Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

[dickita15]

Ed O is also one of the 4 people in the known universe certified by SCCA to do course inspections. He is the only one on the safety commitee that I know of no connection to the sale of safety devices.

[88YB1]

Sounds like it's time for the masses to pick up there shovels and pitch forks and revolt. I thinlk they voted no. Something to do with the noise of rattling sabors.

Chuck

[ryotko]

I'll side with the optimistic majority and say the vote will be NO. Something tells me otherwise though.
I've let my membership expire over this issue and refuse to renew until I'm confident that I'll be able to use the Isaac.

-Bob

[PSherm]

I'm gonna say the CRB never presented it to the BOD...

I guess that means no? And I have no idea what anybody on the BOD, Safety Commitee, or CRB does for a living, and I don't need a pony.

I will, however, be happy to accept a free ISAAC...

[gsbaker]

...and I don't need a pony.

I will, however, be happy to accept a free ISAAC...
[/b]

Ponys only. Isaacs are hard to come by.

[shwah]

I think this battle is won, the vote was no don't recommend head restraints and require SFI certification. I think the war is lost, the next vote will be yes to require head restraints and require SFI certification.

I also think this sucks, but I will not let it keep me from racing.

[Stan]

Any planned celebrations might be a bit premature, since that was submitted to the BoD was the recommendation that h&n devices, if used, be SFI 38.1 certificated. If the BoD indeed voted no, that still leaves the single-point-of-release rule (GCR 20.4) in place...and the ISAAC still non-compliant.

Stan

PS - I have nothing against the ISAAC...just pointing out the glaringly obvious.

[erlrich]

that still leaves the single-point-of-release rule (GCR 20.4) in place...and the ISAAC still non-compliant.

Stan

PS - I have nothing against the ISAAC...just pointing out the glaringly obvious. [/b]

With all due respect Stan I must wholeheartedly disagree with your statement. The commonly mis-quoted "single-point-of-release" rule actually states "The phrase "single point of release" on the other hand means to me exactly what you and many others have expressed, that there must be a single point, somewhere in the harness system, that when activated releases the driver from the harnesses. If the rule in fact stated there must be a single point of release I would agree with you completely. However that is not what the rule says, and to my way of thinking there is nothing in section 20.4 that would preclude me from using the ISAAC, or any other H&N device regardless of how it functioned. Of course, that's just one man's opinion.

Oh, and one last thing; even though I disagree with you on this issue, I also want to thank you for taking the time to stop by and join in the discussions when you are able. I know every member of this forum really appreciates the fact that a member of the CRB is listening to our opinions.

[turboICE]

I really, really want to hear club counsel's thoughts on a situation in the grid whereby someone approaches a driver and insists they remove their ISAAC prior to exiting grid to the track. And if it was to happen to me it will be great because it will be on video for later review by my estate.

[RSTPerformance]

Stan-

At this point I have to agree with earl on this one... If we were to DQ or not allow someone to race with the Issac or similar H&N system that needs additional releases then we will also need to requre that many people remove thier doors, window nets, radio's, cool suites, and what not before they race. I do understand the opinion that many have that a radio wire or similar can easily be cut but IF your intermpretation of the rule is what we should follow then be sure that you look at all the implications of your view, and don't use it only to attack certain H&N restraint systems.

I think that SCCA probably made the right decission and I hope that it is because this topic needs some other sort of requrement structure. Single release is NOT the scape goat, nor a good reason for all this debate.

Raymond

[Stan]

With all due respect Stan I must wholeheartedly disagree with your statement. The commonly mis-quoted "single-point-of-release" rule actually states "The shoulder harness shall be the over the shoulder type. There shall be a single release common to the seat belt and shoulder harness." And no, I'm not playing silly word games. There is a huge difference between "single release" and "single point of release" in my opinion. "Single release" refers to the mechanism that attaches the individual components of the harness system together, and as far as 20.4 is concerned means that there must be a single mechanism, or latch, to which all the individual harness pieces attach, and which when activated releases the harness components from each other.

