Time to write those letters - Head and Neck Restraints [Archive]

RacerBill

04-07-2011, 09:30 AM

Pardon me, I just threw up again! I made the mistake of visiting the SFI website again. The first thing that I did was try and find out what the specifications are, but in many cases, the actual specifications for products are not available for viewing by the public. Then, I read the following:

Openness
Participation shall be open to all interested persons who might be directly or materially affected by the Spec. Participation is not conditional upon membership in any organization.
Technical Committees
Technical committees are comprised of individuals from all facets of industry, scientific and motorsports sanctioning organizations with expertise in their areas of endeavor to provide a comprehensive cross-section of knowledge.
Due Process
Open hearings with adequate notice of all activities shall be given, copies of these procedures shall be available, and the opportunity to be heard or to appeal any decision shall be provided to all interested parties. All activities are to be conducted with fairness toward all interested persons.
Publication and Disclosure
SFI Specs shall be published and made available to the public as soon as possible after approval by the SFI Board of Directors.

How does any of this apply to SFI 38.1? The fact that it is not published is contrary to the Publication and Disclosure statement.

How was their Openness and Due Process statements applied in the development of 38.1?

I know, the legal eagles in Kansas are going to say, 'We have to use something, and they are the only game in town'. Humbug!

Wait a minute! Do I see a crack in their armor? How about 60,000 SCCA members writing to the SFI to change 38.1 playing the 'Openness' card - "all interested persons who might be directly or materially affected by the Spec."

Edit: OK, letter written to SFI requesting the actual specification of 38.1. Let's see how 'OPEN' they really are.

golfRX

04-07-2011, 10:07 AM

go to racesafetydata and scroll down to the bottom and they have a link to the current specs (march 2009)

dave parker

04-07-2011, 12:17 PM

chuck baader

04-07-2011, 12:50 PM

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)

gran racing

04-07-2011, 12:57 PM

A part of # 1. - I don't want to spend the money on a product that will keep me less safe than the one I already use. That's a big problem for me.

H&NR, right side net, different seat = hopes of getting close to what I already have. Unfortunately, I won't be able to get the expensive seat in this equasion so I'm going down in terms of safety. Yes, that really pisses me off.

3. Absolutely. GForce has an inexpensive option which does a decent job. There are others as well.

Eh, I won't go into this further as I've already been down that road.

04-07-2011, 01:00 PM

Russ Myers

04-07-2011, 01:38 PM

I have not seen any documented need for such a device. Therefore, I don't want to spend money on something that has not been proven to be ABSOLUTLY necessary. Prove a negative.

Russ

Greg Amy

04-07-2011, 01:56 PM

Stop eating burgers and fries, and stop using so much salt on your food; both are bad for you. And stop smoking! Put your coat on when you go outside, too, or you'll catch the death of a cold. You need more exercise. Stop slouching and sit up straight!

Because it's good for you. And I'm the Mom, that's why.

erlrich

04-07-2011, 02:38 PM

Ok, I will play the dick and ask "Why?".

The head and neck restraint has been around for years in various designs. If you have raced with NASA you have had to wear one for the last two years. If you have done any "pro" racing you have had to have one. So why the big push to stop it from being compulsory?

Is it one of the following reasons:
1. You don't want to spend the money.
2. You are too good of a driver so you won't crash and CERTAINLY won't get hurt.
3. You don't agree with the narrow choice of devices that are allowed.
4. You could never be "comfortable" in one.

As someone else in this thread has said the club (SCCA) is covering its ass as advised by its lawyers. Why is this a big issue? Do you want the club to be decimated by a lawsuit filed by a grieving family member and their shark lawyer that the club was negligent in its duty to compel its members to protect themselves against injury after?

Please share your reasoning with the rest of the group.

cheers
dave parker

Dave, to answer your question with a question; why should this be required? Where is the demonstrated need (in Club Racing)? I wrote a request to allow a piece of safety equipment on IT cars a while back, and the Fastrack response was "there has been no demonstrated need". So I'm asking now; have we seen deaths, or even serious injuries, that have made this level of protection necessary? They're asking people to spend $600-$1200 (or more) on a piece of safety equipment that nobody has shown a need for. That's my first beef with the rule. So maybe that gets filed under #1, but I think maybe we should make a 1.a. - "You don't want to spend the money on something that isn't necessary".

My second beef has more to do with the way SFI and HANS have handled this whole thing - the SFI spec by all accounts was written by Hubbard, and they have gone out of their way on more than one occasion to try and prevent other companies from marketing competing devices. When you're talking about a safety device, and you have a company out there trying to prevent other, competing devices from being available to consumers...well, let's just say that leave's a bad taste in my mouth. If I continue to race with SCCA after this year (I'm about 50/50 right now), and I do end up having to spend money on some device, I can sure as hell gaurantee you it won't be from HANS.

Lastly - and this wasn't one of the choices - the members of this club decidedly opposed the requirement for a mandatory H&N device, and even the CRB opposed it, yet the BoD decided to go against the member's wishes and institute the requirement.

That's my $.02

lateapex911

04-07-2011, 05:45 PM

Ok, I will play the dick and ask "Why?".

The head and neck restraint has been around for years in various designs. If you have raced with NASA you have had to wear one for the last two years. If you have done any "pro" racing you have had to have one. So why the big push to stop it from being compulsory?

Is it one of the following reasons:
1. You don't want to spend the money.
2. You are too good of a driver so you won't crash and CERTAINLY won't get hurt.
3. You don't agree with the narrow choice of devices that are allowed.
4. You could never be "comfortable" in one.

As someone else in this thread has said the club (SCCA) is covering its ass as advised by its lawyers. Why is this a big issue? Do you want the club to be decimated by a lawsuit filed by a grieving family member and their shark lawyer that the club was negligent in its duty to compel its members to protect themselves against injury after?

Please share your reasoning with the rest of the group.

cheers
dave parker

Well, Dave, just to state the obvious again...

My reasoning is mostly related to #3.
I have had an Isaac since the year they came out. it offers superior numbers to the Hans.*
Now I must buy something SFI. Which has inferior numbers to what I currently have.
This means I must:
But a new device $700.
To REMAIN AS SAFE AS I CURRENTLY AM, I must also buy a new seat, to make up for the new devices poor protection. So, new seat, proper mounts, etc etc, easy $1000. (lets ignore, for now, the whole seat spec debacles)
(Now, as an example of SFI workings, we have the belt SFI rule, where some "member" of the SFI (a company that wants to sell more belts) reported that if the belts are left outside in the Florida sun, and get rained on everyday, they can degrade due to UV exposure, so, the 5 yr rating should be reduced to two years. Funny how the SFI jumps on that and the whole SFI belt buying world now buys belts 2.5 times as often. How'd you like YOUR business products to have a mandate that results in 2.5 times the sales!?). I spent the big FIA bucks, so I'm good there, I think.
But wait...even after spending the $1700, I'm still less safe. Why? Because if/when I crash, and I'm upside down/ pinched against a barrier/on my side/whatever, I now get to wriggle through a window thats 33% smaller in opening size than it was before, thanks to the new 'safer' seat that I got to make up for the inferiority of my new mandated H&N device, that replaces my superior performing but "dangerous and illegal head and neck restraint".

Ah yes, this rule will be a HUGE step forward for me. More money, less actual safety. SO glad we have assholes in our country who sue just to sue and legal depts who run around in fear because settling is cheaper than the day in court..

So, yea, I'm looking at huge money to go backwards in safety.

*I have just learned that there is possibly an SFI device that offers the same protection as I have now. I'll have to confirm that. Even still, it's beyond annoying that because of some SFI racketeering, that i'll end up wasting more money on something I have absolutely no need for.

Matt Rowe

04-07-2011, 06:11 PM

More money, less actual safety.

That summarizes my reason as well.

Actually I am still hoping to find a device a can wear while still wearing my device of choice. That is at least more money, equivilent safety.

RacerBill

04-07-2011, 06:34 PM

(Now, as an example of SFI workings, we have the belt SFI rule, where some "member" of the SFI (a company that wants to sell more belts) reported that if the belts are left outside in the Florida sun, and get rained on everyday, they can degrade due to UV exposure, so, the 5 yr rating should be reduced to two years. Funny how the SFI jumps on that and the whole SFI belt buying world now buys belts 2.5 times as often. How'd you like YOUR business products to have a mandate that results in 2.5 times the sales!?).

Again, the observed dealings of the SFI do not relate to their PUBLISHED (on their own website), objectives "Openness" and "Publication and Disclosure". If you read their website, there is a section with the heading "What do the letters 'SFI' stand for?". Their answer is that the S does not stand for SEMA as it once did. but does not go on to tell us what the S stands for now. Make up your own meaning, I guess.

Jake: The following paragraph is from the SFI website. It refers to an opprotunity to appeal any decision made by SFI by any 'interested parties', not just members.

Due Process
Open hearings with adequate notice of all activities shall be given, copies of these procedures shall be available, and the opportunity to be heard or to appeal any decision shall be provided to all interested parties. All activities are to be conducted with fairness toward all interested persons.

lateapex911

04-07-2011, 07:31 PM

This has come up in the past, Bill.

It's rhetoric. Like the guy who listens to his wife, hears her out, then says, "We're doing it my way".

I think they WILL listen, and WILL accept input, but, they make their call as they $ee fit. oops, did I typo there? not really.

RacerBill

04-07-2011, 07:58 PM

this has come up in the past, bill.

It's rhetoric. Like the guy who listens to his wife, hears her out, then says, "we're doing it my way".

I think they will listen, and will accept input, but, they make their call as they fit. Oops, did i typo there? Not really.

:) :023:

jdrago1

04-07-2011, 08:32 PM

Greg Amy

04-07-2011, 09:45 PM

If one live is saved, it is worth all the complaints IMO.
So, when is the CRB/BoD banning club racing altogether? I mean, "if one life is saved" is the de facto standard for safety, then it's certainly "worth it", right...?

If I could only run the hans and helmet or my suit and helmet, I would hand my suit, gloves and shoes over immediately to put my hans on.That's a very...well, "silly" is the nicest thing I can think of...thing to say, Jim, given the significant number of people that have died in auto racing accidents throughout history due to fire.

You say there is "no doubt" these devices save lives. How many people are you aware of, Jim, that have lost their lives in club racing due to lack of a head and neck restraint?

We really don't need helmets or seat belts either? Why is it OK to mandate them, but not H&N?Because people are intelligent enough to recognize that many racers have lost their lives due to being flung around inside a vehicle upon impact, and due to burning to death in a fire.

What's the stats for lack of H&NR?

GA

tom91ita

04-07-2011, 11:59 PM

i have an Isaac. i don't want to spend money again.

i bought the Isaac after SCCA said H&NR would not be mandated.

my SFI/FIA harness is attached to a NON-SFI certified (SCCA only certified) roll-cage.

forget the line in the sand about water bottles. wait until we are told we have to have SFI certified cages. welded by certified welders. with material certifications for the main hoop. and x-rays to prove weld penetration. surely if a we can prevent one harness bar from failing in a crash, it will be worth it.

the harness bar failed in the car of the one race i was in where there was a fatality.

15 year olds can race after parents have signed a waiver even though the Supreme Court of Florida has ruled that parents cannot do that. that does not lower the club's liability/exposure. that is a marketing decision and not a safety decision. SCCA wants to say that "insert next hero driver's name here" came from SCCA in its TV and magazine spots.

any safety device you buy may have a counterfeit SFI sticker on it. wait until that happens with an H&NR. and SCCA will not tell us what devices have these because they don't know either.

the HANS transfer force via helmet, anchor, tether, to HANS gizmo, to seatbelt. Isaac is helmet-anchor-tether-belt. fewer links in the chain so fewer failure points.

i have never argued against the requiring an H&NR but i am dead set against it NOT being performance based. for crying out loud, we are a club that looks for performance in practically every aspect of our sport and now we cannot use something that has superior numbers.

last i checked, there was nearly 1000 words in the beginning of the GCR that said that SCCA is not liable for what i am doing.

i have written detailed letters with charts, graphs, lawsuit references, etc. will i race next year, maybe. but the ARRC this year is definately out of the question. the fuel budget will likely pay for next year's H&NR. and it will not be a HANS!

i wonder if the colonoscopy i am getting next month is with an SFI certified device or will just feel like it....

lateapex911

04-08-2011, 01:29 AM

3) choice..Mostly the Isaac debate. That has been debated for a long time, I am pretty neutral on that device, meaning I don't think it is near as good as many of you say, nor as bad as many others say.

Interesting. So you don't really think testsled results run by Delphi (et al) engineers are valid?

Honestly, its worrisome that a CRB member will be guiding the decision based on his feelings, when empirical data exists.

As for your question regarding why we need and accet the mandating of belts and helmets...please, at least bring relevant comparisons to the conversation.
I am not limited in my choice of belts to one obviously flawed standard. Lets face it, EVERYone knows that HANS wrote the SFI 38.1 standard, and did it in a restrictive manner with aspects that don't do anything but dampen innovation, regardless of performance potential. And the Snell foundation runs its business in an entirely different manner. You're comparing apples to rotten tomatoes Jim.

dickita15

04-08-2011, 06:13 AM

Honestly, its worrisome that a CRB member will be guiding the decision based on his feelings, when empirical data exists.

For the record the CRB never voted or recommended that the H&N devices be mandatory. That was a 100% BOD decision.

jdrago1

04-08-2011, 12:37 PM

So, when is the CRB/BoD banning club racing altogether? I mean, "if one life is saved" is the de facto standard for safety, then it's certainly "worth it", right...?

That's a very...well, "silly" is the nicest thing I can think of...thing to say, Jim, given the significant number of people that have died in auto racing accidents throughout history due to fire.

You say there is "no doubt" these devices save lives. How many people are you aware of, Jim, that have lost their lives in club racing due to lack of a head and neck restraint?

Because people are intelligent enough to recognize that many racers have lost their lives due to being flung around inside a vehicle upon impact, and due to burning to death in a fire.

What's the stats for lack of H&NR?

GA

So, when is the CRB/BoD banning club racing altogether? I mean, "if one life is saved" is the de facto standard for safety, then it's certainly "worth it", right...?

That's a very...well, "silly" is the nicest thing I can think of...thing to say, Jim, given the significant number of people that have died in auto racing accidents throughout history due to fire.

You say there is "no doubt" these devices save lives. How many people are you aware of, Jim, that have lost their lives in club racing due to lack of a head and neck restraint?

Because people are intelligent enough to recognize that many racers have lost their lives due to being flung around inside a vehicle upon impact, and due to burning to death in a fire.

What's the stats for lack of H&NR?

GA

Greg
Come on.. racing will always have its dangers and will always be dangerous unfortunately some will die doing it. You can draw your lines anywhere you like, I draw mine after the h&n, you somewhere before the H&N.

As far as my example, obviously I would wear a suit if given the choice, but if in an either or scenario. It is an easy decision for me. I have never seen a SM burn to the ground or even burn significantly since I have started racing, but I have seen a basal skull fracture of an SM driver. I personally have hit a wall head on at Topeka T2 at 60-70 MPH plus at turn 2, walked away with no injuries. Would I have been injured with out a H&N? Who knows. But glad I had it on...
In my class, regardless of your "opinion" my life is far more at risk due to collision than fire. And no SM jokes please:D

As to this...
You say there is "no doubt" these devices save lives. How many people are you aware of, Jim, that have lost their lives in club racing due to lack of a head and neck restraint?

Not sure it is really appropriate to comment, but it is widely held opinion that a fatality that occurred last year "most likely" have been prevented with a H&N, Any H&N, not just a HANS.

The SFI standard and Isaac is an entirely different subject. I sympathize and understand your frustration. I am not Anti Isaac. If you want to petition the club to accept another testing company that is certainly your right and I encourage it. But understand, like it our not, the club must protect itself, not sure why that seems like such an "evil" thing? Whether we agree with SFI or not, it is the industry standard and not adhering to an industry standard puts the club at an unnecessary risk.

Jim

jdrago1

04-08-2011, 12:57 PM

For the record the CRB never voted or recommended that the H&N devices be mandatory. That was a 100% BOD decision.

While it was not something the CRB voted on, I also don't hide behind it was a bod decision. I agree with the mandate.

As for this...

Originally Posted by lateapex911
Honestly, its worrisome that a CRB member will be guiding the decision based on his feelings, when empirical data exists.

Empirical data exists the other way as well, just doesn't fit in to your agenda of slamming my opinions or credibility.

Terry Hanushek

04-08-2011, 01:02 PM

i wonder if the colonoscopy i am getting next month is with an SFI certified device or will just feel like it....

Quote of the Month :023:

T

CRallo

04-08-2011, 02:34 PM

Quote of the Month :023:

T

if not the year! lol

wlfpkrcn

04-08-2011, 02:35 PM

The way it was explained to me by NASA when I asked about the ISAACS-

"We need to use SFI 38.1 devices because there is no way to dictate if other devices are safe. Someone could duct tape a 2x4 to the seat and call it a H&N device. "

You can say look at the "testing data"... "The ISAACS is safer" but the bottom line is SCCA/NASA need to have safety equipment meet a "Safety Certification" and the ISAACS doesn't. It's unfortunate, but it is the reality.

The other thing I don't understand. You guys say there is no proof that there has been a death that could have been prevented by a H&N device and that they are not needed at a club level. Then the next post says " My device is better than a 38.1" Which one is it? We don't need them or we need them just not a 38.1 device?

All that being said. I own a 38.1 device and I don't have to worry about not being allowed on track

jjjanos

04-08-2011, 02:42 PM

The head and neck restraint has been around for years in various designs. If you have raced with NASA you have had to wear one for the last two years. If you have done any "pro" racing you have had to have one. So why the big push to stop it from being compulsory?

