HANS... the other shoe's dropped

[Z3_GoCar]

I just found this here:

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1723628

SFI SPEC 38.1 RECERTIFICATION - published: Sep 29, 2011

Dear Sanctioning Body Official:
A recent SFI Specification revision now requires that Head and Neck Restraint Devices which are certified to SFI Specification 38.1 be inspected and recertified every five (5) years, effective January 1, 2012. Any existing certified device with an SFI 38.1 conformance label must be sent back to the original manufacturer for inspection after five (5) years from the date of manufacture punched out on the label. Product inspection, maintenance, and/or replacement procedure will be per individual manufacturer. Inspection must be done by the original manufacturer only, and not their authorized resellers or dealers (http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1723628#).

When a device is determined by the original manufacturer to be acceptable for continued use, that manufacturer will affix a new SFI 38.1 conformance label marked with the inspection date and it will be valid for use for another five (5) years from that date.

Sanctioning Bodies requiring 38.1 devices will begin enforcing the five (5) year recertification rule as of January 1, 2012

Best regards,
CARL V. OLSON
Motorsports (http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1723628#) Manager,
SFI Foundation, Inc.

[pitbull113]

F*@K YOU SFI :bash_1_::mad1:

[ShelbyRacer]

Well, now that the rules of the game have changed, perhaps we can get the BoD to reconsider implementation of Spec 38.1. I'll be writing my letter tomorrow...

[lateapex911]

More reactions here:

http://roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=36651&page=2

[tom91ita]

after reading this, two things strike me:

SCCA requires racers to buy something that was made to 38.1. Nothing in the GCR as noted says it has to stay that way. no doubt they will change that.

but the part of "Dear Sanctioning Body Official" and then "you must enforce" at the end really sounds odd.

[ShelbyRacer]

SCCA requires racers to buy something that was made to 38.1. Nothing in the GCR as noted says it has to stay that way. no doubt they will change that.


Problem is, in order to truly be to the spec of 38.1, it is now inherent that it must be reinspected, or the certification is invalid. According to SFI, it needs that sticker to "meet" the requirements (it is apparently a load-bearing sticker). In order to have that sticker, it must be reinspected.

Current rule: "As of 1/1/12, head and neck restraints meeting SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858 will be
required."



but the part of "Dear Sanctioning Body Official" and then "you must enforce" at the end really sounds odd.

I don't know, it sounds VERY much like I would expect from SFI, given what I have seen.


BTW- Interestingly enough- from the SFI website---

August 19, 2011 - Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) Club Racing recently sent out an email reminding its membership that beginning January 1, 2012, Head and Neck Restraint Devices meeting SFI Spec 38.1 will become mandatory in Club Racing Regional, National and Driver School events. In December 2009, the SCCA Board of Directors approved the motion to require a device meeting SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858 specifications, and the announcement appeared in the January 2010 issue of the SCCA publication Fastrack ® News.
The SCCA requirement specifically states in the rulebook, “As of 1/1/12, head and neck restraints meeting SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858 will be required.” The above mentioned email sent out by SCCA also went on to list certified devices which meet SFI 38.1 such as products currently produced by HANS and Safety Solutions.
SFI would like to add that there are also products from other manufacturers such as DefNder and Leatt Brace that were previously certified and labeled as meeting SFI 38.1. They are not currently listed on the SFI website because they are no longer in new production. However, any devices still in the field or at retail outlets that have SFI 38.1 stickers on them were properly tested and certified at the time. The certifications for those devices remain valid.

AND THEN----

September 28, 2011 - New Recertification Requirement for SFI 38.1 Head and Neck Restraint Devices
A recent SFI Specification revision now requires that Head and Neck Restraint Devices which are certified to SFI Specification 38.1 be inspected and recertified every five (5) years, effective January 1, 2012. Any existing certified device with an SFI 38.1 conformance label must be sent back to the original manufacturer for inspection after five (5) years from the date of manufacture punched out on the label. Product inspection, maintenance, and/or replacement procedure will be per individual manufacturer. Inspection must be done by the original manufacturer only, and not their authorized resellers or dealers.
When a device is determined by the original manufacturer to be acceptable for continued use, that manufacturer will affix a new SFI 38.1 conformance label marked with the inspection date and it will be valid for use for another five (5) years from that date.
Sanctioning Bodies requiring 38.1 devices will begin enforcing the five (5) year recertification rule as of January 1, 2012.

How would one go about getting a DefNder or Leatt Brace recertified? Will they still have a way to do so in 5 years? Will the companies be willing to do so, since they are obviously no longer willing to produce the product?

Of course, truly, this all could be a moot point, because if you select an FIA approved device, SFI and their requirements cease to matter at all.

[betamotorsports]

SFI's way of generating an on-going revenue stream.

[Knestis]

It's too late.

Barn ----------------> Horse

Not to put too fine a point on it but y'all should have been worrying about this back when those annoying ISAAC black helicopter SFI conspiracy nuts were bitching up a storm.

K

[chuck baader]

The quote below is from the BMW club racing rules..comments? Chuck

Any HANS device must have a Silver and Blue SFI 38.1 Sticker and/or a Silver and Black FIA 8858-2002 sticker. The SFI sticker is punched with month and year. This sticker does not expire and is not replaced when the tethers are replaced. The HANS Device itself does not expire and the stickers are never replaced.

[tom91ita]

The quote below is from the BMW club racing rules..comments? Chuck

Any HANS device must have a Silver and Blue SFI 38.1 Sticker and/or a Silver and Black FIA 8858-2002 sticker. The SFI sticker is punched with month and year. This sticker does not expire and is not replaced when the tethers are replaced. The HANS Device itself does not expire and the stickers are never replaced.

Chuck,

i think this is more like a rollercoaster than a city bus. once we get on the rollercoaster, there is no pulling the cord to say hey this is where i want to get off.....

if scca, etc. want to give up part of the 38.1 compliance, they need to re-write the rules to something like Dick had suggested to the BOD but was voted down. that is, the device has to meet the performance level of 38.1.

[mossaidis]

Of course, truly, this all could be a moot point, because if you select an FIA approved device, SFI and their requirements cease to matter at all.

bingo... now, point me to the nearest FIA certified device. :)

[chuck baader]

bingo... now, point me to the nearest FIA certified device. :)

HANS....:026:Chuck

[lateapex911]

bingo... now, point me to the nearest FIA certified device. :)

And thats the 'gotcha"
Lets just be straight here. The HANS people WROTE the SFI spec. They wrote it in a very narrow manner, so as to make it extremely difficult to create a design that HANS can't sue over. See DeFender, who had a product that HANS felt was a rip off, and has sued DeFender out of business, essentially.

So, simply put, HANS is in bed with SFI,
it's a racket.

But wait, it gets better.

"Go FIA!" you say?
Wonderful. That too is a HANS! You are still lining the devils pockets with gold.
"But it's better for me, and I'm what counts, My interests first" you say.
yea, I hear you.
But, isn't it RIDICULOUS that you can buy the SAME freakin thing from Bob, and it needs to be re-certified (New anchors and tethers, please hand over $100, thankyou) but Steve sells it to you and you are free from re-certifying?

It's all a bunch of BS, and sorry, that annoys me. SFI is here to take my money, first and foremost, and they cloak themselves as a "Safety Foundation" to make me feel good.

Well, I don't.
It's a racket.

This is yet another example of their business model. They 'discovered" that belts "fall apart" after 2 years, so now we replace them every two years. Yet none of us has seen two year old belts fall apart, there were no incidents where two year old belts were responsible for an injury. But hey, the belt manufacturers were "Nice enough" to share the "findings" with SFI, and the SFI did "the responsible thing in order to keep us safe" and we now buy belts at a rate of 2.5 times what we used to.

Geee, what angels those belt manufacturers are! They only more than DOUBLED their business!

It's a racket.

Now, this comes along. And in an of itself, it's not the end of the world.

But does anyone REALLY think this is it? When HANS saturates the market, sales will slow. That's BAD. (For HANS, AND SFI)
You KNOW a new SFI 38.1 is on the way. And with it will come language that means any sanctioning body mandating 38.1 will need to mandate 38.1v2014, and we will all get to buy new units. But hey, they will be better! We will all be safer!

it's a racket.
And we bought that racket when we let the camel sniff under the tent flap.

[Greg Amy]

bingo... now, point me to the nearest FIA certified device. :)
No device can be manufactured to meet FIA 8858 without violating HANS' patent. The FIA spec describes a HANS specifically.

Funny, that.

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/9BD6FEA5A7446CECC125731500412ACF/$FILE/3_FIA_Stand_8858_2002_Hans.pdf

[Sandro]

I could live with having to change tethers every 5 years, similar to seat belts. (although not excited about it)

Having to send it in so they can slap a sticker on it, just chaps my hide. Just put a label on the tethers like the seat belts have and call it a day.

[Knestis]

...and if you think it won't be something else before 5 years is up, then you still aren't listening.

THIS IS SFI'S BUSINESS PLAN WORKING PRECISELY THE WAY IT WAS DESCRIBED TO ME IN THE LATE 1980'S.

Seriously. Quote whining and take it like a man, people.

K

[tom91ita]

how long before we see something like the following fictional press release

<sarcasm>

News Release from HANS

Effective 1/1/2012, all HANS devices sold will only have SFI 38.1 certification and will no longer be available with FIA certification.

Also, all HANS devices sent in for SFI recertification will have the FIA certification labeling removed.

</sarcasm>

:dead_horse:

[Knestis]

...or your wheels have to be SFI certified. Or your roll cage.

Yeah, they've got specs for that.

Have fun!

K

[fivedimeracer]

I agree with Kirk, ...it's Creep of a different variety..

JZ

[mossaidis]

lemons or chump car series anyone? It's your only option at this point, and maybe EMRA or other local clubs :)

[tom91ita]

lemons or chump car series anyone? It's your only option at this point, and maybe EMRA or other local clubs :)

as i am no longer an scca member, LeMons is exactly where i am headed next year.

[Sandro]

as i am no longer an scca member, LeMons is exactly where i am headed next year.

and as Lemons and Chumpcar grow they will be eventually implementing the same rules. just takes one lawsuit and they will be playing by the same rules.

Welcome to modern day times, where lawsuits create the safety section of every rulebook.

[lateapex911]

and as Lemons and Chumpcar grow they will be eventually implementing the same rules. just takes one lawsuit and they will be playing by the same rules.

Welcome to modern day times, where lawsuits create the safety section of every rulebook.

It's interesting to look at who does, and does NOT require this stuff. Most roundy rounds do NOT. Even though these guys have hundreds of horsepower, slack cage rules and big old immovable walls a few feet up the track.
SVRA USED to require 38.1, but, recently REMOVED the requirement. If THAT doesn't open you up to a legal whacking, what will!?)
Midwest Council, and a PNW council/club have not required them.

i'm looking at my car and thinking "How old does it have to be to run vintage?". Sadly a move to an area of sanity isn't possible.

This is just another brick in the wall.

[downingracing]

lemons or chump car series anyone? It's your only option at this point, and maybe EMRA or other local clubs :)

No thanks. For me it is SCCA or nothing. I will never run with a group/club that is for-profit. I've got my reasons and they are all I need to make that decision.

Matt

(Who has not purchased a device yet and am not sure if/when that will happen...)

[lateapex911]

No thanks. For me it is SCCA or nothing. I will never run with a group/club that is for-profit. I've got my reasons and they are all I need to make that decision.

Matt

(Who has not purchased a device yet and am not sure if/when that will happen...)

I have a great device, you can buy it cheeeeep. Slightly used, but it performs better than the almighty HANS. Called an Isaac or something, LOL

[CRallo]

Just a few thoughts on the subject:

Any way we can take a lesson from how states have come to repeal Motorcycle Helmet Laws?


Wow, this IS a slippery slope!!!

Call me blind, but I didn't see it coming...

Might this be the ammo we need to win the battle to repeal/rephrase the 38.1 requirement? Did the greedy bastards push too far?

Can we organize? Would there be enough people to walk away?

How do they decide when to listen to the membership and when not to?

How do we break SFI?

Maybe I'll just drink the koolaid and get it over with!


K, thanks

[MMiskoe]

BTW when does the HANS patent run out? I'm not a patent lawyer, but I was under the impression that most patents are only good for 7 years HANS has been around a lot longer than that, I would expect the patent to expire soon, thus allowing people like Defender room to come back in.

