head and neck restraint required

[mlytle]

Originally posted by gsbaker@Dec 29 2005, 11:52 PM
We were chatting with several helmet folks at PRI and confirmed that, industry wide, about 25% of racers purchase a new helmet every year, so the 4 year replacement cycle is average.

[snapback]69531[/snapback]

whoooo hoooo! i am average!!!

[JamesB]

I am really not surprised what you learned from PRI. My last helmet was just starting to show wear from AX and track days and I had the helmet for 4 years, it was a SA95 and I figured if I am going to start club I might as well get a new helmet with a SA2000 rating just because.

If mine lasts 5 years I would be surprised. At the WDCR fall school it was pretty chilly and I was still soaked in sweat ever every session. I can only think of how much I will sweat come summer.

[leggwork]

get yourself a nomex head sock/balaclava - it helps keep the helmet dry.
bruce

Originally posted by JamesB@Dec 30 2005, 07:51 PM
I am really not surprised what you learned from PRI. My last helmet was just starting to show wear from AX and track days and I had the helmet for 4 years, it was a SA95 and I figured if I am going to start club I might as well get a new helmet with a SA2000 rating just because.

If mine lasts 5 years I would be surprised. At the WDCR fall school it was pretty chilly and I was still soaked in sweat ever every session. I can only think of how much I will sweat come summer.

[snapback]69606[/snapback]

[JamesB]

I already have one due to facial hair I dont plan to shave off. And still not only did I wring out sweat from the balaclava but the helmet was damp too.

[gsbaker]

The National Safety Steward for BMWCCA Club Racing is a HANS dealer.

[JamesB]

so.....they didnt require HANS but SFI approved gear. he didnt just exclude your company. So please drop the damn conspiricy crap. Get SFI approved and then you can even be seen at pro events!!!

[gsbaker]

It would be irresponsible to produce an inferior design.

[JamesB]

Well, then suck it up. It's no conspricy if you refuse to desing your product to pass SFI cerfication. Thus R3 and Hans gain the upper hand. I don't care who wrote the rule, I look at test results and cerfications. Even if you blow them out of the water it doesnt matter if SFI wont let you slap their cert on it.

I am not surprised that BMWCCA would side with a standardized testing cerfication, its a solid CYA. Your not the only company left out, but I dont see them running around crying black ops and kickbacks.

[gsbaker]

Well, then suck it up. It's no conspricy[sic] if you refuse to desing[sic] your product to pass SFI cerfication.[/b]

Exactly. There is no conspiracy.

Relax, James. SFI says we should design a product in a certain fashion, regardless of performance, while the data prove that SFI is wrong, so we won't do it. End of story.

And the CYA is anything but solid when BMWCCA has to explain this to a jury.

[JamesB]

Only if the lawyer can prove negligence on the sanctioning body failed policing to ensure the H&N that failed did not have current SFI certification. It would take a pretty crafty lawyer, negiligence and a host of other issues to poke a hole in their cerfication requirement.

Oh and I am relaxed, I am just tired of the conspiricy theorists running around here crying about something they have a choice to effect.

If you feel the SFI requirements don't save lives, prove it, and use the proof to petition a change.

[leggwork]

Greg,
Are there any moves afoot to update the 38.1 spec?
thanks,
bruce

It would be irresponsible to produce an inferior design.
[/b]

[gsbaker]

Greg,
Are there any moves afoot to update the 38.1 spec?
thanks,
bruce
[/b]

Not to our knowledge. The spec may be reviewed at the annual meeting.

Only if the lawyer can prove negligence on the sanctioning body failed policing to ensure the H&N that failed did not have current SFI certification. It would take a pretty crafty lawyer, negiligence and a host of other issues to poke a hole in their cerfication requirement....[/b]

As a veteran of over 100 product liability cases I can tell you with absolute certainty that, under the right circumstances, taking down the BMWCCA and its officers would be like shooting fish in a barrel for the estate of a deceased driver. The plaintiffs will throw in conspiracy and racketeering as a matter of course.