Since I don't race with NASA (and this is one of the reasons) or pro, does that mean I can ignore the mandate that makes me less safe?

1. You don't want to spend the money.
I already spent the money on a system I think is better.

2. You are too good of a driver so you won't crash and CERTAINLY won't get hurt.

The needs of a driver in a GT1 driver and the needs of someone in ab ITB Honda whose top speed is about the point where the GT1 car gets off idle are vastly different.

Using your logic, the HANS should be mandated for street driving...

3. You don't agree with the narrow choice of devices that are allowed.

I don't agree that the better option is not allowed.

As someone else in this thread has said the club (SCCA) is covering its ass as advised by its lawyers. Why is this a big issue? Do you want the club to be decimated by a lawsuit filed by a grieving family member and their shark lawyer that the club was negligent in its duty to compel its members to protect themselves against injury after?

I think people are greatly overestimating the likelihood of such a lawsuit winning. The standard for a participant who has signed the waiver requires gross negligence, I believe and this doesn't meet that for the club. The club allows and encourages the use of the device.

So, when is the CRB/BoD banning club racing altogether? I mean, "if one life is saved" is the de facto standard for safety, then it's certainly "worth it", right...?

That's a very...well, "silly" is the nicest thing I can think of...thing to say, Jim, given the significant number of people that have died in auto racing accidents throughout history due to fire.

Well no. How many of them have died recently? How many have died on track from heart attacks? The suit certainly contributed to those attacks... get hotter, heart pumps faster to try and dispel the heat, faster heart rate equals stress to the heart.

Fuel cell technology... even on a stock tank ... is light years beyond the death traps that killed Savage, Bandini, Williamson, etc. In fact, it's because of those deaths that we have the better fuel cells.

lateapex911

04-08-2011, 03:06 PM

For the record the CRB never voted or recommended that the H&N devices be mandatory. That was a 100% BOD decision.

Understood. But I have been told in the past, by people in positions to know, that they make their recommendations to the BoD in regards to this subject. As such, I would think the BoD would consider their input, along with other inputs, in their vote.

I fully understand that that is different than an official 'recommendation" from the CRB, inasmuch as they are not charged with making one.

lateapex911

04-08-2011, 03:13 PM

3) choice..Mostly the Isaac debate. That has been debated for a long time, I am pretty neutral on that device, meaningI don't think it is near as good as many of you say, nor as bad as many others say.

Originally Posted by lateapex911

Honestly, its worrisome that a CRB member will be guiding the decision based on his feelings, when empirical data exists.

Empirical data exists the other way as well, just doesn't fit in to your agenda of slamming my opinions or credibility.

See, Jim, I responded to what you wrote. NOW you claim there is contrary data. That's QUITE a bit different than "I think" and "People say", isn't it.
MY agenda has nothing to do with slamming you...my agenda is to not have to spend vast sums of money to go backwards in my safety. Why is that hard to understand?

lateapex911

04-08-2011, 03:25 PM

How many have died on track from heart attacks? The suit certainly contributed to those attacks... get hotter, heart pumps faster to try and dispel the heat, faster heart rate equals stress to the heart.
.

This is another point, and a disturbing one.
We all see the need to be properly suited, and accept the repercussions. I for one feel no debilitating effects from being suited up on a hot day, but then again, I train and workout more than most people in my demographic.

Regardless, we've seen a significant amount of deaths recently due to on track internal 'events'. Heart attacks and the like. If I'm remembering my stats correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), the vast majority of deaths have been because of personal health issues, NOT from mechanical causes that resulted in injuries that were fatal.

But I haven't heard one PEEP about how these guys are getting on track, and whether it would be prudent to look at the screening process the club employs to weed the potential candidates from the population of racers.

It's of course, in a graying club, hugely politically incorrect to utter the concept that maybe some of the elders shouldn't race.
People say, "Listen if he wants to go out that way, who are we to stop him? He's doing what he loves". That's been a response when I've brought this subject up privately.

Well, other than the fact that he might take out other cars, or spectators, or his family could sue SCCA ...just as they could over the head and neck restraint thing....that's a nice position and sentiment.

But, the fact remains that more people have died in that manner than any other, and the club is EQUALLY exposed to lawsuits from it, yet, as far as I know, nobody has batted an eye or thinks we should review our policies.
Why is that?

Knestis

04-08-2011, 10:09 PM

... the club must protect itself, not sure why that seems like such an "evil" thing? Whether we agree with SFI or not, it is the industry standard and not adhering to an industry standard puts the club at an unnecessary risk.

SCCA pointedly elected to NOT adhere to the industry standard of requiring a bail-out test when requested to do so through the member rule-change request process. I'll flat out say what Jake suggests: That was a non-starter because too many fat, out-of-shape, entry-fee-paying, friends-of-the-PTBs would fail it.

And I'd be thrilled if we could use "empirical data," Jim. But we can't because the business agreement between SCCA and SFI prevents it.

Disingenuous arguments are incredibly tiresome, particularly from the people who are charged with guiding the organization.

Kirk (who is trying like hell to NOT CARE but is continually appalled at the pitiful lack of leadership demonstrated by so many of our "leaders")

tom91ita

04-09-2011, 12:32 AM

.....the vast majority of deaths have been because of personal health issues, NOT from mechanical causes that resulted in injuries that were fatal. ..

..........I'll flat out say what Jake suggests: That was a non-starter because too many fat, out-of-shape, entry-fee-paying, friends-of-the-PTBs would fail it..........

will you two drop this line of arguments?

next SCCA will no longer be able to serve beer, burgers and brats at the Saturday night dinners!

we'll end up having to be served SFI certified veggie burgers and tofu fries.

DoubleXL240Z

04-09-2011, 08:53 AM

For the record I believe the brats are FIA, and are good for 5 years!!
I know the hotdogs are!!

Aanselm

04-09-2011, 10:32 PM

The debate about which is better using a 38.1 device or the Isaac really has nothing to do with the actual device, it is more about the fact that people who make Isaac refuse to pay SFI to get the certification. IMO

Knestis

04-09-2011, 10:58 PM

...because the people who wrote 38.1 included not only performance standards but also specific design restrictions that effectively rule out the Isaac. In essence, the SFI standard describes a Hans. When Defender came out with a product that had the 38.1-mandated features, Hans filed suit.

K

tom91ita

04-10-2011, 12:58 AM

this is part of what bothers me so much. that club members and "managing" members apparently have not bothered to read SFI 38.1 if they had, they would not refer to SFI as a "testing company" nor suggest that Isaac does not have a sticker because they refuse to buy them.

please read the standard.

http://www.racesafetydata.info/SFI381_09.pdf

or at least this excerpt (all bold/underlined are my emphasis):

2.1 Head and Neck Restraint: An active Head and Neck Restraint System is a
protection ensemble providing an alternative load path which decreases both
neck stress and head excursion during a vehicle impact without reliance on
helmet impact into structures or nets.

2.2 Separate Restraining Devices:

A. Linkages attached to the helmet which transfer restraining loads directly
to the helmet from the main device which is secured to the driver's
shoulders, torso, etc. Methods for attachment of these linkages to the
helmet and main device shall be prescribed by the manufacturer.

B. The main device shall be a mechanism held tightly to the driver's torso by
seat belts or other strap systems such that the reactive load carrying
components move directly with the torso and controls head, neck, and
torso relative positions during forward or off-center impact situations.

2.3 Reaction Linkage: The means by which the head force necessary to limit
displacement of the head with respect to the torso is reacted. Acceptable
reaction linkages could include load paths to the torso or to the restraint
webbing. Direct attachment to react loads to a fixed point or points on a
vehicle structure or restraint webbing will not be acceptable because of the
potential for torso displacements with respect to these points. Imposed
loading by the reaction linkage to other areas of the body should be applied
using approaches demonstrated to be practical without imposing risk of
serious injury.

2.4 The Head and Neck Restraint System must be designed and manufactured
to allow freedom of movement of head, torso, arms, etc., commensurate with
operating a race vehicle under all race and associated conditions.

2.5 Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user
and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other
than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint
System during emergency situations.

.....The SFI standard and Isaac is an entirely different subject. I sympathize and understand your frustration. I am not Anti Isaac. If you want to petition the club to accept another testing company that is certainly your right and I encourage it. But understand, like it our not, the club must protect itself, not sure why that seems like such an "evil" thing? Whether we agree with SFI or not, it is the industry standard and not adhering to an industry standard puts the club at an unnecessary risk.......

Jim, SFI mandates a design. it is not a testing company. SFI requires the device manufacturer to provide the test results, the name of the testing company, etc.

also, please tell me what "industry standard" allows parents to sign waivers for minors and allows them to race? don't say other clubs "allow" it. there are racing organizations that do not require 38.1 (which then allows Isaacs....)

please do some reading on Kirton v. Fields where the Florida State Supreme Court ruled that minors have rights that parents cannot rescind.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2008/12/18/96427.htm

The court said there is “injustice” when a parent agrees to waive the tort claims of a minor child and deprive the child of the right to legal relief when the child is injured as a result of another party’s negligence.

...Honestly, its worrisome that a CRB member will be guiding the decision based on his feelings, when empirical data exists.

....Lets face it, EVERYone knows that HANS wrote the SFI 38.1 standard, and did it in a restrictive manner with aspects that don't do anything but dampen innovation, regardless of performance potential. ....

The debate about which is better using a 38.1 device or the Isaac really has nothing to do with the actual device, it is more about the fact that people who make Isaac refuse to pay SFI to get the certification. IMO

i believe that my version of the Isaac meets the single point of release since one can slide the tethers off the belt after the belt is released. but there is no "main device" between the tethers and the belts and thus it cannot meet SFI 38.1. sidebar: as an engineer, i prefer the simplest design that meets the performance requirements.

...because the people who wrote 38.1 included not only performance standards but also specific design restrictions that effectively rule out the Isaac. In essence, the SFI standard describes a Hans. When Defender came out with a product that had the 38.1-mandated features, Hans filed suit.

K

not sure what has happened but Defender is not listed as certified on the SFI website. i think that has been discussed here or elsewhere but i have not kept up on this. anyone have further info? (EDIT: currently approved per Dave Gran's follow-up)

http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1

gran racing

04-10-2011, 08:00 AM

It's still accepted. Something about a delay in getting information on the site updated. (I was curious and called Defender.

tom91ita

04-10-2011, 08:47 AM

It's still accepted. Something about a delay in getting information on the site updated. (I was curious and called Defender.

Dave,

thanks for the info. good to hear.

i think it is an interesting price point and i like the fact that they are fighting HANS on this. if i get something, it will not be a HANS.

there is some "chatter" on a land speed forum that there may be a $400 version ...

http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,9476.0/prev_next,prev.html#new

not sure if it is a misunderstanding of the current pricing or new model, etc.

From what I understand, Joe Hanson (DJ Safety) is in the process of having his new H&N restraint approved. With any luck this will be done soon, and will work very well with the lakesters and liners that cannot fit a conventional H&N.

I think the certification on the DJ unit was imminent thus the acceptance from the SCTA. From what I understand, it is actually approved now. $400 is a good deal IMO and another plus is that there isn't anything sticking up behind your head.

i tried a bit of googling and did not see anything.

gsbaker

04-11-2011, 09:04 AM

gsbaker

04-11-2011, 09:06 AM

For the record, SFI may accept input from anyone, but only the members vote on the spec. If enough members decide to write a competitor out of the spec, it will happen.

JohnRW

04-11-2011, 10:52 AM

For the record...what is keeping the Isaac from SFI 38.1 acceptance ?

Is it only the "single point of release" requirement ? Is there something else, too ?

gsbaker

04-11-2011, 10:56 AM

For the record...what is keeping the Isaac from SFI 38.1 acceptance ?

Is it only the "single point of release" requirement ? Is there something else, too ?
Just that, John.

lateapex911

04-11-2011, 11:03 AM

John, if you read the 38.1 spec, it basically describes a HANS. Including the basic architecture. Hubbard et al state that the loads must be transferred to the body via the armature or yoke thing. (I'm going from memory so my wording isn't exact, but the point remains)
(On edit, it appears Gregg feels differently. I'll dig up the spec later when i get a minute and reread, but I swore that it was more complex that just the release)

The Isaac as you probably know, doesn't work that way, it utilizes the belts for it's 'anchor'.
Isaac could pay all the fees and such, but the device will get rejected every single time.

The spec is written in an overly narrow manner. It's a shame, as it's restrictive to innovation. It's as though the UL stepped in after the lightbulb was invented, and demanded that all future artificial lighting products have a filament, a glass bulb and a socket. We'd have never seen the wide plethora of lighting like LEDs, Sodium vapor, HID, etc etc.

Or, if you're HANS, the spec is written wonderfully, and their abilities to have their device mandated as the ONLY device acceptable by a number major series, and their ability to position themselves as the 38.1 "Kleenex" brand as resulted in major market share and sales.

gsbaker

04-11-2011, 11:47 AM

Or, if you're HANS, the spec is written wonderfully, and their abilities to have their device mandated as the ONLY device acceptable by a number major series, and their ability to position themselves as the 38.1 "Kleenex" brand as resulted in major market share and sales.
We recommended to SFI in 2002 that they adopt a % load reduction measure. Between then and the release of the initial spec in October 2004 they never got back to us, and the HANS device was the only one that qualified.

gsbaker

04-11-2011, 11:54 AM

The obvious solution would be for the Club to mandate products certified to meet industry performance standards. Anything more restrictive reduces safety and increases liability.

Best would be no mandate, but that's another issue...

CRallo

04-11-2011, 01:43 PM

lateapex911

04-11-2011, 02:10 PM

so what are the odds that we can get the SCCA to adopt another standard? They accept two for everything else? or is that the best route?

what does FIA have for H&N devices?

As far as I'm concerned they are opening themselves up for more liability! What happens when I get slammed from the side and was not allowed to use my ISAAC?!

1- I don't know.
2- FIA lists, I think, the HANS. Only.
3- I think the SCCA counsel feels the best position is to follow 'industry standards'. I think they feel this gives them their best defense in court, or in a settlement.

As far as I know there has been no case brought to trial or settled that is relevant, so it's educated opinions that will rule the decision.

pitbull113

04-11-2011, 02:15 PM

so what are the odds that we can get the SCCA to adopt another standard? They accept two for everything else? or is that the best route?

what does FIA have for H&N devices?
From the GCR :
As of 1/1/12 head and neck restraints meeting SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858 will be required.

From what i read the FIA 8858 has to do with the teathers for the HANS. Seems like it also was written by the people at HANS.

Gregg might be able to elaborate on this.

shwah

04-11-2011, 02:51 PM

so what are the odds that we can get the SCCA to adopt another standard? They accept two for everything else? or is that the best route?

About 1,000,000:1

Horses and barns and all that.

This thing is over IMO. I will nut up to replace my ISAAC, and I will complain about it, but I will be racing next year too.

DoubleXL240Z

04-11-2011, 03:01 PM

About 1,000,000:1

"So, your saying there's a chance??"

dickita15

04-12-2011, 06:20 AM

About 1,000,000:1

Horses and barns and all that.

This thing is over IMO. I will nut up to replace my ISAAC, and I will complain about it, but I will be racing next year too.

I believe that if an additional credible industry standard became available there is a good chance it could be added to the current permitted solutions.

Knestis

04-12-2011, 06:47 AM

...but it's impossible to know what attributes would be required of another option for the Club to think of it as "credible," since it doesn't appear that many of the decision makers know what they are getting from SFI and how it "works."

K

dickita15

04-12-2011, 07:35 AM

Kirk, the fact that the current industry standard involves a flawed process does not change the fact that they have been able to set themselves up as an industry standard.

Knestis

04-12-2011, 09:08 AM

I know all about "setting themselves up." I was there when they were establishing their base, remember? The quote to me was that "You have to get in on this. It will get to the point that if drivers won't be able to buy your suits unless you are."

So again - How will the BoD "know" that an alternative is an "industry standard?" When NASA adopts it? Obviously not because that didn't convince them that we should have a bailout test. When NASCAR does? Nope. They have lower expectations than we do at a lot of local tracks and seats in Cup cars that cost what a top-flight ITR build would.

My opinion is that it's crap. I can take a term like "best practice" and invoke it to support what I want, and discard anything I do *not* want by saying it doesn't measure up. Despite what someone might claim when it's convenient, getting out of a race car quickly under duress IS an industry standard. ZERO DOUBT.

What I'm afraid you're neglecting, Dick, is that SCCA has entered into a business agreement with SFI when it agreed to "Member" status. There are interests - so influences - from players on both sides of that to prevent anything from disrupting it.

What interest would shift anyone off of supporting the status quo? Actual driver safety?

K

tom91ita

04-12-2011, 10:02 AM

so is it time to leave SCCA and return to NASA since NASA is apparently the race club/industry leaders when it comes to safety?

afterall, NASA did adopt H&NR first. NASA is also less likely to have a corner worker hurt since they typically only 50% of them at the track compared to SCCA (ymmv).

Cobrar05

04-12-2011, 10:18 AM

wow...wild reading. am i wrong that bmwcca, pboc, pca, nascar, indycar, grand am, scca pro racing in addition to the hated low life nasa group require the sfi head and neck restraint?

how many racing sanctioning bodies join scca in not mandating this safety equipment?

i dont understand the kicking and screaming nature of this, but you all seem very determined.

i race with nasa and have a world challenge legal race car. ive considered doing a pca event on occasion. i have a hutchens hybrid. i have a halo racetech seat. i have a right side net. i have a coolshirt too(though its not required).

i wear my hh and use my right side net when i race at scca events and this debate has no effect on me unless rejecting the requirement then increases my fees for insurance reasons.

i am curious. how many of you would quit racing over this?

Knestis

04-12-2011, 10:39 AM

A large portion of the kickers and screamers are PO'd because they proactively elected to make themselves safer than the Club required, did their research, and purchased an Isaac - some of them before NASA et al. required any H&N protection, let alone SFI.

