Printable View
As we know in 2012 the scca is mandating the use of a head and neck system. This rule is not written in stone. I'm urging all members to write the scca and let them know we do not need this rule. If you choose to wear one fine but we should have the right to race without it if we want to.Thank you.
My issue is with the SFI requirement...
This has been around and around a couple times and many other sanctioning bodies have already had this debate and "lost" but maybe there is still something to be learned there...
Pardon me, I just threw up again! I made the mistake of visiting the SFI website again. The first thing that I did was try and find out what the specifications are, but in many cases, the actual specifications for products are not available for viewing by the public. Then, I read the following:
Openness
Participation shall be open to all interested persons who might be directly or materially affected by the Spec. Participation is not conditional upon membership in any organization.
Technical Committees
Technical committees are comprised of individuals from all facets of industry, scientific and motorsports sanctioning organizations with expertise in their areas of endeavor to provide a comprehensive cross-section of knowledge.
Due Process
Open hearings with adequate notice of all activities shall be given, copies of these procedures shall be available, and the opportunity to be heard or to appeal any decision shall be provided to all interested parties. All activities are to be conducted with fairness toward all interested persons.
Publication and Disclosure
SFI Specs shall be published and made available to the public as soon as possible after approval by the SFI Board of Directors.
How does any of this apply to SFI 38.1? The fact that it is not published is contrary to the Publication and Disclosure statement.
How was their Openness and Due Process statements applied in the development of 38.1?
I know, the legal eagles in Kansas are going to say, 'We have to use something, and they are the only game in town'. Humbug!
Wait a minute! Do I see a crack in their armor? How about 60,000 SCCA members writing to the SFI to change 38.1 playing the 'Openness' card - "all interested persons who might be directly or materially affected by the Spec."
Edit: OK, letter written to SFI requesting the actual specification of 38.1. Let's see how 'OPEN' they really are.
go to racesafetydata and scroll down to the bottom and they have a link to the current specs (march 2009)
Ok, I will play the dick and ask "Why?".
The head and neck restraint has been around for years in various designs. If you have raced with NASA you have had to wear one for the last two years. If you have done any "pro" racing you have had to have one. So why the big push to stop it from being compulsory?
Is it one of the following reasons:
1. You don't want to spend the money.
2. You are too good of a driver so you won't crash and CERTAINLY won't get hurt.
3. You don't agree with the narrow choice of devices that are allowed.
4. You could never be "comfortable" in one.
As someone else in this thread has said the club (SCCA) is covering its ass as advised by its lawyers. Why is this a big issue? Do you want the club to be decimated by a lawsuit filed by a grieving family member and their shark lawyer that the club was negligent in its duty to compel its members to protect themselves against injury after?
Please share your reasoning with the rest of the group.
cheers
dave parker
Good post, Dave. To me, my HANS was like other required car equipment...roll cage, racing seat, etc. You sure don't want to spend the money, but you know damn well you need it. QUITYOURBITCHING and get one. Chuck (who has worn a HANS for 3 years)
A part of # 1. - I don't want to spend the money on a product that will keep me less safe than the one I already use. That's a big problem for me.
H&NR, right side net, different seat = hopes of getting close to what I already have. Unfortunately, I won't be able to get the expensive seat in this equasion so I'm going down in terms of safety. Yes, that really pisses me off.
3. Absolutely. GForce has an inexpensive option which does a decent job. There are others as well.
Eh, I won't go into this further as I've already been down that road.
I think #3 is what PO'ed many people who have already realized the need, and purchased one at a fair cost believing that it was the best/safest choice, but are now not able to continue to use their device due to narrowly crafted specs by a standards organization that had an early producer of one such device help them with the spec. In other words, the maker made a device, and had SFI write the spec based on their product.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave parker
I have not seen any documented need for such a device. Therefore, I don't want to spend money on something that has not been proven to be ABSOLUTLY necessary. Prove a negative.
Russ
Stop eating burgers and fries, and stop using so much salt on your food; both are bad for you. And stop smoking! Put your coat on when you go outside, too, or you'll catch the death of a cold. You need more exercise. Stop slouching and sit up straight!
Because it's good for you. And I'm the Mom, that's why.
