think of numerous people who started on shoestring budgets and over time, became one of those guys with a decent trailer. However they certainly did not start there. This is one of my concerns; will we further deter these future addicts?

My last point and I am done with this thread. You are talking about Philospohical stuff now...

Here is the bottom line.

We don't like the SFI spec as its too narrow and we believe its fundamentally flawed, but until another industry group comes along (RSI) and ponies up the money to explain why they are better, SCCA and other sanctioning bodies are stuck in a quagmire.

This quagmire is comprised of many puts and takes and when all else fails 95% of the time the BOD's will have no other option that to side with the lawyers and protect the main entity (SCCA National in this example)

We can complain about a lot of things, but until another viable option in the industry exists we are where we are.

That's it.

Is the BOD concerned about the average racer? Yes.
Does the BOD get this issue? Yes.
Do they have any other options? No

Bottom line

Just my .02

EDIT: You are asking the BOD and National to take a legal risk that the club can not afford. Even if a potential lawsuit is bogus, do you want your memberhsip dollars fighting that battle in court with high $ attorneys? I know I do not...

[gran racing]

But dude, you don't race. :p


You are talking about Philospohical stuff now...

As were you in many posts, but for arguments sake we'll be nice and call it speculation. The BOD does have options just as they have for many years when this club was founded. Every decision has a risk.

Obviously we'll just disagree on this one.

[spawpoet]

Dave - We are going too far down a rat hole and no I do not know the specifics about the insurance program and possible outcomes. I do work in the industry though and if SCCA is not asking that question they should be.

Again - My only point is this is much bigger than this single thread is making it.


You keep talking about the big picture, but what if the SCCA loses more income in entry fees then they save in insurance costs with this decision? You are only looking at one side of the equation. At least one person has pointed out that you only have to lose a couple of entries to more than equal the total cost of ins. for a single event. It seems that member recruitment and retention of active participants is more critical than keeping ins. costs down.

[Chip42]

going back a little:

While the club seems apprehensive about accepting it, at least we have FIA homologation which does involve actual testing and verification by a 3rd party, for suits and seats and the like, and snell for helmets as well. A problem with H&NR is that the SFI and FIA specs are built around the HANS - differently, and with differently requirements and criteria for certification, but devices such as the ISSAC don't fit either for what amounts to a technicality.

the fact that as of now the club uses SFI, FIA, along with their own language for necessarily bespoke items (a'la cages), means that the device chosen for H&NR is going to be from one of those 2 organizations' lists. I'd love to see a US-based, independent organization certifying these things, but I don't think getting that organization approved by the old guard is very likely. what works isn't as important as what the "recognized leaders" say works. and that's hans.

It's a shame, because the capitulation to fear of litigation and/or monied interests is pushing the "club racer" out of the club by making these CYA rules palatable, and profitable, if not defacto required. it's as if they are saying "open trailer guys: a parking lot beckons." yeah.

look we all know the club will survive this, in some form. SFI companies will get bigger and stronger, insurance companies will still be profitable, racing will go on, and it will still be dangerous. the average joe road racer will just have to be a bit more above average, economically, than he already is in order to keep racing. And I think thats the part that stings, because most of us aren't getting any richer.

[gsbaker]

So that's makes it okay? What's to prevent Jeremy from creating a website and posting specs from online sources.
Online sources? From some marketing department?

RSI publishes test data that has been verified by the lab that ran the test. None of it is from online sources. The data is 100% transparent and 100% real -- and anyone can challenge it.

[mustanghammer]

going back a little:

It's a shame, because the capitulation to fear of litigation and/or monied interests is pushing the "club racer" out of the club by making these CYA rules palatable, and profitable, if not defacto required. it's as if they are saying "open trailer guys: a parking lot beckons." yeah.

look we all know the club will survive this, in some form. SFI companies will get bigger and stronger, insurance companies will still be profitable, racing will go on, and it will still be dangerous. the average joe road racer will just have to be a bit more above average, economically, than he already is in order to keep racing. And I think thats the part that stings, because most of us aren't getting any richer.

Well stated, thank you.

[Greg Amy]

Received via email:

Dear SCCA Drivers:

Beginning January 1, 2012, Head and Neck restraints will become mandatory in SCCA Club Racing Regional, National and Driver School events. In December 2009, the Board of Directors approved the motion to require a device meeting SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858 specifications, and the announcement appeared in the January 2010 Fastrack® News.

In an effort to have everyone prepared for the new equipment requirement, we have put together the following information. This is by no means comprehensive, and it is not an endorsement of one product over another. Just as when buying a helmet or any other piece of safety gear, each driver is encouraged and expected to do their own research and select the product that they feel best suits their needs.

Why is SCCA requiring a head and neck restraint system?
Testing and data support that use of head and neck restraints greatly reduce the possibility of severe injury or death in specific racecar accidents.

Which products are approved?
Like many of its equipment requirements, SCCA recognizes both SFI 38.1 (www.sfifoundation.com (http://www.sfifoundation.com/)) and FIA 8858 (www.fia.com (http://www.fia.com/)) standards. You can visit these sites to see their approved list of devices. As of Aug. 10, 2011, the following devices are approved by SFI or both SFI and FIA:

HANS Performance Products – HANS Device (all series)
Safety Solutions R3 Device
Safety Solutions R3 Rage Device
Safety Solutions Hutchens Hybrid Pro Device
Safety Solutions Hutchens Hybrid Pro Rage Device
Safety Solutions Hutchens Hybrid/Hybrid Rage Device
Safety Solutions Hybrid X Device

For more information about these products, including a list of dealers for each, visit:
- www.hansdevice.com (http://www.hansdevice.com/)
- www.safetysolutionsracing.com (http://www.safetysolutionsracing.com/)

What if I use a device not currently approved by SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858?
Only the devices approved will be permitted and one of the approved devices will be required. These two organizations have strict guidelines for head and neck devices and these guidelines have become the industry standard that SCCA has elected to adopt.

I already have one of these devices. I’m all set, right?
Not necessarily! Make sure your device has the SFI or FIA approval/certification on it.

If you have a HANS Device
- If you have a HANS Device with a SFI or FIA approval/certification sticker on it, you are all set.
- HANS Devices built prior to 2005 will not have a sticker from SFI or FIA on it and are not eligible for use without it. These devices can obtain the sticker through HANS direct approval. HANS will inspect the device, replace the tethers with an upgrade to the Vision Advantage Plus sliding tethers and ship it back to you upon approval with the sticker for approximately $75. Additional costs may be incurred if additional repairs are necessary. Contact HANS directly to arrange for this.
- HANS Devices built in or after 2005 but not carrying an SFI or FIA sticker will need to go through the same process as the pre-2005 devices before being eligible for use.

If you have an approved Safety Solutions Device:
- If your device has a sticker from SFI or FIA, you are all set.
- If you do not have an SFI or FIA sticker, there are three levels of get it re-approved:
o For stickers that have gotten wet and faded or fallen off, devices are inspected by Safety Solutions for cracks or any other anomalies and a replacement sticker is applied. The cost for the inspection and sticker is $5.50 plus return shipping charges.
o For $75, the device can be re-webbed. This includes new tethers, padding over the shoulders and webbed fabric replacement. This price assumes all hardware and carbon fiber can be re-used. A new SFI sticker is applied during this procedure.
o If the SFI sticker is removed by an event official after a significant incident, the device can be sent for inspection. If the carbon fiber and hardware is undamaged, the device will undergo the $75 re-webbing service. If there is damage to the structure of the device, it will be discontinued from service. If this is the case, be sure to ask about return-customer discounts that may be applicable if you need to replace your device.

Does the SFI or FIA approval expire like seat belts?
There is currently no time-based expiration for SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858.

If you have any additional questions about the devices, please contact the manufacturers directly.

Please remember that these devices will be mandatory after 1/1/12. Arriving to the grid without one will be the same as arriving to the grid without your helmet—you won’t be permitted on track.

The Board and staff hope that this document has been useful and if there are any more general questions, please contact the staff at [redacted. You know where to find them].

[gsbaker]

Effective immediately, racers holding an SCCA competition license will receive a 50% discount on any ISAAC product. This offer expires 31 December 2011.

[tom91ita]

they must have updated the database. i had been getting misc. e-mails from them just a few weeks ago.

in fact, i just got another SportsCar this week..


Received via email:

.......Does the SFI or FIA approval expire like seat belts?
There is currently no time-based expiration for SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858.



i like the "currently" part.

i did just get this from Saferacer. apparently there is another certification body out there now in addition to SFI and FIA:



SFI, FIA and Now Nascar Approved!!!

Not all Head and Neck Restraints are the same. The HANS Sport II device just added Nascar approval to SFI 38.1 and FIA 8858 approvals. All of this safety starting at $695. And if you order this week, we'll give you a Free Hans Cover Bag. Many sanctioning bodies already require SFI 38.1 devices and the SCCA will require them in 2012. Let SafeRacer help you with your safety needs.


if i have to buy something in the future, it will not be a HANS. perhaps something from http://www.djsafety.com/:

http://www.djsafety.com/hnr_all381%20copy.jpg

[preparedcivic]

Even with a National License, no email received.......