For the record, I have little sympathy for someone who at this point is simply stomping around about being required to have ANY H&N protection. It was hyperbolic but if anything, I see the logic in Mr Drago's assertion about fire protection vs. impact protection on our noggins. I'm personally, based on what I know, more concerned about the latter. But that said, I have a fire system rather than a minimum-standard hand-held extinguisher. And I wear a closed helmet with a full Nomex skirt and the visor closed so I might be skewing the curve.

K

erlrich

04-12-2011, 11:30 AM

i am curious. how many of you would quit racing over this?

I wouldn't quit, at least not while there are still alternatives. I am, however, very much on the fence about continuing with SCCA after my license expires this year. I know of at least one organization (EMRA) that still does not mandate H&N restraints; I may just go play in their sandbox for a while.

Even if I do continue with SCCA, I will say this whole deal has seriously changed my attitude toward the club. I sincerely feel at this point that the folks in charge could give a shit what we the members think or want; consequently I've adopted a similar attitude about the club. I will continue to work events, but only because I work with people who I consider friends and enjoy working with, not because I feel any loyalty or obligation to the club.

tom91ita

04-12-2011, 12:39 PM

i am considering taking 2012 off and then see about 2013. the $$ has to come from somewhere. note that $4 gas/diesel does not help.

i was not an early adopter like some. i came by my Isaac later but it was AFTER the BOD said they were only going to recommend and NOT require H&NR.

i agree that H&NR is more of a concern than fire. which is why i consider the single point of release in 38.1 as bogus. first let me survive the impact, then worry about if there was a fire.

i have the minimum required for the fire ext. but if i was K and had a 25 gallon enduro cell in my car, i might feel different.

one of my pet peeves is that the most crucial safety devices in the car (the roll cage) upon which all the other SFI/FIA devices are dependent (cage failure can make the belts and H&NR useless) is only certified by SCCA. and we are limited on how well we can make it or attach to our cars (at least in Showroom or IT land.....)

eventually the cage will have to be SFI or FIA compliant. there really is no other logical conclusion. if you accept one premise, you cannot avoid this. how can SCCA possibly accept this liability?

gran racing

04-12-2011, 02:39 PM

What are the other major H&NR systems which are not SFI that people might have interest in using?

SFI just reviews the information and collects a check. Why couldn't SCCA have some of it's own critera? Fine, use SFI. But then include a list of other makes / models that are approved. It wouldn't be that difficult to require test results from a lab and define minimum loads.

For the Isaac limitation due to release points, we know that's crap considering other products requiring additional window nets to get out of the car.

dickita15

04-12-2011, 03:07 PM

Even if I do continue with SCCA, I will say this whole deal has seriously changed my attitude toward the club. I sincerely feel at this point that the folks in charge could give a shit what we the members think or want; consequently I've adopted a similar attitude about the club. I will continue to work events, but only because I work with people who I consider friends and enjoy working with, not because I feel any loyalty or obligation to the club.

First let me be clear, I was not in favor of this requirement and I was vocal in arguing against H&Ns being mandatory, however every director who voted in favor did so because they honestly believe that was the best decision for the good of the club, you may disagree, but do not for a minute believe their votes were not in the best interest of the club.
As far as going against the membership’s desire, there was very few letters written objecting to the change, maybe 12 or 15. Hell, there have been more letters about Formula B shifters or S2 transmissions.

Z3_GoCar

04-12-2011, 03:08 PM

gran racing

04-12-2011, 03:16 PM

do not for a minute believe their votes were not in the best interest of the club.

I don't doubt that but have to wonder if they merely pressed the easy button - "industry standards must mean SFI". Several people I've spoken with that are not on this board have no idea this is even forthcoming. I know, that's their issue for not keeping up on things.

i am curious. how many of you would quit racing over this?

I wouldn't say this in particular would be the reason, but it's another straw on the camel's back. Which reminds me, I don't think I've paid my membership and competition license fees yet. That's also a hard check to pay. It all adds up.

I have to imagine that I'll suck it up and get some other system, but it'll be one of the less expensive ones. My current safety standards will decrease as a result. Awesome.

Cobrar05

04-12-2011, 03:31 PM

So, what's the grand consperacy concerning the ISAAC. All the rich NASCAR and F1 and Indycar drivers would be safer if they had an ISAAC?

I read this stuff here and my eyes glaze over. Maybe I am just sheep. Do what I am told. But Tony Stewart isn't. John Force isn't. Kyle Busch isn't. Neither is JP Montoya.
If there was an argument to be made at that level Robby Gordon would make it.

Yet, I read this forum and its like grassy knoll stuff in progress.

Is the ISAAC designer the next Preston Tucker?

Knestis

04-12-2011, 03:48 PM

Search button is your friend, Rob.

It's been hashed and rehashed here for years. People largely don't get why it's a concern. I'm going to predict, by the tone and content of your last post, that you are not disposed to be any different.

I apologize for even participating in the conversation here because - DAMMIT - I really don't want to. Again.

K

Cobrar05

04-12-2011, 03:55 PM

alright...there are often fresh developements. maybe the reason this whole thing doesnt bother me is that i have one of those things to comply for my other stuff.

callard

04-12-2011, 04:11 PM

I'll throw some hate on HANS but for another reason. I bought my first one 10 years ago along with a carbon fiber Vudo helmet. the HANS was aroung $1000+ and was made with fiberglas. The Vudo was about $900. They weighed about equal.
When my tow vehicle burned to the ground last spring, the Vudo totally disappeared and the resin was burnt out of the HANS. The remains of the HANS now sits on a shelf in the garage weighing about 3 Ozs and continues to flake fiberglas but it maintains its original shape.
I bought a replacement Vudo and HANS with the insurance money and was pissed when I got the HANS. It's now made of molded rubber (kind of like a hockey puck) and weighs about 3 times what the helmet weighs. By eliminating the hand laid fiberglas labor and using some injection molding process they managed to cut the price - but probably not the profit. Still, it's more unwieldy and is a pain to carry around attached to the helmet. Like a fishing sinker on a paper airplane.

jdrago1

04-12-2011, 08:28 PM

pitbull113

04-12-2011, 09:21 PM

You heard him boys and girls let's blow up their e-mail box with letters. It can't hurt to try.

gran racing

04-12-2011, 10:17 PM

I already sent mine in a long time ago. Does another letter on the same topic really help?

pitbull113

04-12-2011, 10:27 PM

I already sent mine in a long time ago. Does another letter on the same topic really help?
dave what could it hurt. i sent another it took less than 5 minutes.

DoubleXL240Z

04-12-2011, 10:36 PM

Z3_Go Car James, WC does require a 2nd left side net!!
So,a fully loaded driver, legally, can have:
a set of tubes going to his cool suit,
another set to his cool helmet sock,
a blower tube going to his helmet,
a radio connection,
a sippy cup straw,
a left side net,
a window net,
7 point harness,
a full containment seat,
a SFI rated H&N device,
and we are concerned over needing 2 hand to remove his Isaac?
:dead_horse::dead_horse::dead_horse:

tom91ita

04-12-2011, 11:14 PM

dave what could it hurt. i sent another it took less than 5 minutes.

after a while, you would think we would learn our lessons on this.

http://oneadayproject.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/charlie_brown_lucy_football-thumb-400x344-441711.jpg

pitbull113

04-12-2011, 11:34 PM

after a while, you would think we would learn our lessons on this.

http://oneadayproject.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/charlie_brown_lucy_football-thumb-400x344-441711.jpgtom it would have taken less time to write another letter to the scca than it did to find that pic and post it.

CRallo

04-12-2011, 11:45 PM

Guys,
You have one area director( and CRB liaison) on the site seemingly willing to work with you on this. Despite popular opinion, I am willing to work with you guys on this as well. Thats one CRB member and the CRB liaison to the BOD. I think the way to attack this is finding a way to allow the device you guys favor.
I support the mandate, I also understand your position and why some of you don't support the mandate. However, the mandate is not going away. I think if we get enough letters asking for alternative H&N's, the club will have to at least look at it. I am not making any promises, but you have my word that I will do what I can to help with this. It takes less time to submit a letter than to type a post here, so send in a letter to crbscca.com.
Jim

:smilie_pokal::happy204::024::023:

Z3_Go Car James, WC does require a 2nd left side net!!
So,a fully loaded driver, legally, can have:
a set of tubes going to his cool suit,
another set to his cool helmet sock,
a blower tube going to his helmet,
a radio connection,
a sippy cup straw,
a left side net,
a window net,
7 point harness,
a full containment seat,
a SFI rated H&N device,
and we are concerned over needing 2 hand to remove his Isaac?

I literally LOL'd!!!!!!!!! That kinda puts things into persepective doesn't it?

tom it would have taken less time to write another letter to the scca than it did to find that pic and post it.

nice...

Knestis

04-13-2011, 12:32 AM

"Oh, gee! What-EVER will we do? We oh, so badly, want to do the right thing but golly jeepers, we just do NOT know what the members want. If ONLY ol' 103210 would write us a letter and help us understand..."

Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the bleeding donkey.

You don't need another damned letter, Drago. If anyone who COULD make another option work WANTED to make another option work, ANOTHER OPTION WOULD WORK. On this issue, the intersection between "people who can make a difference" and "people who have any motivation to make a difference" is an empty freaking set. ZEE-RO.

I have quite literally hundreds of hours and my own money into this issue, over the past SIX YEARS, communicating through all kinds of channels about why we're in this situation, why it's a problem for racers, and what we can do about it.

Dick - is there ANY DOUBT AT ALL among the CRB what this group of members think is best for their safety? ANY...? AT ALL...?? Is Drago the only one who's been distracted for the past 72 months or so and missed that these people ELECTED to make themselves safer, before any mandate, and are now getting screwed for it?

Or - as is more likely the case - is this one more case of pretending like you give a whistling popcorn fart about our input, Jim? Particularly if it's coming from me. Best thing I could do for the cause is write in extolling the virtues of SFI, and thanking the Board for making the hard decision to stick with them. One of my least favorite things is "disingenuous" and it's one of the things you are REALLY good at.

"But, Kirk," I hear you say, "your tone isn't helpful."

Screw it. I was nice about this stuff for years. All done with that.

We somehow managed to get to a point where a long list of the things we wanted to do on the ITAC are now happening - all those things that we JUST CAN'T DO according to Mr. Drago - and the world hasn't stopped turning. It took massive upheaval and the loss of a year of productive work but GUESS WHAT...? Turns out that what nice couldn't do, upheaval did.

We are less than a year from the point at which a pretty good list of dues-paying members will, by the mandate of the Club, trade in their current H&N systems for something else THAT BASED ON TESTS FROM THE SAME TWO LABS, DO NOT PERFORM THEIR ONLY FUNCTION AS WELL AS WHAT THOSE MEMBERS CURRENTLY HAVE.

And you have NOT seen upheaval until the lawyers come knocking after one of those people is crippled or killed because of the Board's decision - and the CRB's complicity. Compared to the shit-storm that will follow that visit, I am being as sweet as pie...

...and in that spirit I will repeat it, one more time and one time only. You have an easy solution:

MANDATE THE USE OF HEAD AND NECK RESTRAINT SYSTEMS THAT MEET OR EXCEED THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD, AND ONLY THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD, DESCRIBED IN SFI 38.1, AS TESTED BY ONE OF THE TINY NUMBER OF LABS QUALIFIED TO UNDERTAKE SUCH PERFORMANCE TESTS.

Done. It's all win. You get all of the coverage of 38.1, without any of the liability you seem to be willing to take on by preventing me from keeping myself as safe as possible.

But you won't, Jim, and the Board won't.

Instead you'll trot out a bunch of waffling crap about how tech people are just too stupid to know a device that's passed such a test from something that someone built out of LEGO and drywall screws in their garden shed, absent a little farking sticker.

And maybe throw in some half-assed assertions about how we just can't trust any test results that aren't disseminated through an organization that profits - oh, sorry, "nonprofits" - from making said numbers look all fancified, like the "industry standard" that they are.

Et-bleeding-cetera.

And why...? Because the organization lacks the collective wisdom and leadership to get educated about the issue, take the time to understand the nuances of how SFI works, and actually MAKE A DECISION rather than defer it to someone who's getting rich off of our weakness and fear.

Some "risk management" weenie latched onto SFI as the water wings that he thinks will keep the Club afloat on this issue - rather than making the effort to paddle - and now everyone in the organization is a-scared to do anything but join the cluster of hangers-on... It will pop. It will sink. I just hope someone doesn't die to help you understand that.

You don't need me to fill in another freaking web form to know that a bunch of us think that one of you ought to be brave enough to start swimming.

K

lateapex911

04-13-2011, 01:39 AM

Bless you Kirk, I just had to quote that.

As a guy who knows aof what much of what Kirk alludes to, yes, thanks for writing that.

"Oh, gee! What-EVER will we do? We oh, so badly, want to do the right thing but golly jeepers, we just do NOT know what the members want. If ONLY ol' 103210 would write us a letter and help us understand..."

Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the bleeding donkey.

You don't need another damned letter, Drago. If anyone who COULD make another option work WANTED to make another option work, ANOTHER OPTION WOULD WORK. On this issue, the intersection between "people who can make a difference" and "people who have any motivation to make a difference" is an empty freaking set. ZEE-RO.

I have quite literally hundreds of hours and my own money into this issue, over the past SIX YEARS, communicating through all kinds of channels about why we're in this situation, why it's a problem for racers, and what we can do about it.

Dick - is there ANY DOUBT AT ALL among the CRB what this group of members think is best for their safety? ANY...? AT ALL...?? Is Drago the only one who's been distracted for the past 72 months or so and missed that these people ELECTED to make themselves safer, before any mandate, and are now getting screwed for it?

Or - as is more likely the case - is this one more case of pretending like you give a whistling popcorn fart about our input, Jim? Particularly if it's coming from me. Best thing I could do for the cause is write in extolling the virtues of SFI, and thanking the Board for making the hard decision to stick with them. One of my least favorite things is "disingenuous" and it's one of the things you are REALLY good at.

"But, Kirk," I hear you say, "your tone isn't helpful."

Screw it. I was nice about this stuff for years. All done with that.

We somehow managed to get to a point where a long list of the things we wanted to do on the ITAC are now happening - all those things that we JUST CAN'T DO according to Mr. Drago - and the world hasn't stopped turning. It took massive upheaval and the loss of a year of productive work but GUESS WHAT...? Turns out that what nice couldn't do, upheaval did.

We are less than a year from the point at which a pretty good list of dues-paying members will, by the mandate of the Club, trade in their current H&N systems for something else THAT BASED ON TESTS FROM THE SAME TWO LABS, DO NOT PERFORM THEIR ONLY FUNCTION AS WELL AS WHAT THOSE MEMBERS CURRENTLY HAVE.

And you have NOT seen upheaval until the lawyers come knocking after one of those people is crippled or killed because of the Board's decision - and the CRB's complicity. Compared to the shit-storm that will follow that visit, I am being as sweet as pie...

...and in that spirit I will repeat it, one more time and one time only. You have an easy solution:

MANDATE THE USE OF HEAD AND NECK RESTRAINT SYSTEMS THAT MEET OR EXCEED THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD, AND ONLY THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD, DESCRIBED IN SFI 38.1, AS TESTED BY ONE OF THE TINY NUMBER OF LABS QUALIFIED TO UNDERTAKE SUCH PERFORMANCE TESTS.

Done. It's all win. You get all of the coverage of 38.1, without any of the liability you seem to be willing to take on by preventing me from keeping myself as safe as possible.

But you won't, Jim, and the Board won't.

Instead you'll trot out a bunch of waffling crap about how tech people are just too stupid to know a device that's passed such a test from something that someone built out of LEGO and drywall screws in their garden shed, absent a little farking sticker.

And maybe throw in some half-assed assertions about how we just can't trust any test results that aren't disseminated through an organization that profits - oh, sorry, "nonprofits" - from making said numbers look all fancified, like the "industry standard" that they are.

Et-bleeding-cetera.

And why...? Because the organization lacks the collective wisdom and leadership to get educated about the issue, take the time to understand the nuances of how SFI works, and actually MAKE A DECISION rather than defer it to someone who's getting rich off of our weakness and fear.

Some "risk management" weenie latched onto SFI as the water wings that he thinks will keep the Club afloat on this issue - rather than making the effort to paddle - and now everyone in the organization is a-scared to do anything but join the cluster of hangers-on... It will pop. It will sink. I just hope someone doesn't die to help you understand that.

You don't need me to fill in another freaking web form to know that a bunch of us think that one of you ought to be brave enough to start swimming.

K

jjjanos

04-13-2011, 04:07 AM

Instead you'll trot out a bunch of waffling crap about how tech people are just too stupid to know a device that's passed such a test from something that someone built out of LEGO and drywall screws in their garden shed, absent a little farking sticker.

Here's another thing to piss you off...

Like condoms, H&N systems are use ONCE. Where is the rule that requires the mandatory impound of these systems after a crash? That fancy label means squat once it is used. <sarcasm>Clearly, the club has left itself open to a huge liability here. <sarcasm>

They let someone out with a system that has been used and their fancy CYA that doesn't cover their sorry butts doesn't mean squat.

(Though I understand that most manufacturers will test a used device but the testing is almost as expensive as a new device.)

tom91ita

04-13-2011, 07:49 AM

tom it would have taken less time to write another letter to the scca than it did to find that pic and post it.

i have already written three letters in the last three years and had some sidebar emails with BOD & CRB members as well as regional Comp directors.

if the BOD's attention span is so short that they don't remember the previous letters then i guess a fourth really won't help either.