Dave, to answer your question with a question; why should this be required? Where is the demonstrated need (in Club Racing)? I wrote a request to allow a piece of safety equipment on IT cars a while back, and the Fastrack response was "there has been no demonstrated need". So I'm asking now; have we seen deaths, or even serious injuries, that have made this level of protection necessary? They're asking people to spend $600-$1200 (or more) on a piece of safety equipment that nobody has shown a need for. That's my first beef with the rule. So maybe that gets filed under #1, but I think maybe we should make a 1.a. - "You don't want to spend the money on something that isn't necessary".Quote:
Originally Posted by dave parker
My second beef has more to do with the way SFI and HANS have handled this whole thing - the SFI spec by all accounts was written by Hubbard, and they have gone out of their way on more than one occasion to try and prevent other companies from marketing competing devices. When you're talking about a safety device, and you have a company out there trying to prevent other, competing devices from being available to consumers...well, let's just say that leave's a bad taste in my mouth. If I continue to race with SCCA after this year (I'm about 50/50 right now), and I do end up having to spend money on some device, I can sure as hell gaurantee you it won't be from HANS.
Lastly - and this wasn't one of the choices - the members of this club decidedly opposed the requirement for a mandatory H&N device, and even the CRB opposed it, yet the BoD decided to go against the member's wishes and institute the requirement.
That's my $.02
Well, Dave, just to state the obvious again...Quote:
Originally Posted by dave parker
My reasoning is mostly related to #3.
I have had an Isaac since the year they came out. it offers superior numbers to the Hans.*
Now I must buy something SFI. Which has inferior numbers to what I currently have.
This means I must:
But a new device $700.
To REMAIN AS SAFE AS I CURRENTLY AM, I must also buy a new seat, to make up for the new devices poor protection. So, new seat, proper mounts, etc etc, easy $1000. (lets ignore, for now, the whole seat spec debacles)
(Now, as an example of SFI workings, we have the belt SFI rule, where some "member" of the SFI (a company that wants to sell more belts) reported that if the belts are left outside in the Florida sun, and get rained on everyday, they can degrade due to UV exposure, so, the 5 yr rating should be reduced to two years. Funny how the SFI jumps on that and the whole SFI belt buying world now buys belts 2.5 times as often. How'd you like YOUR business products to have a mandate that results in 2.5 times the sales!?). I spent the big FIA bucks, so I'm good there, I think.
But wait...even after spending the $1700, I'm still less safe. Why? Because if/when I crash, and I'm upside down/ pinched against a barrier/on my side/whatever, I now get to wriggle through a window thats 33% smaller in opening size than it was before, thanks to the new 'safer' seat that I got to make up for the inferiority of my new mandated H&N device, that replaces my superior performing but "dangerous and illegal head and neck restraint".
Ah yes, this rule will be a HUGE step forward for me. More money, less actual safety. SO glad we have assholes in our country who sue just to sue and legal depts who run around in fear because settling is cheaper than the day in court..
So, yea, I'm looking at huge money to go backwards in safety.
*I have just learned that there is possibly an SFI device that offers the same protection as I have now. I'll have to confirm that. Even still, it's beyond annoying that because of some SFI racketeering, that i'll end up wasting more money on something I have absolutely no need for.
That summarizes my reason as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by lateapex911
Actually I am still hoping to find a device a can wear while still wearing my device of choice. That is at least more money, equivilent safety.
Again, the observed dealings of the SFI do not relate to their PUBLISHED (on their own website), objectives "Openness" and "Publication and Disclosure". If you read their website, there is a section with the heading "What do the letters 'SFI' stand for?". Their answer is that the S does not stand for SEMA as it once did. but does not go on to tell us what the S stands for now. Make up your own meaning, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by lateapex911
Jake: The following paragraph is from the SFI website. It refers to an opprotunity to appeal any decision made by SFI by any 'interested parties', not just members.
Due Process
Open hearings with adequate notice of all activities shall be given, copies of these procedures shall be available, and the opportunity to be heard or to appeal any decision shall be provided to all interested parties. All activities are to be conducted with fairness toward all interested persons.
This has come up in the past, Bill.
It's rhetoric. Like the guy who listens to his wife, hears her out, then says, "We're doing it my way".
I think they WILL listen, and WILL accept input, but, they make their call as they $ee fit. oops, did I typo there? not really.