[leggwork]

well, if somebody knowledgable like you isn't pushing for a change, it won't happen, will it? Isn't this pretty important to your business (if all amateur sanctioning bodies follow BMWCR)?
cheers,
bruce

QUOTE(leggwork @ Feb 3 2006, 01:16 PM)

Greg,
Are there any moves afoot to update the 38.1 spec?
thanks,
bruce


Not to our knowledge. The spec may be reviewed at the annual meeting.

[/b]

[gsbaker]

Bruce,

We have been pushing since December of 2002, nearly two years before the current spec came out. Specifically, we recommended a graduated measure of head load reduction rather than a pass/fail limit.

BMWCCA is the only amateur body to mandate anything--yet to take effect--and so far no others have followed. We doubt any will.

This is a self-correcting phenomenon. People will eventually "get it". The only question is when and at what cost.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

[JamesB]

Well wouldn't liability become much lower by requiring that the safety product chosen by that driver must be certified by a recognized organization. Rather then if they where to just require an H&N device and the product chosen by that driver turned out to be ineffective then sanctioning body will be held accountable for not assuring that the H&N device was held to a certain set standard? Is that not what SFI cerfication is about? Adhearance to a set standard so you dont have to spell it out in your rules? If you expect me to think otherwise its an uphill battle all the way for you.


However, if noone is actively proving your claim that current requirements are ineffective in saving lives and needs to be changed. Then if the product you support so wholeheartedly is superior to the current certified designs out there, I say one thing. Why not step up and show us the 38.1 sled test numbers, not your personal test. Prove that the product really does exceed the 38.1 standard. With that data ontop of the 30 degree offset data, would not SFI listen to fact and reason rather then coersion and conspiricy accusations?

[gsbaker]

James,

I agree with what you are saying. There are only two rather fine points that are causing the problem:

1) Of course it only makes sense for sanctioning bodies to eventually adopt a standard. They do it for belts, suits, roll cages, etc., why not H&N restraints? The fine point in this regard is that SFI Spec 38.1 includes specific design criteria that have trapped drivers in burning cars and that have nothing to do with head injuries. If bodies want to mandate a product certified by the manufacturer to meet/exceed SFI 38.1 performance specs, fine, we already do that. But, if they want the SFI sticker on the product they are going to be dealing only with products that let the belts slip off and that trap drivers in cars. See the problem?

Why not step up and show us the 38.1 sled test numbers, not your personal test. Prove that the product really does exceed the 38.1 standard.[/b]

There is no such thing as a "personal test". All of our testing at Delphi has been to the SFI 38.1 protocol, and the numbers have been published here and provided to headrestraint.org.

...would not SFI listen to fact and reason...[/b]

2) No, they won't. That's the whole point. They are stuck with a disproven old wives' tale left over from the last millennium with this single point nonsense. If they don't wake up soon they are going to BBQ someone. And that's where the liability increases when a sanctioning body mandates an SFI sticker.

[JamesB]

Well untill you can show me proven fact from pro or other racing that the current SFI approved designs (notice there is more then one??) are in fact failing to work as designed to the specs then I dont believe you. The sled test is done without a proper seat which means no bolsters or harness guides and I find that your claim utterly inconclusive.

Fact is fact, you dont meet all SFI 38.1 requirements, you know everyone is going to adopt SFI/FIA approved devices, so you choose to cry about it.

If you can't change the body, maybe its because the body has no proof that change is needed. I have seen man pro wrecks in the last two years all of then requiring a 38.1 device and you would figure if the belts where slipping off these devices drivers would be speaking up.

Well all I have seen is you posting data of a 30 degree offset test, thats not the 38.1 test unless I missed a thread. The ISAAC site only shows offset data too, so there is no way to directly compare your results to the 38.1 competition.

[gsbaker]

Whatever you say, James.

[JamesB]

Well rather then explaining to me where your 38.1 sled data was you blew me off. So as much as I like your product philosophy, untill I am sure it wont be a waste of money I cannot invest in it when SCCA decides to require SFI 38.1 devices. This does not mean I will go out and buy a HANS, there are competition I am looking into, and will chose when I feel I have read what I need.