I do intend to send them again in case there has been some change in the make-up of the BOD and/or CRB but i think, just like Charlie Brown, there will be no change in the outcome.

basically, i have given up hope on this issue. i think any other conclusion meets the definition of insanity. :dead_horse:

924Guy

04-13-2011, 07:54 AM

Nice scribe, Kirk. You've done a great job putting words to the frustration so many of us feel.

Sadly, I still feel like... nobody gives a rip except a lonely few of us...

tom91ita

04-13-2011, 08:32 AM

sidebar:

glance at this thread about someone losing intersest in the sport:

http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=34295

then note this comment:

I go back and forth. At the moment, I'm leaning towards "sick of it." That usually happens right around the time I'm facing spending big money on something for the car.

gran racing

04-13-2011, 08:34 AM

i have already written three letters in the last three years and had some sidebar emails with BOD & CRB members as well as regional Comp directors.

Yeah, you certainly put quite a bit of time and thought into that letter. It was extremely well done.

Andy Bettencourt

04-13-2011, 08:41 AM

OK, now that we all have got that off our chest, we NEED to send in letters to affect an ammendment. Don't not do it on principle, take a second and just send one in.

Something like:

All SFI H&N's AND all 'Isaac' branded devices with their 'X' certification.

Just do it, don't ask why. If you care about it, send a letter (or resend your original).

dickita15

04-13-2011, 08:50 AM

Thank you Andy,
I doubt that it is possible to get the mandate reversed, however there may be a way to get the issac allowed. Not sure, but these is no way it will happen unless we get some letters. If you would rather sit up on your high horse than send a letter you lose the right to give me crap about it.

Andy Bettencourt

04-13-2011, 09:05 AM

jdrago1

04-13-2011, 09:53 AM

...and YES, we all give a crap, and we GAVE a crap years ago when this first surfaced. But that time is passed. H&N will be mandated. SFI will be a spec. The issue is different now. Can we get something else added based on performance?

WRITE IN.

Thank Andy

That IS our ONLY approach from here. The past is the past.

I can promise you the following:

If we get 20 plus letters sent in, The CRB will be forced to at least look at it. I will do what I can to help. It is an uphill battle, but one I am willing to sacrifice my time and effort to take on.

If we get a few scattered letters, you will be forced to switch to a different device, stay home or race elsewhere.

Like it or not, that is the way the club works, we can save the debate and endless posts of how screwed up the club and system are for another day and deal with one subject at time.

Not sure why Dick and I would be participating in this thread if we weren't interested in helping, I don't race IT and not out to win any popularity contest. Although, I'm sure Kirk and Jake would vote for me. :023:

Thats the last post I'm going to make on this subject for awhile, so have fun with it guys.
Jim

JeffYoung

04-13-2011, 09:59 AM

Good post, and thread, thanks guys.

Thank Andy

That IS our ONLY approach from here. The past is the past.

I can promise you the following:

If we get 20 plus letters sent in, The CRB will be forced to at least look at it. I will do what I can to help. It is an uphill battle, but one I am willing to sacrifice my time and effort to take on.

If we get a few scattered letters, you will be forced to switch to a different device, stay home or race elsewhere.

Like it or not, that is the way the club works, we can save the debate and endless posts of how screwed up the club and system are for another day and deal with one subject at time.

Not sure why Dick and I would be participating in this thread if we weren't interested in helping, I don't race IT and not out to win any popularity contest. Although, I'm sure Kirk and Jake would vote for me. :023:

Thats the last post I'm going to make on this subject for awhile, so have fun with it guys.
Jim

Racerlinn

04-13-2011, 10:16 AM

Did mine last week (again).

Letter ID Number: #4610
Request: Writing to voice my objection over the SFI 38.1 requirement of the proposed HNR requirement for 2012. SFI 38.1 is a sham, a specification put together between SFI and the manufacturers of the HANS device.
I agree that a HNR rule should be implemented - but I disagree with using a specification that is the result of collusion to restrict fair trade and innovation. A properly worded rule would allow for tested, commercially available HNR devices. No one is suggesting that duct tape is a solution.

Steve Linn
Indianapolis Region

callard

04-13-2011, 10:46 AM

Just sent my letter:

"Although I am on my second HANS device, I feel very strongly that the SCCA should consider an independent performance-based measure for H&N restraint devices rather than just signing on to SFI’s version. I would like to be able to take advantage of the best performing safety equipment available rather than second best. The goal of an H&N device is to prevent a broken neck in an accident. Having egress issues override use of the best injury prevention device is inappropriate for a club that takes a strong stand on safety.
Thank you for considering my request.
Regards,
Chuck Allard
Member #51457

CRallo

04-13-2011, 11:42 AM

Be careful, you MIGHT get get what you wished for... and speaking of such similar arguments, I don't think we should wear seat belts at all becuase they will limit our ability to escape the vehicle in the event of an accident... what? :shrug: its about the same logic as the mandate/spec once you cut through the BS! :eclipsee_steering:

okay okay, I will cease and desist! I'm off to go write a letter...

Here's another thing to piss you off...

Like condoms, H&N systems are use ONCE. Where is the rule that requires the mandatory impound of these systems after a crash? That fancy label means squat once it is used. <sarcasm>Clearly, the club has left itself open to a huge liability here. <sarcasm>

They let someone out with a system that has been used and their fancy CYA that doesn't cover their sorry butts doesn't mean squat.

(Though I understand that most manufacturers will test a used device but the testing is almost as expensive as a new device.)

JIgou

04-13-2011, 12:52 PM

Eagle7

04-13-2011, 08:44 PM

Done.

pitbull113

04-13-2011, 09:12 PM

i hope we can get enough letters to make them take notice. guys if you have friends that are scca members let's talk to them as well and get them writing too. i know alot of you guys are fed up with this bs since it started but this really is our last chance to get this changed. we spend hours on the web posting about unimportant crap take 5 more to write the scca. thank you-charlie brown :rolleyes:

ddewhurst

04-13-2011, 10:11 PM

Jake, the best thing to do is buy a DeFnder & call it a day.:dead_horse: Protection as far as I read the tech info is equal to the Issac & way better than the HANS. No additionasl lateral load reduction devise required as is required for the HANS.:023:

Take the fight to Hans by procuring a SFI rated H&N other than HANS.

Anyone know the results of the HANS lawsuite against DeFnder?:shrug:

Back under my rock:006:

Oh, before I go.

SCCA Letter response:

Thank You For Your Input

Knestis

04-13-2011, 10:48 PM

... If you would rather sit up on your high horse than send a letter you lose the right to give me crap about it.

Fair enough, Dick.

And if we write letters, you (the collective, y'all) lose the "right" to invoke Secret Car Club of America privileges to let the issue peter out without a transparent, legitimate up-or-down vote by the CRB, a public position, and a recommendation - one way or the other, however the body decides - to the Board...?

No perma-table. No "couldn't get it on the agenda." No kicking the can down the road and not forwarding a proposition to the Board. No individual behind-closed-doors lobbying in lieu of a vote. No "Here's a summary of the letters we got." No non-decision. No abstaining. No keeping your heads down and hoping it will go away. No, "Oooh, this is too hard." No abrogation of CRB authority and responsibility to guide club racing policy decisions. No crap.

Deal?

We know you can't guarantee any particular outcome but if we fulfill our role in the process, will the CRB do the same...?

K

EDIT - And no "Gee, we only got 19 letters. Too bad we came up one short of being forced to look at it."

RacerBill

04-13-2011, 11:51 PM

Letter 4638 submitted!

WRXRacer111

04-14-2011, 12:51 AM

CRB Letter Tracking Number #4640

done.

dickita15

04-14-2011, 06:38 AM

Fair enough, Dick.

And if we write letters, you (the collective, y'all) lose the "right" to invoke Secret Car Club of America privileges to let the issue peter out without a transparent, legitimate up-or-down vote by the CRB, a public position, and a recommendation - one way or the other, however the body decides - to the Board...?

No perma-table. No "couldn't get it on the agenda." No kicking the can down the road and not forwarding a proposition to the Board. No individual behind-closed-doors lobbying in lieu of a vote. No "Here's a summary of the letters we got." No non-decision. No abstaining. No keeping your heads down and hoping it will go away. No, "Oooh, this is too hard." No abrogation of CRB authority and responsibility to guide club racing policy decisions. No crap.

Deal?

We know you can't guarantee any particular outcome but if we fulfill our role in the process, will the CRB do the same...?

K

EDIT - And no "Gee, we only got 19 letters. Too bad we came up one short of being forced to look at it."

Well Kirk that is a pretty long list of nefarious things I am not allowed to do and I cannot control the actions of everyone in the process but I will do my best.

JLawton

04-14-2011, 07:14 AM

Letter written: #4642

924Guy

04-14-2011, 08:21 AM

Letter written - #4642:

I would like to put in my support to the request to revisit the head and neck restraint requirements. As the rules currently stand, all drivers will be required to use an SFI 38.1-compliant device as of 2012.

I have been using a head and neck restraint since well before 38.1 came out; as I'm going to point out, that's obviously an ISAAC, as it will no longer be accepted next year and will now have to be replaced.

As it happens, I plan to change to a HANS, which is 38.1 compliant; likewise, my wife, who also races, has been and will continue to run a HANS. However, I chose the ISAAC because it made the most sense, both in cost and technically - its protective capability - for the car I was running at the time - my ITB car. Likewise, I plan to switch to a HANS, as I am switching to a DSR, and the HANS makes the most sense technically, though not financially, for that cockpit arrangement.

This approach, selecting by virtue of the most technically appropriate solution, has already proven itself out; I have personally been involved in two substantial hits over the years I have raced with the ISAAC, and it has indeed helped protect me from spinal injury.

For the SCCA to mandate use of specific devices through the enforcement of 38.1 is no service to the membership, as it specifically limits the range of devices, excluding some that are proven effective, merely on the basis of unrelated design factors.

Numerous wordings have already been proposed to the CRB and BOD that would restrict allowed H+N devices to those meeting appropriate performance standards, such as RSI or the performance parts of the SFI spec ONLY. Rather than re-hashing these again here, I will simply state that I support a solely performance-based spec, vs. the design factors currently in use in the SFI 38.1 spec.

If you are unaware of these design factor details, you need to read the 38.1 spec and truly understand what it means to be 38.1-compliant. Note, also, that no H+N restraint is SFI-certified, any more than any set of seat belts, etc. Every document the CRB and BOD release referring to SFI-certified components shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what SFI, its business model, and its safety standards are and how they work. This is very concerning - do you truly know what you are signing us up for?

The concept of a single-point release has no more relevance to the club or pro racer than does the concept of a timed exit requirement.

In summary - for the good of the membership and the Club Racing program, please review and reevaluate the club's proposed policy towards the proposed implementation of an SFI requirement for H+N restraints. This is NOT a policy which the whole of the membership supports: while we accept and understand the desire for safety, and most already use a H+N restraint, do not limit our access to very good, affordable, and effective devices. Leave us the room to choose, as the mature adults we are, and don't bend over to let the lawyers run the club. That's the most direct route to closing our doors.

Greg Amy

04-14-2011, 08:33 AM

Letter written: #4642

Letter written - #4642
Did you guys wake up and write it together...?

RacerBowie

04-14-2011, 08:34 AM

CRB Letter Tracking Number #4644

924Guy

04-14-2011, 08:55 AM

Did you guys wake up and write it together...?

:wacko:

And, of course, for this subject, this smiley is ALWAYS appropriate...
:dead_horse:

tom91ita

04-14-2011, 09:02 AM

Did you guys wake up and write it together...?

:happy204:

or is that why there are never that many responses to issues...... the database is broken/not working....:blink:

should get mine in tonight. hoping to get one more item to attach.

JLawton

04-14-2011, 09:05 AM

Did you guys wake up and write it together...?

Hi Jeff,
Thank you for submitting a request/input to the Club Racing Board. The details of your request can be found below.

Letter ID Number: #4642
Title: Approval for Additional HNR Devices

Naaa, I think it's Vaughn just hasn't woken up at all yet!! :D

924Guy

04-14-2011, 09:11 AM

Hi Jeff,
Thank you for submitting a request/input to the Club Racing Board. The details of your request can be found below.

Letter ID Number: #4642
Title: Approval for Additional HNR Devices

Naaa, I think it's Vaughn just hasn't woken up at all yet!! :D

Apparently... mine must be 4643...

tom91ita

04-14-2011, 09:17 AM

Apparently... mine must be 4643...

was there a corner worker party at Waterford last night?

924Guy

04-14-2011, 10:17 AM

LOL!

No, just a routine DSR build night in my garage...
http://vaughanscott.com/DSR/DSR_Build/Sept_10/DSCN7904.JPG

PSherm

04-14-2011, 10:45 AM

LOL!

No, just a routine DSR build night in my garage...
http://vaughanscott.com/DSR/DSR_Build/Sept_10/DSCN7904.JPG

Re-skinning in blue aluminum? :)

dave parker

04-14-2011, 12:08 PM

Wow, I knew this was going to be a hot issue, but JESUS.
Thanks to all the people whom took the time to enlighten me (and everyone else).

I have sent a letter my self (#4646) asking that the decision be revisited as I support my fellow members right to choose the piece that works best for them. Not a "one size fits all"
mandate.

Vaughn, I "borrowed" from your letter to make a template for mine, I hope you do not mind.

cheers
dave parker

Jeremy Billiel

04-14-2011, 12:38 PM

I hate to be "that guy", but you are all MISSING THE POINT!

By saying ISAAC is better and you had crashes that the ISAAC helped, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH

You can not go in front of a court case and use that crap. The bottom line is simple. The SCCA lawyers believe that the only industry trade group that will stand up in court is SFI. If you don't like it make another trade group and fight each other. Betamax vs VHS.

Everything else DOES NOT MATTER.

Assume that you are in court and you are writting your letter to a judge and jury.

erlrich

04-14-2011, 12:42 PM

dave parker

04-14-2011, 12:58 PM

JoshS

04-14-2011, 01:14 PM

I lurk in a lot of different forums. The majority of them are not voicing an issue. Seems to be just here in IT.com and the Sandbox.

I think there's an easy explanation ... very few people have ever heard of the Isaac. I bought my HANS in 2004 but had never heard of an Isaac device until 2007 when I joined the IT forums (and I still, 4 years later, have never seen it discussed anywhere else, seen any ads for it, seen one at the track, etc.) Perhaps the forums where Gregg hangs out are the places that care because only those participants even know there's something to care about.

924Guy

04-14-2011, 01:17 PM

Yeah; everyone else seems to think that unless this rule goes through, they're not even allowed to wear a H+N restraint. So you must be suicidal and want to race without a helmet if you don't drink the kool-aid...

Knestis

04-14-2011, 01:26 PM

Well Kirk that is a pretty long list of nefarious things I am not allowed to do and I cannot control the actions of everyone in the process but I will do my best.

It's a long list of things that I've seen too much of in the past 30 years but thank you, Dick - your best is all I can ask for.

KK

gsbaker

04-14-2011, 04:36 PM

I'm trying to stay out of this, but there are some key points of Club liability that need to come into focus.

I hate to be "that guy", but you are all MISSING THE POINT!

By saying ISAAC is better and you had crashes that the ISAAC helped, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH

You can not go in front of a court case and use that crap...

Assume that you are in court and you are writting your letter to a judge and jury.
Having been involved in over 100 product liability lawsuits as a defendant (never lost) let's see how this would play out.

Plaintiff's attorney: "Mr. Quadraplegic, severely-scorched, morphine-dieting, drooling race car driver, please explain to the jury how you came to be injured."

Driver: "Well, I researched head and neck restraints almost ten years ago. I chose the Isaac system because it performed well in crash tests -- especially in side impacts -- and, most importantly, let me disconnect and leave it behind, so I wouldn't get stuck in a burning car. Then the SCCA took it away from me. When I crashed using an SFI product I didn't have the lateral support and I fractured my neck. Then the fire started and I got cooked. That's why I'm suing the SCCA -- and everybody else -- for umpteen brazillion dollars."

[Wife and kids sobbing in the first row of the gallery.]

Attorney: "They took it away from you?"

Driver: "Yup, they were afraid they might get sued."

Attorney: "No further questions Your Honor."

The irony here is that SFI affiliation was once considered to reduce liability exposure. But now that it is designing products, every member can become a co-defendant.

You think it's too hard for a sanctioning body to figure out which products are safe? Go to Google, type "head and neck restraint" and click the button which reads "I'm feeling lucky." That's the defense? I'm too stoopid to Google?

gsbaker

04-14-2011, 04:43 PM

I think there's an easy explanation ... very few people have ever heard of the Isaac. I bought my HANS in 2004 but had never heard of an Isaac device until 2007 when I joined the IT forums (and I still, 4 years later, have never seen it discussed anywhere else, seen any ads for it, seen one at the track, etc.) Perhaps the forums where Gregg hangs out are the places that care because only those participants even know there's something to care about.
We all tend to live in small worlds, so it's only natural to not look over the fence to see what else is happening. There are some markets we dominate.

A stink is being raised everywhere. We are on every continent except Antarctica and our fastest growing customer base is former SFI users.

RacerBill

04-14-2011, 05:51 PM

But now that it is designing products, every member can become a co-defendant.

And TESTING them. I received information directly from SFI this week that lists the authorized testing laboratory for testing the Flame Resistance of a Head and Neck restraint as "SFI Test Laboratory, 15708 Pomerado Road, Ste. N208, Poway, CA 92064.

Matt Rowe

04-14-2011, 06:37 PM

pitbull113

04-14-2011, 06:43 PM

erlrich
" I'm really curious, and maybe some of you who frequent the other class forums (SM, AS, Prod, ???) can enlighten me; has there been the same level of opposition to the rule among other drivers & classes as we have seen here, or is it just that all the trouble-makers are racing in IT?"