Also, despite Def'N'der having been a major TDI Cup sponsor, and producing a very good device for 3+ years until Hubbard and Downing effectively sued them out of the business for the time being, not a peep in the SCCA PR about that particular SFI 38.1 piece. The one I own certainly has the appropriate sticker.......

[Rabbit05]

hmmm...I was told that anything with a neck brace was a complete no-no like this : http://www.djsafety.com/.

In one conversation last year I said, "why not where a just neck brace?" It would keep the helmet form moving. That is what I wore while racing Karts...where your head IS the roll bar. I was told that would make things worse than wearing nothing...:shrug: ??

So great another ~$1000 in safety equip.. IMO ,it should be up to the competitor whether or not they want to wear one. And if you don't , sign a waiver to cover the legal jargen...and move on. Seems like a money making scheme to me... Cant wait till they make the roll cages have a shelf life too.

my 0.02...

[dhardison]

Even with a National License, no email received.......

Also, despite Def'N'der having been a major TDI Cup sponsor, and producing a very good device for 3+ years until Hubbard and Downing effectively sued them out of the business for the time being, not a peep in the SCCA PR about that particular SFI 38.1 piece. The one I own certainly has the appropriate sticker.......

Same here..... So, if I currently own a SFI 38.1 sticker'd HNR that's NOT on the list (i.e a DefNder), will it meet approval??

[tom91ita]

Even with a National License, no email received.......

Also, despite Def'N'der having been a major TDI Cup sponsor, and producing a very good device for 3+ years until Hubbard and Downing effectively sued them out of the business for the time being, not a peep in the SCCA PR about that particular SFI 38.1 piece. The one I own certainly has the appropriate sticker.......

i think you are still good to go.

i think it may be that since the device is no longer available, they can't list that as an option.

regarding the DJ Safety device, this is still PENDING SFI certification. waiting for a test date/window and/or test results.

[Chip42]

Even with a National License, no email received.......

Also, despite Def'N'der having been a major TDI Cup sponsor, and producing a very good device for 3+ years until Hubbard and Downing effectively sued them out of the business for the time being, not a peep in the SCCA PR about that particular SFI 38.1 piece. The one I own certainly has the appropriate sticker.......

I was going to comment on this as well. there was some document floating around at the start of this year (might even be in this thread) that stated the defnder's 2010 SFI homologation was still valid for all current SFI38.1 requirements. I can't see how that wouldn't be true for 2012 as well. the list in this mail is of 2011 certified devices, which defnder did not apply for (on account of having stocks with 2010 stickers and the HANS people shuttering their factory. it's not necessarily going to play out cleanly at tech, so I think defnder owners should write to the nat office and request the defnder be added to that list the clarify its compliance before some beurocrat volunteer decides it's not allowed and make syou forfeit your weekend.

[tom91ita]

Same here..... So, if I currently own a SFI 38.1 sticker'd HNR that's NOT on the list (i.e a DefNder), will it meet approval??

time to start those letters again!

i would point out that you specifically purchased the DefNder because you wanted to support a sponsor of that series and now they are not on the list?

[StephenB]

Can you still send your def'N'der back to be recertified after you get in an accident? Not an issue for any of you now but may be in the future...

Stephen

[Greg Amy]

So, if I currently own a SFI 38.1 sticker'd HNR that's NOT on the list (i.e a DefNder), will it meet approval??
Scrutineers, as part of your annual gear check, will be looking for the presence of an SFI or FIA stickers. If you've got one, you're good to go.

Someone wanna ring up Impact...? What, too soon...?

[dhardison]

Can you still send your def'N'der back to be recertified after you get in an accident? Not an issue for any of you now but may be in the future...

Stephen

Some Googling found the following on apexperformance.net:

"Effective immediately, the DefNder is no longer being offered through the manufacturer. However, they will continue to offer support for replacement tethers and helmet hardware kits. The company has assured us that units in circulation are SFI approved and safe for use."

For whatever that's worth.............

[Butch Kummer]

I hadn't thought about it until just now, but will we now see a rash of "tech only" H&N devices? I'm sure the guys on the Grid will not be checking for SFI 38.1 stickers, so you and your buddies get one "approved" device that ends up going through annual tech multiple times.

Back in the old days you had to have a copy of the current GCR - no requirement that you had actually read it, but you had to have one. Guys would go through tech, then walk outside the building and hand their "communal" GCR to their buddy waiting in line. The same book probably went through 20 tech inspections on a given evening! :D

[tom91ita]

Scrutineers, as part of your annual gear check, will be looking for the presence of an SFI or FIA stickers. If you've got one, you're good to go.

Someone wanna ring up Impact...? What, too soon...?

for IT Fest i had brought an old cheap neck donut. i meant to take a sharpie to it and scribble SFI 38.1 on it and wear while drinking beer but it was too hot.....

[raffaelli]

Even with a National License, no email received.......

Also, despite Def'N'der having been a major TDI Cup sponsor, and producing a very good device for 3+ years until Hubbard and Downing effectively sued them out of the business for the time being, not a peep in the SCCA PR about that particular SFI 38.1 piece. The one I own certainly has the appropriate sticker.......

ditto.

[pballance]

Just an FYI. Good friend of mine who is also a scrutineer forwarded the letter to me and I asked the same things about "other" SFI approved devices. Here is the response he got, today!:

From: Doug Gill [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 9:12 AM
To: XXXXXXXX
Cc: Janet Farwell
Subject: FW: Head and Neck Restraints January 1, 2012

Hi, XXXXZXZ,

Any HNR with an SFI or FIA certification is compliant.

This list was sent as an FYI and it’s not a rule or a complete list. I’d treat it the same way as helmets.

Hope this helps.

-Doug
Doug Gill
General Manager
SCCA Technical Services
1-800-770-2055
www.scca.com

[Cobrar05]

thsi is probably worth a mention. ive been using a hutchens hybrid. i love it, but the guys that i enduro race with all have hans and it would be easier for me if i had a hans.

i am perfectly happy with the hybrid and love safety solutions otherwise. if someone here is interested in buying a used hutchens hybrid, i'd sell this one and put the cash toward a hans. i am also buying a new helmet and once the that is done i will be sticking with hybrid if its still here.

if you are interesed in the hutchens, send me a pm

[Andy Bettencourt]

For rent, 1 R3 device. $20 per day.

LOL

I usually bleed SCCA but I HATE this rule. UNLESS someone is working behind the scenes to 'certify' none SFI/FIA stuff like the Issac, but I doubt it.

Can Dick post how the CRB voted? I want names.

[dickita15]

There was no vote required of the CRB, this was a BOD only issue and those votes are recorded in fastrack. For the record the CRB has never voted to require H&N.
The email being circulated went to tech and stewards. I was told it will be sent to all drivers (maybe with some tweaking based on feedback) Monday or so.

[tom91ita]

.......... I want names.



Discussion on mandatory use of head and neck restraints which were mandated effective 1/1/2012. The CRB has received letters asking the Board to reconsider. The discussion focused on the balance between providing members “option to choose” while protecting the club from risk.
MOTION: to change the 2012 GCR section 9.3.20. C.2 to read: The use of a head and neck support system meeting the performance of SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858 is highly recommended. Patullo/Langlotz. FAILED. In favor: Patullo, Lybarger, Jones, Gordy, Langlotz. Opposed: Merideth, Creighton, Butler, Kephart, Walsh, Lewis, Noble, Wannarka.
MOTION: to change 2012 GCR section 9.3.20. C.2 to read: As of 1/1/12, Head and neck restraints meeting SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858 will be required. The SCCA may also specify additional acceptable Head and Neck Restraint systems that are certified by manufacturers to exceed the performance standard described in SFI 38.1, or other appropriate industry standards as tested by one of the labs qualified to undertake such performance tests. Patullo/Langlotz. FAILED. In favor: Patullo, Langlotz, Wannarka, Jones. Opposed: Gordy, Lewis, Walsh,Kephart, Butler, Lybarger, Creighton, Noble.
In response to concern that the competitors may be unaware of the 1/1/2012 effective date for the mandatory use of head and neck restraints, Staff will work on an education piece for SportsCar and mass email regarding the requirement and how to be compliant



i find the highlighted folks to be odd. they vote in favor of the rule of recommending the use but not requiring the device and then vote against the motion that would have required a device that was not SFI but met the performance test (would have allowed the Isaac....)

[dickita15]

As I have said before I firmly believe every director voted in the manner that they felt was best for the club. The second motion which would basically have SCCA making a determination on what devices had acceptable performance based on manufacturer supplied data. This motion scared the risk management more than the first one did. Something something separates us from the herd something something.

[Andy Bettencourt]

There was no vote required of the CRB, this was a BOD only issue and those votes are recorded in fastrack. For the record the CRB has never voted to require H&N.
The email being circulated went to tech and stewards. I was told it will be sent to all drivers (maybe with some tweaking based on feedback) Monday or so.

Thanks Dick. My mistake, I meant BoD...