The point of the pantent is to allow the manufacturer to have a decent production run w/o competition thus gaining back their developement costs. But its not forever.

Another question - why do the SFI & FIA Stickers on my 2005 HANS both have "VOID" all over them? That is some trick that HANS played to have the SFI sticker magically read VOID on it two weeks after the need to have it re-inspected every so often gets implemented. I just looked at my HANS and noticed the VOID markings on both stickers.

[lawtonglenn]

mine also have the low contrast "void" notation all over them

I'm thinking that the "void" word sticks to the HANS
even if you peel the sticker off, so the peeled off
sticker would say "VOID" in high contrast

but I'm not going to try it to make sure! :)

[Sandro]

the "void" is for if you get in an accident, they are supposed to peel the sticker, leaving the words "void."

Otherwise you could go put it on ebay and someone will be buying a Hans that could be damaged.

[lateapex911]

???? Who is "They"???
How does it get damaged in an incident?? How does anyone KNOW it's been damaged??

There is no HANS police unit at every track with every sanctioning body running around checking hidden G shock units to see if it should be 'voided"...:shrug:

[Knestis]

Historical perspective for those of you asleep at the switch since 2005.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13921&highlight=sfi

K

[ShelbyRacer]

Kirk-

I'm not sure that those of us who commented here were "asleep at the switch since 2005."

Many have answered the call and sent letters, only to have the BoD make a decision that flies in the face of both membership feedback and the recommendations of those who govern the affected program (seems like the old days of Comp Board 1 and Comp Board 2...). I think that's why many of us are frustrated to the level that we are- we have followed the procedure, written the paper, and discussed the situation with those who "represent" us, all to no avail. I am simply hoping that this new development, along with pressure from the membership and an obviously divided BoD, might get us the swing votes needed to explore other options...

[gran racing]

What I can certainly say is that if membership truly cared about these issues, we did a piss poor job at making it well known. I wonder how many letters were actually written? 30? Maybe 50? As Kirk and others are saying, we put ourselves in this position. Infact, I'm just as frustrated with all of the people that complain about this and never took 10 minutes to write to the BOD about it.

Maybe we as the Improved Touring category are more impacted with this due to it being an "entry" class and having lower spending budgets? Not sure if that's actually the case or not.

[Harvey]

Do you really think that it would have mattered how many letters were written?? I don't,this was a decision that was made at the BOD level for reasons that we may or may not understand, believe, or for that matter buy and right wrong or indifferent we have to abide by in order to continue to play.

I bought a DeFender after I was told that we had not adopted the 5 year recertification plan and I felt that I could at least get 3 to 4 years regardless from a device that was more comfortable and in my opinion better.

[Bill Miller]

Historical perspective for those of you asleep at the switch since 2005.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13921&highlight=sfi

K

Interesting read, thanks.

[darthmonkeyIT]

Do you really think that it would have mattered how many letters were written?? I don't,this was a decision that was made at the BOD level for reasons that we may or may not understand, believe, or for that matter buy and right wrong or indifferent we have to abide by in order to continue to play.

I bought a DeFender after I was told that we had not adopted the 5 year recertification plan and I felt that I could at least get 3 to 4 years regardless from a device that was more comfortable and in my opinion better.

I also bought a Defnder. My only concern now is showing up for tech next year and being told my device isn't on the "list" (being current SFI approved 38.1 devices). Then having to try and explain that the SFI sticker is still valid. Not to mention in four years if Defnder does not exist anymore I will not have an OEM to send my unit to to be recertified.

Here's to in four years Defnder still being around or another manufacturer providing a product on par if not better then the Defnder. Cause HANS doesn't fit that bill.

-Sean

[Knestis]

Except that (many of) you are continuing to miss the point. The issue is not H&N systems. They are pretty well understood to actually protect drivers. The issue is SFI, which now - because it actually affects their own pocketbooks - more drivers are suddenly beginning to understand.

Lots of the letters that were written took the "don't require me to use a device" position. That was not likely to gain any traction given the mechanisms by whick people are hurt and killed in race cars.

When "those ISAAC complainers" raised concerns about SFI's practices, we got told that "given the choice between VHS and Beta, you chose Beta" (truly, I found a quote) or words to that effect. They patted themselves on the back for making the right choice and ignored how SFI works (because THEY were clever enough to pick correctly), but now some of them are - gasp - discovering that it might NOT have just been black helicopters circling.

Yeah - I'm annoyed but now it's directed at the membership as much as, or more than, the decision makers.

K

[gran racing]

Lots of the letters that were written took the "don't require me to use a device" position.

I see nothing wrong with that and view it as an easier sell than trying to pioneer another way to define what's considered acceptable and what's not.

[dhardison]

I also bought a Defnder. My only concern now is showing up for tech next year and being told my device isn't on the "list" (being current SFI approved 38.1 devices). Then having to try and explain that the SFI sticker is still valid. Not to mention in four years if Defnder does not exist anymore I will not have an OEM to send my unit to to be recertified.

Defnder owner here as well. :shrug:

"Techincally", they should only be looking for an SFI or FIA sticker, not for any specific type/brand of device or working from a "list". We'll see..... :rolleyes: "Currently" the date on the SFI sticker shouldn't matter either, but I feel that's going to change.


Here's to in four years Defnder still being around or another manufacturer providing a product on par if not better then the Defnder. Cause HANS doesn't fit that bill. :023: <insert toasting beers icon>

[ShelbyRacer]

I believe my letter said something to the effect of:

If you can't come up with a better specification than SFI, then we shouldn't have a requirement.

My argument all along has been exactly what you're saying Kirk- SFI gives SCCA and other organizations a way to *say* they care about driver safety, while doing (almost) nothing to actually improve it.

I have a rock that keeps tigers away...

[Harvey]

The information that I got was that the DeFender will be OK. I understand your concern at tech and believe me I am sure that you will see some tech person some where that will try and ruin your weekend by telling you that the device is not legal. I will try and find the email that I received and post it here.

[Knestis]

>> I have a rock that keeps tigers away...

Racing safety shamanism. I like it.

K

[BruceG]

>> I have a rock that keeps tigers away...

Racing safety shamanism. I like it.

K

SFI will also be inspecting our collective nomex suits...where we all sh*t our shorts for not doing more to prevent this happening! I guess all the pissing contests we got into on the subject of H&N prevented us from seeing the forest from the trees.

[Dano77]

Ok so we know that the HANs Device is FIA certified and that cert will get us more time on the device. And they are the only FIA Device,correct?



WRONG Safety Solutions HYBRID Head Restraint is FIA Approved. In sitting around reading my latest Circle Track and Racing Technology ,page 20 It has an announcment that the Hybrid has obtained FIA Certification. Its more than the cheap HANS but it dosent require the Re-Cert that the hans does.

Just something to think about.

Dan

[tom91ita]

Ok so we know that the HANs Device is FIA certified and that cert will get us more time on the device. And they are the only FIA Device,correct?



WRONG Safety Solutions HYBRID Head Restraint is FIA Approved. In sitting around reading my latest Circle Track and Racing Technology ,page 20 It has an announcment that the Hybrid has obtained FIA Certification. Its more than the cheap HANS but it dosent require the Re-Cert that the hans does.

Just something to think about.

Dan

good to hear!

does it meet the specific FIA xxxx cited by SCCA?

[Greg Amy]

...my latest Circle Track and Racing Technology ,page 20 It has an announcment that the Hybrid has obtained FIA Certification.
That would be quite the trick, given that FIA Certification 8858 has design requirements and drawing that look suspiciously like a HANS...with no allowances for anything else.

Here is it, read it:

http://tinyurl.com/69ps83o

[RacerBill]

That would be quite the trick, given that FIA Certification 8858 has design requirements and drawing that look suspiciously like a HANS...with no allowances for anything else.

Here is it, read it:

http://tinyurl.com/69ps83o



Go to fia.com. There are two 8858 specifications, 8858-2002 and 8858-2010. The latter specifically mentions the HYBRID.

[joeg]

My HANS has no FIA label (only the teathers do).

It now has an SFI label (Paid HANS to put it on).

You need one label or the other (or both).

[ShelbyRacer]

Ok so we know that the HANs Device is FIA certified and that cert will get us more time on the device. And they are the only FIA Device,correct?



WRONG Safety Solutions HYBRID Head Restraint is FIA Approved. In sitting around reading my latest Circle Track and Racing Technology ,page 20 It has an announcment that the Hybrid has obtained FIA Certification. Its more than the cheap HANS but it dosent require the Re-Cert that the hans does.

Just something to think about.

Dan

Only problem is, the full specs do not currently appear on the FIA list, nor does the proper model designation line up with any current SS device (not to mention that the FIA specs not only by model, but also by size, and only the "med" appears with the obscure model number). Before I plop my money on the table, I want to see it in print.

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/B4C9D26E26B5320FC12578CC0038E07C/$FILE/L29_Approved_FHR_systems.pdf

I want to get *my* name on the list for having a system built for me...

Oh, and I'll be waiting to purchase any device until the smoke clears after all this stuff gets dealt with.

[Kai Noeske]

I don't get the whining about having to wear HNRs. Our cages are stable survival cells, and the seats and belts keep us in their centers. The one remaining weak link was the freely flapping head that will break your neck in a high G impact. HNRs fix that, for the cost of 2 tires shipped and mounted.

Whoever sobs about "personal responsibility" needs to get real. It's not about yourself and your little "freedom". Racing is a sport that requires many to play together to happen. It's really a team sport of individuals competing against each other to maximize the fun for everyone. Every death or injury that a HNR *could* have avoided helps to make racing less fun. It helps to make racing *more expensive and regulated* - insurance rates, knee jerk regulations. And guess what: if you get hurt or die, you are guaranteed to ruin the fun for a lot of folks. Because many of the racers and volunteer workers are your friends, and they bloody care about you.

So, yes. Kudos to SCCA for finally mandating HNRs.


That said, the SFI extortion deal to buy and keep paying for a product that is no longer top of the line is rock bottom. Is it only SCCA who was sucked into that bad deal, or does this affect the other big clubs as well? If so, it is time for the clubs to turn the knife around and form an "American Motorsport Safety Assessment" council or so and make *that* the standard. You wanna tell us that product X is safe, SFI? Did you just make the manufacturer pay so they could slap your label on? How about you show us those independent lab tests that actual did SNELL-style tests before *we* approve your stuff as safe? You want to tell us that product part Y needs inspection or replacement after Z years? Fine with us, if you can provide credible data. Don't have that? Tough luck. kthxbye.

[RacerBill]

...
That said, the SFI extortion deal to buy and keep paying for a product that is no longer top of the line is rock bottom. Is it only SCCA who was sucked into that bad deal, or does this affect the other big clubs as well? If so, it is time for the clubs to turn the knife around and form an "American Motorsport Safety Assessment" council or so and make *that* the standard. You wanna tell us that product X is safe, SFI? Did you just make the manufacturer pay so they could slap your label on? How about you show us those independent lab tests that actual did SNELL-style tests before *we* approve your stuff as safe? You want to tell us that product part Y needs inspection or replacement after Z years? Fine with us, if you can provide credible data. Don't have that? Tough luck. kthxbye.

Spot on!!!!!

Last week, at the Cincy Region meeting, the current Area director and the member who is also running for the office were asked about SFI and both expressed displeasure for the way SFI conducts business, implying that they would love to replace them with some other form of standards organization. They also agreed that it is the risk management group that is mandating that the SCCA utilize some form of standards certification for safety products. Could be that at least some of the board would like to find an alternative to SFI, but right now, they are the only game in town.

I would love to be independently wealthy and be able start such an organization, but all I have is time on my hands.

[Matt Rowe]

A couple of thoughts:

One, inspection works great until someone figures out that nicks and abrasions from normal wear and tear can compromise the composite in ways that can only be verified through destructive testing. How long do you think it will be before that $15 inspection and re-cert leads to a certain percentage of scrapped devices.

Two, it seems like we are probably 5 years away from an updated HANS, er SFI 38.1 spec. That will help refresh demand and cover the patent issue (20 years from date of invention or 17 from date of issue IIRC). Then all the inspections won't matter as everyone will be required to update to the new device in X years.

These are just a couple of the potential consequences of an organization that bases it's model on the sale of certification stickers. These principals can be applied to other devices beyond HNR (belt expiration dates that led to scrapping perfectly good quick release hardware sound familiar) so as Kirk correctly has been pointing out (for years) this isn't a HANS issue or a HNR issue, it is an issue with a manufacturer based organization influencing our hobby with no real stake in our success, health or enjoyment. If we were smart we would have a not-for-profit group developing impartial standards based on demonstrated risks but I fear that ship has long since sailed.