The phrase "single point of release" on the other hand means to me exactly what you and many others have expressed, that there must be a single point, somewhere in the harness system, that when activated releases the driver from the harnesses. If the rule in fact stated there must be a single point of release I would agree with you completely. However that is not what the rule says, and to my way of thinking there is nothing in section 20.4 that would preclude me from using the ISAAC, or any other H&N device regardless of how it functioned. Of course, that's just one man's opinion.

Oh, and one last thing; even though I disagree with you on this issue, I also want to thank you for taking the time to stop by and join in the discussions when you are able. I know every member of this forum really appreciates the fact that a member of the CRB is listening to our opinions.[/b]

Earl,

Sorry my "short-hand" was misconstrued as a "mis-quote", because I wasn't actually quoting anything. Rather, I was informally highlighting that where the ISAAC has encountered problems with SCCA, that challenge is independent of the recent BoD vote, and remains unresolved.

You may interpret 20.4 as requiring a single release of the belt components, but others have taken exactly the stance you disagree with...that it means there should be a single release for the driver. But rather than debate the semantics of the GCR, which is less than crystal clear , I suggest we concentrate on achieving what the vast majority of writers to the CRB want - language permitting safe and effective h&n systems, because even if the BoD voted no, that issue still isn't resolved.

You guys know the [email protected].

Stan

PS - Thanks for the words of welcome, Earl. I try to check in every few weeks, but don't post often.

[Bill Miller]

Well, that woke everyone up.

Regardless of which way the vote went, I agree that the fat lady has yet to sing. I also agree with Dave that the time is ripe for a more proactive stance, which reminds me of an observation made recently by a party who shall remain annonymous. Allow me to paraphrase:

Annonymous Party (AP): "So, an Isaac is as good as SFI designs in frontal impacts?"
Me: "Well, you can tune a HANS to get under 1,000N neck tension on the Delphi sled, which is better, but you need a four belt shoulder harness."
AP: "That's great if you hit something at 300Gs, but you're dead by then anyway, right?"
Me: "Right. Soft tissue injuries in the chest cavity start around 150Gs or so."
AP: "And no SFI design can touch an Isaac on side impacts, right?"
Me: "Not even close."
AP: "And SFI designs can lose the belts in amateur road seats whereas the Isaac will keep them in place on the shoulder -- and they can cause egress problems, right?"
Me: "The SFI designs don't always have those problems, of course, but they can, yes."
AP: "So, it is then safe to say that SFI designs don't really offer any practical safety advantage over the Isaac designs, and have documented safety weaknesses, right?
Me: "A good summary, yes."
AP: "And the SCCA wants to use SFI as a point of reference, right."
Me: "They prefer referring to an outside standard, yes."
AP: "Then the solution is obvious."
Me: "What's that?"
AP: "Petition the SCCA to ban all SFI head and neck restraints."

Sounds good to me.

Oh, one other thing that I didn't want to bring up before the vote because it would just muddy the waters. A free pony to the first person who can name the day jobs of two of the three members of the CRB's Safety Committee, listed about a third of the way down the page here: http://www.scca.org/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=0...30&x=080|070&~=.
[/b]

I didn't know SFI designed H&N restraints???

[gsbaker]

I didn't know SFI designed H&N restraints???
[/b]

In effect. The spec (38.1, section 2.5) goes to this single release issue.


Stan,

The issue is resolved -- except, apparently, among a small group on the west coast.

The letter of the 20.4 relates to harnesses only; there is no mention of H&N restraints. The spirit of 20.4 relates to getting the driver out of the car, not getting the driver out of the seat. (Joey Hand probably had no problem getting out of his seat.) Hence, there is no basis in the rules for keeping an Isaac user from driving.

But forget the rules and look at instances where drivers are trapped in their cars by head and neck restraints. Every time it has happened -- every time -- it has been by a product that conforms to this odd interpretation of 20.4 to which you refer. Never an Isaac system. So even if that interpretation of 20.4 is correct all of the evidence says it is the more dangerous approach. What do you do with a more dangerous interpretation of the rule? Enforce it?

The rules, regardless of how they are interpreted, and the field evidence not only support Isaac use, they suggest that certain design concepts should be revisited.

This issue is very much resolved and, frankly, members find the anti-Isaac argument (invariably made by people who have never used one) increasingly embarassing.