[gsbaker]

It will be interesting to see how this develops as other sanctioning bodies repeal H&NR mandates. (No, that was not a typo.)

[CRallo]

Did anyone read my letter? All the other letters? Who will be the first to sue when they are injured (or worse) in a side impact while wearing a HANS?

This is such crap!

I'll write something more productive when I cool off...

[Greg Amy]

I'll write something more productive when I cool off...
I suggest when you cool off you'll recognize this is "a done deal". Your best effort are used to find the best way to accommodate this new regulation short-term*, and if you feel the need to pursue the reg itself you have a list of people on the BoD that voted against it so you know who to support (and who to oppose).

While the vote to have SCCA decide what's safe and what's not was laudable, we're not in the safety business and I agree with the lawyers that making those decisions puts us in a FAR greater position of liability than the question of whether to require them or not. Once the Club - we - made the decision to require them, we had to follow suit to an "industry standard". So yet another direction for your energies would be to work to develop an acceptable standard against which the SCCA can accept and against which to lean if it came down to a liability situation.

But getting all hot and bothered and mad on the Internetz ain't gonna do much...after all, we've been doing it for over two years now and see where that got us...? ;)

GA

On edit: forgot my *....Billiel and I share a car, so we share the HANS. Nothing in the regs contrary to that. Andy laughed off a rental HaNS above, but it's a viable scenario, especially if your helmet is compatible with what's available for rental/borrow.

[BruceG]

Are we better off to race with a HANS? Was Ken better off to be wearing a HANS when he Hit the Lotus head on at No Name a couple years ago? I think we all know the answer to these questions. Is this where we want to be as regards H&N DEVICES...MOST LIKELY NOT AND HOPEFULLY THE RULING WILL BE MODIFIED TO INCLUDE MORE CHOICES DOWN THE ROAD.

[gsbaker]

C'mon guys, relax. The world is full of happy HANS users:

[CRallo]

I realize its a done deal :( I was referring to writing something more productive here, already recognizing the rest of what you said.

My teammate owns a HANS and has volunteered its use to me as has the gentleman that owns all the cool stuff I drive on track with UTR. I am fortunate to not have to shell out much, though I'd rather not even have to buy anchors putting $$$ in HANS's pocket. I'm a stubborn prick, what can I say?!

[Matt93SE]

C'mon guys, relax. The world is full of happy HANS users:

I'd be happy too if I didn't have to fly cattle class!

[seckerich]

C'mon guys, relax. The world is full of happy HANS users:

Not the best example when you post a picture of a guy who had a previous bad neck injury and act like it was a Hanns failure after the GA crash. :023: Does suit your agenda though.

[lateapex911]

Did anyone read my letter? All the other letters? Who will be the first to sue when they are injured (or worse) in a side impact while wearing a HANS?

This is such crap!

I'll write something more productive when I cool off...

Yea, Chris...read the fine print. Dick Patullo, the NER director, (you know him. ;) ) really went to bat on this. He tried his best, and he's a smart guy who understands the big picture, and can communicate his points effectively, I think. He read your letter, and others, no doubt. I haven't spoken to him, but I'd bet he made a point of bringing up members wishes.

All of his comments have shown he 'gets' the situation.
Trust me, I hate this too. Looks like my blown car with no motor parts available will ALSO need a new H&N restraint to replace one that actually functions at the top of the performance pile, AND likely a new seat, mounts etc etc. I'm looking at thousands to race again. But that's the way it goes.

I'm afraid it's one of those deals that has only a few options,and they are all evil to some degree.

[Knestis]

Moreover, we've seen this train coming down the tunnel for years and the membership has been (mostly) apathetic about SFI influence.

Horse <------- Barn

Dick and others (including, to his credit, Jim Drago) worked to get folks thinking more critically about the question but it's a done deal.

It's too late now for the short term but do NOT be surprised when in a couple of years, there's a climb-down on this policy. It will take someone dying, because that's just the way Risk Management works, or continued realization in the "industry" that chooses which "standard" to follow that they've collectively gone off half-cocked, but it will happen.

The market for used SFI H&N systems will be pretty depressed at that point but the good news for the sticker-makers will be that by then, we'll be required to have our rollcages built by SFI-member constructors so they'll still have a revenue stream.

K

[tom91ita]

i happen to cross paths this a.m. with a CRB type (not sure if currently serving but has not too long ago) and the comment was that this was required by the insurance company. which makes me wonder why the BOD vote was needed then...

when i said that i was looking at Midwest Council of Sports Car Clubs, it sounds like they might have to as well since most everyone has the same insurance carriers.

thanks again Dick for your efforts.

[Sportster]

Just for the record DefNders are still available and being shipped daily.

[spawpoet]

Just for the record DefNders are still available and being shipped daily.


Unless they have the SFI sticker, they are worthless for use in SCCA sanctioned events. As I understand things, new Defenders haven't had the sticker for some time now. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Sportster]

Unless they have the SFI sticker, they are worthless for use in SCCA sanctioned events. As I understand things, new Defenders haven't had the sticker for some time now. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

All the units we are shipping have SFI 38.1 stickers.

[JeffYoung]

Because even if the insurance company requires it, the BoD still has to approve it for the Club. We could (we won't, but we could) go a different route and not make the requirement and lose the coverage, or seek coverage elsewhere.

FWIW, I think the Club's hands were effectively tied on this. Just too risky not to go with something that certainly appears to have become an international standard. I like Gregg's device, and his science seems spot on, but I have to agree with the Club it is far riskier not to follow the herd here, than to do otherwise.


i happen to cross paths this a.m. with a CRB type (not sure if currently serving but has not too long ago) and the comment was that this was required by the insurance company. which makes me wonder why the BOD vote was needed then...

when i said that i was looking at Midwest Council of Sports Car Clubs, it sounds like they might have to as well since most everyone has the same insurance carriers.

thanks again Dick for your efforts.

[gsbaker]

Jeff,

Thanks for the kind words re the product. (It's not mine, btw, but that's another subject.)

With all due respect to those involved in the decision, the SCCA is behind the curve on this one as many sanctioning bodies, a.k.a. the herd, are going the opposite direction in either expanding their mandate beyond SFI/FIA, or considering repealing those mandates all together.

Also, does anyone have a problem with the fact that most state laws do not allow the insurance carrier to pay punitive damages in cases of gross negligence, or that in the case of the SCCA, IIRC, counsel is also the insurance agent?

I suspect we've been involved in more lawsuits than has the SCCA, and I have never heard any counsel suggest one knowingly and willingly limit access to safety. Never. Someone needs to get their head in the game.


Not the best example when you post a picture of a guy who had a previous bad neck injury and act like it was a Hanns [sic] failure after the GA [sic] crash. :023: Does suit your agenda though.
Thank you for your input.

[downingracing]

I sent my letter asking for them to consider a tier-approach to this safety item. Like fuel cells, cage thickness, fire systems... We already have multiple levels of safety requirements for different cars/classes. Using this same approach for this requirement could be an option. Require it for some cars/classes and recommend it for others.

I'm sure it will be "Thank you for your input". I'll look around this winter for the cheapest option that has the label. It will not be a HANS - It will be the cheapest thing I can find to satisfy the rule. Next it will be required for PDX - If I need one in a Civic, the Vette driver MUST need one!

[tom91ita]

...........many sanctioning bodies, a.k.a. the herd, are going the opposite direction in either expanding their mandate beyond SFI/FIA, or considering repealing those mandates all together.....

Links? what is the basis for that remark? and by opposite in expanding you mean additional H&NR or expanding as in SFI/FIA cages to which all this "safer" stuff has to be attached to?


Thank you for your input.

how very scca fastrack of you!:happy204:

[tdw6974]

This owner mandated the use of the Hans Device when we moved to from ITA to ITS. That was for the 2006 Season. In the October Enduro 17 seconds in Our Driver " Our Son" was hit by someone trying to win a 3 hour race in 17 seconds. The collision caused the Hans device to preform its job 5 times. IT WORKED. He will not race with out it. Required or Not. Tom Weaver my opimion win lose or draw After all I've been around so long I can remember the battle uproar when Fire extinquishers were first mandated.:)

[shwah]

Tom,

I don't see anyone saying that we should not use a HNR device, just that the rule is restrictive in which ones we must choose from.

[Knestis]

What Chris said.

The people most upset with how this mandate has been managed were largely early adopters who SUPPORT the use of H&N systems. Many of us are being forced to stop using a system that is demonstrably LESS SAFE in common circumstances than the ones now being forced upon us.

It doesn't take much imagination to picture what a lawyer would do with that.

K

[tom91ita]

what Chris & K said.

i was late coming to selecting because i did not want to buy an Isaac device if SFI was going to be required.

AFTER the CRB voted to ONLY recommend their use, i bought an entry level Isaac. now the BOD trumps the CRB and requires it. it is that part of the procedural implementation that chaps me.

so to recoup $$ needed to buy a different device (non Hans for sure), i have let my license and membership lapse and did not enter this year's IT Fest. due to other commitments, i can't just command $2000 to appear ( i plan to buy a better seat to get back some of the side support).

should be back on track after $2000 of dues and entry fees accumulates. might not be with SCCA though. since NASA did this H&NR first, they must be the safety leaders, right?