[Matt Rowe]

One last thought, for those thinking this will make some substantial change in the new 1/1/2012 requirements, I doubt it. Either those rules have already been approved or they will be within days. By the time any change in policy can be agreed to many will have already purchased devices to comply with the current 2012 GCR. So the immediate impact will be relatively minor and reverting back will only aggravate the people that purchased a new device so they can race in 2012. The blowback of yet ANOTHER flip-flop on HNR would be painful.

[Dano77]

From team simpsons website,

http://simpsonraceproducts.com/safety-solutions-hybrid-receives-fia-approval/

It seems as though they have done they're homework on this. But lets see if SFI has the last laugh

[mossaidis]

I would be motivated to get the Hybrid product with the FIA label and not the SFI label for obvious reasons. That simpson article was posted 7/1/2011, yet I can't find a site that sells the hybrid with the FIA certification. EDIT: Actually it is not clear to me, which Hybrid model is being referenced in the article, there are SO many models from safety solutions. Shit, I am lost. LOL!

[ShelbyRacer]

>> I have a rock that keeps tigers away...

Racing safety shamanism. I like it.

K

Wait, only by experiencing the pain and suffering of SFI can we understand SFI? We might be on to something here...

Oh, and I was notified in a vision that I must visit the spirit world every five years, or I can no longer be considered a valid shaman.

[titanium]

I don't get it.
First you say:


So, yes. Kudos to SCCA for finally mandating HNRs.


Then you continue:


How about you show us those independent lab tests that actual did SNELL-style tests before *we* approve your stuff as safe? You want to tell us that product part Y needs inspection or replacement after Z years? Fine with us, if you can provide credible data. Don't have that? Tough luck. kthxbye.

I never saw any 'credible data' that said our type of racing needed a HNR in the first place.
Or that the SCCA/SFI says we could save 'X number of lives annually' if we adopted mandatory HNR.

That's the data that I want to see...

Does the SCCA even keep records of driver fatalities at it's events and what was the cause?

[Z3_GoCar]

I never saw any 'credible data' that said our type of racing needed a HNR in the first place.
Or that the SCCA/SFI says we could save 'X number of lives annually' if we adopted mandatory HNR.

That's the data that I want to see...

Does the SCCA even keep records of driver fatalities at it's events and what was the cause?

There were at least two H&N fatalities that I know of in BMWCCA racing in the '95-'96 time frame. One was at PIR and the other at NHIS, thus CR's early adoption of SFI restraints.

[JLawton]

EDIT: Actually it is not clear to me, which Hybrid model is being referenced in the article, there are SO many models from safety solutions. Shit, I am lost. LOL!

It's the really expensive one.............. and it also says "FIA approved". ;)

[gran racing]

I'm with you Rodney.

The majority of deaths that I'm aware of in our form of Club Racing have mostly been heart attacks, not deaths due to head injuries. While my personal opinion is that people should buy a H&NR system, it's just one part of the package (which much is not regulated).

[Doc Bro]

There were at least two H&N fatalities that I know of in BMWCCA racing in the '95-'96 time frame. One was at PIR and the other at NHIS, thus CR's early adoption of SFI restraints.


James the NHIS fatality in BMWCCA as explained to me was most likely an MI not a HNR issue.

R

[tom91ita]

i am surprised that they allow open prod cars with a single roll bar.

i know that the front part of the cage is supposed to protect the driver (helmet below "line" between front "dash" bar and main bar.

as i recall, a few years ago there was a NASA Factory Five fatality where the car went off track upside down sideways, etc. and the single roll bar basically went into the dirt and the car ended up on the driver's head. they since allowed the FFives to add a front hoop at the same level as the main hoop.

the front high hoop ruins the appearance of the car imo but i would not race an open top without it.

driver was wearing a HANS iirc.

[mc-integra111]

Midwest Council, and a PNW council/club have not required them.
It's actually Midwestern Council, short for Midwestern Council of Sports Car Clubs. I think it is pretty safe that they will not be requiring them any time soon.


No thanks. For me it is SCCA or nothing. I will never run with a group/club that is for-profit. I've got my reasons and they are all I need to make that decision.

Midwestern Council is not-for-profit.

To anyone that is not happy with the new SCCA rule (has been a rule with NASA), let me extend an invitation to participate in MCSCC events. SCCA regional and national licenses are accepted without club membership. You could also submit your racing background and get a MC license (this would require MC membership).

[downingracing]

...Midwestern Council is not-for-profit.

To anyone that is not happy with the new SCCA rule (has been a rule with NASA), let me extend an invitation to participate in MCSCC events. SCCA regional and national licenses are accepted without club membership. You could also submit your racing background and get a MC license (this would require MC membership).

Thank you for the information - I appreciate it. I definately don't know much about MCSCC, but will look into it. Thanks.

Matt Downing

[tom91ita]

Jared,

MCSCC is my intent for next year. one question though when it comes to joint scca/mcscc weekends like Grattan this past summer;

are the grid workers SCCA or MCSCC? can i run w/o the HNR or will i be stopped, etc.?

[lateapex911]

I'd LOVE to run MW Council. From CT, it's not possible.

Kai, you're a smart guy, but you're missing the back story.

Also, the biggest killer in club racing is our lax medical screening. Most deaths have been because of medical incidents, and, in that we are lucky that they have been limited to the individual suffering the incident. (Not to sound crass). When something like that occurs, it is just luck and timing that the out of control car doesn't shoot down a pit road or someplace where spectators or workers are.

We won't fix the screening issue though, because if we actually DID screen more carefully, we'd lose a lot of drivers, and that would cost $.

But, I can not imagine that bright people who look at what REALLY happens on track, and who's REALLY being killed, can say with a straight face that the HNR rules are going to save more lives. Cuz the facts just don't back that up one bit. AND, when a guy dies from basilar skull fracture, he isn't unconscious behin the wheel of a floored throttle racecar, that could kill others.
I find it unnerving that we have decided to concentrate on an area that has shown little reason to worry, and ignore one that has shown repeated incidents, and incidents where the outcome was 'lucky'.
(this coming from a guy who spent the bucks 7+ years ago to get a great H&NR)

(This isn't to say that we shouldn't do things to keep ourselves safe. But certainly the method and road we've chosen has been unfortunate.)

[Bob Roth]

For what its worth, this is what I sent the board.


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

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

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

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

[Flyinglizard]

We race with these groups, SCCA, NASA, NASCAR, Chumpcar, etc. The faster cars get more respect from the drivers, simple as that.
The TA drivers that go 167 on the back straight @ Sebring have A H&N.
The Super lates that track out @ 80mph 1 in off the wall, have H&N.
The ITB cars that round the T 17 flagger flat down @ 113 dont have H&N.

It seems to be a self regulated deal. The fast cars that can hit the wall @ 125mph seems to have the H&N. No rules, just common sense

If SCCA "recommends" that a H&N be used, the liabilty is done.
If SCCA stipulates which H&N , than they have gained liability.

The short tracks have a lot more hard impacts than SCCA. few require any H&N, most recommend them.

SCCA has no regard to potential crash violence. The ITB cars dont carry the same inertia as the T1 or T2 cars.
Maybe the answer is to base any requirement on terminal V on track.
To put them all together , makes no sense.IMHO
My Son has a Dfender. When it looks like the straps are done, they will get renewed.
Use all the safety stuff you can afford. Pick the best one for you.
More rules just get more people to do something else.
Chumpcar had 3300 drivers last year for a reason.
MM

[Marcus Miller]

Midwest Council, and a PNW council/club have not required them.


and the PNW club is ICSCC www.icscc.com, or 'conference'.
Its made up of 4 (or 5) clubs in the area, running a common ruleset. They even recognize most if not all GCR classes, as the cars sit. They recognize several NASA classes, and they have additonal conference specific classes. I was surprised when I reviewed thier points standings, and race results to see they draw a large number of racers. They have larger fields than SCCA in this area.
The member club I'm joining cascades sports car club has been around since 1956. Certainly not newbies to the game.

I also ponied up 5 years ago, and bought a HANS; it was an uneducated purchase, from the perpective that I didn't know about/ think about side impacts. If I knew then I should have added a winged head restraint seat, I would have looked elsewhere.

Marcus formerly member #344609

[tom91ita]

i wonder if any thought was given to potential "retrospective" liability.

for instance, if the club adopted this policy because of fatal injuries to driver "X" at track "Y" then could the family of driver "X" sue under the grounds that if SCCA had had been following 'industry standards' then said driver would have survived?

[mc-integra111]

are the grid workers SCCA or MCSCC? can i run w/o the HNR or will i be stopped, etc.?

At the event this year it was about 50/50. The event was also run under SCCA safety rules.

IF the event would be run in the same format, SCCA safety (i.e. HNR) rules would be in effect. The good news is that I place an emphasis on IF, because I (unofficially) highly doubt the event will be undetaken in the same manner as last year.

[Z3_GoCar]

James the NHIS fatality in BMWCCA as explained to me was most likely an MI not a HNR issue.

R

Thanks for pointing that out Rob, I did not know that. As for the Spec Cobra fatality, I talked with a F&C worker that was there that day. It's the same track that I rolled the Z3 at, and the dirt is a fine silty soft and usually very dry. Dropped wheels will form a cloud of dust that hangs around for several laps. Let's just say his passing was quick, and very irreversable.

[darthmonkeyIT]

From a conceptual stand point regarding overall speed relative to the need for a H&R; Overall speed has little to do with it. Its about how fast the deceleration is.

Sure overall speed plays into how violent the incident is but if you are going 40 and hit another car you probably will feel little to nothing since both objects will move. If you are doing 40 and hit a stiff unprotected concrete wall the car (and your harnessed body) will stop in practially an instant leaving your head to be the forward moving object.

[tderonne]

Don't go fast enough to need a H&N restraint. Bologna!

Simple story. 30 MPH in a car. Head on, straight into a concrete barrier. Where would you rather be? You're brand new whatever with 14 airbags? Or you racecar with an FIA seat, 6 point belts, a helmet, and no H&N restraint?

It's an easy fact based answer. You DON'T want to be in the racecar. Test data exists to prove it. 30 MPH! If you wish, think of the H&N restraint as a helmet restraint. At the deceleration rates in even a 30 MPH sudden stop the extra weight of the helmet is a killer.

Risk is a whole different story. Please don't confuse it with the facts and physics.

[jjjanos]

It is beyond question that in a collision (only) having a H&N restraint is better than not having one. Where it gets fuzzy is whether the H&N reduces the overall risk of injury/death (decrease in collision only, but increased risk for fire and especially for fire if upside down).

It is also beyond question that in a collision (only) having the airbags is better than not having them.

SCCA requires airbags to be disarmed do they not?

Think of the liability involved in that... Attorney for the plantiff - "You required these drivers to disable a safety device, thus increasing the risk of injury and death?"

AFAIK, the only succesful safety equipment-related lawsuit lost by SCCA dealt with SCCA prohibiting racing seats in SS. I'm remembering this 3rd hand and from several years ago, so parts or all of it could be in error.

The car went into a roval wall backwards, the seat collapsed and the driver never walked again. He won his lawsuit (which also included the requirement that SCCA allow racing seats in SS cars.) That driver, who I believe is now deceased, also was very involved in designing a H&N restraint system and, I believe, fund raising for testing the device was done on this site.

[Marcus Miller]

Don't go fast enough to need a H&N restraint. Bologna!

Simple story. 30 MPH in a car. Head on, straight into a concrete barrier. Where would you rather be? You're brand new whatever with 14 airbags? Or you racecar with an FIA seat, 6 point belts, a helmet, and no H&N restraint?

It's an easy fact based answer. You DON'T want to be in the racecar. Test data exists to prove it. 30 MPH! If you wish, think of the H&N restraint as a helmet restraint. At the deceleration rates in even a 30 MPH sudden stop the extra weight of the helmet is a killer.

Risk is a whole different story. Please don't confuse it with the facts and physics.

+1 gimme the pillow, thanks.:smilie_pokal:

This shouldn't be a hnr v no hnr discussion. It's why SFi v fia+SFi v no requirement we need to focus on.