TurboIce has it right: If the CRB fails to grasp these fundamental facts and gets someone killed, a jury will be happy to offer a further explanation.

[ddewhurst]

Following is a portion of my letter to ALL those people at SCCA. I agree 100% with Earl. Also within SFI specification 38.1. point 2.1. "decreases both neck stress and head excursion during a vehicle impact without reliance on helmet impact into structures or nets.". Duh, pretty hard while using a HANS to reduce the lateral load from 19% to the 85% reduction of the ISAAC without some sort of side support.

Do we have some people recomending/making rules that will save our lives that don't know how to read? If anyone connected with making a decision on this rule is offended please post within this thread or pm me.


****Please read the SFI Specification 38.1 point 2.1 immediately below and ask yourself the following question. How can the HANS provide equal or greater lateral moment reduction than the ISAAC system without reliance on helmet impact into structures or nets? (Window net, right side net & or a seat with helmet side bars.)


SFI Specification 38.1

2.0 Definitions

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

The driver getting out of the car is a secondary issue to which we have all read about the trials of Joey Hand wearing a HANS attempting to get out of his upside down car during the Grand American Rolex Sports car Series race on June 24th, 2006 at the Mid Ohio sports car race course. Joey Hand didn't/couldn't get out of the car via the SFI specification 38.1 point 2.5 required one release motion. "I couldn't get out because my HANS device was stuck in the window net," The safety workers released Joey Hand's HANS from the window net and extracted Joey from the car. I am not implying that Joey Hand could not have had the same issue had he been wearing a ISAAC system. I am trying to point out that under similar circumstances the same results can occur & that the SFI specification 38.1 point 2.5 required one release motion is not the single best specification.

Do some real thinking about the one release motion specified within the SFI specification 38.1. point 2.5. One release motion to disconnect the safety harness, after disconnect of the drink tube, after disconnect of the radio wire, after disconnect of the window net, after disconnect of the right side net, after disconnect of the steering wheel and then oh crap I'm upside down & I get my HANS caught in the window net that opened from the top down when I was right side up. Next think about the fact that the ISAAC reduces the lateral moment by eighty six percent as compared top the HANS which only reduces the lateral moment by nineteen percent.

Please vote NO to specifying that the SFI specification 38.1 be mandatory for SCCA Club Road Racers.****

David Dewhurst
SCCA 250772

[PSherm]

Following is a portion of my letter to ALL those people at SCCA. Racers.****

[/b]

David - nicely done. Do we have your permission to copy your letter and use it in our letters to the CRB and BOD?

[Doc Bro]

[quote]
But forget the rules and look at instances where drivers are trapped in their cars by head and neck restraints. Every time it has happened -- every time -- it has been by a product that conforms to this odd interpretation of 20.4 to which you refer. Never an Isaac system. So even if that interpretation of 20.4 is correct all of the evidence says it is the more dangerous approach. What do you do with a more dangerous interpretation of the rule? Enforce it?



Greg,

I'll play Devil's advocate for a second without offense I hope, as you know I use the Isaac.

There would be more instances of drivers hanging up with a HANS simply because the numbers of HANS users is higher. It becomes a much more powerful (number of participants) study. If 1 in 1,000 users get hung up and you only have 500 users you may not expect to see hang ups....yes?

That is part of the enigma, shrouded in mystery, wrapped in a conundrum that I see with this whole thing. Sometimes "the people" get confused with pseudo-science (it's even easier to get a lawyer to bite on pseudo-science). The bottom line is unless we have enough users out there with documented crash histories we may not be comparing apples to apples in "their" eyes.

I chose the Isaac because the science was good. But, then again....I understand science.

R

[Knestis]

A thought, Paul - it's generally thought that letters that are simply cut-and-pasted copies of someone else's ideas don't carry near the weight that an individually written one might. It would probably be more powerful to put shared ideas in your own words.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - we need to disentangle the issues being addressed here. We need:

1. A requirement that drivers use H&N systems - since the data strongly suggests that they have the power to keep us safer. Since the science is there to allow it at reasonable cost, designs should be expected to meet specific performance benchmarks using repeatable tests. It is not necessary for any external body to "approve" these devices, once a performance standard has been established, NOR is it appropriate to require particular attributes of system design, as long as performance standards are met.