[lateapex911]

What Chris said.

The people most upset with how this mandate has been managed were largely early adopters who SUPPORT the use of H&N systems. Many of us are being forced to stop using a system that is demonstrably LESS SAFE in common circumstances than the ones now being forced upon us.

It doesn't take much imagination to picture what a lawyer would do with that.

K

Doc, did you typo that or m I being double positive/negatively confused??

personally, I feel that the rule forces me to throw away a system with better all around performance and replace it with one that is arguably lower performance. So, spend more, get less. marvelous.
All because some guys got together and wrote some lame market limiting 'standard'
The whole things a racket to put money in peoples pockets, plain and simple. Being a pawn sucks, especially when it concerns my money, and my neck.

[Knestis]

Doc, did you typo that or m I being double positive/negatively confused??

personally, I feel that the rule forces me to throw away a system with better all around performance and replace it with one that is arguably lower performance. So, spend more, get less. marvelous.
All because some guys got together and wrote some lame market limiting 'standard'
The whole things a racket to put money in peoples pockets, plain and simple. Being a pawn sucks, especially when it concerns my money, and my neck.

Whoops. Double negativity alert, Batman!

I'm being told that I have to use a less-safe system. The lawyers will have a field day.

K

[gsbaker]

Originally Posted by gsbaker http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/images/chromium/blue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?p=326338#post326338)
...........many sanctioning bodies, a.k.a. the herd, are going the opposite direction in either expanding their mandate beyond SFI/FIA, or considering repealing those mandates all together.....

Links? what is the basis for that remark?
No links yet. Sorry, but this is through-the-grapevine stuff. Two things appear to be happening. First, sanctioning bodies that establish mandates, with the ironic exception of the SCCA, seem to be moving to expanded language that requires a certified device. Something like, "shall use a head and neck restraint certified to meet or exceed industry safety standards." Period. As long as it has a sticker to that effect, it's good to go.

Second, some forms of racing -- where drivers actually, ya know, crash a lot -- are considering repealing their mandates because of compression injuries and vertebral fractures.

And, no, we won't name names. As soon as we do those bodies will be carpet bombed by HANS salesmen.

[StephenB]

Why dont we write a letter to these companys and ask them to get the product you're using that is safer certified? I hear people over and over and over again complaining But no one is holding those companys accountable to get their products certified. I know I am going against the herd of this forum but I feel like anybody that bought a non SFI product in the last 2 years had to know they were making a bad investment.

I do feel bad for you guys but maybe everyone with those other products should write those companies and try to get them to get their product certified.

Stephen

[raffaelli]

When do I need to buy a full containment seat and both side nets?

[Knestis]

It's been explained literally HUNDREDS of times here, Stephen. Nothing personal to you but you're exemplary of the frogs-in-the-pot-of-water membership on this issue and my patience has gone to zero with you all.

K

[CRallo]

Stephen, some of these devices, by design, do not and cannot meet every requirement of the spec(s).

Kirk, I like your wisdom and spunk, your way with words and truly believe that you are a ass(sometimes ASS)et to the sport, but you just wasted more words being an ass than a simple reponse would have taken and I proved it.

[tom91ita]

It's been explained literally HUNDREDS of times here, Stephen. Nothing personal to you but you're exemplary of the frogs-in-the-pot-of-water membership on this issue and my patience has gone to zero with you all.

K

you should have just congratulated him on hiis new sponsorship (Walt's Crawlers).

afterall, he was just baiting you/us.

[lateapex911]

Stephen, you're a smart guy. Raymond made you write that, right? ;)
Do your research, the answers everywhere.

[StephenB]

So none of you think that the manufacture could have spent sometime and redesigned the product to meet the specs. This has been going on for nearly a half decade, I really think they could have done something to meet the specs if they wanted to.

Stephen

On edit: you are all correct, I dismissed paying attention to the non sfi equipment because I really saw this day coming 3 or 4 years ago. Please disregard my post If you wish.

[Rabbit05]

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/sites/politics.blogs.foxnews.com/files/images/climate-suit-300x225.jpg

I am ready for next year...I had a H&NR incorperated into the suit..

......I think I might need to make a few adjustments to my seat though..:D
http://http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/sites/politics.blogs.foxnews.com/files/images/climate-suit-300x225.jpg

[Knestis]

Stephen, some of these devices, by design, do not and cannot meet every requirement of the spec(s).

Kirk, I like your wisdom and spunk, your way with words and truly believe that you are a ass(sometimes ASS)et to the sport, but you just wasted more words being an ass than a simple reponse would have taken and I proved it.

You "proved" something on an internet board, and I'm the ass? Congrats.

As is often the case, the problem is way bigger than just the ISAAC issue but SCCA members are mostly a mix of the the jaded, the apathetic, and the new so they don't care, want to make the effort to care, or (mostly) know that they should care.

If you stick around long enough, you WILL get dorked by the broader problem at hand, driven by SFI's business model and the CRB's/BOD's lack of critical thinking on safety issues.

The Foundation's business model has generally been to introduce every spec in drag racing first (e.g., with suits, back in the '80s) then drag the other racing disciplines along as they penetrate the market. They invoke the same "industry standard" as is now being imposed on H&N systems, and all it takes is a handful of manufacturers who understand the value of limits to market access to get with SFI to make a spec.

Do you know, for example, that SFI has specs for drag racing wheels? Only member manufacturers can invoke it so where SFI wheels are required, the only folks allowed in the market are MEMBER MANUFACTURERS and CUSTOMERS of those manufacturers. If Spinwerks, Weld, and American (all SFI member manufacturers already) got together and wrote a spec, and the CRB/BOD got chickened into playing along, every Club Racing member would be obligated to patronize those companies as they replaced all of their wheels. All of the other manufacturers would be forced to pony up membership and "certification" $$, or opt out of the market, limiting your choices...

Oh, but WAIT. You know all that already because you are Champion of the Internet.

:happy204:

K

[Knestis]

... I dismissed paying attention to the non sfi equipment because I really saw this day coming 3 or 4 years ago. ...

...by which point in time I'd done my research to choose the safest system, purchased it, and already been using it for 3 or 4 years. Guess the mistake I made was trying to actually be safer rather than just following a rule.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

So none of you think that the manufacture could have spent sometime and redesigned the product to meet the specs. This has been going on for nearly a half decade, I really think they could have done something to meet the specs if they wanted to.

Stephen

On edit: you are all correct, I dismissed paying attention to the non sfi equipment because I really saw this day coming 3 or 4 years ago. Please disregard my post If you wish.

So Stephen,

I saw this coming years ago too and bought an R3 AND a special seat. Doesn't mean the mandate, or the SFI regulation is any less stupid. Good people have done their research and bought a product they feel is SUPERIOR to a HANS in certain crash situations.

What you don't seem to understand is WHY these other systems may or may not meet SFI and why that rediculous spec would compromise the very core design of these units. Do THAT research and then come back here and critisize should you feel the need.

[BruceG]

John..the good news is that the BOD has allowed that if you wear your new suit, a drivers door and roll cage are no longer required....LOL



http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/sites/politics.blogs.foxnews.com/files/images/climate-suit-300x225.jpg

I am ready for next year...I had a H&NR incorperated into the suit..

......I think I might need to make a few adjustments to my seat though..:D
[/U]http://http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/sites/politics.blogs.foxnews.com/files/images/climate-suit-300x225.jpg[/QUOTE]

[gran racing]

but I feel like anybody that bought a non SFI product in the last 2 years had to know they were making a bad investment.

Stephen, as said, there's a lot more to this than that.

I personally have an Isaac device and have been using it for a few years now. I like it and feel confident that it'll work if the time comes. Now I'm in a position where as of this winter, I'll no longer be able to use it and will need to purchase a device that has a SFI sticker. There will be much grumbling, it'll add one more piece to the pile of why maybe I should put this hobby aside for a while, and for the first time in many years I've seriously given thought to it. In the end I'll probably buy one, but don't have the funds to purchase a new racing seat. I also just bought belts this year so if I were to get a HANS, I'll be using the 3" versus instead of their recommended 2" belts. Right side window net is another expense and time / frustration to install. When all is said and done, my safety protection next year will decrease which bothers me much more so now that I have a young you. I'm sure you can understand this frustration.

[Russ Myers]

Ladies and gentlemen,
It is at this time, due to tire costs, fuel costs, entry fee escalations, and now, idiotic rules supposed to protect me from myself(seats, belts, H&N devices, window nets, etc.) that I announce that this will probably be my last year in Club racing. I choose not to pay into this system any more. I really can't afford it anymore. I will probably drop back to Auto-X and wait for the day that the SCCA demands fire suits and H&N devices be manditory for you to play in the parking lots.

Russ

[jjjanos]

After all I've been around so long I can remember the battle uproar when Fire extinquishers were first mandated.:)

Requiring folks to carry an extinguisher is stupid and does nothing for my safety. The only reason I need a system is if I'm trapped/incapacitated in the car and it is on fire. In that instance, the chances of being able to use the bottle are almost nil. If the car is on fire, I'm out of it.