[Marcus Miller]

It is beyond question that in a collision (only) having a H&N restraint is better than not having one. Where it gets fuzzy is whether the H&N reduces the overall risk of injury/death (decrease in collision only, but increased risk for fire and especially for fire if upside down).

It is also beyond question that in a collision (only) having the airbags is better than not having them.

SCCA requires airbags to be disarmed do they not?

Think of the liability involved in that... Attorney for the plantiff - "You required these drivers to disable a safety device, thus increasing the risk of injury and death?"

AFAIK, the only succesful safety equipment-related lawsuit lost by SCCA dealt with SCCA prohibiting racing seats in SS. I'm remembering this 3rd hand and from several years ago, so parts or all of it could be in error.

The car went into a roval wall backwards, the seat collapsed and the driver never walked again. He won his lawsuit (which also included the requirement that SCCA allow racing seats in SS cars.) That driver, who I believe is now deceased, also was very involved in designing a H&N restraint system and, I believe, fund raising for testing the device was done on this site.

pants, I don't (didn't) know about the law suit, but the rest as I remember it (I believe) is correct. RIP, sir.
M.

[BruceG]

Thought it might be interesting to see what some other countries are doing re: H&N devices. It appears that Ireland only requires them for upper level FIA and Rally events. The only mention(of course) is a HANS.

[url]http://www.motorsportireland.com/UsefulInfo/safety.aspx

[BruceG]

It appears that the H&N requirementa are the same in Great Britain(few)and that some venues ban them!

[BruceG]

What's interesting is that both countries are even more mad about motorsports than we are, yet don't feel the need forsuch regulation.

[Greg Amy]

What's interesting is that both countries are even more mad about motorsports than we are, yet don't have the tort system with lawsuit-happy lawyers and plaintiffs that we have.
Fixed that for you...

[BruceG]

Fixed that for you...

Thanks, Greg....LOL

[Prince Makaha]

Someone needs to make a restraint device called "franz".

It could be anything from arm restraints to puffy knee padding to keep your knees from banging together in case of hard contact (ask geoff brabham).

[JS154]

Thanks for pointing that out Rob, I did not know that. As for the Spec Cobra fatality, I talked with a F&C worker that was there that day. It's the same track that I rolled the Z3 at, and the dirt is a fine silty soft and usually very dry. Dropped wheels will form a cloud of dust that hangs around for several laps. Let's just say his passing was quick, and very irreversable.


I was there for that incident at NHIS. It was 2005. It was neither MI nor HNR. Driver left the track alive.

[JS154]

I don't have any issue with sending in my HANS every few years for them to X-ray for microscopic cracks. My wife doesn't mind either. It's $15, I piss more than that away on crappy track food each weekend. Same with tethers, every 3 years a new set of tethers is not a big deal to me.

I DO have an issue with the BS specification that interior right side nets have to be replaced every two years, and the same for window nets. At the very least, window nets which are exposed to more light, dirt, grime and wear should be good for 5 years.

[dickita15]

I don't have any issue with sending in my HANS every few years for them to X-ray for microscopic cracks. My wife doesn't mind either. It's $15, I piss more than that away on crappy track food each weekend. Same with tethers, every 3 years a new set of tethers is not a big deal to me..
I have no reason to believe that recertification involves more than a visual inspection.



I DO have an issue with the BS specification that interior right side nets have to be replaced every two years, and the same for window nets. At the very least, window nets which are exposed to more light, dirt, grime and wear should be good for 5 years.
SCCA has no such rule.

[lateapex911]

I don't have any issue with sending in my HANS every few years for them to X-ray for microscopic cracks. My wife doesn't mind either. It's $15, I piss more than that away on crappy track food each weekend. Same with tethers, every 3 years a new set of tethers is not a big deal to me.

I DO have an issue with the BS specification that interior right side nets have to be replaced every two years, and the same for window nets. At the very least, window nets which are exposed to more light, dirt, grime and wear should be good for 5 years.

They X Ray them?? Really? Wow, I didn't know that.

[Marcus Miller]

I was there for that incident at NHIS. It was 2005. It was neither MI nor HNR. Driver left the track alive.

James was referring to an incident at Buttonwillow, nothing about NHMS.

[Z3_GoCar]

James was referring to an incident at Buttonwillow, nothing about NHMS.

Thanks Marcus, but I did refer to it. That event, as I percieved it, was one of the reasons why BMW Club Racing adopted the H&N restraints as strongly and as early as they did. I stand corrected on it, becuase I only know what I'd read on the Club Racing message boards at that time.

[Marcus Miller]

Aaahhh, I see it now, I just read what he had quoted..., my bad.

[dickita15]

A small victory was achieved in Topeka this weekend. Look for a tech bulletin later this week after the language is vetted.

[Knestis]

SFI certified wheels won't be required until 2013...?

K

[Greg Amy]

No FIA-certified cages until 2014...?

;)

[tom91ita]

Dick,

is this relief for the Isaac crowd or from the re-certification process?

thanks,

[Greg Amy]

My guess is that SCCA will not enforce the five year SFI 38.1 re-certification process. Which kinda doesn't make sense, given the implied reasoning for requiring FIA/SFI 38.1 is that the Club has a certification against which to lean, legally and technically. However, it is consistent with the Club not requiring replacement of window nets every five years as well as not requiring replacement of FIA seats (or back brace it) every five years (but not consistent with seat belt replacement requirements).

GA

[mtownneon]

My guess is that SCCA will not enforce the five year SFI 38.1 re-certification process. Which kinda doesn't make sense, given the implied reasoning for requiring FIA/SFI 38.1 is that the Club has a certification against which to lean, legally and technically. However, it is consistent with the Club not requiring replacement of window nets every five years as well as not requiring replacement of FIA seats (or back brace it) every five years (but not consistent with seat belt replacement requirements).

GA

I'm learning that the only thing consistant about SCCA Club Racing is it's inconsistancy...........

[lateapex911]

My take is that it's a group of guys who are trying to do what they think is right in their mind. Now, with a bunch of people, that 'line" between right and wrong is tough to pin down, so the group might vote 3 to 4 on one thing and 4 to 3 on another that you and I see as nearly identical issues. then you fold in the fact that the group changes over time, and you get some inconsistencies.

The ITACs rejection of a simple engine mount allowance, years ago, and now their current acceptance of a much larger allowance that purportedly allows driveshaft rubber to be replaced as well, is a great example of this.

[Knestis]

What Greg said. If the Club isn't going to accept all of SFI 38.1, they are (a) not getting what the THINK they are getting (ignoring that they really aren't getting that anyway, and (b) going to eventually fall afoul of their buddies at SFI. My guess is that as along as SFI gets their geld, they won't care TOO hard but someone needs to read the restraint-of-trade - sorry, membership - agreement that they signed.

K

[Harvey]

I hope it at least it has to do with the recertification??

[dickita15]

Just got home. Short term is had to do with recertification. Long term to soon to tell.

[lawtonglenn]

.

just an FYI

one of our HANS devices was really old... before FIA or SFI stickers

so we sent it back for the $15 recertification, and it was back in our hands
last week, after only a week at HANS, with a newly minted sticker, and a new
head pad (replaced at no charge)

.

[jjjanos]

Just got home. Short term is had to do with recertification. Long term to soon to tell.

If so, it's an asinine decision. It's a farking stupid decision. The only thing they've accomplished is to impose a barrier fee to racers. Whatever legal "protection" they think they were going to get by imposing this rule is GONE and non-existent.

If they don't accept the entire specification, then they have no justification for imposing the stupid rule.

I'm opposed to the rule, but if they are going to impose it, thinking it gives them legal protection, then for damn certain they need to accept the entire standard to get the protection.

This is like claiming you are using protection because you bought a condom but left it sitting on the dresser.

[JeffYoung]

Dick, thanks for your efforts on this.

[JLawton]

If so, it's an asinine decision. It's a farking stupid decision. The only thing they've accomplished is to impose a barrier fee to racers. Whatever legal "protection" they think they were going to get by imposing this rule is GONE and non-existent.

If they don't accept the entire specification, then they have no justification for imposing the stupid rule.

I'm opposed to the rule, but if they are going to impose it, thinking it gives them legal protection, then for damn certain they need to accept the entire standard to get the protection.

This is like claiming you are using protection because you bought a condom but left it sitting on the dresser.

Go easy on Dick. He's on our side and just passing on the info.

[jjjanos]

Go easy on Dick. He's on our side and just passing on the info.

Not upset with Dick, but the BoD. This was supposedly done for liability concerns, but if they don't take the standard lock-stock-and-barrel, the assumed liability protection vanishes for those who have a device more than 5 years old.

[ShelbyRacer]

Actually, it vanished for all, since you've now strayed from the all-hallowed "industry-accepted standard".

I appreciate what Dick and some others are trying to do, but the BoD needs to admit it can't meet the burden of this invisible threat AND please the membership at the same time. We've passed the point where more than a few people are going to be happy with any version of a change.

They need to do what SCCA used to do well- SET THE STANDARD, don't stoop to the trend set by others.

[Knestis]

To be clear, I'm not unhappy at all with Dick personally either. My issue is with the decision. Or lack thereof.

K

[dickita15]

I realize the logic is difficult from where you all sit at home but this is at least a little good news. Sometimes I think the club would take shit if we delivered puppies and sunshine. There was also some potential good news about possible future changes in the standards setting industry. It’s real early so I cannot talk about it but if I had a non-compliant device I would not throw it away. Won’t help in 2012 but maybe someday things could change.

[jjjanos]

I realize the logic is difficult from where you all sit at home but this is at least a little good news. Sometimes I think the club would take shit if we delivered puppies and sunshine.

The club takes flak because it makes stupid, assinine decisions and then waffles at the last minute. If SCCA was a parent, it would spend an entire NYC-LA drive threatening to turn the car around and never doing it. If SCCA had a chance to get laid and knew it, it would forget to bring the rubbers. If SCCA was an imperial stormtrooper, it would think that these aren't the droids it is looking for.

I repeat, voiding the recertification does 2 things only -- it forces lots of people to buy an SFI device or keeps alot of those without an SFI device at home and it eviscerates whatever legal protection they thought they were getting by adopting the spec.

The justification for imposing this requirement was liability concerns. If they don't require recertification, then there is no justification for the rule. There is no reason to have it at all.

[BruceG]

Given all the video info on Youtube,etc as regards the lack of lateral protection of the HANS, doesn't that set the SCCA up for lawsuits from injured racers who would have chosen another brand H&N device for that reason?:dead_horse::dead_horse:

[shwah]

... if I had a non-compliant device I would not throw it away. Won’t help in 2012 but maybe someday things could change.

Thanks for your efforts and frank communication Dick. I appreciate it, and look forward to that someday...

[dickita15]

The club takes flak because it makes stupid, assinine decisions and then waffles at the last minute. If SCCA was a parent, it would spend an entire NYC-LA drive threatening to turn the car around and never doing it. If SCCA had a chance to get laid and knew it, it would forget to bring the rubbers. If SCCA was an imperial stormtrooper, it would think that these aren't the droids it is looking for.

I repeat, voiding the recertification does 2 things only -- it forces lots of people to buy an SFI device or keeps alot of those without an SFI device at home and it eviscerates whatever legal protection they thought they were getting by adopting the spec.

The justification for imposing this requirement was liability concerns. If they don't require recertification, then there is no justification for the rule. There is no reason to have it at all.

Smart people disagree. Thank you for your input.

[jjjanos]

Smart people disagree. Thank you for your input.

The same "smart" people that thought that adopting the rule provided liability protection?



2.7 Effective January 1, 2012, Head and Neck Restraint Systems shall be
inspected for recertification every five years after the date of original
certification. Product inspection, maintenance, and/or replacement procedure
is per individual manufacturer. Inspection must be done by the original
manufacturer only, and not their authorized resellers or dealers. When a unit
is determined by the manufacturer to be acceptable for continued service and
in compliance with the current version of the specification, the original
manufacturer shall place on the product a new SFI 38.1 conformance label
marked with the inspection date.

Please educate me... if the only thing that protects the club is the use of device meeting SFI 38.1 (the assertion of these smart people) then if someone gets injured using a device that does not meet 38.1, the club is naked, liability wise (automatic conclusion from their assertion). Based on the new 38.1, which requires re-certification every 5 years, a device outside that window no longer meets 38.1, n'cest pas? Thus, SCCA will be allowing people to race in non-38.1 compliant devices and, by their own assertion, SCCA is now open to a liability complaint.