:) :023:Quote:
Originally Posted by lateapex911
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave parker
My opinion is similar to what Dave posted above. I understand many of the objections, but disagree with most...
1) The Money... We all hate spending money.. What about buying new belts when they expire or helmets when the snell rating moves up? Yet we all buy them and find a way to pay for it.
3) choice..Mostly the Isaac debate. That has been debated for a long time, I am pretty neutral on that device, meaning I don't think it is near as good as many of you say, nor as bad as many others say. I prefer the HANS, but would wear another H&N if the HANS was not allowed.
As far as not proving they work, You can argue anything if you have enough time and effort, IMO there is no doubt the head and neck supports save lives. If one live is saved, it is worth all the complaints IMO.
If I could only run the hans and helmet or my suit and helmet, I would hand my suit, gloves and shoes over immediately to put my hans on.
We really don't need helmets or seat belts either? Why is it OK to mandate them, but not H&N?
So, when is the CRB/BoD banning club racing altogether? I mean, "if one life is saved" is the de facto standard for safety, then it's certainly "worth it", right...?Quote:
Originally Posted by jdrago1
That's a very...well, "silly" is the nicest thing I can think of...thing to say, Jim, given the significant number of people that have died in auto racing accidents throughout history due to fire.Quote:
If I could only run the hans and helmet or my suit and helmet, I would hand my suit, gloves and shoes over immediately to put my hans on.
You say there is "no doubt" these devices save lives. How many people are you aware of, Jim, that have lost their lives in club racing due to lack of a head and neck restraint?
Because people are intelligent enough to recognize that many racers have lost their lives due to being flung around inside a vehicle upon impact, and due to burning to death in a fire.Quote:
We really don't need helmets or seat belts either? Why is it OK to mandate them, but not H&N?
What's the stats for lack of H&NR?
GA
i have an Isaac. i don't want to spend money again.
i bought the Isaac after SCCA said H&NR would not be mandated.
my SFI/FIA harness is attached to a NON-SFI certified (SCCA only certified) roll-cage.
forget the line in the sand about water bottles. wait until we are told we have to have SFI certified cages. welded by certified welders. with material certifications for the main hoop. and x-rays to prove weld penetration. surely if a we can prevent one harness bar from failing in a crash, it will be worth it.
the harness bar failed in the car of the one race i was in where there was a fatality.
15 year olds can race after parents have signed a waiver even though the Supreme Court of Florida has ruled that parents cannot do that. that does not lower the club's liability/exposure. that is a marketing decision and not a safety decision. SCCA wants to say that "insert next hero driver's name here" came from SCCA in its TV and magazine spots.
any safety device you buy may have a counterfeit SFI sticker on it. wait until that happens with an H&NR. and SCCA will not tell us what devices have these because they don't know either.
the HANS transfer force via helmet, anchor, tether, to HANS gizmo, to seatbelt. Isaac is helmet-anchor-tether-belt. fewer links in the chain so fewer failure points.
i have never argued against the requiring an H&NR but i am dead set against it NOT being performance based. for crying out loud, we are a club that looks for performance in practically every aspect of our sport and now we cannot use something that has superior numbers.
last i checked, there was nearly 1000 words in the beginning of the GCR that said that SCCA is not liable for what i am doing.
i have written detailed letters with charts, graphs, lawsuit references, etc. will i race next year, maybe. but the ARRC this year is definately out of the question. the fuel budget will likely pay for next year's H&NR. and it will not be a HANS!
i wonder if the colonoscopy i am getting next month is with an SFI certified device or will just feel like it....
Interesting. So you don't really think testsled results run by Delphi (et al) engineers are valid?Quote:
Originally Posted by jdrago1
Honestly, its worrisome that a CRB member will be guiding the decision based on his feelings, when empirical data exists.
As for your question regarding why we need and accet the mandating of belts and helmets...please, at least bring relevant comparisons to the conversation.
I am not limited in my choice of belts to one obviously flawed standard. Lets face it, EVERYone knows that HANS wrote the SFI 38.1 standard, and did it in a restrictive manner with aspects that don't do anything but dampen innovation, regardless of performance potential. And the Snell foundation runs its business in an entirely different manner. You're comparing apples to rotten tomatoes Jim.