On the otherhand, requiring extinguisher systems makes sense.

BTW - the GCR as written does not require or allow the use of either in an IT car. IIDSYCorMTYC.

[gsbaker]

So none of you think that the manufacture could have spent sometime and redesigned the product to meet the specs. This has been going on for nearly a half decade, I really think they could have done something to meet the specs if they wanted to.

Stephen
Duh.


4 May 2005, Wayne State University crash lab, Test #NC149, NASCAR offset protocol.
29 September 2005, Delphi Safety Systems crash lab, Test #IS59F010, SFI 38.1 offset protocol.

The Isaac design modified to meet the SFI spec worked rather well at the WSU lab, but not at the Delphi lab where the belts came off -- just like a HANS device.

You wouldn't detune a Ferrari to meet a Yugo spec. Why would you detune an Isaac to meet an SFI spec? What good thing happens? We sell more stuff and kill drivers? Sorry, SFI needs us more than we need SFI.

[lateapex911]

Stephen, think about Greggs case. He modified his product, tested it, and got inferior results to what he had, and was selling.

You DO see that a jury, in a case against him, would look at that information, and rip him a new one, as he chose to sell a product that he KNEW was inferior to the one he already sold. You have to admit, if it was YOUR life on the line in that courtroom, you'd think VERY hard before making and selling something you KNEW had issues, irregardless of the actual drivers and in field performance.

Bigger picture here, Stephen, if the HANS people had written the spec in a more open manner, this issue would be less likely to exist at all. But they wrote it with clear market limiting intentions, just as SFI empowers, and encourages them to do. And we, the HANS buying SCCA driver, pumps money and makes that relationship and system work, all the way to the bank, or in Arnies case, his Newport Beach CA home.

SFI acts like the white knight, parading around telling us how we are all safe, thanks to the charity of Arnie, yet, in reality, acts in ways to to limit our safety.

It's a shame Snell isn't a broader organization, they seem to have a better model.

[tom91ita]

though i am rarely with Kirk (he is usually half a lap ahead...), i think we really have to be thinking down the road.

and what is down that road?

what good is a FIA/SFI belt and a FIA/SFI H&NR when it is all connected to a SCCA certified roll cage?

so regardless of if there have been no cage failures or when one does occur due to shoddy workmanship, we will likely all have to get new cages even though the one we have is built to the same performance standard.

afterall, NHRA and tractor pulling has SFI cage designs out there. and it would seem that given the herd mentality, we would be follwing the tractors, right? or given the strengh of some of these tractors, why wouldn't SCCA get pulled into this line of thinking?

didn't someone in this thread just build/prep another car? was the cage built to FIA standards by an FIA certified shop? given the direction things are going, why would anyone not go with the FIA design? :shrug:

[Knestis]

I thought about the SFI cage case, Tom, but I went with the wheel example because I was HOPING it would be closer to believable to the uninitiated - but you are SPOT ON.

In publishing its determination on the H&N rule, the Board went on record as saying, "We will not write our own safety rules" - but they do just that for cages. You're right about that probably being the next target...

K

[Racerlinn]

<raises hand>

Here's another budget-constrained racer that may very well not be racing next year, unless I decide to travel to Michigan to run with the Council instead of SCCA.
And I already own an HNR system (first gen Link) and have taken a close look at my safety in the car (have since the day I built it) and installed other devices in a manner I believe is safe for the risks that I take (and am willing to deal with).

<lowers hand>

[Chip42]

I thought about the SFI cage case, Tom, but I went with the wheel example because I was HOPING it would be closer to believable to the uninitiated - but you are SPOT ON.

In publishing its determination on the H&N rule, the Board went on record as saying, "We will not write our own safety rules" - but they do just that for cages. You're right about that probably being the next target...

K

continuing with this theory: Could they find a way to grandfather the old NON-SFI cars, similar to how older cars have been grandfathered through the various cage rules revisions to date? the hypocrisy there - that a "who knows" cage that already existed is effectively as good as a shiny new one that is SFI certified, but that a shiny new NOT SFI certified cage is somehow unsafe - would be hard for even our membership to ignore. The rate of new builds would fall and people would take their ball and play on another field. If they did not grandfather then I'm pretty sure the defection at that point would be sufficient to start a new car club or turn a more agreeable organization (NASA?) into the preffered stomping grounds overnight.

[tom91ita]

they couldn't find a way to "grandfather" folks with non SFI Isaacs that meets an industry level of performance, so why would that apply?

[Chip42]

they couldn't find a way to "grandfather" folks with non SFI Isaacs that meets an industry level of performance, so why would that apply?

I think that mandating a cert on a previously not required piece of equipment is substantially different than mandating that all (or at least a very large percentage, approaching 100%) current cages be removed and rebuilt by a certified fabricator. and lets not forget the "real" SCCA cars which are mostly tube frames (old FA, FC, FF, F500, FV, GT). It would effectively be like saying "All tubeframe cars currently existant are hereby forbidden, and you caged tub guys better go back to stage 1 and rebuild, too! now hurry up, nationals start in January." they might as well mail out NASA membership applications with the sportscar rag that month.

[Cobrar05]

doom....doom and gloom.

[BruceG]

I want whatever H&N device David Reutimann was wearing during the last lap crash at WGI yesterday. I've never seen a car in so many different positions(vertical and horizontal) before it came to rest. Granted, those guys all have halo seats....but still! There are a bunch of threads on YOUTUBE for those interested.

[gran racing]

And you should be given that choice, just as other choices should be available for members to make when trying to protect themselves.

All of this doesn't matter now though, at least for the time being.

[gsbaker]

I want whatever H&N device David Reutimann was wearing during the last lap crash at WGI yesterday. I've never seen a car in so many different positions(vertical and horizontal) before it came to rest. Granted, those guys all have halo seats....but still! There are a bunch of threads on YOUTUBE for those interested.
The dramatic crashes tend to burn off a lot of kinetic energy from flipping and flopping. It's doubtful the loads were that high.

[BruceG]

And you should be given that choice, just as other choices should be available for members to make when trying to protect themselves.

All of this doesn't matter now though, at least for the time being.

Dave..It would be interesting to hear from "survivors" from all this road rash, see what they were wearing for H&N(and seats,webbing), then see what what brands they used and to what extent(if any) they were injured. That should be the benchmark for the insurance companies, SCCA.SFI,NASA,drag racing,blah,blah.
Not politics and payoffs to use their products.:dead_horse:

[lateapex911]

ONLY if the crashes were logged with full data, otherwise it's akin to saying, "Wow, that looked bad, that thing must have saved his life".
Greggs exactly right, that incident was complex, but low level. And it would be work to seperate out the different devices contributions.

The best way is repeatable lab testing, trying many combinations.

Seriously, comparing that event to our world is a stretch. Our cars, our seats, our containments are not anything like that.

It's like the guy who buys the Downhill XP for skis because Klaus Super G Edgemeister uses them, or the duffer who plays Michelsons ball.

But, a larger point regarding that idea is that how will that serve to increase our choices?? All the sanctioning bodies you mention have very limited options.

[manny]

well gentlemen, i received my official email from the SCCA today and it states that in 1-1-12 it is mandatory to have a HANS device. Sure do wish we had more choices.

[downingracing]

well gentlemen, i received my official email from the SCCA today and it states that in 1-1-12 it is mandatory to have a HANS device. Sure do wish we had more choices.

My letter/email said this:


Which products are approved?
Like many of its equipment requirements, SCCA recognizes both SFI 38.1 (www.sfifoundation.com) and FIA 8858 (www.fia.com) standards. You can visit these sites to see their approved list of devices. As of Aug. 10, 2011, the following devices are currently approved by SFI or both SFI and FIA:

HANS Performance Products – HANS Device (all series)
Safety Solutions R3 Device
Safety Solutions R3 Rage Device
Safety Solutions Hutchens Hybrid Pro Device
Safety Solutions Hutchens Hybrid Pro Rage Device
Safety Solutions Hutchens Hybrid/Hybrid Rage Device
Safety Solutions Hybrid X Device

For more information about these products, including a list of dealers for each, visit:
- www.hansdevice.com (http://www.hansdevice.com/)
- www.safetysolutionsracing.com (http://www.safetysolutionsracing.com/)
-
**If your Head and Neck device is not on the above list of current approved devices, but does have the appropriate certification sticker from a past approval, then you will be considered compliant.

[Cobrar05]

well gentlemen, i received my official email from the SCCA today and it states that in 1-1-12 it is mandatory to have a HANS device. Sure do wish we had more choices.

your email said a HANS was mandated? are you sure? thats not what i got.

[FV90]

The email SCCA to Stewards and Scutineers did NOT state just a HAN's is mandatory - it gave the list show up above as long as it has the "sticker"

[lateapex911]

The sad thing about that statement is that HANS has become Kleenex.

Gotta hand it to their racketeers marketers....

[StephenB]

Sorry I haven't replied in a few days... lots of work and no time.