Earl
I lurk in a lot of different forums. The majority of them are not voicing an issue. Seems to be just here in IT.com and the Sandbox.

cheers
dave parker
i started the same thread on the mazdaracers (new specmiata) and they pretty much called me stupid. everyone was for the mandate. I asked Jim D. to come over here and see another side of the issue.

CRallo

04-14-2011, 07:57 PM

How is this?

BOD members,

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...
- 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.

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

Sincerely,
Christopher Rallo
SCCA member 396934

Knestis

04-14-2011, 10:25 PM

A couple of impressions I picked up during an impromptu conversation on the subject last night.

1. Apparently the CRB/BOD does not believe there is test data to the current spec and that previous test data is not relevant as the spec has changed since testing in 2004(?).

2. The idea of the alternate safety group (RSI) formed to promote a publishing of performance based tests is being held against the makers of the ISAAC as they originally formed the group before handing off ownership to impartial parties.

3. There is a sense that this was already examined and significant new data will be required to sway the decision.

My letter is submitted, but I also sense the inevitable "thank you for your input" response.

Evidence of only one thing: They don't know the most basic facts about the actual sled testing protocols, the processes involved, how SFI works, or where 38.1 came from to be allowed to make a decision about our safety.

Which BOD/CRB members shared these ignorant opinions, please...?

K

EDIT - "ignorant" is a better word than "misinformed."

tom91ita

04-14-2011, 10:56 PM

..3. There is a sense that this was already examined and significant new data will be required to sway the decision.....

i am actually encouraged by this.

this at least implies that data was part of the original decision.

thanks for sending the letter.

gsbaker

04-15-2011, 08:38 AM

Recommended language assuming the Club feels, wisely or unwisely, that it is forced by circumstances to adopt a mandate: "...shall use a head and neck restraint certified to meet industry performance standards." That's all it takes.

The Club already recognizes Snell, FIA and SFI. It is difficult to believe it would knowingly and willingly expose its drivers to additional risk by not also recognizing an organization which provides completely transparent performance data.

At the end of the day it may well require a body count.

dickita15

04-15-2011, 08:49 AM

Gregg,
What would certified mean in that context.

Knestis

04-15-2011, 09:05 AM

i am actually encouraged by this.

this at least implies that data was part of the original decision.

thanks for sending the letter.

The issue is not a lack of "new data." The issue is that the BoD voted to support a system that they don't understand. Arguments 1 and 2 are evidence of that.

Re: Point 1. The sled testing protocols that result in the numbers have not changed. SFI 38.1.5.1.2-3 describe what the labs do. The physical test result standards were raised before 2004 but unless I'm mistaken they are:

Maximum Upper Neck Tension 4,000 N (899 lbs.)
Maximum Upper Neck Compression 4,000 N (899 lbs.)
Maximum Value of NIJ 1.0 (SFI 38.1.6.1.1)

If the Club wanted to get the good out of 38.1, it would simply stipulate that approved systems be subject to the same test (by the same labs) and result in the same maximum values (or minimum performance standard).

Re: Point 2. The Club seems to be completely OK with the fact that SFI member manufacturers wrote 38.1 - most notably, the HANS folks.

I have the dubious honor of actually having been invited to a meeting at SEMA years ago, when SFI was trying to write a spec for Halon fire systems. I know how the process works. When I pointed out that a spec might write out one of the reagents used at the time (1211 or 1301) - or not actually BE a spec that discriminated in any way on that feature - it became pretty clear that there was no chance for consensus on an answer to that question, since the manufacturers/importers at the time were split as to which they used.

But to the (flawed) point - the fact that Isaac and Isaac users pushed for an alternative is a problem ONLY TO THE DEGREE that one agrees that SFI is fundamentally flawed because it was promulgated by manufacturers and SFI; entities that anticipate competitive advantage from the existence of 38.1.

K

Knestis

04-15-2011, 09:07 AM

Since it's kind of hard to find...

K

Knestis

04-15-2011, 09:22 AM

Gregg,
What would certified mean in that context.

Exactly the same thing as it means under SFI 6.0. What folks fail to grasp is that the manufacturers SELF CERTIFY under 38.1 that all of the parts they put stickers on are the same as what the lab tested, results of which test are provided to SFI.

38.1.7.3 requires that the professional running the test authentic the results. Standard practice for any commercial testing lab, whether it's head restraints, radon tests, or urine samples.

But if you REALLY want to get to the core of the issue, that NOBODY among Club management seems to grasp, take a look at 38.1.1.2:

The procedures, test evaluations and standards contained herein, are intended only as minimum guidelines for construction and evaluation of products. Certification that products meet such minimum standards is made by the product manufacturer and products are not certified, endorsed or approved by SFI under this program. (Emphasis mine)

SFI CERTIFIES NOTHING. And they make the point twice:

Testing procedures and/or standards contained in this specification are intended for use only as a guide in determining compliance with the minimum performance requirements as defined herein. The granting and assignment of the "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1" logo/designation is in no way an endorsement or certification of product performance or reliability by SFI. SFI, its officers, directors and/or members assume no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for failure or malfunctions of a product under this program. (38.1.14.0 - Statement of Limitations)

Limitations. Ya think? REALLY...? I don't think it can be any clearer.

Arnie's not confident enough to put his neck on the line but the Club is hoping that mandating 38.1 will indemnify them when someone dies. As Scott Giles would say, "Good luck with that."

BOD and CRB members - The Club does not get out of this rule what you think we get out of the rule. Apply some critical thinking skills and do your damned jobs looking out for the TRUE interests of the membership.

K

gsbaker

04-15-2011, 09:42 AM

Gregg,
What would certified mean in that context.
Great question. The short answer is that the device carry a certification sticker from any entity. Racing organizations could list everything from ASTM to ISO and beyond (just to avoid some yahoo scribbling his own certification label on a piece of duct tape), but that's all that's needed to ensure safety.

Presently, it is a mix of entities that do (or don't) certify performance, depending on the label.

SFI: SFI does not certify anything, it just sells the sticker which reads that the manufacturer certifies conformance to a spec:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSq3zWkeGqAPXFULNGQkMbfjgC_0Ossk 9SJr_pTvI5451LJXlP7lw

FIA: With respect to H&N restraints, FIA has no performance requirements. They approve certain products which are authorized to carry the label. (Caveat: They may test on their 30g sled, but performance is not part of the spec.)

http://nwalfaclub.com/track/images/FIA_label.gif

Snell: Snell (bless them) actually certifies the product:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkxtDidiBCs0ufOBq7V9fnIZBPcpPt7 I1F8Tpuis07d-jHXjRAGA

RSI: RSI allows the use of its label, at no charge, only to those manufacturers whose products are listed on its performance page.

http://racingsafetyinstitute.org/Images/Logo/RSIListed.jpg
The manufacturer certifies that this product meets or exceeds RSI Specification XXX-XXXX listed at
http//www.racingsafetyinstitute.org

Matt Rowe

04-15-2011, 06:52 PM

wally2

04-16-2011, 12:02 AM

I'm really curious, and maybe some of you who frequent the other class forums (SM, AS, Prod, ???) can enlighten me; has there been the same level of opposition to the rule among other drivers & classes as we have seen here, or is it just that all the trouble-makers are racing in IT?

IT drivers, as a class, are probably the most negatively impacted by this mandate. They are poorer than GT/Prod/Formula racers (so less able to absorb the cost of HANS), the cars are slower than GT/Prod/Formula (so deceleration force is less severe/lethal), and the IT cars as raced still have some good frontal crush zone protection remaining. HANS is needlessly expensive and unnecessary for IT in my opinion.

IT cars are allowed a handheld fire bottle while GT/Prod/Formula require a more expensive fire system. So there is one example of a safety rule where IT is held to a lower standard, presumably in recognition of costs involved and remembering that IT is our entry-level race car prep.

lateapex911

04-16-2011, 06:50 AM

gsbaker

04-16-2011, 09:14 AM

All good points and ones that should be sent to the SCCA. Enough letters may cause another discussion but if we don't submit actual data and facts, at least to the latest group, I suspect the outcome will be the same. For example although I am sure Gregg has shown this before, can we provide a copy of the most recent test report with a clear comparison to the current SFI spec?
There is a ton of data available so, yes, that could be done for many products. It has already been reviewed and verified on the RSI site, which is the purpose of the organization, but anything non-proprietary could be presented.

If the CRB/BOD were sufficiently open-minded we would be happy to be part of a group that would go to Topeka and present the information.

gsbaker

04-16-2011, 09:33 AM

924Guy

04-16-2011, 12:25 PM

Ah, yes, nothing like engineering to a spec...

lateapex911

04-16-2011, 11:53 PM

The tethers should have little effect on the measures SFI uses (Fz and My), but they play a role in how the head decelerates, which is not measured. If that were measured against a reasonable limit, several devices would lose their stickers.

Yea? I'd rather KNOW..as in see actual test results...
..isn't that the point of the certification!? That THIS unit in THIS configuration meets this minimum (or has XYZ results) ???

gsbaker

04-18-2011, 02:41 PM

Yea? I'd rather KNOW..as in see actual test results...
..isn't that the point of the certification!? That THIS unit in THIS configuration meets this minimum (or has XYZ results) ???
You and many other people.

The SFI-RSI comparison is, at a very basic level, rather simple. I can't give an example of the classic "visitor from another planet," but we get inquiries from foreign countries where the concept of a certification label is new, if not unheard of. People have done enough basic research that this conversation has occurred more than once:
Caller: "Just so I understand, the SFI label involves money changing hands, but a product's performance data are hidden."

Us: "Correct."

Caller: "And with RSI, there is no charge to anyone, and the test data is transparent, on the Web site."

Us: "Correct."

Caller: "So, why does anyone use the SFI label?"

tom91ita

04-18-2011, 03:20 PM

..............

Caller: "So, why does anyone use the SFI label?"

so they don't have to list their data. in other words, if someone has a superior design or better price point, it will be very obvious.

for $xyz, i can get xy% reduction in neck strain. or i can spent 2 x $xyz even though it only reduces strain by another 0.1%.

gee, i think i'll buy the xxx model.

lateapex911

04-18-2011, 03:49 PM

One issue that I will investigate when I return home is the potential that I see for manufacturers to do a quick switch of componentry of the product. I think Safety Solutions recently advertised or announced the "upgrade" of some tethers to allow 90 degrees of head rotation, well above that of their previous tethers.

now, I'll admit right away that I can't draw definitive conclusions, BUT, I can ask the question. The tethers obviously control head position, does the change in them impact performance of the whole during a crash? Or a crash test?

Because common sense would suggest that yes, it will affect performance. But, as sled tests are expensive, I have to wonder if SS can actually answer part two definitively.

And if I understand the spec requirements, changing parts requires retesting. The system is an honor one. Nobodys reaaaalllly checking and keeping tabs on who's doing what.

I know SFI actually certifies nothing. But, we as a club are pointing to them as our legal umbrella should a lawsuit come a-flying. It's always seemed to me that they'll merely say, "Read the spec, we certify nothing, go away". So what DO we GET...as a legal protection, from our 'partnership" (We are a PAYING SFI member).?????

So, I made a phone call, and the short story is, according to the gentleman I spoke with at Safety Solutions, yes, all changes to their products result in new sled tests.

Their two new updates, the 'Easy slide" tethers, and the streamlined chest strap system that doesn't use the seatbelts as part of the system for the Hybrid Pro have been tested. The easy slide tethers result in "virtually no change" in performance. The non use of the seatbelts with the new chest strap system resulted in a reduction of performance in both the 0 and 30 degree tests of 10 and 15% respectively.

I'm glad to know that they are doing their testing.

Finally, the 30 degree offset chart on their site lists the test results in pounds of neck tension, with the HANS numbers being pulled from an SAE paper. Hans:494, Hybrid pro: 105, and Hybrid: 22.
I questioned those numbers as being too good to be true but he assured me that they were accurate and comparable.

Knestis

04-18-2011, 04:39 PM

so they don't have to list their data. in other words, if someone has a superior design or better price point, it will be very obvious.

for , i can get xy% reduction in neck strain. or i can spent 2 x even though it only reduces strain by another 0.1%.

gee, i think i'll buy the xxx model.

...which is consistent with the true purpose of SFI - it's a trade association interested in helping its members achieve competitive advantages vs. non-members, but disinclined to encourage competition AMONG those members. See my Halon example above.

K

gsbaker

04-19-2011, 03:02 PM

Finally, the 30 degree offset chart on their site lists the test results in pounds of neck tension, with the HANS numbers being pulled from an SAE paper. Hans:494, Hybrid pro: 105, and Hybrid: 22.
I questioned those numbers as being too good to be true but he assured me that they were accurate and comparable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOXtWxhlsUg

gsbaker

04-19-2011, 03:04 PM

...which is consistent with the true purpose of SFI - it's a trade association interested in helping its members achieve competitive advantages vs. non-members, but disinclined to encourage competition AMONG those members. See my Halon example above.

K
Ironically, it's been know for about 1/2 a century that businesses in industries having pass-fail "standards" are less profitable than those in industries that are more open.

Eric Parham

04-20-2011, 07:36 AM

Geeez, I take a short multi-year break, and all hell breaks loose. I'm sure glad I decided to try coming back this year reather than next :)

I love my Isaac, and wouldn't feel safe anymore without it. I've only had time to read halfway through this thread so far, but have the following questions:

When did that happen? Isaac systems meet RSI spec 602, and are labeled as such.

Gregg, could you point us to a link for RSI spec 602?

Has SCCA (BOD rather than CRB?) been formally asked to list safety equipment meeting the above RSI spec as an official option to the SFI 38.1 (a.k.a. HANS) devices?

dickita15

04-20-2011, 07:49 AM

Has SCCA (BOD rather than CRB?) been formally asked to list safety equipment meeting the above RSI spec as an official option to the SFI 38.1 (a.k.a. HANS) devices?

Actually no

Knestis

04-20-2011, 08:10 AM

tom91ita

04-20-2011, 09:55 AM

Actually no

in 2010, i did not specifically note RSI's spec (don't remember it being available) but i effectively asked the same thing. twice. excerpts below:

There are also non SFI compliant devices that perform just as well or better than the HANS, most notably the Isaac (Figure 1). Isaac is not SFI compliant in part because it transfers the loads directly to the belts. Various technical papers have been published within the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

The Use of Dashpots in the Prevention of Basilar Skull Fractures
o This paper describes the development of a dashpot-based head and neck protection system. The primary objective of the project was to determine the feasibility of reducing head and neck loads by using dashpots, rather than restricting the position of the head by using tethers of the style typically employed in head restraint devices. http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2002-01-3306
Comparative Performance of Racing Head and Neck Restraints
o This paper consolidates the results of various tests with the results of previous tests, published and unpublished. http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2006-01-3631
Figure 1

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart1.GIF

Adopting the rationale that SFI is the design experts is essentially taking SCCA down the path that more equipment will have to be SFI certified. Please consider the following: The SFI 38.1 H&NR relies on a SFI or FIA belt in order to be used. These SFI or FIA belts are then connected to what? The SCCA certified rollcage. SFI has design standards of rollcages for various forms of racing. To mandate SFI equipment to be attached to non-SFI approved equipment is inconsistent. Also consider that SCCA allows for rollcage designs outside SCCA’s own design criteria. From the 2010 GCR Exceptions for Formula and Sports Racing Cars: "Any roll hoop design which does not comply with the specifications in 9.4.5, will only be considered if it is accompanied by engineering specifications signed by a registered engineer."

There is no similar allowance with regards to H&NR. Alternate designs proven via sled tests to meet or exceed the SFI38.1 performance requirements are not allowed. This is not consistent.

and again in subsequent note:

I would like to reiterate my opposition to the SFI requirement as I do not believe that SFI Certification does anything to improve my survivability in the event of an accident when I am already wearing an H&NR design that outperforms anything that SFI certifies.

The recent debacle with Impact racing products should give us all cause for concern. I am very reluctant to spend ~$700 on a device that can have the certification revoked over where the certification labels were sourced.

I have previously requested that the H&NR requirements be performance based rather than whether or not the device has the official SFI label. The documentation requirements can be met by using a third party such as RSI. A sanctioning body such as SCCA would only need to define a performance requirement in terms of the force exerted on the neck (SCCA could select the same force as defined by SFI). H&NR manufacturers would then submit test sled results completed by an independent lab to RSI for publication. RSI could compile these test results. The following is an example of what a driver could review and decide which would best meet their needs.

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart1.GIF

This methodology could easily supplement the SFI certification rule. If a device is later decertified by SFI as a result of where labels were sourced but has been proven in actual test sled results, then the SCCA members’ investment would not be deemed null and void.

The nearly 1000 words in the beginning of the GCR under the topics of Assumption of Risk and Release and Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk and Indemnity Agreement ought to count for something.

SCCA’s demands that I actually reduce my personal protection after I have literally signed away all rights to sue and litigate are unreasonable and have no place in a member driven organization.

and although i think that deFNder looks like a fine product, given the SFI/Impact/HANS counterfeit labels, attachment studs, etc., i would write SFI and get a message from them that DefeNDer meets their criteria and their continued non-listing on their website is a sloppy oversight before i would buy one.

Chip42

04-20-2011, 10:28 AM

and although i think that deFNder looks like a fine product, given the SFI/Impact/HANS counterfeit labels, attachment studs, etc., i would write SFI and get a message from them that DefeNDer meets their criteria and their continued non-listing on their website is a sloppy oversight before i would buy one.

The story I hear is that defNder overproduced in 2010, and is still selling their stock of 2010 SFI certified products. they have not registered a for 2011 SFI certification and SFI doens't list them as a result. the devices still meet the spec, and the stickered devices are still acceptable. could be misinformation, so if anyone can say otherwise...