They cannot have it both ways. If 38.1 is the only thing that protects the club, then allowing people to race with non-38.1 compliant stuff leaves the club unprotected. Period, end of story, game over.

You can spin this anyway you would like, but this is a binary. There is no grey area.

[Z3_GoCar]

I realize the logic is difficult from where you all sit at home but this is at least a little good news. Sometimes I think the club would take shit if we delivered puppies and sunshine. There was also some potential good news about possible future changes in the standards setting industry. It’s real early so I cannot talk about it but if I had a non-compliant device I would not throw it away. Won’t help in 2012 but maybe someday things could change.

Hey Dick,

As the op and owner of a R-3 I purchased in 2006, and is SFI stickered to expire next September according to the "new" SFI 38.1, I wanted to thank you for the breathing room from the re-cert spec as they just launched it. Here's to hoping that the Snell foundation gets into performance spec'ing H&N restraints instead of SFI's bussiness spec'ed model.

[dickita15]

The same "smart" people that thought that adopting the rule provided liability protection?


2.7 Effective January 1, 2012, Head and Neck Restraint Systems shall be
inspected for recertification every five years after the date of original
certification. Product inspection, maintenance, and/or replacement procedure
is per individual manufacturer. Inspection must be done by the original
manufacturer only, and not their authorized resellers or dealers. When a unit
is determined by the manufacturer to be acceptable for continued service and
in compliance with the current version of the specification, the original
manufacturer shall place on the product a new SFI 38.1 conformance label
marked with the inspection date.
Please educate me... if the only thing that protects the club is the use of device meeting SFI 38.1 (the assertion of these smart people) then if someone gets injured using a device that does not meet 38.1, the club is naked, liability wise (automatic conclusion from their assertion). Based on the new 38.1, which requires re-certification every 5 years, a device outside that window no longer meets 38.1, n'cest pas? Thus, SCCA will be allowing people to race in non-38.1 compliant devices and, by their own assertion, SCCA is now open to a liability complaint.

They cannot have it both ways. If 38.1 is the only thing that protects the club, then allowing people to race with non-38.1 compliant stuff leaves the club unprotected. Period, end of story, game over.

You can spin this anyway you would like, but this is a binary. There is no grey area.


JJ, obviously you do not understand the meaning of “thank you for your input”. :)

[Knestis]

I realize the logic is difficult from where you all sit at home but this is at least a little good news. Sometimes I think the club would take shit if we delivered puppies and sunshine. There was also some potential good news about possible future changes in the standards setting industry. It’s real early so I cannot talk about it but if I had a non-compliant device I would not throw it away. Won’t help in 2012 but maybe someday things could change.

I truly hope that you understand that I personally appreciate your willingness to push the issue and to communicate with the membership but I have to tell you - as that guy willing to be here to listen - that if the Club forces me to replace my present, perfectly good, proven device for 2012, THEN goes a different direction a year or so later, I just don't know if I can stand it. It's not even about the money. It's about whether I have any confidence in - or even want to be associated with - the organization anymore.

And while JJ's presentation can be a smidge abrasive, he's abso-freaking-lutely 100% correct. To turn his point around a little, if the Club can disregard the recertification element of 38.1, it can allow non-SFI systems and be in exactly the same place, exposure-wise.

K

[dickita15]

Our risk management professionals do not agree. Now I am 100 percent with you I wish risk management was ok with not doing the industry standard at all but at this time we are being advised that there is no reason to change our rules to require recertification. Now that may change and we may have to go that way at some time in the future depending on what the rest of the industry does or maybe, just maybe, we can find encourage an industry standard setting authority that actually uses science to set standards.

[tom91ita]

Dick,

I too appreciate your efforts. But as an engineer, i don't think the BOD at large understands the concept of "Industry Standards" any better than they understood the concept of math or charts that showed the performance of what they were mandating....


but at this time we are being advised that there is no reason to change our rules to require recertification.

as I see it, SCCA will have to change the rules to NOT require recertification. the rules as presented in Fastrack says we have to have equipment that complies with SFI 38.1 (forgetting the few that might double dip with FIA right now for the sake of the discussion...).

If SFI 38.1 has recertification requirements, then SCCA has to accept that too. Otherwise SCCA is not in compliance and the liability still exists.

i am wondering if i need to be monitoring the NASA& BMW forums to see where this is ultimately headed.

[lateapex911]

Wow, did JJJ have one too many bloody marys tonight? LOL.

I am encouraged by the concept of an alternate body for standards than the evil empire.....
the timing, of course, could be better.

[dickita15]

Dick,

I too appreciate your efforts. But as an engineer, i don't think the BOD at large understands the concept of "Industry Standards" any better than they understood the concept of math or charts that showed the performance of what they were mandating....



as I see it, SCCA will have to change the rules to NOT require recertification. the rules as presented in Fastrack says we have to have equipment that complies with SFI 38.1 (forgetting the few that might double dip with FIA right now for the sake of the discussion...).

If SFI 38.1 has recertification requirements, then SCCA has to accept that too. Otherwise SCCA is not in compliance and the liability still exists.

i am wondering if i need to be monitoring the NASA& BMW forums to see where this is ultimately headed.

Actually Tom you have the wording a little off. Besides precedent has already been set by SCCA and others in the industry. See fire systems, fuel cells, window nets or driver suits.

[tom91ita]

Dick,

the more i thought about it, the more i started to see it as a good thing that anything SCCA does to lessen this, whether or not it makes sense to me personally from my own warped outhouse lawyer status, the better it is overall from a long term perspective.

thanks again.

tom

[924Guy]

Thank you, Dick.


Dick,
I too appreciate your efforts. But as an engineer, i don't think the risk management "professionals" understands the concept of "Industry Standards" any better than they understood the concept of math or charts that showed the performance of what they were mandating....

Fixed that for ya... ;)

[tom91ita]

Vaughn,

part of this is actually frustration spilling over from work and citing "standards."

we were recently told we had to reference OSHA 1910.111 in our pressure vessel standards. i told them this is not necessarily a good thing because that standard says that ammonia pressure vessels must comply with the 1968 version of the ASME Pressure vessel code.

when i asked if we really wanted to use a 42 year old pressure vessel code, they said of course not and that OSHA requires that we must follow RAGAGEP (Recognized And Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices).

and then they changed the standards to require OSHA 1910.111 with the understanding that we will not use it but use RAGAGEP instead.

if you can make sense of the above, then i did not explain it accurately.

[924Guy]

No worries, Tom - I'm an engineer too, I understand perfectly. ;)

[gran racing]

Dick, your continued efforts are appreciated. Just as much, it's great to see a BOD member openly communicating with members on public forums such as this.


Won’t help in 2012 but maybe someday things could change.


Reading that really took wind out of me. In several ways as an existing owner of a non-SFI Crap-certification device, it's going to be necessary to purchase something else for next year. A part of that most likely will involve attempting to sell the Isaac device.

[jjjanos]

Our risk management professionals do not agree. Now I am 100 percent with you I wish risk management was ok with not doing the industry standard at all but at this time we are being advised that there is no reason to change our rules to require recertification.

Would these be the same risk management professionals that supposedly said we didn't need to adopt 38.1 at all? If so, then yes, it won't matter if we don't accept the entire thing because there is no benefit from adopting 38.1 at all.

If the risk management professionals say 38.1 is needed, then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?.


Now that may change and we may have to go that way at some time in the future depending on what the rest of the industry does or maybe, just maybe, we can find encourage an industry standard setting authority that actually uses science to set standards.

Again, I ask to be educated, since a device outside the 5-year window is not a 38.1 device and 38.1 is required for liability protection, where is the protection? A 6-year old device is non-compliant.

[DavidM]

Our risk management professionals do not agree. Now I am 100 percent with you I wish risk management was ok with not doing the industry standard at all but at this time we are being advised that there is no reason to change our rules to require recertification. Now that may change and we may have to go that way at some time in the future depending on what the rest of the industry does or maybe, just maybe, we can find encourage an industry standard setting authority that actually uses science to set standards.

Perhaps we need some new "risk management professionals"? Because these folks seem to have little grasp on how standards work. As other folks have said, a device that is not re-certified in 5 years is no longer SFI compliant. Therefore anyone using said device no longer has an SFI 38.1 compliant device. I await the revised wording, but unless the rule says SFI 38.1 is NOT required then I don't see how you can negate the need to re-certify every 5 years. And if the wording is somehow being changed to allow non-certified 38.1 devices then it better damn well allow other non-SFI devices.

I think we all appreciate the efforts, but there are some serious inconsistencies occurring here.

David

[dickita15]

There are limits to what I am willing to type in a public forum but let’s just say one person’s inconsistencies are another person nuances.

[jjjanos]

There are limits to what I am willing to type in a public forum but let’s just say one person’s inconsistencies are another person nuances.

If the risk management professionals say 38.1 is needed, then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?. Perhaps I missed the article here (http://www.sportscarmag.com/) about why the club has this mandate.

Far more likely, however, is that this mandate has nothing to do with liability protection and was in reaction to the 2010 Nelson Ledges.

I eagerly await the imminent arrival of SFI-approved roll cages. Clearly the club cannot accept the liability for setting its own standards in that far more important safety item.

[dickita15]

If the risk management professionals say 38.1 is needed, then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?. Perhaps I missed the article here (http://www.sportscarmag.com/) about why the club has this mandate.

Far more likely, however, is that this mandate has nothing to do with liability protection and was in reaction to the 2010 Nelson Ledges.

I eagerly await the imminent arrival of SFI-approved roll cages. Clearly the club cannot accept the liability for setting its own standards in that far more important safety item.

Okay I breaking my own rule about dealing with rude people.
I will not discuss what is said by attorneys in executive session and we are certainly not going to publish it.
You have been given the straight story and you a basically calling me a liar.
We are done sir.

[gran racing]

Puppies poop!!! And they drool. And they pee on the floor.

I am NOT happy with the BODs decision about the HNR requirement. Actually, it really frustrates me. I'm even less thrilled with the whole SFI bull shi%. In addition to being about safety, it's also about money. Maybe it's because it's the off season, but I'm finding it tougher to get motivated to spend the money (membership dues which isn't cheap; H&NR, new belts - overall my purchases to get to less safe than I was last year). Yet at the same time, I have to respect the position the BOD is in. We live in a sue happy world which sucks. People don't take responsibility for their own decisions and SCCA needs to protect itself from its own membership which WILL sue the club given the opportunity ($$$$).

Even with that understanding, ChumpCar, a fun sports car, and other possibilities keep making me wonder.

[jjjanos]

Okay I breaking my own rule about dealing with rude people.
So a club member asking why the BoD has not explained their reason for this rule change is being rude? That's a riot.


I will not discuss what is said by attorneys in executive session and we are certainly not going to publish it.
Again, I repeat -- If the risk management professionals say 38.1 is needed, then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?. Perhaps I missed the article here (http://www.sportscarmag.com/) about why the club has this mandate.

The Chair of the BoD writes an article every month. The President writes an article every month. "We understand that this decision has been unpopular, but our legal council has told us that this decision needed to be made to protect us from the potential liability of someone being injured while not using a device that specifically meets all of the requirements of SFI 38.1

Slap my ass and call me Judy -- I just typed that up in 30 seconds. (And now I am being rude.) How come Our Fearless Leader cannot show the membership this consideration? Perhaps because our legal council did not recommend this?

I will also offer this (http://roadraceautox.com/showpost.php?p=960483&postcount=195) to refute your assertion.

As for discussing what was said during an executive session, you already have.


You have been given the straight story and you a basically calling me a liar. Actually, I'm not. I have said that I do not believe that Mr. Lyon said this rule was needed and, a quick review of your public statements shows that neither have you. I believe that Mr. Lyon said there was no need at the National Convention held the year prior to this rule being adopted. Is Mr. Lyon no longer legal council? I think some members of the BoD think this rule is needed for liability concerns but the real reason for their support is a maudlin response over what happened at Nelson.

I've asked several easy questions that require no privileged information being revealed. Some deal with the need for this rule and some deal with why this need has not been communicated by a BoD that is acting in a very unilateral and totalitarian manner on this rule. None of these questions have been answered.

If my or anyone's questioning this decision is offensive, then, with all respect, tough. The questions I have asked are legitimate questions and the silence from the BoD on this issues is VERY telling.

[JeffYoung]

You are as bad as that Matt Berg troll. Nice.


So a club member asking why the BoD has not explained their reason for this rule change is being rude? That's a riot.