We definetly have different view points and we should leave it at that rather than bicker. I completly see your view points and I was one that viewed it exactly as most of you do. I waited to make a purchase until this year so that I wasn't making a poor investment which in retrospec I was lucky I was never killed and really was the least safest thing to do of all! If you really want my response on the wheels and rollcage let me know and I can PM you.

I do wish to repsond to the following links attached at the bottom in hopes that I can further explain my viewpoint without getting kicked off this forum. I know I said I didn't want to bicker as I started to type this Post so please understand that I welcome your comments back but I probably will not defend myself. I just wanted to respond to your questions and try and explain my viewpoint. If you don't agree with me no harm no foul and we are each entitled to our own opinion.

First I COMPLETLY agree and wish we adopted another testing company like SNELL or anything else for that matter. BUT I feel like we cannot control that now and the decision has been made. Like it or not (Which BTW I do not like the decision)

SECOND I also think that It is not up to Issac to decide on what we as consumers purchase. However it is up to them on what they decide to sell. As stated below they can provide both units and allow for us to purchase what we want within our needs as a consumer. YES one is less safe and performs worse BUT this happens ALL THE TIME in the marketplace. Not just in safety but it still happens in the safety of us as Racers. A perfect example of this is the seat market. Some come with side impact head protection, others do not. One is safer and one is not depending on the situation and needs of the consumer. In this situation with H&N support Issac has a product that performas worse BUT meets the SFI standard. If they decided to produce ithis product we could purchase an Issac product so that we don't feel the need to purchase a HANS or Safety solutions product. If this product is as safe as the HANS and Safety Solutions would you support Issac or them? So many people say they are not going to purchase a HANS no matter what so they will most likely get a Safety Solutions brand. Is the Issac safer than those, I don't know but at least we would have options. If Issac has a customer base that supports the business model they have AND they feel a less performing product isn't an option based on the reputation and or ethical values as a company then I give them kudos and wish them well. BUT we as consumers could always send them a letter requesting they build the product and you never know... maybe they will.

I REALLY REALLY wish Issac had an SFI product and advertised that a safer option is available for sale and included a form to every person that purchased their product to write in to SFI. Imagine if Issac could sell to Nascar, NHRA, Grand-am, ALMS, etc and promoted that safer options ARE available? That is the way I see this changing for the future. At this point we need a bigger "movement" and building awarness is the only thing I think that will change it but bickering on the internet or boycotting racing isn't going to change a thing. I really think this is bigger than us or SCCA.

Stephen Blethen


PS: I only used BOLD below just to differenciate what I was typing, I screwed up the quote thing and didn't want to re-type stuff.


Stephen, think about Greggs case. He modified his product, tested it, and got inferior results to what he had, and was selling.

You DO see that a jury, in a case against him, would look at that information, and rip him a new one, as he chose to sell a product that he KNEW was inferior to the one he already sold. You have to admit, if it was YOUR life on the line in that courtroom, you'd think VERY hard before making and selling something you KNEW had issues, irregardless of the actual drivers and in field performance.
I DONT SEE IT THIS WAY AT ALL, ESPECIALLY IF THE TEST RESULTS ARE PUBLISHED AND PROVIDED WITH EACH SALE.

Bigger picture here, Stephen, if the HANS people had written the spec in a more open manner, this issue would be less likely to exist at all. But they wrote it with clear market limiting intentions, just as SFI empowers, and encourages them to do. And we, the HANS buying SCCA driver, pumps money and makes that relationship and system work, all the way to the bank, or in Arnies case, his Newport Beach CA home.
OUT OF OUR CONTROL, I CAN'T EVER CHANGE THIS. BUT I CAN PURCHASE OTHER PRODUCTS OTHER THAN A HANS IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE.


SFI acts like the white knight, parading around telling us how we are all safe, thanks to the charity of Arnie, yet, in reality, acts in ways to to limit our safety.
AGREED BUT OUT OF MY CONTOL.

It's a shame Snell isn't a broader organization, they seem to have a better model.
AGREE


08-15-2011 10:14 AM
gsbaker Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenB
So none of you think that the manufacture could have spent sometime and redesigned the product to meet the specs. This has been going on for nearly a half decade, I really think they could have done something to meet the specs if they wanted to.

Stephen

Duh.

4 May 2005, Wayne State University crash lab, Test #NC149, NASCAR offset protocol.
29 September 2005, Delphi Safety Systems crash lab, Test #IS59F010, SFI 38.1 offset protocol.
The Isaac design modified to meet the SFI spec worked rather well at the WSU lab, but not at the Delphi lab where the belts came off -- just like a HANS device.

You wouldn't detune a Ferrari to meet a Yugo spec. Why would you detune an Isaac to meet an SFI spec? What good thing happens? We sell more stuff and kill drivers? Sorry, SFI needs us more than we need SFI.
I GIVE YOUR COMPANY A LOT OF CREDIT FOR STICKING TO YOUR VALUES. I UNDERSTAND YOUR VIEW AND WISH YOU LUCK IN THE FUTURE. I WISH SFI AND OTHERS VIEWED IT THIS WAY. I ALSO WISH THAT I COULD SUPPORT YOUR COMPANY RATHER THAN HANS OR SAFETY SOULUTIONS. AT THIS TIME YOUR COMPANY DOES NOT MAKE A PRODUCT THAT MEETS MY NEEDS.

[gsbaker]

I GIVE YOUR COMPANY A LOT OF CREDIT FOR STICKING TO YOUR VALUES. I UNDERSTAND YOUR VIEW AND WISH YOU LUCK IN THE FUTURE. I WISH SFI AND OTHERS VIEWED IT THIS WAY. I ALSO WISH THAT I COULD SUPPORT YOUR COMPANY RATHER THAN HANS OR SAFETY SOULUTIONS. AT THIS TIME YOUR COMPANY DOES NOT MAKE A PRODUCT THAT MEETS MY NEEDS.
Thanks, we appreciate that and understand your position. We're doing fine, BTW, unlike everyone else in the industry. This will pass and the SCCA will get up to speed eventually. Let's just hope no one gets hurt in the meantime.

[DavidM]

I hadn't thought about it until just now, but will we now see a rash of "tech only" H&N devices? I'm sure the guys on the Grid will not be checking for SFI 38.1 stickers, so you and your buddies get one "approved" device that ends up going through annual tech multiple times.

Back in the old days you had to have a copy of the current GCR - no requirement that you had actually read it, but you had to have one. Guys would go through tech, then walk outside the building and hand their "communal" GCR to their buddy waiting in line. The same book probably went through 20 tech inspections on a given evening! :D

Butch is smart cookie. ;) Of course, my SFI certified, er stickered, Isaac shouldn't have any problems.

My thoughts on the subject can be read over at the other place. My suggestion is to vote out your board member if you feel they have not served appropriately. That's the only thing that will send a message.

David

[pballance]

My suggestion is to vote out your board member if you feel they have not served appropriately. That's the only thing that will send a message.

David

This! I have made my feelings known as well and will remind my rep when it is time to vote. BTW, you want to run David? <evil smile>

Paul

[DavidM]

This! I have made my feelings known as well and will remind my rep when it is time to vote. BTW, you want to run David? <evil smile>

Paul

Heh. That's the rub. Somebody actually has to run against the incumbent in order for you to vote for them.

[theracinglawyer]

Wrong...wrong...I survived a wreck at the glen, that the Board certified Emergency Physician said if I did not have a HANS device on I would not have survived....Ever represent a quadriplegic I have and it is something that breaks your heart....Mandatory for every racer..costs less than a set of tires...Just like seat belts, if you don't want to wear them DON'T RACE.

[theracinglawyer]

I must apologize I used the word HANS..I meant to to say any devise that does the same thing...HANS has become the generic term...like xerox for copy machines and kleenex for facial tissues...any devise that will protect you and your neck in an accident should be mandatory. sorry for that miss que.

[ITEGT]

Wrong...wrong...I survived a wreck at the glen, that the Board certified Emergency Physician said if I did not have a HANS device on I would not have survived....Ever represent a quadriplegic I have and it is something that breaks your heart....Mandatory for every racer..costs less than a set of tires...Just like seat belts, if you don't want to wear them DON'T RACE.

If you did not have on a HANS specifically or an equivalent H&N restraint? Thank you for the above post, you answered my question before I could hit the reply button.

For me its not the fact that a H&N restraint is going to be mandatory next season but that we as racers have been rail roaded into two choices of which restraint we can buy and be legal.

[JLawton]

Wrong...wrong...I survived a wreck at the glen, that the Board certified Emergency Physician said if I did not have a HANS device on I would not have survived....Ever represent a quadriplegic I have and it is something that breaks your heart....Mandatory for every racer..costs less than a set of tires...Just like seat belts, if you don't want to wear them DON'T RACE.

Mike,
these days not many people are arguing that they should have to wear one, but the fact that we are being mandated to wear only certain manufactures. Manufacturers that have been tested to be less safe than those that are not allowed. It's all about how the manufacturers are tied into SFI. It's all about the money.......... not safety.