RacerBill

04-20-2011, 10:40 AM

Actually no

In my letter to the CRB I did suggest including the RSI standard as well as SFI.

tom91ita

04-20-2011, 11:54 AM

Letter # 4674 submitted:

Dear BOD & CRB, April 20, 2011
RE: H&NR Requirements
First of all, I currently have a Head and Neck Restraint that meets the Racing Safety Institute RSI-602 standard. Please note that this standard actually results in less neck strain that SFI 38.1.
So although I am a H&NR user, I feel that SCCA limiting me to devices that only meet SFI 38.1 does not go far enough for my personal protection. Because of next year’s implementation of SFI 38.1, 2011 is my last planned year of SCCA participation.
I was a NASA member for a couple of years and left that organization because I did not believe that they had the attention to safety that SCCA afforded. Now that SCCA also no longer has the attention to safety that I desire, I intend to race elsewhere.
Tom Lamb
Member 115807_1
Former 25 year member

dickita15

04-20-2011, 03:21 PM

You're suggesting, Dick, that it would make a difference...? As though the SFI mandate resulted from a member's request to "please adopt SFI 38.1."

Again - the REAL problem is that we just haven't asked using the secret word...???

Sigh.

K

I am sorry I do not want to misrepresent. When this was first voted in December 2009 the there was a small amount of discussion of RSI. The few people in the room who had heard of it felt it had no credibility as Gregg was behind establishing it. Certainly hard to argue it as impartial.

Greg Amy

04-20-2011, 03:32 PM

The few people in the room who had heard of it felt it had no credibility as Gregg was behind establishing it. Certainly hard to argue it as impartial.
Did anyone point out the glaring conflict of interest with manufacturer-run SFI....?

tom91ita

04-20-2011, 03:59 PM

I am sorry I do not want to misrepresent. When this was first voted in December 2009 the there was a small amount of discussion of RSI. The few people in the room who had heard of it felt it had no credibility as Gregg was behind establishing it. Certainly hard to argue it as impartial.

there is a saying we have at work:

"DDD: We need to make Data Driven Decisions"

and there is a corollary: "there is nothing malicious about math."

the numbers are what they are. to that extent i would argue they are impartial. he compared published or advertised data from various sled tests.

do i think that Gregg felt compelled to look after his market share/interests? yes. i might consider that "self-serving" but it could still be impartial.

but this type of distinction is like trying to distinguish the differences between legal, ethical and moral.

just because something is "legal" does not mean it is ethical or moral. i think Gregg's behavior was perfectly acceptable on all three counts.

and i certainly appreciate your involvement and feedback here Dick. not trying to shoot the messenger on this. please do not take anything from me personally.

dickita15

04-20-2011, 05:24 PM

there is a saying we have at work:

"DDD: We need to make Data Driven Decisions"

and there is a corollary: "there is nothing malicious about math."

the numbers are what they are. to that extent i would argue they are impartial. he compared published or advertised data from various sled tests.

do i think that Gregg felt compelled to look after his market share/interests? yes. i might consider that "self-serving" but it could still be impartial.

but this type of distinction is like trying to distinguish the differences between legal, ethical and moral.

just because something is "legal" does not mean it is ethical or moral. i think Gregg's behavior was perfectly acceptable on all three counts.

what the BOD did was not.

and i certainly appreciate your involvement and feedback here Dick. not trying to shoot the messenger on this. please do not take anything from me personally.

Tom you are out of line. I agree that Gregg did nothing wrong. All I said was that RSI not being an independent organization makes it harder to sell as objective.
For you to say that the actions of the BOD are anything other than legal, ethical and moral is out of line.
While I disagree with the decision, every one of those 13 people on the BOD who voted on this did so because they firmly believe they were doing the best for the club.
I have no time for anyone who claims different. I am taking it personal. It is a pile of crap.

JeffYoung

04-20-2011, 05:42 PM

I will say that my six years racing with the SCCA has been an odd time in a lot of ways.

I love the Club and remain amazed that volunteers go out on Saturdays and Sundays and stand around so that I can race. I remain amazed that people donate large chunks of precious free time to participate in committees and leadership so that others can race.

At the same time, from the member standpoint, the SCCA can be a frustrating, sometimes backwards, sometimes irrational animal. Much like any club or large group of people.

But in all my interactions with the SCCA and the people who run it, even those I disagreed with vehemently, I've yet to meet anyone who appeared to be doing anything other than acting out of what they thought was in the best interest of the Club.

I echo Dick's comments on that 100%.

Is it right for Kirk and Greg and Gregg and others to call out what they see as bad decisions on the part of SCCA leadership on safety? Of course. Critical.

But the times when it's gotten personal about individual motives is when it has, for me anyway, crossed the line. We are all passionate about racing, and about the SCCA, and I think the least we can do is show each other some respect in our areas of disagreement.

The Club is facing extraordinary challenges right now with declining membership, the bad economy, and (in my view) a fractured classification system. And the Internet has served as an invaluable forum for addressing those and other issues. It resulted in the creation of ITR, and now Greg and other's efforts to get STL and U up and running (classes that at least to me, in theory, may be the future of non-spec Club Racing).

But at the same time -- and I am guilty of this -- I've seen the internet, and this forum, bring the level of discourse down, and make it too easy to engage in personal attacks, etc.

This forum used to be, in my opinion, one of the models for honest, sometimes heated, but always respectful discussion of Club Racing and IT issues. I wish we could go back to 04 or 05 and look at the postings then and see how we all used to treat each other and try to get back to that point.

It certainly seemed more productive to me back then. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is how it felt.

Knestis

04-20-2011, 06:55 PM

It is NOT a personal attack on anyone to suggest that a decision - even a well-intentioned one - by the BoD is unjust, if it is founded on fundamental misunderstandings that those involved don't seem inclined to address.

A "few people in the room" voiced the opinion that RSI is not credible because Gregg (and Isaac users) were involved in its creation. On the other hand, they voted to mandate SFI 38.1 DESPITE the fact that it was developed by the manufacturer members who profit from its existence. Did they not get that or did they choose to ignore it...?

That they did it means, AT BEST, that they simply, honestly don't understand how SFI works. In that instance, they are obligated by their position to educate themselves about the issue, particularly if they are going to make a decision about the members' safety. I'm obligated to try to help them understand, if they don't. I don't get invited to Board meetings so I use the channels available.

On the other hand, the Board's inconsistency might suggest that members are letting other interests influence their decision - I'm a jerk and they're tired of my noise, Gregg's got a bent sense of humor, F1 drivers use a HANS, little shock absorbers just aren't trustworthy, or whatever... By saying that, I am NOT suggesting that they are personally lining their pockets with blood money (for example); only that their decision is being influenced by factors other than the one ("who developed the standard") they are citing. It's SELF EVIDENT that this is the case. I'm not saying - or shouting - something that shouldn't be clear to anyone who looks at the situation, but they have to LOOK at the situation.

Is it unreasonable for emotions to run high when we're talking about - quite literally - our necks...?? Emotionally charged does not a personal attack make. What has changed in the past 5 years in this instance, Jeff, is the gravity of the decisions being made. Go back and look at the hollering about suggestions that the CRX should get tweaked so it wouldn't dominate ITA. Or that a bunch of ITS orphan 2-liter cars should get moved. Or that a "process" should be used to determine IT cars' weights... None of that mattered one bit by comparison to this issue.

I don't think it really matters if Board members are willfully or naively ignorant of key facts in this matter, but it matters that they are wrong. In the era of the Internet they don't really have any excuse for that.

K

JeffYoung

04-20-2011, 07:45 PM

I agree with a lot of that. I also think most of what you post is just factual disagreement -- and understandable frustration -- with this decision (and others).

I do think calling the Board of Directors or any other volunteer in SCCA "immoral" or "unethical" like Tom did is off the mark. By a lot.

My larger point, perhaps not expressed as well as I would like, is that is seems just 3-4-5 years ago, Internet discussions on race issues were much more productive. Now, in my view, they are contributing to member loss and leadership burnout.

I am by no means saying we stop discussing things on the Internet. I am saying we should all talk a hard look at the tone and manner in which we post. Greg A. is a pretty good example to follow -- he has become something to aspire to (in my opinion) in being factual and trying to keep a lid on his emotions. Better than me.

Tom's posted here a long time and seems like a great guy to me. But when the good guys start with the unethical and immoral stuff, well, Kirk, I think you know this pretty well. It really starts to turn off new members and burn out the leaders in volunteer positions.

Knestis

04-20-2011, 08:49 PM

The substance of this issue is infuriating at least two members with a half century of dues-paying participation between them, Jeff. Tone ain't crap compared to that.

K

tom91ita

04-21-2011, 06:39 AM

i removed the comment that Dick and Jeff called inappropriate. i respect their opinion on this board too much to not think they may be right.

i still feel that was happened was not acceptable but did not mean to infer that the folks involved were immoral or unethical.

i have no doubt that the people doing what they are doing are sincere and have the best interests of the club in mind. which is one reason it is so hard to use numbers to convince them.

basically, you cannot use objective criteria to convince folks that are using subjective criteria to decide. again, i am not trying to insult but am falling back on some long ago supervisory training. you can't use one mode to influence if someone is not influenced by that mode. if i took a few minutes i might find a website that could say this better than i.

sorry to offend.

tom

CRallo

04-21-2011, 11:16 AM

So I wrote my first letter and sent it off with loving care to [email protected] a week and a half ago, but have not gotten a response... Did I do something wrong? Did they get it? where is my letter number? thanks!

JeffYoung

04-21-2011, 11:29 AM

No problem (and I think Dick thinks the same).

The only point I'm trying to make is that the level of discourse here and on the Brownboard (I hate the word "Sandbox") I think really is doing our sport a disservice. I've talked to a lot of people in the paddock who read these forums but won't post and really feel like the perception is that IT racing is in disarray, and a mess, etc. when it really seems very healthy to me.

On top of that, these forums are one of the things that work to burn leadership out. You can only try to explain why you did something (that others disagree with) so many times, and getting called unethical or immoral for doing something you (as a volunteer) thought right gets tiresome.

I might be wrong, but I really think this place was a lot more positive and a lot more informative back in 05/06 when I was starting. But it might just be a case of the "good ole days" syndrom.

i removed the comment that Dick and Jeff called inappropriate. i respect their opinion on this board too much to not think they may be right.

i still feel that was happened was not acceptable but did not mean to infer that the folks involved were immoral or unethical.

i have no doubt that the people doing what they are doing are sincere and have the best interests of the club in mind. which is one reason it is so hard to use numbers to convince them.

basically, you cannot use objective criteria to convince folks that are using subjective criteria to decide. again, i am not trying to insult but am falling back on some long ago supervisory training. you can't use one mode to influence if someone is not influenced by that mode. if i took a few minutes i might find a website that could say this better than i.

sorry to offend.

tom

Greg Amy

04-21-2011, 11:44 AM

http://www.crbscca.com/

tom91ita

04-21-2011, 12:24 PM

I might be wrong, but I really think this place was a lot more positive and a lot more informative back in 05/06 when I was starting. But it might just be a case of the "good ole days" syndrom.

Jeff,

i would actually tend to agree with you. my general take is that the more involved one tries to be, the more frustrated one can become.

my racing took a hiatus once before in 97 when my wife died of cancer. a few years later, i attended the first honda challenge east coast vs. west coast race in mid-ohio. they had H5 for my car and were to have national championships at mid-ohio. i jumped in and gave it a try.

about the same time, the ITA to ITB move happened for my car. hey, now i have a shot and i got more involved with scca again. started being more active with regards to racing, some crewing/watching/drinking and some actual wrenching crewing.

raced some local ITB and won a few races. then started focusing on Big events like IT Fest and the ARRC a couple of times. the first ARRC i attended, i met a bunch of the NE guys, Greg, Jake, etc. and was like WOW, Road Atalanta is on my bucket list!

last year i attended/crewed at the runoffs at Road America and again was WOW! now i learn that i can join another club that runs at Road America (MCSCC) and will allow Isaacs.

so for this year and the immediate future (?), i could meet my desires of a couple of local races and a major track like Road America and use my existing non SFI 38.1 H&NR.

i don't need the policy / grief side of this in my life and will try to restrict comments and questions to car prep and driver technique. that was where my initial interests were in the first place.

if you are ever in the midwest and need a honda centric/tire thumper of a crew guy/beer gofer, let me know.

CRallo

04-21-2011, 02:36 PM

http://www.crbscca.com/

Didn't realize that was for eveything... Pardon my ignorance :/

Thanks!!!

#4693 submitted

Chip42

04-21-2011, 08:08 PM

I've just heard through one of my suppliers that Innovative Safety Technology is going to cease production of the DefNder. anyone else hear anything about this? I know HANS sued them ~2 years ago, could this be the result?

Gregg - the group that approved the ISAAC (RSI?) what's their story? could we get in touch about some things safety related but not H&R? we;re both in orlando, I'll buy the beer.

Eric Parham

04-22-2011, 10:10 AM

Gregg, could you point us to a link for RSI spec 602?

Has SCCA (BOD rather than CRB?) been formally asked to list safety equipment meeting the above RSI spec as an official option to the SFI 38.1 (a.k.a. HANS) devices?

Well, to answer my own question, I did find this link: http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/Head%20and%20Neck%20Restraints.html

I don't actually see the HNR test set-up described in much detail -- the harness test set-up has more. But perhaps it would be obvious to one better versed in this stuff. I'll send my request in to the BOD anyway, including the above link.

Bob Roth

04-30-2011, 06:52 PM

I think we are killing club racing with costs. .Think about the racer who sits out for a couple of years. Think of the costs; Physical, drivers school, Seat bracket, door bars, new belts, maybe a new helmet, and new HANS. Easily a $1000 just to do a couple of races per year. People don't many excuses to sell their car and go fishing. I am trying to get my recent grad cousin to get a car, and these costs are very real hindrance

For those that think this gear is required, please investigate NASCAR late model. We have 40 of those cars every saturday at our track. 100 mph, 400 hp cars on a 5/8 oval with concrete walls. No HANS, no driver schools, no physical, no belts rule, and you can run a 1995 helmet. With our sinking trends of turnouts, SCCA will be very safe soon because regionals will be gone and the cost of racing will be the cause. Here's the NASCAR rulebook http://www.lacrossespeedway.com/pdfs/latemodels_01.pdf

BruceG

05-01-2011, 02:20 PM

Well said, Bob.......and sadly true!!

gran racing

05-01-2011, 10:24 PM

It's all about fears of lawsuits and following the herd. I'm against the mandate, but don't see SCCA not going forward with this rule. Sucks IMO.

Rabbit05

05-02-2011, 06:38 AM

I agree with Dave. It does seem inevitable that the SCCA will go mandatory H&R requirements. And I also agree it will drive down new membership. Its expensive enough to go racing, now throw on an extra half a grand or more in safety equipment....sheesh.

BTW : In my quest for info to do some vintage racing I found this. In SVRA they mandated H&N restraints......not anymore.

http://www.svra.com/SVRA/SVRAHome.nsf/attachmentweb/SVRA-8EWKVH/$file/Technical+Bulletin+004.pdf?OpenElement

gran racing

05-02-2011, 07:43 AM

Now that is interesting! Their site also states they are an SFI affiliate sanctioning body, not sure what that means.

RacerBill

05-02-2011, 05:43 PM

Seems to mean that as an affiliate sanctioning body, they may have a greater say about the specifications that they publish, and that they have the right to require the use of equipment that has been certified by a manufacturer as being compliant to SFI specifications - does not mean that they have to use the specs.

gran racing

05-03-2011, 08:00 AM

My thought was if they have this status, there would be even more likelyhood of mandating the SFI requirement which makes quite interesting.

JohnRW

05-03-2011, 01:10 PM

Before you all get wound up in a tizzy about SVRA, I simply offer this view of SVRA @ Watkins Glen in Sept 2010 -
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4086/4994059559_3710dbe1b8.jpg

dickita15

05-03-2011, 02:59 PM

John, that is an unfair representation of a typical SVRA car, besides prewar cars were always exempt from H&N requirements under SVRA rules.

JohnRW

05-04-2011, 10:08 AM

John, that is an unfair representation of a typical SVRA car, besides prewar cars were always exempt from H&N requirements under SVRA rules.

I made no claim that these were typical SVRA competitors...but they were (and likely continue to be...) SVRA competitors. SVRA has exempted some of their classes from H&N rules...so their lifting of the mandate for the rest of their classes can't be considered a significant walk-back in their safety requirements. They have a more-conditional safety rules package than pretty much any other sanctioning organization in the US. Rollbars ? Not in every class. Rollcages ? Not in every class.

Cutting thru all the mumbo-jumbo...it's clear to me that they've decided that their cost to defend against future litigation is less than the impact of H&N requirements on their future business. Good for them. If I got that same advice, I'd do the same thing. Haven't gotten that advice.

gran racing

05-04-2011, 10:23 AM

Z3_GoCar

05-04-2011, 10:36 AM

There are many areas that SCCA could worry about litigation. Requiring an FIA seat to have a steel brace attached to the roll bar (which wasn't part of the FIA testing), number of heart attack deaths, how a seat is mounted to the car, and so on. It's all about risk management and not driving away membership.

Don't forget not requiring window net replacement on a 2-year interval...

On a related note I found this on the BMW board:

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21909536&postcount=86
Last year I requested a CR rule clarification on the expiration of (Safety Solutions) R3
tethers. At a 2010 club race a tech inspector had told me that since there was no date on my R3 tethers, I'd have to replace them. I then contacted Safety Solutions and they said that R3 tethers don't expire. My rule clarification request remains unaddressed.

Fast forward to present day. I just had an email exchange with Safety Solutions and they have restated that their tethers don't expire, and further, there's nothing in SFI 38.1 that requires the expiration of HNR tethers, whatever brand.