Again, I repeat -- If the risk management professionals say 38.1 is needed, then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?. Perhaps I missed the article here (http://www.sportscarmag.com/) about why the club has this mandate.

The Chair of the BoD writes an article every month. The President writes an article every month. "We understand that this decision has been unpopular, but our legal council has told us that this decision needed to be made to protect us from the potential liability of someone being injured while not using a device that specifically meets all of the requirements of SFI 38.1

Slap my ass and call me Judy -- I just typed that up in 30 seconds. (And now I am being rude.) How come Our Fearless Leader cannot show the membership this consideration? Perhaps because our legal council did not recommend this?

I will also offer this (http://roadraceautox.com/showpost.php?p=960483&postcount=195) to refute your assertion.

As for discussing what was said during an executive session, you already have.

Actually, I'm not. I have said that I do not believe that Mr. Lyon said this rule was needed and, a quick review of your public statements shows that neither have you. I believe that Mr. Lyon said there was no need at the National Convention held the year prior to this rule being adopted. Is Mr. Lyon no longer legal council? I think some members of the BoD think this rule is needed for liability concerns but the real reason for their support is a maudlin response over what happened at Nelson.

I've asked several easy questions that require no privileged information being revealed. Some deal with the need for this rule and some deal with why this need has not been communicated by a BoD that is acting in a very unilateral and totalitarian manner on this rule. None of these questions have been answered.

If my or anyone's questioning this decision is offensive, then, with all respect, tough. The questions I have asked are legitimate questions and the silence from the BoD on this issues is VERY telling.

[lateapex911]

I believe that Mr. Lyon said there was no need at the National Convention held the year prior to this rule being adopted.

Dude, if you don't think you're possibly the rudest poster here, well, you must think your farts smell like sweet roses as well.

As for whoever made the call, Dick stated they made the call based on legal counsels advice.
So, they made the call based on legal counsels advice.

Why is that confusing to you?
Maybe Lyons changed his mind in the intervening year based on changing factors?

[Z3_GoCar]

You are as bad as that Matt Berg troll. Nice.

I remember that guy.... It's been so long since I've seem him, I think last time was on the production board.

ps. This is a guess, but the nuance is probably related to the fact that the BOD voted to accept the 38.1 that was in place this summer. Then SFI went and changed 38.1 to require a manditory inspection, which isn't what the BOD voted to accept. So, at this point they are only going to require the 38.1 that they voted on, until there's a performance based standard they can use instead of 38.1. So by their actions SFI is about to make themselves obsolete.

[jjjanos]

You are as bad as that Matt Berg troll. Nice.

If Dick didn't want to engage and didn't want to discuss something that is currently embargoed, he should have kept his mouth shut.

Again, I repeat -- If the risk management professionals say 38.1 is needed, then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?. Perhaps I missed the article here (http://www.sportscarmag.com/) about why the club has this mandate.


Dude, if you don't think you're possibly the rudest poster here, well, you must think your farts smell like sweet roses as well.

I do not claim to present things with sugar, in fact I know I do not. I present them honest and unrefined. And as for how I have treated Dick, I had not been rude.


for whoever made the call, Dick stated they made the call based on legal counsels advice.
So, they made the call based on legal counsels advice.OK Einstein, here's the nuance. "We do not need these things, but if we require these things, we need to use the industry standard" versus "We need to require these things." versus "We need to require these things and we need to use an industry standard."

Two of these have risk management saying we need 38.1 - which is what Dick says - but only one of them actually says we need the devices. I have absolutely no doubt that if the club requires the device, it needs the razor-thin extra protection of a standard, I am questioning whether risk management said we needed it at all.

The vote to adopt this wasn't unanimous IIRC and if our risk experts said we both HAD to require and use an industry standard, then the BoD members who voted against that advice were being very reckless. We've got either a group of reckless BOD members or a group who are ignoring the wishes of the membership -- and we have the right to know which it is and who is in which group

Why is that confusing to you?

Maybe Lyons changed his mind in the intervening year based on changing factors?Perhaps and if that is the case...then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?.Perhaps I missed the article here (http://www.sportscarmag.com/) about why the club has this mandate.

The BoD has been silent about this decision. Let them explain it to the people they serve and represent.

[gran racing]

Any valid points you had are totally being lost by your "unrefined" presentation. I personally wouldn't classify it as that. And enough with the stupid SportsCar crap.

[jumbojimbo]

I remember that guy.... It's been so long since I've seem him, I think last time was on the production board.

ps. This is a guess, but the nuance is probably related to the fact that the BOD voted to accept the 38.1 that was in place this summer. Then SFI went and changed 38.1 to require a manditory inspection, which isn't what the BOD voted to accept. So, at this point they are only going to require the 38.1 that they voted on, until there's a performance based standard they can use instead of 38.1. So by their actions SFI is about to make themselves obsolete.

If this is the issue I think it's naive to think the BOD would come right out and say it. Doesn't take black helicopters to understand why less public annoucement is prudent in the short term.

We are kind of backed into a corner, we seem stuck with 38.1 for 2012. But maybe we no longer like it and are trying to find a way to get away from it. But what are members to do? Although I'm pretty sure Dave doesn't need a H&N on Jan 1 so no need to panic, he can wait and see.

Dave, another suggestion, if it does seem like 38.1 will go away at some point, maybe consider borrowing someone's device in the short term? it would be a pain to mail these things around and kind of pricy at some point, but if it would get you thru the first couple of events of 2012 and there is a chance things will settle out, it might be worth the effort.

I'm sorry I missed M-Berg, he was before my time. He sounds like a real tool who undermined his own arguements with his communication style.

[BruceG]

If Dick didn't want to engage and didn't want to discuss something that is currently embargoed, he should have kept his mouth shut.

Again, I repeat -- If the risk management professionals say 38.1 is needed, then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?. Perhaps I missed the article here (http://www.sportscarmag.com/) about why the club has this mandate.



I do not claim to present things with sugar, in fact I know I do not. I present them honest and unrefined. And as for how I have treated Dick, I had not been rude.

OK Einstein, here's the nuance. "We do not need these things, but if we require these things, we need to use the industry standard" versus "We need to require these things." versus "We need to require these things and we need to use an industry standard."

Two of these have risk management saying we need 38.1 - which is what Dick says - but only one of them actually says we need the devices. I have absolutely no doubt that if the club requires the device, it needs the razor-thin extra protection of a standard, I am questioning whether risk management said we needed it at all.

The vote to adopt this wasn't unanimous IIRC and if our risk experts said we both HAD to require and use an industry standard, then the BoD members who voted against that advice were being very reckless. We've got either a group of reckless BOD members or a group who are ignoring the wishes of the membership -- and we have the right to know which it is and who is in which group

Why is that confusing to you?
Perhaps and if that is the case...then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?.Perhaps I missed the article here (http://www.sportscarmag.com/) about why the club has this mandate.

The BoD has been silent about this decision. Let them explain it to the people they serve and represent.

To quote a line from Cool Hand Luke...what we have heah is a failure to communicate!

[erlrich]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone here written the BoD to ask for an explanation as to why the rule was enacted (i.e., what the rationale was for adoption)?

[preparedcivic]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone here written the BoD to ask for an explanation as to why the rule was enacted (i.e., what the rationale was for adoption)?

I received some direct responses from BoD members to a letter I sent immediately following the escalation in the 38.1 requirements.

Including one from the Chairman, who I believe to be be jjjanos representative. Interesting Mr. jjj feels free to bust Dick's chops after looking out for our best interests, but anyway....

The short answer I got was, as has been posted earlier, legal counsel recommends the SCCA follow "Industry Standards".

There are a bunch of mistatements that have been thrown around here too. Peter Lyon is Risk Management, 'aka' Insurance, and not the outside legal counsel I believe the BoD has been obtaining guidance from.

[jjjanos]

Including one from the Chairman, who I believe to be be jjjanos representative. Interesting Mr. jjj feels free to bust Dick's chops after looking out for our best interests, but anyway....

The short answer I got was, as has been posted earlier, legal counsel recommends the SCCA follow "Industry Standards".

Sugar, spice, skittles, cupcakes, warm fuzzies, puppy dogs... there is that sufficiently nice?

1. I'm asking questions regarding consistency. Don't tell me we need to do X, and then have the club do not X.
2. We no longer are following industry standards (not X), but we still are being told that we need to do X. I'm sorry, but something smells slightly off in a small scandinavian kingdom.
3. Relaxing the inspection rule helps those who already own these devices. It harms those who would prefer to use the device of their own choice because relaxation makes it less likely that SCCA will drop the 38.1 requirement.

[gran racing]

See, that wasn't so tough now was it? :)

[JLawton]

I just saw two ads in the new GRM for the Simpson Hybrid that is 38.1 certified. Did i miss this conversation (which is a good possibility) or is this new?

[JeffYoung]

Jeff, off topic, but could you send me an e-mail at jeff.youngATus.abb.com?

Have an ITAC question about Saturnalias.

Thanks man.

Jeff

[ITC69]

wELL, a shoe has dropped, and not the way SFI wanted it to, I think! See Club Racing Memo RM 11-10 which is not requiring a five year reinspection of SFI Certified Head and Neck restraints. :happy204:I received the notice in yesterday's e-mail Hooray for SCCA in thinking about racer's and not SFI!!


JOHN E. FINE

[tderonne]

Means nothing. The SFI rule we have in place was adopted and blessed by lawyers BEFORE the recertification deal. Current rule applies now even though the recertification thing is out there.

Recertification might be required when the NEXT rule gets written and reviewed by lawyers.

[Knestis]

Opinions may differ. When we adopted 38.1, we adopted the WHOLE standard. SCCA is waffling in ways not consistent with the agreement they have in place with SFI.

K

[tom91ita]

the phrasing sounds a lot like what the BOD over-ruled;

OLD rec about H&NR




The use of a head and neck support system is highly recommended.


NEW rec about H&NR recertification




SCCA is recommending, but not requiring, that SFI 38.1 HNR devices be inspected and recertified by the manufacturer every five (5) years as per the SFI requirement.


i consider the CRB sending something out as pretty much the same as what the BOD eventually over-ruled with their vote.

i know that some liken this to the window net. however, i consider the window net to be an ancillary safety device. it is secondary to the seatbelts and helmet.

the seatbelts and helmet are both required to be periodically updated/replaced. the H&NR is much closer in purpose and function to the seatbelt than a window net. it has essentially become a primary safety device.

and IF the rumors, legend and folklore about the insurance companies MADE us adopt SFI 38.1, then we need a ruling from them and not a memo from the CRB.

p.s., i have decided to drink the kool-aid and buy a HANS after the new year (device will last longer). why HANS? fewer belts to replace when the re-certification becomes mandatory.

p.p.s. but only if HANS will supply with a FIA sticker as well.

[tdw6974]

Tom, Bill's has both stickers. T Weaver

[lateapex911]

the phrasing sounds a lot like what the BOD over-ruled;

OLD rec about H&NR



NEW rec about H&NR recertification



i consider the CRB sending something out as pretty much the same as what the BOD eventually over-ruled with their vote.

i know that some liken this to the window net. however, i consider the window net to be an ancillary safety device. it is secondary to the seatbelts and helmet.

the seatbelts and helmet are both required to be periodically updated/replaced. the H&NR is much closer in purpose and function to the seatbelt than a window net. it has essentially become a primary safety device.

and IF the rumors, legend and folklore about the insurance companies MADE us adopt SFI 38.1, then we need a ruling from them and not a memo from the CRB.

p.s., i have decided to drink the kool-aid and buy a HANS after the new year (device will last longer). why HANS? fewer belts to replace when the re-certification becomes mandatory.

p.p.s. but only if HANS will supply with a FIA sticker as well.

Disappointed that you decided to support the root cause of this mess.....

[Z3_GoCar]

p.p.s. but only if HANS will supply with a FIA sticker as well.

Do you race FIA events Tom? The reason I ask is because utimately this is the SFI response to latest buletin:

"In an email from CDOC

Quote:
Beginning Jan. 1, 2012, Head and Neck (http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1723628#) Restraints must be recertified every five years. This means that during 2012, competitors using a HANS Device with a date of original certification in 2006 or earlier must have their device recertified. Those who have a HANS Device with a date of original certification in 2007, must be recertified according to the month on the SFI sticker. For example, a device with an original certification of June 2007 would expire in June 2012.