[CRallo]

Mike,
these days not many people are arguing that they should have to wear one, but the fact that we are being mandated to wear only certain manufactures. Manufacturers that have been tested to be less safe than those that are not allowed. It's all about how the manufacturers are tied into SFI. It's all about the money.......... not safety.

Very well put Jeff!

[JS154]

Good post, Dave. To me, my HANS was like other required car equipment...roll cage, racing seat, etc. You sure don't want to spend the money, but you know damn well you need it. QUITYOURBITCHING and get one. Chuck (who has worn a HANS for 3 years)

I concur fully. The HANS or similar type device can certainly make the difference between a survivable crash or one that is not, or the difference between a crash that you walk away from, vs on that you don't walk after, ever.

What happens if you go straight off at turn 10 in someone's fluid? There's about 2 feet of runoff there and it;s a 100 mph corner. I have a friend who is walking and talking today becuase of this exact scenario, and he was wearing a Hans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk6HV-3iyi8

[JS154]

Wrong...wrong...I survived a wreck at the glen, that the Board certified Emergency Physician said if I did not have a HANS device on I would not have survived....Ever represent a quadriplegic I have and it is something that breaks your heart....Mandatory for every racer..costs less than a set of tires...Just like seat belts, if you don't want to wear them DON'T RACE.

CONCUR!!!

Replacement tethers are cheap, and you can get sliding tethers that make a big difference in turning your head.

[theracinglawyer]

I am one who likes a choice, my object in making the post was to make a choice for safety..whatever the devise you choose..just make sure it works.....may you all be safe and even if you do crash...may you be safe in the crash...love you all....I do not want to offend anyone.....Mike

[BruceG]

Wow...that is compelling video!!

[mgyip]

If I understand this thread, many folks agree that a H&N device is a good thing BUT they want to be able to wear whatever device they feel is safe, correct?

That's quite understandable but wholly unrealistic - if that were the case, you'd see anything from a "worthless" SFI 38.1 device to a stellar, home-engineered bungee-cord/rubberband neck-breaker. Without a certifiable standard, there would be no way to determine which device is theoretically safe and what devices are potentially lethal.

The argument of "mine is better than yours" is about as valid as "I'm faster than you because I'm touched and you're not". Based on the SFI 38.1 specs (regardless of what anyone things about how they were developed), an H&N device is afforded a standard that the sanctioning bodies and their legal eagles can use as a base-line. Is it the perfect test of an H&N device? For the scenario set forth by SFI, the answer is yes. That having been said, is their such a thing as a perfect "text book" crash? Probably one in a million...

I'm more than a bit embarrassed that SCCA is the last sanctioning body to mandate the use of an H&N device of any sort. It was painful to see SCCA taking out the long pearl-handled revolver, loading the silver bullets and pointing the barrel directly their their collective behinds. Apparently the concept of "risk adverse" spills over to "controversy adverse" as well. The harsh reality for SCCA (as it is for Stewards who must be the "Bad Guy" on occasion) is that not everyone will every be happy with every decision. Some people will scream and threaten, others will grumble under their breath and the vast majority will simply say "Thank you, may I have another".

The letter I'll write to SCCA is "It's about damn time you made a decision - ANY decision".

Matthew (chief rabble-rouser)

[tom91ita]

If I understand this thread, many folks agree that a H&N device is a good thing BUT they want to be able to wear whatever device they feel is safe, correct?



no. we want to be able to wear whatever device we choose that has been certified by an independent testing facility.

SCCA still has liability, they just transferred it to the non-SFI non-FIA cage design that they allow the system to be anchored to and to the tech inspectors. most harness installations do not meet the HANS requirements yet SCCA still allows it (i.e., grants log books and cars to go on track). and i met HANS and not H&NR.

my plans for 2012 are to continue to use an Isaac device and run with the Midwest Council of Sports Car Clubs. think of it as win/win. i can be safer and SCCA has reduced risk exposure because they will have fewer racers.

but seriously, why so narrow minded to think it has to be only SFI? in a rule book the size of SCCA's they could not have added a few more words to craft something that could meet the neck force performance standards in SFI at a list of crash labs?

as an engineer, i like the idea of the most direct means to an end. instead of adding an intermediate device between the helmet and the belts to transfer the force to the harness, why not take out the middle man so to speak? the Isaac is just more elegant.

i think this is just as compelling a video:

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/Video/SFIBoth.mpg

i think this side impact test data from the Delphi test labs is compelling as well:

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart10.GIF

[StephenB]

The letter I'll write to SCCA is "It's about damn time you made a decision - ANY decision".

Matthew (chief rabble-rouser)

+1


Originally Posted by JLawton
Mike,
these days not many people are arguing that they should have to wear one, but the fact that we are being mandated to wear only certain manufactures. Manufacturers that have been tested to be less safe than those that are not allowed. It's all about how the manufacturers are tied into SFI. It's all about the money.......... not safety. )

Jeff I would encourage you to look further into this. Isaac DID produce a product that met the standard and SCCA would have allowed that Isaac device just like all other SFI certified devices. Isaac themselves decided not to produce this product for us, the decision to only allow certain manufactures had nothing to do with SCCA and had everything to do with the manufactures themselves.

[StephenB]

no. we want to be able to wear whatever device we choose that has been certified by an independent testing facility.


but seriously, why so narrow minded to think it has to be only SFI? in a rule book the size of SCCA's they could not have added a few more words to craft something that could meet the neck force performance standards in SFI at a list of crash labs?



+1 to this as well! I WISH this it what they decided but sadly they did not. :(

[Knestis]

+1



Jeff I would encourage you to look further into this. Isaac DID produce a product that met the standard and SCCA would have allowed that Isaac device just like all other SFI certified devices. Isaac themselves decided not to produce this product for us, the decision to only allow certain manufactures had nothing to do with SCCA and had everything to do with the manufactures themselves.

...and I would encourage you to either explain the entire story or stop sharing half-truths. Or limit your opinions to things you understand.

K

[StephenB]

Duh.


4 May 2005, Wayne State University crash lab, Test #NC149, NASCAR offset protocol.
29 September 2005, Delphi Safety Systems crash lab, Test #IS59F010, SFI 38.1 offset protocol.

The Isaac design modified to meet the SFI spec worked rather well at the WSU lab, but not at the Delphi lab where the belts came off -- just like a HANS device.

You wouldn't detune a Ferrari to meet a Yugo spec. Why would you detune an Isaac to meet an SFI spec? What good thing happens? We sell more stuff and kill drivers? Sorry, SFI needs us more than we need SFI.

I am not arguing less safe verses more safe... I am only stating the fact that any manufacturer can make a product that meets the SFI regulation.

[Knestis]

So instead of saying...

Isaac DID produce a product that met the standard and SCCA would have allowed that Isaac device just like all other SFI certified devices. Isaac themselves decided not to produce this product for us, the decision to only allow certain manufactures had nothing to do with SCCA and had everything to do with the manufactures themselves.

You might have said...

Isaac DID produce a product that met the standard and SCCA would have allowed that Isaac to generate profits from members just like all other SFI certified devices. Isaac themselves decided not to compromise our safety, the decision to only allow certain manufactures had nothing to do with SCCA and had everything to do with principles and the sense to not do something that would expose the company to liability by making racers LESS safe.

K

[924Guy]

...Isaac themselves decided not to compromise our safety, the decision to only allow certain manufactures had nothing to do with SCCA and had everything to do with principles and the sense to not do something that would expose the company to liability by making racers LESS safe.

K

I'd love to hear the legal professional's perspective on this decision... if he's willing to make a statement (and I could understand if he'd prefer not to)...

[Knestis]

I don't even have to play a lawyer on TV to know that if they released a system that performed less well in standardized tests than the original, that it would be the basis of the plaintiff's legal team's strategy. To be clear though, I do NOT even act at being a lawyer and that's my interpretation, not that of the ISAAC folks or any real attorney.

K

[jjjanos]

That's quite understandable but wholly unrealistic - if that were the case, you'd see anything from a "worthless" SFI 38.1 device to a stellar, home-engineered bungee-cord/rubberband neck-breaker. Without a certifiable standard, there would be no way to determine which device is theoretically safe and what devices are potentially lethal.

And this is a problem because? It was my choice and the manufacturer of shitty equipment is the one who carries the liability for his product.


The argument of "mine is better than yours" is about as valid as "I'm faster than you because I'm touched and you're not". Based on the SFI 38.1 specs (regardless of what anyone things about how they were developed), an H&N device is afforded a standard that the sanctioning bodies and their legal eagles can use as a base-line.

Nope. Ask the auto manufacturers if meeting government requirements protects them from liability. More importantly, it isn't clear to me that SCCA would have any liability for my failure to wear a H&N system. SCCA carries liability for certifying unsafe tracks and for having faulty operational standards (i.e. releasing cars from pit lanes into a pack of cars, etc), but the safety equipment? I don't think so.