I'm a simple boy and this is somewhat confusing. On the one hand CR is mandating a tether expiration date because of SFI and on the other Safety Solutions says that 38.1 mandates no such thing. What am I missing here?

Somewhat related...Safety Solutions also said that next year 38.1 is going to say that HNR's have a 5yr life and will then have to be "recertified" by the mfr and get a new SFI sticker.

Greg Amy

05-04-2011, 10:56 AM

Safety Solutions also said that next year 38.1 is going to say that HNR's have a 5yr life and will then have to be "recertified" by the mfr and get a new SFI sticker.
Mo money. I had an older HANS "retrocertified" (they inspected it and stuck a sticker on it) and it was about $15 plus shipping (both ways). Of course, that didn't include any parts that needed replacing to get that "recertification" ("New tethers and anchors may be required")...I ended up spending about $125.

I'm sure all the Isaac owners are having a lot of empathy now for the DeFnder owners that are about to get butt-plugged...

We're all gonna be so safe now.

lateapex911

05-05-2011, 02:36 AM

Mo money. I had an older HANS "retrocertified" (they inspected it and stuck a sticker on it) and it was about $15 plus shipping (both ways). Of course, that didn't include any parts that needed replacing to get that "recertification" ("New tethers and anchors may be required")...I ended up spending about $125.

I'm sure all the Isaac owners are having a lot of empathy now for the DeFnder owners that are about to get butt-plugged...

We're all gonna be so safe now.

So they inspect the anchors? How? And decide if they are "good to go" another couple of years?. Weird. This is the same company that suggests that:

"Anecdotal reports indicate the HANS Device offers benefits even when worn under a 3-point OEM style of seatbelt. The user must also be wearing a helmet with HANS Device anchors on it.'" (form the FAQ section of their website:http://hansdevice.com/s.nl/sc.5/category.22/.f (http://hansdevice.com/s.nl/sc.5/category.22/.f)

So....in order for the thing to work, it MIGHT need new billet aluminum anchors, cuz, you know, they might have worn out from all the use...yet, your HANS will help even if you don't have stnadard racing belts!? Huh? (Insert joke about racing belts flying off HANS units anyway.....)
What am I missing. :shrug:

gsbaker

05-05-2011, 08:27 AM

Somewhat related...Safety Solutions also said that next year 38.1 is going to say that HNR's have a 5yr life and will then have to be "recertified" by the mfr and get a new SFI sticker.
You put a HANS device though a sled test it will have a life span of about 120 milliseconds.

Racerlinn

05-05-2011, 10:02 AM

Somewhat related...Safety Solutions also said that next year 38.1 is going to say that HNR's have a 5yr life and will then have to be "recertified" by the mfr and get a new SFI sticker.

Oh what the fuck...
Maybe this WILL be my last year of club racing.

tom91ita

05-05-2011, 10:29 AM

just curious how many letters were received by the CRB/BOD?

scanning the pages here and the sandbox looks like ~20-25 people said "i did...."

Knestis

05-05-2011, 11:17 AM

So now the manufacturers' organization not only tells you what to buy, but how often to buy it. In hindsight, I should have bought into SFI in 1987. It's a hell of a deal. For them.

K

Chip42

05-05-2011, 11:34 AM

I'm fully behind the idea of having your H&NR recertified after a wreck - hell you can put it in my logbook that such docs are required along with repairs at the next event.

but the amount of perishable equipment both on the car and the driver has reached absurd levels. seat (if following FIA), H&NR, window net, belts, helmet,... best case you're looking at ~$1500 every 5 years, with an additional 500+ every 10 (hat). and that's for the low-end FIA and SFI certified stuff. it's equivalent to reducing your entries by at least one a year IF you budget 5 years at a time. more than likely, it's going to result in a "bye year" every fifth year for a large percentage of the potential entrants. we have enough trouble getting guys back after taking a year off (for whatever) already. what will the fields look like in 6 years?

if regulated minima or driver's personal safety standards or needs put better than baseline equipment in the mix, the number can spiral to $10k+ over 5-10 years REALLY quickly.

and forget attracting new folks, particularly the younger crowd. car cost is approaching required gear costs. (assuming guys start getting out and the cost of strong, built cars drops a bit to the $3-4k range)

I hope I'm wrong

Russ Myers

05-05-2011, 11:41 AM

throw in the tire and fuel bills, it's easy to see why more are not coming out anymore.

Russ

gran racing

05-05-2011, 11:41 AM

I've asked this before but will again. How many successful law suits have there been for an organization now mandating HNRs? There are several hundred amateur motorsports sanctioning bodies in the U.S. (extending beyond our road racing bubble) that do not currently require this. Is that data out there or has been presented?

Racerlinn

05-05-2011, 11:46 AM

just curious how many letters were received by the CRB/BOD?

scanning the pages here and the sandbox looks like ~20-25 people said "i did...."

I got my "your letter was reviewed" return email yesterday.

If this required recert process is approved, I have now officially gone past my tipping point. I don't like golf. My friends have boats. I'm going to need to find a new hobby. Maybe it's time to build up a lo-cost in the garage and work on my welding skills.

tom91ita

05-05-2011, 12:15 PM

I got my "your letter was reviewed" return email yesterday.

If this required recert process is approved, I have now officially gone past my tipping point. I don't like golf. My friends have boats. I'm going to need to find a new hobby. Maybe it's time to build up a lo-cost in the garage and work on my welding skills.

i have been looking at bikes (used to have a 650 yamaha) and airplanes (used to fly with my Dad in his piper cub);

http://images.craigslist.org/3kc3m43o95V35W35S6b3s98eb71e0116d1ee6.jpg

so a $3-4,000 bike and go on a trip out west:

http://www.transalp.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=2612

or a $30,000 airplane (or most likely rent as necessary.....)

http://www.theplaneexchange.com/listman/listings/l0092.html

http://www.theplaneexchange.com/listman/listings/images/92_13_t.jpg

gran racing

05-05-2011, 01:27 PM

Because I’m such a big SFI fan and agree that there needs to be some certification process for head & neck restrain systems, I gave SNELL a call. As of now, they do not have plans of getting into this type of testing or certification. They stated that one of the issues is a better understanding of testing cervical stress tolerances and what truly are the best methods to test this. He stated that many (not just people within SNELL) are not satisfied that this is truly the best way to complete the testing. This was just a phone conversation we had and should not be taken as an official SNELL stance on the subject.

Head injury continues to be their focus, but they would forward proposals / requests to their directors to consider. Probably a long shot but one never knows especially if this came from SCCA BOD. At least this organization appears to be impartial and would be a great alternative to SFI.

JLawton

05-05-2011, 03:21 PM

Head injury continues to be their focus, but they would forward proposals / requests to their directors to consider. .

Sounds like a letter writing campaign is in order.........

pitbull113

05-05-2011, 03:56 PM

From what i've heard as of tuesday night it is out of the CRB's hands and up to the BOD. All letters should be directed to them. I'm sending the same letter to all members of the BOD and I hope all interested parties will do the same.:023:http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=89 this is the page with the link to e-mail all BOD members. Have at it guys and spread the word to others that don't come to this forum.

JeffYoung

05-05-2011, 04:35 PM

I agree with you.

I'm fully behind the idea of having your H&NR recertified after a wreck - hell you can put it in my logbook that such docs are required along with repairs at the next event.

but the amount of perishable equipment both on the car and the driver has reached absurd levels. seat (if following FIA), H&NR, window net, belts, helmet,... best case you're looking at ~$1500 every 5 years, with an additional 500+ every 10 (hat). and that's for the low-end FIA and SFI certified stuff. it's equivalent to reducing your entries by at least one a year IF you budget 5 years at a time. more than likely, it's going to result in a "bye year" every fifth year for a large percentage of the potential entrants. we have enough trouble getting guys back after taking a year off (for whatever) already. what will the fields look like in 6 years?

if regulated minima or driver's personal safety standards or needs put better than baseline equipment in the mix, the number can spiral to $10k+ over 5-10 years REALLY quickly.

and forget attracting new folks, particularly the younger crowd. car cost is approaching required gear costs. (assuming guys start getting out and the cost of strong, built cars drops a bit to the $3-4k range)

I hope I'm wrong

anthony1k

05-05-2011, 04:47 PM

Chip42

05-05-2011, 05:30 PM

OT but since escalating costs were brought up. Has anyone priced an AMB transponders lately? $399 was the lowest I've seen. I found the receipt for the one I bought in 2005, $259. Same exact gizmo, several boatloads sold since then, one would expect prices to fall not rise by over 50%. Isn't this the most blatant example of gouging racers?

it's the definition of monopolistic practices, but fails the "monopoly" test as there ARE competitors. they just aren't used by any of the major clubs or sactioning bodies we play with.

Greg Amy

05-05-2011, 06:07 PM

it's the definition of monopolistic practices, but fails the "monopoly" test as there ARE competitors.
That's called an "oligopoly", e.g., OPEC.

Chip42

05-05-2011, 07:55 PM

That's called an "oligopoly", e.g., OPEC.
I stand corrected, thanks!
I am but a second class wordsmith, but I am always learning.

gran racing

05-05-2011, 09:35 PM

It's much the same in the HNR sector. SFI & FIA.

Thoughts that need to be overcome, and not just letters of support. There are two parts, one requiring a HNR at all and then if so, the standards being used. Using this as a discussion board, how can some of these fears be put to rest?

The biggest is the fear of the club being sued and costing the club significant costs. What can the club and BOD do to protect itself? It's more than just "this is silly and will cost racers" although the added cost for member should be a factor.

The other problem I see is a lack of voices from membership being heard, although it's not unlike many other social issues. Overall, there's a small group of people that are actually speaking up even if the consensus is that members don't like this rule.

tom91ita

05-05-2011, 11:34 PM

it seems to come down to "how do i grow my business?" as K has alluded to in the past.....

first of all, one has to have a demand for the product..... so it helps to have demand driven by the sanctioning bodies via rules. but what do you do after that demand is met? it is not like the product wears out from actual use. so you have to have it "age" out....

it is starting to remind of big pharma and drugs like lipitor, etc. it is quite profitable to have a product that folks need to take every day or even every few years and so on.

so you either have a sinking fund and drop one entry per year from your schedule to compensate or take a year off every few, etc. personally, i have a hard time putting money in the bank each year with the idea that i will spend it on the car later..... it is more likely that it will turn into fresher tires, stiffer springs, more track time, etc. every year.

then when the trifecta of belts, H&NR, helmet comes due, perhpas take a year off. and when you take a year off, it is likely to be harder to come back the next year, etc.

I'm fully behind the idea of having your H&NR recertified after a wreck - hell you can put it in my logbook that such docs are required along with repairs at the next event.

but the amount of perishable equipment both on the car and the driver has reached absurd levels. seat (if following FIA), H&NR, window net, belts, helmet,... best case you're looking at ~$1500 every 5 years, with an additional 500+ every 10 (hat). and that's for the low-end FIA and SFI certified stuff. it's equivalent to reducing your entries by at least one a year IF you budget 5 years at a time. more than likely, it's going to result in a "bye year" every fifth year for a large percentage of the potential entrants. we have enough trouble getting guys back after taking a year off (for whatever) already. what will the fields look like in 6 years?

if regulated minima or driver's personal safety standards or needs put better than baseline equipment in the mix, the number can spiral to $10k+ over 5-10 years REALLY quickly.

and forget attracting new folks, particularly the younger crowd. car cost is approaching required gear costs. (assuming guys start getting out and the cost of strong, built cars drops a bit to the $3-4k range)

I hope I'm wrong

ddewhurst

05-06-2011, 08:11 AM

Called Defnder the other day.

Will no longer manufacture/sell their device.

Will sell straps/bolts/repair stuff ongoing.

Who knows the offical scoop with Defnder? :shrug: Their not talking.

Racerlinn

05-06-2011, 08:12 AM

The response from my BoD member basically followed the line of "we have to protect ourselves from ourselves". With a "hey I don't like SFI, but it's all we got" message.

Hmm, always was interested in taking up kayaking...wonder if those are certified by anyone....

Greg Amy

05-06-2011, 08:40 AM

Who knows the offical scoop with Defnder? :shrug: Their not talking.
According to correspondence I've seen/received, they are 'no longer pursuing SFI certification' and they've 'not yet made the decision' as to whether they'll "re-certify" existing units after 5 years. No official public announcement, but that's what private emails from them and SFI are saying.

This now leaves two "SFI certified" 38.1 manufacturers: HANS and Safety Solutions. It's now a "duopoly".

GA

gran racing

05-06-2011, 09:07 AM

From what I was told, this is one of the owner's businesses and it comes down to money. This is not coming from the owner's mouth so who knows.

Ron Earp

05-06-2011, 09:54 AM

Tried of people who don't race making rules and regulations in this club that are not founded in science or logic.

I'll keep racing. And I'll forge every blasted certification on every piece of safety gear I own.

dickita15

05-06-2011, 10:07 AM

Tried of people who don't race making rules and regulations in this club that are not founded in science or logic.

The entire CRB races. Of the 13 BOD 9 are current racers.

Ron Earp

05-06-2011, 10:43 AM

The entire CRB races. Of the 13 BOD 9 are current racers.

Ok, I'm wrong there and I'm likely wrong on a lot of this stuff because I've not been following the discussion like I should. I'll read up and not post knee jerk stupidness like I did.

I still feel the safety decisions are going in the wrong direction and are going to increase costs to the racers with no benefit to them. I'm sure I don't have the big picture, but I know I'll carefully choose equipment to minimize expenditures forced by rule changes. I might like to have a new Sparco Halo seat in my new build, but if it needs replacement in five years I'll put a Kirky ally seat in that doesn't.

StephenB

05-06-2011, 10:47 AM

Strange questions but figured someone here may have tried this with a friend in the past at some point... it kinda went along with this thread in the sence that most here are frustrated with costs.

I am contemplating sharing some safety equipment with a few friends and "sharing" some equipment between my two cars.

For example...
1.) I want to get an annual on two cars but I want to share things that can easily be swapped like the belts and a few other random parts between the two cars. Swapping the seat, belts, window net, etc will honestly save a few thousand dollars! Has anyone done this in the past?

2.) What about sharing personal safety equipment. (I have a twin so this would be easy for us since we are the same size) We both currently have helmets but I am thinking we could get each helmet fitted with anchors and then just purchase one Hans and share it. Provided we are in different sessions seperated by one race group or even an enduro with a third driver between the two of us so we can swap. Looking towards the future this may make our racing much more affordable! Has anyone ever tried this in the past?

Just trying to think a little outside the box to keep racing into the future. BUT I am concerned that Tech will say no-no-no when we show up together.

Stephen

PS: I did send a letter a while ago and got a response that a decision was made and I will have an answer in the next fasttrack.

Greg Amy

05-06-2011, 10:57 AM

1.) I want to get an annual on two cars but I want to share things that can easily be swapped...
The equipment will need to be physically installed on each car as it is tech'd, otherwise you'll get a notation in the logbook that "xxx must be installed (and inspected) by next race". What happens after that is your responsibility.

2.) What about sharing personal safety equipment.Jeremy and I share a HANS. That's no problem now since it's not a required item, but next year we will have to appear at race tech individually to get our gear tech'd. From there the compliance checks for getting onto the track will be the same as it is for now: you'll get checked on the grid. As long as you're wearing the required personal safety gear on the grid, I don't see where sharing it will be a problem.

GA

Chip42

05-06-2011, 11:07 AM

Stephen - don't get your anual tech gear check at the same time, swap your H&NR and you'll be fine - the sticker goes on the helmet, and unless that policy changes all you need to show is the helmet between annual gear tech. just make sure you both DO wear the device on track.

as for swapping seat and belts betwee cars - this can get old fast, and the belts CAN start to fray of you have to run them through their adjusters repeatedly. it's not really likely, but this is one of the lower recurring costs - spend 350 on a 5-pt FIA belt set for each car every 5 years. ditto seats - if you are worried about seat costs, getting an aluminum thing with no testing or certification is apparently awesome if it has a back brace, or so I'm told. right now we DON'T expire FIA seats, so they aren't perishable. since your codriver is your twin, you get the easy way out of the rails issue, too. if the rules are expected to stay as they are, we can all buy racetech or simillar FIA seats with back brace mounts and use them until they fall apart, and then some.

dickita15

05-06-2011, 12:27 PM

Ok, I'm wrong there and I'm likely wrong on a lot of this stuff because I've not been following the discussion like I should. I'll read up and not post knee jerk stupidness like I did.

I still feel the safety decisions are going in the wrong direction and are going to increase costs to the racers with no benefit to them. I'm sure I don't have the big picture, but I know I'll carefully choose equipment to minimize expenditures forced by rule changes. I might like to have a new Sparco Halo seat in my new build, but if it needs replacement in five years I'll put a Kirky ally seat in that doesn't.

Ron I do not disagree with you just pointing out that one reason is incorrect. All these changes are really not a big deal for the hard core racer. The cost of a Hans for a guy that runs 10 weekends a year is not a huge cost per race. We are however making it harder for the casual racer who runs a couple of weekends a year to stay involved with racing.

Greg Amy

05-06-2011, 12:39 PM

All these changes are really not a big deal for the hard core racer....We are however making it harder for the casual racer who runs a couple of weekends a year to stay involved with racing.
Problem is, Dick, the "hard core racer" never stays that way in Club Racing for long. There's only so many Ken Paysons in this world; many more will jump in but inevitably scale back (or choose to volunteer), with the vast majority becoming ScottKs and DarrellLs* who get frustrated with the time and money required and go do other things.

SCCA Club Racing's very survival depends on these Scotts and Darrells. Make those go away and there's not enough Kens left to make it a viable existence.

GA

* Two CT friends of mine who have become frustrated with the amount of time and money it costs to go club racing. They have both thrown in the towel just this past racing year, sold off everything racing-related, and are doing other hobbies and/or spending more time with their family.