2. A separate requirement defining minimum egress time requirements - since it seems like this is an issue that we care about. The number of releases (or whatever) is an weak-at-best indirect measure of the time required to get the hell out of a crashed car. Since it is the latter that we care about, rather than the former, the policy should act directly on the desired intention of the rule. Add an item to the GCR that requires that drivers demonstrate, at the request of the appropriate officials, that they can get all the way out of their car with all of their accoutrements in place. If they want to handcuff themselves to the wheel, that's their own how-do-you-do, as long as they can get out in XX seconds.

Blame (again) the SCCA rules writing process that diddles around the edges of existing text, rather than asking what really matters and revising rules as necessary...

K

[lateapex911]

What's disturbing to me is that the SFI spec was written by people with a vested interest in creating a spec around one architectural solution, one that was already designed. It's hard to imagine the designer of a device writing a spec that would either exclude his device, or make the spec open enough that non clone devices could qualify.

So now we have a spec that, in essence, defines the very design. And therefore limits progress, innovation, and yes, performance.

Add to that the conflict arising in the "one release" rules wording. The rule specifically refers to the belts being released, not the driver from the belts. Again, we get into the classic conundrum of reading the rules as written, or adding suppositions like, "of course they are talking about getting the driver out.." Well, if we take that logical path, it's easy to point out that there are a myriad of items that stand in the drivers way of getting out that require releasing, many of which have no standard at all!

I have been reminded many times that the rules mean what the rules say, not what I think, or assume they mean. If they don't say what the rulesmakers intended, they should be rewritten accordingly.

Each side of the reading has it's logical flaws. In the end though, my logic tells me that I'm better off crashing heavily (head on, or the much more likely lateral and multiple hit type of incident) with a device that helps me make it to the end of the crash, and with the least impact on my physiology, so that I can then extract myself from the car.

But now I hear that the "One release" rule is or will be used to exclude devices.

So, my question to any proponents of using the one release rule to remove devices from a driver before he goes out on track is, "Are you making that driver safer by your actions???"

......
2. A separate requirement defining minimum egress time requirements - since it seems like this is an issue that we care about. The number of releases (or whatever) is an weak-at-best indirect measure of the time required to get the hell out of a crashed car. Since it is the latter that we care about, rather than the former, the policy should act directly on the desired intention of the rule. Add an item to the GCR that requires that drivers demonstrate, at the request of the appropriate officials, that they can get all the way out of their car with all of their accoutrements in place. If they want to handcuff themselves to the wheel, that's their own how-do-you-do, as long as they can get out in XX seconds.

....

K
[/b]

Kirk, I am in complete agreement, but I fear the club's counsel will never allow it, for fear of losing his job down the line.

IF the club were to state that we needed to have egress within 15 seconds, and someone were killed within that 15 seconds, say by another car impacting the stopped car in which the driver was in the process of extricating himself from, the club is no doubt fearful that they will be taken to court for setting a standard that killed a driver....

....nevermind the logic that says that it is safer to remain IN the car when in the impact zone.

I do see the clubs legal conundrum here.

I like the idea of course, but I don't see counsel going for it.

[gsbaker]

Doc,

I agree. The proper, scientific way to address the question is to see if the number of occurances are proportional to the devices in the field. Test hypotheses, get "p" statistics, all that stuff. And, yes, someday someone will get injured using an Isaac system, possibly due to an egress issue. No product is perfect, including ours.

On the one hand it is amusing to see numerous instances of SFI/20.4 "compliant" designs trapping people in cars. That's not supposed to happen. On the other hand, it is stunning to witness the flawed logic: Who cares if you can get out of your seat if you can't get out of your car? We ain't talkin' rocket surgery here folks.

Most valuable is to talk to drivers who have used both. You can throw the theories out the window and find out what really happens.

[JamesB]

Other then the Joey Hand incident. How many other incidents have been publicized that you get this grand number from? I only ask because read racing forums all the time, I read racing news every day, I only want to know where your statistics are comming from.

I guess what im after is I have not read report on report of egress issues. So im befuddled why this is your main basis of your argument, in the interest of understanding I just want to see what I am missing.