Originally Posted by
CRallo
Got a reply, letter #4693 has been reviewed and a response will be in the next Fasttrack...
This was my letter:
CRB and BOD,
I am writing regarding the looming H&N support mandate. As it is currently written, I am firmly against this mandate and it's language.
While I understand the need for the mandate and agree 100 percent with its intent, I believe the mandate can be much improved. The mandate should be amended to allow for devices that perform as well or better than the SFI spec requires AND have other advantages. Ratings or certs exist that are not so restrictive as the cleverly written SFI spec and these should be included in the mandate. There are a variety of reasons to support such an amendment.
- The equipment required by the SFI spec is very expensive. Obviously racing is not cheap, but that is all the more reason to avoid unneeded expense.
- Some of the SFI spec H&N restraints under perform in important categories, namely side impact scenarios. This opens a whole 'nother can of worms...
- To reach the same level of protection that other devices offer, a HANS user must purchase and install additional equipment that is not only expensive, but impedes escape from the vehicle thereby negating any advantage (on paper) the HANS has in that department. Just ask Joey Hand about his wreck at MidO...
- The SFI spec was intentionally written in a very restrictive manner, other specs/certs exist that allow for more innovation, lesser costs and ultimately more safety. These need to be considered.
- Many members have already done their homework and selected a device, like the Isaac, that they believe (and testing agrees) gives them a higher level of protection. What would you say to these people? And what would you say if, next year, they get involved in an accident on track involving a high lateral G load and are injured or killed?
- This mandate, as currently written, actually opens the SCCA to liability by restricting the use of higher performing devices.
- The SCCA will loose participation numbers($$) if this mandate goes through as written. The typical club racer cannot simply absorb the kind of cost we are talking about here. I know this because I am in that boat! If I had to spring for a HANS and a seat with wings, I would be out for half a season next year!! I could give up one extra race during a given weekend and buy a device such as the Isaac. During a time when regions are struggling to put on events that make money and the economy is on thin ice, this is simply not a good business decision. While this effect is, in theory, only short term, such effects on a business can be permanent.
For the above reasons, and more, I believe a change needs to be made to the H&N restraint mandate. Such a change would benefit and be in the best interest of the SCCA organization and it's members. It could be as simple as adding one certification to the mandate. The Club would not incur more liability, in fact It would be better protected and so would it's members.
Thanks very much for taking the time to read my letter and hopefully for considering this important issue.
Sincerely,
Christopher Rallo
SCCA member 396934