Ron Earp

05-06-2011, 12:46 PM

We are however making it harder for the casual racer who runs a couple of weekends a year to stay involved with racing.

Yes, and these people are important to the club. They can either become hard core racers, stay the same, or leave all together. To me they are an important demographic that must be captured as they're the future of the club. Hard core racers are just that and they're going to race no matter what. These casual racers are how the club might grow and prosper.

Edit- I see Greg has posted essentially the same thing as I did as I went away from my computer for too long before hitting enter.

Chip42

05-06-2011, 01:30 PM

What I keep hearing are the clubs 2 biggest "issues" are new memberships and member retention.

true, not all members race - many NEVER do, they volunteer, crew, or are spouses and the like.

but what's the point if there is no racing? the rules are confusing for many classes to the younger generation. with Drifting and hard parking being the paradigm, it's understandable that IT, SM, SS, and T confuse them a little. ST should help to close that gap. good.

Then there's the initial buy in - expensive in any organization, of the personal safety gear and updates to the car. again - an existing hurdle (adding the H&NR doesn't really add too much to this, but it can still be the difference in starting this year or next, or other tradeoffs). used equipment saves a lot of money here, and thats often a route used to get going. the issues for attracting new racers are evident and ongoing

Now we are discussing additional hurdles for the existing racer. we got them in, they purchased the gear - even the HANS or whatever. they buy new belts every so often. they pay their entries, they pay for the costs of racing. they probobly haven't gotten a substantive raise in 10 years, so the escalating costs compete with other escalating cost in their real life. and we are thinking of asking them to replace even more stuff? you won't get many of them back. many will quit just SEEING the cost on the horizon, hoping to get out before the used racecar market is flooded.

and the new members will see the long-temr costs and might jump ship too.

and why? to satisfy an industry or for safety? it's not like guys have been dying in droves over the last 20 years. we must have been doing something right. I agree that H&NRs are useful - I agree that a neck donut is also, though less-so. I'd love to see a root cause analysis for what serious injury and death we have seen, and brake it down to lack or failure of the safety equipment, failure of instalation of the equipment, car prep issues and mechanical failure, poor driver decisuions on track, and age or medical related problems.

I bet we'd find that revising the existing safety equipment instalation and inspection criteria would address the bulk of the problem.

yes - stuff breaks, wears out, and is needed anew for various reasons. one of them should not be based on expiration dates (I'm willing to allow belts based on known data and unknown storage conditions for the individual car). the industry's done pretty well up to now based on that alone.

if it's lawyers you're worried about, find soem of our own to indemnify the club from incidents arrizing on track. I'm no lawyer, but it can't be that hard. spell out the risks, make us sign on the line that we understand them.

gran racing

05-06-2011, 01:46 PM

Maybe I'm unique, but back when I started another $800 or so would have been a big deal to me. I'm not sure it would have prevented me from getting started, but it would have been one more thing on a big list of items to overcome.

All these changes are really not a big deal for the hard core racer.

My wife tells me often that my life revolves around racing and that I'm addicted to it. The HNR mandate isn't enough to soley cause me to question the costs of racing to fun, but I will honestly say it has me giving it more serious thought.

Dick, have you or anyone else spoken with that vintage club about changing their requirements?

pitbull113

05-06-2011, 01:58 PM

I've read that the majority of deaths during road racing are caused by heart attacks. Maybe we should all wear heart monitors while we race and if the monitors detect a danger it cuts the ignition. :shrug:

erlrich

05-06-2011, 02:29 PM

Problem is, Dick, the "hard core racer" never stays that way in Club Racing for long. There's only so many Ken Paysons in this world; many more will jump in but inevitably scale back (or choose to volunteer), with the vast majority becoming ScottKs and DarrellLs* who get frustrated with the time and money required and go do other things.

SCCA Club Racing's very survival depends on these Scotts and Darrells. Make those go away and there's not enough Kens left to make it a viable existence.

GA

As one of those who has had to scale back - from a double driver's school + 5 or 6 events in '06 to just two events in each of the past 2 years - I will say that while the requirement to purchase a (another) H&N restraint (and a new helmet, since the one I have already has anchors for a soon-to-be illegal H&N restraint) will probably not keep me from racing, it will undoubtedly cause me to have to give up something next year - at a minimum an event - maybe more.

On top of that, and even worse IMO, it has caused me to seriously consider whether I want to continue racing, at least with the SCCA. I'm guessing I will, mostly because I've met and had the opportunity to race (and work) with some really great, talented folks...but that's probably the only thing that keeps me from going away. I've really lost a lot of...faith...in the club's leaders, or at least in their ability to understand, and empathize with those of us who have very limited resources to put into this hobby. Then again, maybe I was just fooling myself to think they ever did?

Racerlinn

05-06-2011, 02:55 PM

What to satisfy an industry or for safety?

This has nothing to do with safety. It's all about covering of asses and money. And I don't believe it will make a damn bit of difference.

spawpoet

05-06-2011, 03:15 PM

As one of those who has had to scale back - from a double driver's school + 5 or 6 events in '06 to just two events in each of the past 2 years - I will say that while the requirement to purchase a (another) H&N restraint (and a new helmet, since the one I have already has anchors for a soon-to-be illegal H&N restraint) will probably not keep me from racing, it will undoubtedly cause me to have to give up something next year - at a minimum an event - maybe more.

On top of that, and even worse IMO, it has caused me to seriously consider whether I want to continue racing, at least with the SCCA. I'm guessing I will, mostly because I've met and had the opportunity to race (and work) with some really great, talented folks...but that's probably the only thing that keeps me from going away. I've really lost a lot of...faith...in the club's leaders, or at least in their ability to understand, and empathize with those of us who have very limited resources to put into this hobby. Then again, maybe I was just fooling myself to think they ever did?

My situation is very similar, and you echo my sentiments re: the H&N requirements exactly. And it's not just this decision (or similar requirements that may have preceded it) that makes one rethink involvement in the SCCA. It's the mandates down the road that somebody else in the club is sure to dream up, that may make racing even more prohibitive that worry me. We all want to be safe, but there is a law of diminishing returns with safety mandates just like anything else. Alot of racers will be cutting out a race weekend or two just to pay for their new H&N. I fall in to that category. How many more are there?

Jeremy Billiel

05-06-2011, 03:24 PM

gsbaker

05-06-2011, 03:33 PM

...anyone else spoken with that vintage club about changing their requirements?
SVRA was getting much resistance from members, many of whom did not want to 1) spend the money, and 2) chop up a potentially valuable vintage racer in order to remount the shoulder belts. Isaac products have been in SVRA for many years.

Addressing your post about organizations being sued for injuries, I'm not aware of any cases, which is interesting given the injuries/fatalities that occur among drivers who both do and do not use the products. It is possible the Burgess case (SCCA fire death at Daytona) is percolating, but I'm not certain of the facts.

Racerlinn

05-06-2011, 03:44 PM

Have you guys been to the race track recently? Go count me how many enclosed trailer there are larger than 26 feet long and how many semi's. Look racing is not cheap....

This bitching is wasting your time. The reality is you are the minority. Now, can SCCA be as successful without the average joe? Nope, but SCCA will still survive.

Hey jeremy, what happens when they decide you have to pay $$ every year to have your cage inspected and certified? And that if you helmet has a surface scratch, it has to be sent back to the manufacturer for testing. And your gloves have to be replaced evey year because they have dates on them and are a "wear item"?
No stretch of the imagination here.
I'd I will damn will bitch about it, because there's not much that really pisses me off, but this does. And makes me wonder how much a mid-pack ITA car will be worth in 2012. Or maybe I'll just take it to the local short track and beat the hell out of it. God knows I'm safer in my car there than any of the other mini-stocks.

Jeremy Billiel

05-06-2011, 03:49 PM

Jeremy Billiel

05-06-2011, 03:53 PM

I would also remind everyone that regions pay an amount of money for insurance to rent the track. This insurance is for liability and damage to the track.

While you may not like it, mandatory hans devices and pro-active safety systems reduces the insurance costs which means you race more. if the club does not do these things then you pay more in entry fees to run.

Which woudl you prefer? It one takes one lawsuit (see Rally for example) to shut this down or make it so cost prohibitive the club can no longer afford the insurance to put on races.

gran racing

05-06-2011, 03:57 PM

Are you saying the pricing for insurance will decrease by mandating as a fact? Then how by how much? No guesses, actual numbers.

Then how much does SCCA stand to lose in other aspects be it reduced entries - fine, that may just impact regions.

This bitching is wasting your time.

That's odd, I thought Dick and a few other key people have been involved in this thread. I'm glad people don't just lay down this quickly.

erlrich

05-06-2011, 03:58 PM

Steve - I hate spending money on this stuff. Really I do, but it's part of the game. You need to pay to play. This sport unfortunately is very expensive. You either have the money or you don't. If you have the money it doesn't matter. if you don't have the money and can't afford to buy a hans, than you don't race one weekend or you walk away.

Exactly my point; I'm pretty sure the majority of the BoD feels the same way. And maybe you're right, maybe some of us don't belong here...

gran racing

05-06-2011, 03:59 PM

Don't worry Earl, Jeremy hasn't raced in quite a long time so......

spawpoet

05-06-2011, 04:04 PM

Have you guys been to the race track recently? Go count me how many enclosed trailer there are larger than 26 feet long and how many semi's. Look racing is not cheap....

This bitching is wasting your time. The reality is you are the minority. Now, can SCCA be as successful without the average joe? Nope, but SCCA will still survive.

Nobody is saying the SCCA wouldn't survive. And while there are plenty of semis and large enclosed trailers at the track on any given weekend there are just as many open trailers and guys on a budget. It affects us. You're right that our bitching is just wasting our time. Just as much as writing the letters opposing theses changes are us wasting our time. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it though.

spawpoet

05-06-2011, 04:08 PM

Then how much does SCCA stand to lose in other aspects be it reduced entries - fine, that may just impact regions.

This^^^^^ I can afford to race. I have a budget for it. Add a $1000 bill to my budget, and I will cut $1000 somewhere else. At least some of that will be in an entry fee or two to pay for my gear. How many more will cut their budget by cutting a race or two is the question.

Matt Rowe

05-06-2011, 04:19 PM

I would also remind everyone that regions pay an amount of money for insurance to rent the track. This insurance is for liability and damage to the track.

True

While you may not like it, mandatory hans devices and pro-active safety systems reduces the insurance costs which means you race more. if the club does not do these things then you pay more in entry fees to run.

NOT true. Premiums are based on loss history. With no lawsuits regarding HNR devices in our recent history and no way to prove the benefit (or lack thereof) in any crash injuries there is no way to reduce (or even estimate) the insurance cost.

Racerlinn

05-06-2011, 04:21 PM

Steve - I hate spending money on this stuff. Really I do, but it's part of the game. You need to pay to play. This sport unfortunately is very expensive. You either have the money or you don't. If you have the money it doesn't matter. if you don't have the money and can't afford to buy a hans, than you don't race one weekend or you walk away.

Huh. I guess I should just shut the fuck up. Huh. Really...

And your contention that insurance costs are being held down is pure bullshit as well.

dickita15

05-06-2011, 05:05 PM

gran racing

05-06-2011, 05:19 PM

I understood that Dick. Hell, I have to believe the casual racer is the majority of Club Racers otherwise we'd be wasting our money in pro stuff.

Jeremy Billiel

05-06-2011, 05:23 PM

Guys insurance costs are being held down because we have had few incidents and the hans mandates help to reduce our future losses(liabilities). I work in the insurance industry so I know a thing or 2 about how that works.

I do need to appoligize as my tone was not appropriate. I am frustrated because you guys are continuing to make arguements that are very narrow and you are not seeing the "big picture".

spawpoet

05-06-2011, 05:35 PM

Guys insurance costs are being held down because we have had few incidents and the hans mandates help to reduce our future losses(liabilities). .

No. A reasonable H&N mandate might help reduce future losses. Forcing people to throw away perfectly good H&N systems in exchange for the SFI mandated ones doesn't really help all that much. A question for those that might know. How much has the club and/or the club's ins. had to pay out in the past as a result of lawsuits/injuries in general?

CRallo

05-06-2011, 08:59 PM

It plain and simple: by FORCING us to throw out devices that perform better, this mandate opens the SCCA to liability and is a dangerous idea if we really are so worried about liability!

gran racing

05-06-2011, 09:24 PM

Yet again Jeremy, I ask you to quote actual numbers versus speculation. By making the HNR mandate, how much does it save the club on the policy? Not how much if someone sues, then wins $X, then insurance goes up $<insert guess>. Real dollars. You said that it would, so we want to know how much. Hell, if it's that much give a coupon to every member that buys a device that meets the club's requirements. Or reduce entry fees.

tom91ita

05-07-2011, 12:37 AM

so from the insurance viewpoint, what has caused the reduction in everyday car accident fatalities?

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

i was looking at the fatalities per 100 million miles, etc.

are cars safer? more airbags? more congestion?

http://thecityfix.com/u-s-traffic-fatalities-decline-despite-a-rise-in-congestion/

more restraints or better drivers?

is age a factor? price of fuel and slowdowns? seat belt enforcement?

because i am really curious why my car insurance keeps going up when the risk looks like so much less.........

and the other odd thing about my car insurance is for the better cars that have collision, the rate stays the same even though the car is worth less every year. i would think with the risk to the insurance company being less, the collision rate would decline?

what am i missing here on the risk vs. rate correlation?

Knestis

05-07-2011, 07:08 AM

You're not looking at price as influenced by supply and demand. They will charge exactly what folks will pay, just like anything else. Including gasoline at the pump.

By limiting the number of suppliers in the market (erecting barriers to entry and innovation, like design constraints) and driving mandates for drivers, SFI helps keep prices high for its members by managing BOTH sides.

K

gran racing

05-07-2011, 08:25 AM

Greed. Plain and simple.

Eagle7

05-07-2011, 09:24 AM

Jeremy Billiel

05-07-2011, 09:53 AM

Smart business strategy. Consumers getting ripped off. Lots of middlemen (including SCCA) that are part of the problem - some due to ignorance, some due to apathy, some protecting their share of the profits.

Thats exactly right! I am not in favor for SFI 38.1 either, but my point is its not nearly as simple as this board is making it. We are only looking at one side of the coin. Insurance is one of many other points that come into this equation along with risk manageement, etc...

Matt Rowe

05-07-2011, 10:44 AM

We are only looking at one side of the coin.

Agreed but I think we have to think bigger picture than just the insurance risk that you seem to be focused on.

The recurring topic of concern over the past several years in the club has been participation, member retention and new members. These are the factors that are most likely to drive (and require) serious changes in how the club operates.

What do we really think is most likely to cancel events and put regions out of business, the threat of lawsuits or taking increasing losses at events because the casual racers leave and no new ones join? I can tell you in all of the discussions I hear, no one is worried about insurance costs, it's all about the members.

Yet despite this focus on retention and drawing in new people this policy is completely contrary to that priority. There is no argument I have seen made that suggest this will help bring new people in or keep current racers coming to the track. Put simply, it adds to the the biggest problem that we currently have, and all of this at a time when costs keep rising. It just doesn't make sense.

Aanselm

05-07-2011, 01:51 PM

What about all the other clubs that already mandate the 38.1 spec, I know that BMW CCA, PCA, NASA require them. I agree that some sort on HNR mandate is needed.

tom91ita

05-07-2011, 04:14 PM

at least NASA was consistent. they said you would need one and they implemented it.

SCCA, as i recall it, had the CRB say they were recommended but were not required. i then bought the entry level Isaac since i felt we were free to get what we thought would best suit us.

then the BOD threw in a trump card of the mandate. the fact that two levels of governing are going on is part of what has my dander up.

gran racing

05-07-2011, 05:42 PM

What about the other several hundred auto racing sanctioning bodies that don't (not just road racing)?

For most expensive marque racing, a HNR is pennies to them.

Jeremy Billiel

05-07-2011, 06:14 PM

What about the other several hundred auto racing sanctioning bodies that don't (not just road racing)?

For most expensive marque racing, a HNR is pennies to them.

Like who? Are you talking about HPDE's?

gran racing

05-07-2011, 08:21 PM

No, not HPDEs. I'm opening it up to other forms of auto racing (the 95% other). Looking a paved circle track, dirt circle track, and the like.

I understand the concern of insurance rates and trying to protect the club. It's the balance that I have a problem with. Heck, as someone else mentioned make me sign some waiver that I will take responsibility for going out on the track without a HNR is I so desire.

I don't think this is a dead issue. The talk about how NASA and some other Clubs do things...I'd like to think of SCCA as a leader and have other clubs that want to be as good as us be followers. I realize the other is the easy way out.

tom91ita

05-07-2011, 10:26 PM

Like who? Are you talking about HPDE's?

Jeremy,

why not require HANs for the HPDE's? HANs cites "anectodal" evidence that they work with standard 3 point OEM harnesses.

also, regarding the insurance issue, what is the "industry standard" for determining which minors can have licenses? there have been lawsuits that have determined that parents cannot sign away the rights of their minor children. basically, any parent that would sign away the rights of their child obviously do not have the best interests of the child in mind.

i will not argue that some of these kids with 10 years in karts are better on the track than me. what i would argue is that there are no clear "standards" to determine if they are ready or mature enough to race.

and allowing them to run has nothing to do with reducing insurance risks imo, it has to do with marketing because SCCA wants to be able to point to the next wunderkid as having rose up through the SCCA ladder to reach IRL or F1, etc.

and 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).

honestly just trying to understand the "insurance" side of this when it does not seem to fit or be consistent. like using SCCA designs for the rollcage when SFI or FIA could be cited, etc. afterall, that is what the SFI belts and H&NR need to function properly.

lateapex911

05-08-2011, 12:57 AM

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.