The procedure outlined by SFI states, in part, "Inspection must be done by the original manufacturer only, and not their authorized resellers or dealers (http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1723628#)." Devices passing the inspection will receive a new SFI 38.1 conformance label marked with the inspection date.



HANS Performance (http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1723628#) Products will recertify the HANS Device for a $15 fee (shipping not included).



Some devices may need replacement rubber on the legs or may have tethers that are more than five years old and therefore need to be replaced. If these need to be replaced you will be charged for these items at the standard price.



Competitors may use an FIA certified Head and Neck Restraint at an FIA event in the U.S. without meeting the SFI's recertification requirement. But events not on the FIA sporting calendar and held in the U.S. will require an SFI 38.1 sticker for any device 5 years or older.
Tethers for the HANS Device are manufactured from polyester, which gives them a longer span of use when compared to other material such as nylon.

Competitors should inspect their HANS Device and tethers after any impact where the device comes into use. It's likely that the tethers should be replaced.



lol wut"


I don't know any club race that's on the FIA callender, maybe something run under ALMS, but how many here run with them?

[dickita15]

Who the hell is CDOC? Are they a sanctioning body? They certainly do not speak for SCCA.

[JLawton]

So no one knows anything about the Simpson product???


.

[924Guy]

Opinions may differ. When we adopted 38.1, we adopted the WHOLE standard. SCCA is waffling in ways not consistent with the agreement they have in place with SFI.

K

Irony: getting sued over the rule you put in place to avoid getting sued.

something something choose your bedfellows carefully?

[Z3_GoCar]

Who the hell is CDOC? Are they a sanctioning body? They certainly do not speak for SCCA.
They're a retailer like Saferacer. Looks like they're passing along the SFI mandate on 38.1

http://store.cdoc.com/about-us.aspx

[dickita15]

That is pretty odd, there are interpretations in that I have not seen on anything from SFI. The whole FIA certifications only good at FIA events is ludicrous. Not true and just makes no sense.

[JohnRW]

If I wear my FIA nomex at an event in the US that's not on the FIA Sporting Calendar, am I naked ?

[Greg Amy]

Physically, mentally, emotionally, or existentially speaking...?

[JohnRW]

Metaphysical.

But only until my career in adult films takes off.

[ShelbyRacer]

But only until my career in adult films takes off.

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

That is certainly different context for both head and restraint. Perhaps that's a new market for SFI. I mean, since they seem to enjoy screwing people...

[callard]

Like that's gonna happen :D

[tom91ita]

Disappointed that you decided to support the root cause of this mess.....

the five stages of grief are as follows:


Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
i think i am at stage 5.

i raced without a H&NR waiting for the CRB to make a decision. they decided they were not mandatory. i bought an entry level Isaac. BOD votes and my device is not accepted. i was likely naive and short-sighted to not go SFI or FIA.

now the rules are SFI or FIA are required and must be periodically inspected (maybe). to me the next step past "inspection" will be replacement of webbing/belt material like seat-belts.

and who has the least amount of webbing? HANS.

[jjjanos]

"The GCR does not specify this requirement."

Is incorrect. The GCR specifies that your device must be certified in accordance with the listed standards. One of those standards requires recertification every 5 years, therefore, to be certified in accordance with that standard, you must get it recertified at that point. If your device only carries the SFI 38.1 label, then according to the last known rule on this, the device must be "certified in accordance with SFI 38.1" If your sticker says your device was certified more than 5 years ago, then your device no longer is certified in accordance with SFI 38.1. Period, end of story. The approved wording did not invalidate the expiration date like it implicitly does on window nets.

As for the legality of the CRB interpretation of the rule -- technically it is meaningless. The CRB does not adjudicate the meaning of the GCR. However, SOMs and the CoA likely will accept this intorturation of the GCR wording since, in theory, the CRB would have asked the BoD what was intended by requiring these devices.

[Greg Amy]

I wait, with bated breath, for the first one of you to drop the $25 down to protest your own device as no longer properly certified. I can get you a 5-yr-old one to use for the weekend.

I'll even reimburse you the $25 if you ultimately lose...

PM me.

GA

[tom91ita]

fyi, NASA does not require the H&NR to meet SFI 38.1 but only to have the sticker. CCR 2011.8 (august, 2011)




15.17.8

Head and Neck Restraint

Use of a head and neck restraint system or device, carrying an SFI 38.1 certification label, is mandatory for all drivers as of July 2, 2008. References and information can be found in “Appendix D,” section #29.0 of the CCR. Additionally, HANS brand devices with FIA 8858-2002 or FIA 8858-2010 certification labels are acceptable in lieu of SFI 38.1 labels.

[jjjanos]

I wait, with bated breath, for the first one of you to drop the $25 down to protest your own device as no longer properly certified. I can get you a 5-yr-old one to use for the weekend.

It won't be a drive who makes the stink. It will be a tech inspector or a steward who has drunk the H&N kool-aid.


fyi, NASA does not require the H&NR to meet SFI 38.1 but only to have the sticker. CCR 2011.8 (august, 2011)

Y'all see the difference in the wording?

[John Nesbitt]

Metaphysical.

But only until my career in adult films takes off.


No matter how hard I rub my eyes, I can't make the image go away.

The horror! The horror!

[Greg Amy]

It won't be a drive who makes the stink. It will be a tech inspector or a steward who has drunk the H&N kool-aid.
Trust me, they won't care. All they care about is the sticker.


Y'all see the difference in the wording?
Yes. The NASA wording simply means it has to have a sticker stuck on it, not that it actually has to be certified. So to the letter of NASA's rules, I can legitimately put a sticker on the ISAAC and be compliant, as far as they're concerned.

See how that works?

GA

[lateapex911]

That is pretty odd, there are interpretations in that I have not seen on anything from SFI. The whole FIA certifications only good at FIA events is ludicrous. Not true and just makes no sense.

Sure it makes sense! If you are a retailer of the device and stand to make some money off the recerts, or gain some other benefit. And tossing a little extra scare tactic in there for good measure is always a nice touch, something the HANS folks are probably fine with....

Are you doubting the need for drivers to be as safe as possible Dick?? Will more drivers be killed because they got their HANS units recertified needlessly?
Just another brick in the wall........

Tom, Disappointed that you've decided that the minor reason you cite trumps the principal of the whole mess. If it weren't for HANS and their wording of the 38.1 Specification, we'd have the freedom of choice, and we wouldn't be in this disgusting mess.
I certainly won't be putting a dime in the devils pocket.

[tom91ita]

Jake,

is there a non-SFI and FIA only device on the market?

it was my understanding that the FIA was effectively static test procedures of SFI devices. that is pull this hard and it shouldn't break instead of dynamic sled tests.

[jjjanos]

Trust me, they won't care. All they care about is the sticker.

Maybe I'll go and be a tech inspector next year....


Yes. The NASA wording simply means it has to have a sticker stuck on it, not that it actually has to be certified. So to the letter of NASA's rules, I can legitimately put a sticker on the ISAAC and be compliant, as far as they're concerned.

Well... according to the SCCA technical memo, I can do that for SCCA too. I.e. my device doesn't need to meet the technical specification, it only needs a sticker.

See how that works?

[Greg Amy]

Well... according to the SCCA technical memo, I can do that for SCCA too. I.e. my device doesn't need to meet the technical specification, it only needs a sticker.
Logic "fale".

"Certified in accordance with SFI 38.1" (SCCA) logically differs significantly from "...a head and neck restraint system or device, carrying an SFI 38.1 certification label..." (NASA)

You would truly suck as a scrutineer. And probably piss off a lot of people in the process...

GA

[tom91ita]

is HANS the official H&NR of NASA?

you need HAN(d)S if you are to "Carry" a label right?:rolleyes:

[jjjanos]

Logic "fale".

"Certified in accordance with SFI 38.1" (SCCA) logically differs significantly from "...a head and neck restraint system or device, carrying an SFI 38.1 certification label..." (NASA)

Ahhh, but the memo says that a device does not need to be certified in accordance with SFI 38.1 -- what does SFI 38.1 require? Oh... that pesky 5 year thing.

The GCR language - The use of a head and neck restraint system certified in accordance with SFI 38.1, FIA 8858-2002 or 8858-2010 is required; an SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858-2002 or 8858-2010 label must be properly affixed to the device.

What the memo effectively turns this rule into:
The use of a head and neck restraint system with an SFI 38.1 label properly affixed to the device or a head and neck system certified in accordance with FIA 8858-2002 or 8858-2010 with a FIA 8858-2002 or 8858-2010 label properly affixed to the device is required.

[Greg Amy]

So, if you truly think this is wrong, it is your responsibility to do the right thing, instead of bitching about it on the Internet...

Put up or shut up. PM me with your PayPal address for that $25.

GA

[Greg Amy]

Bump. I'm feeling a bit of being a heel here.

Look, dude, you're right; your logic is unassailable. It makes no sense that the Club is choosing to select only the easier parts of a "standard" against which to judge. And to take a "stance" and yet cherry-pick which part of that stance to support make absolutely no logical sense.

But, you know what? So what.

Seriously...so what?

Do you think the Club is going to lay its Johnson out there, play the "Occupy Topeka" card, and actually try take a moral stand on this SFI stuff? Seriously...? C'mon! You know as well as I that the Club has to toe the line here and pretend that SFI is the Standard Against Which All Safety Devices Are To Be Judged. And when backed against the wall, the hard stuff falls.

My very close friend and compadre Prof Knestis is frustrated because the Club wants to PRETEND that it has standing on this stuff, but doesn't want to take the hard line on it and instead relents on the "easy" parts and waffles on the hard parts, thus can't take the moral high ground. Because if they did take the hard stance we all know the membership would revolt and they'd have to take the even-harder stance of actually having to develop a true standard.

Well, you know what? Shocked. Absolutely shocked, I am.

Everyone likes to thing that this is a moral, ethical, political organization, but when it comes down to it and the veneer is pulled back, the Sports Car Club of America is nothing more than us, a bunch of frustrated Club racers that want to pretend they are something more than an amateur organization running club races on select weekends. In the end, we're all the same, and we have the same goals, with the same fears. To enjoy racing and not get our asses handed to us.

So let's enjoy.

GA

[JeffYoung]

Good post, and I totally agree.


Bump. I'm feeling a bit of being a heel here.

Look, dude, you're right; your logic is unassailable. It makes no sense that the Club is choosing to select only the easier parts of a "standard" against which to judge. And to take a "stance" and yet cherry-pick which part of that stance to support make absolutely no logical sense.

But, you know what? So what.

Seriously...so what?

Do you think the Club is going to lay its Johnson out there, play the "Occupy Topeka" card, and actually try take a moral stand on this SFI stuff? Seriously...? C'mon! You know as well as I that the Club has to toe the line here and pretend that SFI is the Standard Against Which All Safety Devices Are To Be Judged. And when backed against the wall, the hard stuff falls.

My very close friend and compadre Prof Knestis is frustrated because the Club wants to PRETEND that it has standing on this stuff, but doesn't want to take the hard line on it and instead relents on the "easy" parts and waffles on the hard parts, thus can't take the moral high ground. Because if they did take the hard stance we all know the membership would revolt and they'd have to take the even-harder stance of actually having to develop a true standard.

Well, you know what? Shocked. Absolutely shocked, I am.

Everyone likes to thing that this is a moral, ethical, political organization, but when it comes down to it and the veneer is pulled back, the Sports Car Club of America is nothing more than us, a bunch of frustrated Club racers that want to pretend they are something more than an amateur organization running club races on select weekends. In the end, we're all the same, and we have the same goals, with the same fears. To enjoy racing and not get our asses handed to us.

So let's enjoy.

GA

[Chip42]

2 weeks ago I tried on a safety solutions -> simpson hybrid pro. was very comfortable in the car and I generally liked the design. but the chest belts didn't fit me well at all, and had very little in the way of adjustments. tried a large and a medium. (I'm 6'4", 200# with wide shoulders and chest)

wound up settling (and it took a long night and a LOT of bitching) on a hans sport, 20° medium. current sale and a friendly dealer meant the price was fantastic, and the thing fit - can't argue that. It came with the sliding tethers and new, optional quick release helmet latches like DefNder and SS already used so I can get out of the thing in a hurry if needed.