The only lawsuit of which I've heard anything was when SCCA specifically prohibited the use of a safety device in one particular category and I believe the person who won that lawsuit was one of the pioneers in the H&N world. I.e. You can be sued for requiring people to use specific equipment when it can be shown that other equipment would have prevented that injury and SCCA was aware of that possibility.


Is it the perfect test of an H&N device? For the scenario set forth by SFI, the answer is yes. That having been said, is their such a thing as a perfect "text book" crash? Probably one in a million...

Wellllllll... the problem with the SFI standard has nothing to do with the crash scenario and everything to do with the design requirements mandated by the requirement.


I'm more than a bit embarrassed that SCCA is the last sanctioning body to mandate the use of an H&N device of any sort. It was painful to see SCCA taking out the long pearl-handled revolver, loading the silver bullets and pointing the barrel directly their their collective behinds. Apparently the concept of "risk adverse" spills over to "controversy adverse" as well. The harsh reality for SCCA (as it is for Stewards who must be the "Bad Guy" on occasion) is that not everyone will every be happy with every decision. Some people will scream and threaten, others will grumble under their breath and the vast majority will simply say "Thank you, may I have another".

Oh horse poop. There is absolutely no reason for requiring the SFI standard other then wanting to be like the cool kids. This decision is going to cost the club members and entries for no measurable gain. You race without a H&N system, the cost is on YOU, not the club. License keepers are going to go away.


The letter I'll write to SCCA is "It's about damn time you made a decision - ANY decision".

You are aware that SCCA did make a decision roughly 2 years before adopting this asinine regulation? SCCA recommended the use of a H&N system and said they were not going to require one. Based on that decision on their part, I now have an $800 piece of junk that offers me better protection than the piece of shit SCCA is shoving down my throat.

[jjjanos]

I am not arguing less safe verses more safe... I am only stating the fact that any manufacturer can make a product that meets the SFI regulation.

And then the ISAAC wouldn't be an ISAAC anymore, would it?

[jjjanos]

I don't even have to play a lawyer on TV to know that if they released a system that performed less well in standardized tests than the original, that it would be the basis of the plaintiff's legal team's strategy.

Ask Ford about the Pinto....

[StephenB]

I'd love to hear the legal professional's perspective on this decision... if he's willing to make a statement (and I could understand if he'd prefer not to)...

I wonder why this liability would be different then other safety items like race seats for example? A quick search came up with Racetech seats that are FIA approved and some that are not FIA approved. I will be honest in saying that I would have purchased an SFI version of the Isaac if I was given the opportunity. I feel as though they are a "better" company for me that is less interested in profits and more interested in me and my safety...


And then the ISAAC wouldn't be an ISAAC anymore, would it?

I was thinking Issac more as a brand not a specific product. But I totally get what your saying and agree... It would no longer be the Isaac that we want. (myself included)


I am also wondering from those that may be more knowledgeable... Could the Isaac meet the FIA 8858 specifications? Then we could all petition SCCA to allow FIA Head and Neck supports! I am sure the FIA isn't as biased as a lot of us feel and maybe we could use this to our advantage...

Stephen

[tom91ita]

I........
I am also wondering from those that may be more knowledgeable... Could the Isaac meet the FIA 8858 specifications? Then we could all petition SCCA to allow FIA Head and Neck supports! I am sure the FIA isn't as biased as a lot of us feel and maybe we could use this to our advantage...

Stephen

as i read it, the FIA is specific as to how to test the HANS and not a "H&NR"

http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1342748455__fia_stand_8858_2002_hans.pdf

EDIT: going back to the original January 2010 fast-track, the motion was not SFI 38.1, it was just SFI....

so how did we get to SFI 38.1 when that is not what they passed? seriously.....

was this another case of they had to vote for it and pass it so we could find out what was in it?

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/10/10-fastrack-jan.pdf




MOTION: To mandate the use of Head and Neck Restraints certified by SFI or FIA in Club Racing as of 1/1/12. (Creighton/Allen) PASSED, Opposed: Sauce, Lybarger, Langlotz, Gordy and Introne. Abstention: Noble

[RacerBill]

as i read it, the FIA is specific as to how to test the HANS and not a "H&NR"

http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1342748455__fia_stand_8858_2002_hans.pdf




As I read the FIA standard, their use of HANS means 'Head and Neck Support' not a particular company.

However, in reading the specifics of the specification, the method of testing was clearly designed for testing the HANS product, even including a company logo in the sample certification label.

Is interesting that there is no requirement for 'single point of release' as there is in the SFI specification, but there is a requirement for the time it would take to cut through the teathers. Why would you need to do that if the system was released when the belts are released? In case the device gets hung up on part of the car and prevents the driver from exiting?

Also interesting is the fact that their tests seem to be frontal inpact only.

"The most severe loading of the HANS system

is a frontal crash where the driver’s head is not restrained by contact with
the protective headrest."


Looks like they are relying on a FIA approved seat to protect from a angular or lateral inpact. Are we going to be required to have our seats adhere to a standard now? I ain't sayin', I'm just askin' !

I suppose that a similar certification document and the required test equipment could be developed for the Isaac system, but at what kind of cost?

[Davegt74]

wow they are doing tests at 50 "G"s

here is a 40 "G" test

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=GfZjN2ceVOI



david

[erlrich]

Hey guys - does anyone know if the old Hutchens D-Cel devices were SFI stickered? I'm guessing not, but I can't seem to find out for certain.

[Bob Roth]

My letter to SCCA club racing.

Terry, I understand that there is a proposal for requiring HANS devices in club racing. I own a device, but I think its excessive for SCCA to require them at the regional level. In 1984, I started club racing in a used showroom stock VW rabbit. The car came with a bolt in cage, fire extinguisher, and belts. It had a stock seat. My total safety investment was $150 for a used drivers suit and helmet, and new nomex underwear and gloves. I then raced that car for 6 years and the only safety investments were a seat, and a new suit. Neither was required by rules.

Were it just the HANS, I wouldn't be writing. What I would like to point out is the drip drip drip of added expenses caused by club racing rules changes. First was the 10 year requirement on helmets, then the requirement of 5 years on belts, then changed door bar rules, changed window net mounting, then seat back support rules, SFI/FIA driver suit rules, kill switch rules, tow hook rules etc. From what I see, with the continuous rules changes and now HANS devices means most new drivers wanting to start racing with a used car should be expecting to spend nearly $2000 just for car updates and the gear, belts, helmets and required car changes just to get to the track. That is a pretty steep hurdle to see if they like racing. And for anybody with a regional car in the garage that hasn't been racing for a year or two, a HANS may just be the thing to persuade them to find a new hobby.

I have heard of no compelling story that for races at regional courses, that a HANS devices is required. When I started racing, cost was everything. I don't think things have changed today. Please look at the costs and benefits and then the trends in regional car counts before adding another barrier to growing our sport.

I wasn't sure where to send this, please pass it on to the appropriate committee.

regards
Bob Roth
LaCrosse Wi,

[gran racing]

I'm totally addicted to racing yet looking at how I need a new helmet, a different H&NR system, belts (didn't I just freaking buy a new set?!!!).... I'm with ya Bob, if I were new it sure would be another tough barrier to break through for me.

[shwah]

I have not had time to do many races since 2008. I hope/plan to get back to more events next year. Since I will be knocking a lot of rust off the first few events, I am seriously considering just running MWCSCC events with my ISAAC and putting off a new HNR purchase until the following year.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm totally addicted to racing yet looking at how I need a new helmet, a different H&NR system, belts (didn't I just freaking buy a new set?!!!).... I'm with ya Bob, if I were new it sure would be another tough barrier to break through for me.

Time to go karting. F1 Outdoors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11-WdCjVUbU

[Knestis]

Look hard at karting before you dive in. My big complaint when we went back to it in the '90s was that the days were long and the tracktime short, with 3-day schedules at the major races. Standing around time made Solo look like a thrill-a-minute.

K

[Butch Kummer]

It's a moot point since my physical stature precludes karting but:

Another thing about karting is your head is the roll bar. That's fine when you're young and have no sense, but as you mature you realize others are depending on you.

YMMV...

[DavidM]

Picturing Butch in a cart made me laugh :lol:

[FV90]

Too bad we didn't get a picture of him on a racin' lawn mower at Sparta..... or did we?

[tom91ita]

Too bad we didn't get a picture of him on a racin' lawn mower at Sparta..... or did we?

Sparta as in Michigan?

i grew up about 1.5 miles from where they race them by the airport....

[Butch Kummer]

Sparta, NC. We used to run a hillclimb there and the "Fast Five" on Saturday were invited to run donated mowers at the county fairgrounds that evening. We have maybe 200 spectators on the mountain and there must have been 3000 folks in the stands at the fairgrounds!

I did manage to win the five-lap race, but I will admit I drove a pretty defensive line once I got to the front. Since they were donated mowers I figured my SCCA buddies would be reluctant to wad one up.

[Knestis]

Need to find a copy of the video clip that the Greensboro news did of the Blue Ridge hillclimb, when the interviewed me and Eckerich's better half. I really liked that event.

K

[tom91ita]

Sparta, NC. ........

got it.

the championship races are in Michigan....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t0-9BnWOrw

t