I know I'm less safe than I could have been, and I can't afford a winged seat right now so I'm pretty unhappy about it. I will be trying on the full range of Hybrid sizes at PRI to see if there is an option that works and meets the silly SFI regs. I'm still looking for something that takes the good work started by hubbard downing and expands upon it as the defender, safety solutions, and non SFI (like the Isaac) products have done.

it really upset me to buy what is, long and short, a generally good product from a company that refuses to 1: acknowledge that it could be better, 2: improve upon it in ways that address that acknowledgement, and 3: practices suffocating marketing techniques. I'm now demonstrably safer than I was, and less safe than I could be. it's a weird feeling.

[lateapex911]

it really upset me to buy what is, long and short, a generally good product from a company that refuses to 1: acknowledge that it could be better, 2: improve upon it in ways that address that acknowledgement, and 3: practices suffocating marketing techniques. I'm now demonstrably safer than I was, and less safe than I could be. it's a weird feeling.

Now, assuming you're coming from a position of not wearing anything, think how you'd feel if you were making this move after owning something better....
:shrug:

[downingracing]

...it really upset me to buy what is, long and short, a generally good product from a company that refuses to 1: acknowledge that it could be better, 2: improve upon it in ways that address that acknowledgement, and 3: practices suffocating marketing techniques...

But they did do #1 by doing #2... They tried to correct the HUGE bill on the device that traps folks in a tin-top car. The 'new' device has a refined 'trap' on the back that should reduce the risk of not being able to exit the car. Reduce - not eliminate becuase the risk is still there with what they have now. Wait until folks send in the old ones and are told they can't be re-certified. There will be some BS reason - but the real reason is to get those death traps off the market.

I still haven't purchased a device yet - but it will not be a HANS. If that is the only choice - I'm done.

[Chip42]

Jake, I'm upset that I CAN'T consider a better device (that fits) due to this silly regulation. I'd imagine if I already owned something like an ISAAC I'd be fuming mad. and yes, I'm coming off a neck collar. I've spent a lot more time under a car than in one in my life so my own safety gear has been a more recent acquisition. the longest held racing license amongst our group is with Dave, he has used a dcel and upgraded to a hans about 5 years ago.

and while hans has made a number of small changes to reduce some of the problems they still won't acknowledge openly, like the kick-ups to help keep belts from slipping off, sliding tethers, quick releases, and redesigned yokes that are less apt to get hung up on the car, their continue to refuse to address the big issues like lateral impact protection that their competition (both within and outside of the SFI) has as strengths - even to the extent of running out the likes of defNder.

It baffles me. either they give a shit about protection, as was the reason they really did break new ground when creating their device in the first place, or they don't. seems to be "they did." I hate money.

[RacerBill]

I still haven't purchased a device yet - but it will not be a HANS. If that is the only choice - I'm done.

Matt: Look at the Hybrid Pro Rage - originally by Safety Solutions that was bought out by Simpson. About the same price, but much better side impact numbers. They are certified to meet SFI 38.1 and I have asked about FIA.

[raffaelli]

Now, assuming you're coming from a position of not wearing anything, think how you'd feel if you were making this move after owning something better....
:shrug:

Jake, I would be having a fit.....

Coming from wearing nothing, I reluctantly purchased the Defnder (although I have found it to be very comfortable and helps me with a better posture while in the seat.) because I am not a fan of Hans. I would have much rather purchased the Isaac but it appears smarter people know what is better for me - which hopefully does not come around to bite them.

[RacerBill]

Jake, I would be having a fit.....

...it appears smarter people....

You use that term loosely, :D

[RacerBill]

Check out the classifieds on this forum. Someone has negotiated a group buy for any of the Hybrid H&N Restraints - 15% off. Brings the price below HANS.

[ddewhurst]

I'd imagine if I already owned something like an ISAAC I'd be fuming mad.

I do own an Isaac :026: & for 2012 I own a DeFnder.:023: The Defnder is my vote against the HANS which IIRC eliminates approx 16% of the latteral load. We ALL should thank our CRB & BoD for taking such good care of us, ah, also thank the SCCA lawyers.

Please vote by procuring something other than a HANS. HANS feels that vote.

[pitbull113]

We ALL should thank our CRB & BoD for taking such good care of us, ah, also thank the SCCA lawyers.
I'm hoping this is sarcasm:shrug:

[Knestis]

I'm hoping this is sarcasm:shrug:

You've obviously never met DD... ;)

He's been hanging out at sm.com because we're all too nice to one-another here.

Welcome back Mr. D!

K

[Cobrar05]

I have had a Hutchens Hybrid for some time now and I am very comfortable with it.

[jjjanos]

So, if you truly think this is wrong, it is your responsibility to do the right thing, instead of bitching about it on the Internet...

Which is what? Tell them there memo is incorrect given the requirement in the GCR? Thank you, I've already tried that twice with fire bottles/fire systems in IT cars -- in an upshot, we aren't allowed to run either per the GCR.

re: systems

"All cars shall be equipped with an On-Board Fire System except Showroom Stock, Touring, Spec Miata, and Improved Touring."
re: bottles

"The following are acceptable for Showroom Stock, Touring, Spec Miata and Improved Touring cars:"
The first says fire systems are not required in IT cars. The second says fire bottles are not required in IT cars. The Category Specifications for SS, Touring and Spec Miata all specifically require either a fire system or a fire bottle. Guess what is missing from the IT specifications? A requirement or an allowance to run either and IT is ITDSYCTYC. One can argue that the allowance for a fire bottle is implicit in the wording, but there sure as shit is no allowance for fire systems. Pedantic? Perhaps, but since the felt an allowance to mount 2-way radios was needed, I'm going with ITDSYCTYC. If I run with SCCA next year (doubtful), I've got weight to strip from my car... guess what's coming out.


Do you think the Club is going to lay its Johnson out there, play the "Occupy Topeka" card, and actually try take a moral stand on this SFI stuff?

Ummmm... yes 1. Because, at this point, it hasn't been established that the club needed to adopt a H&N requirement at all. 2. as a member of SFI -- the club has the right to ask for a new standard. 3. They are no longer using the standard and so the proposals that the BoD rejected regarding devices that meet the minimum load levels offer as much CYA as what we have now.



The SFI Technical Committee initiates the specification process, typically at the request of the affected industry or race sanctioning body.

Yep, HANS will bitch but how many sanctioning bodies belong to SFI?

[RacerBill]

Check out the classifieds on this forum. Someone has negotiated a group buy for any of the Hybrid H&N Restraints - 15% off. Brings the price below HANS.

New Info - this is from Simpson Customer Service regarding the Hybrid Pro Rage:


This meets SFI 38.1 standards.

Thank you,
Customer Service
Simpson Race Products
328 FM 306
New Braunfels, TX 78130

Looks like no FIA sticker!

[ITEGT]

So does the device also have to have a FIA cert to be legal in '12? I thought the SFI 38.1 cert was good enough? Reason I ask is Im about to pull the trigger on a Hybrid Pro Rage.

[Greg Amy]

So does the device also have to have a FIA cert to be legal in '12? I thought the SFI 38.1 cert was good enough? Reason I ask is Im about to pull the trigger on a Hybrid Pro Rage.
SFI cert is all you need. FIA is an alternative cert for SCCA.

GA

[ITEGT]

Ok, thanks.

With a 10% SCCA discount and a $100 credit if a H&N restraint is purchased by Dec 24, Simpson has a pretty good deal going right now for SCCA members. I also need a new helmet so the $100 credit will go to good use.

[RacerBill]

Ok, thanks.

With a 10% SCCA discount and a $100 credit if a H&N restraint is purchased by Dec 24, Simpson has a pretty good deal going right now for SCCA members. I also need a new helmet so the $100 credit will go to good use.

Check the classifieds on this forum - there is a group buy going. If they pull the trigger today, there is a 20% discount, otherwise 15%.

[BruceG]

Learned an important lesson about lateral movement and lack of H&N restraints this morning! we were hit by a 5 point buck on rt2N this morning in Glastonbury CT. The deer came up a hill on the center meridian, crossed 2 lanes and hit our 2011 Subaru legacy. I saw it coming at the last moment, managed to speed up so it missed my hood. It smashed my drivers door broadside, the antlers destroyed my drivers window and ripped my mirror off. The antlers just missed my head after the window smashed.If you know any deer hunters in CT, tell em' they
have their work cut out for them.

My point here is that I have a very sore neck from the impact and the lateral movement. Since the HANS does a poor job with that, I can see lots of lawsuits after the SCCA if we're delegated to wearing a HANS.

[RacerBill]

My point here is that I have a very sore neck from the impact and the lateral movement. Since the HANS does a poor job with that, I can see lots of lawsuits after the SCCA if we're delegated to wearing a HANS.

There are other head and neck restraint systems that offer greater lateral protection than the HANS brand H&N.

[BruceG]

There are other head and neck restraint systems that offer greater lateral protection than the HANS brand H&N.

Bill...spent $600 2 yrs ago on the HANS.Until 2 weeks ago, it looked like HANS was our only choice. What else is available now?

[ITEGT]

Ive called Simpson Racing several times with questions about their Hybrid Rage and have been nothing but impressed with the replies and the knowledge of the sales staff they have answering the phones.

No seat mods needed, side impact protection.

Call for yourself (800)654-7223

[Terry Hanushek]

So does the device also have to have a FIA cert to be legal in '12? I thought the SFI 38.1 cert was good enough? Reason I ask is Im about to pull the trigger on a Hybrid Pro Rage.

As Greg mentioned, FIA is an alternative certification (to SFI 38.1) accepted by SCCA. At the current time, there is no recertification requirement for FIA H&N restraint.

Terry

[RacerBill]

Bill...spent $600 2 yrs ago on the HANS.Until 2 weeks ago, it looked like HANS was our only choice. What else is available now?

The Safety Solution - now Simpson - Hybrid line have been certified as SFI 38.1 compliant for a while now. I think one of the problems with discussions such as this are that people use as the acronym for head and neck systems (or head and neck restraint systems) 'HANS', when HANS really refers to a particular brand of head and neck restraint system. Adds to the confusion.

[tom91ita]

As Greg mentioned, FIA is an alternative certification (to SFI 38.1) accepted by SCCA. At the current time, there is no recertification requirement for FIA H&N restraint.

Terry

i see FIA as a supplement. as i read it, it is a document that tells how to test a SFI device instead of a sled test.

i think the only FIA tags will be on devices that already have SFI certification. i have not seen any that are only FIA and not SFI.

i will gladly eat those words if someone sees an FIA only device.

[John Nesbitt]

i see FIA as a supplement. as i read it, it is a document that tells how to test a SFI device instead of a sled test.

i think the only FIA tags will be on devices that already have SFI certification. i have not seen any that are only FIA and not SFI.

i will gladly eat those words if someone sees an FIA only device.


My ~4 year old HANS has an FIA sticker but no SFI sticker.

I recommend a nice chardonnay with words. :D

[BruceG]

The Safety Solution - now Simpson - Hybrid line have been certified as SFI 38.1 compliant for a while now. I think one of the problems with discussions such as this are that people use as the acronym for head and neck systems (or head and neck restraint systems) 'HANS', when HANS really refers to a particular brand of head and neck restraint system. Adds to the confusion.

Bill.....Unfortunately, I was referring to the Brand name, HANS....not the generic description when I mentioned that I ourchased one 2 years ago.:dead_horse:

[tom91ita]

My ~4 year old HANS has an FIA sticker but no SFI sticker.

I recommend a nice chardonnay with words. :D

but that HANS could be "SFI-able" if you requested right?

oh well. i'll have a Yeungling(sp) Black & Tan tonight with those words!

p.s., i cannot think of ANY reason to send it back to be SFI'ed.

[John Nesbitt]

but that HANS could be "SFI-able" if you requested right?

oh well. i'll have a Yeungling(sp) Black & Tan tonight with those words!

p.s., i cannot think of ANY reason to send it back to be SFI'ed.



My HANS might be SFI-able, but who wants to have THAT conversation?

Given that I have an FIA sticker, I cannot imagine any scenario under which I would spend time/money/effort going down the SFI road.

[dickita15]

My ~4 year old HANS has an FIA sticker but no SFI sticker.

I recommend a nice chardonnay with words. :D

+1, probably 6 years old

[JohnRW]

I recommend a nice chardonnay with words. :D


...with club soda, and some ice cubes !!!

[FLATKITTY]

Greg Amy: "No FIA-certified cages until 2014...?"

Cool ... That would make carbon fiber cages legal in Club racing. Rules 'creep' just got bumped up to 'Quantum Leap' status!!! :023: