Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

[Bill Miller]

Oh, and say goodby to the ole neck collar, 360 degree helmet support, thingies. They're head and neck restraint systems and they do NOT have SFI 38.1 stickers...
[/b]

Yeah, but they don't attach to your helmet.

[mustanghammer]

Per my area director the CRB Head and Neck proposal allowing only SFI approved devices to be used has not been voted on by the BOD.

I think the comments in fastrack by the CRB point to the fact they think they have an end-around regardless of the BOD vote. Can you say power stuggle?

[AntonioGG]

Did you guys read the rest of Fastrack? Look at some of the other changes...all dealing with liability. You are reacting to this as if there is a persecution of a single company. SCCA is passing the buck to SFI in all aspects...I wonder if clutches are next?

[gsbaker]

Knowingly banning any proven safety product is not the road to reduced liability. And as far as that ancient rule about single-point release is concerned, I direct your attention to item 3 below (From a letter received this month, presented in its entirety, without emphasis):

<blockquote>Hello Gregg. Long time no talk. I&#39;ve intended to email/call you for quite a while about this but somehow seem to get bogged down with this or that.

I bought a new helmet (a wickedly cool Bell Vortex FA) and HANS device earlier this year. I did so because HANS use is mandated by Grand Am. After 4 months of use, I have some perceptions:

1) I hope I never crash with one on because I feel like my belts are "just lying there" on top of the neck restraint. I often fear that they&#39;ll shift in a side impact, negating the HANS&#39; effectiveness. Many times during a race I will feel my belts to see if they&#39;ve shifted. Paranoia perhaps. Of course, this fear is pure unscientific guess work on my part.

2) I&#39;ve tried HANS 2 sizes to see what feels right and they are both uncomfortable, leaving my general neck area feeling pinched and a tad raw. My arms also tingle a bit when I get the shoulder belts as tight as I like (admittedly, which is quite tight). Maybe I&#39;m not used to it yet.

3) I hope I never get caught in a situation where I have to vacate the car in a hurry, because it takes me 2-3 times as long to get out of the car with my HANS on than it did with my ISAAC. The HANS (Head And Neck Snare) gets caught in the window netting or in the harnesses without fail, it seems (OK not every time, but it only takes once of the wrong time). Perhaps I&#39;m just not used to it yet.

4) I hope I never [again] have to feel up to my helmet at the start of a race and notice that one of the "quick disconnects" had somehow "quickly disconnected" through the process of ingress and belting-in, and without me knowing it was disconnected until I was pulling out onto the track. Perhaps I&#39;m not used to getting INTO the car with it yet. But hey, it&#39;s not like those quick driver changes in endurance racing are hairy or anything.

5) My neck is stiff after races. This is a luxury I took for granted after three years of ISAAC use. Perhaps this tells me I need to be working out my neck muscles more in case of a lateral impact? I dunno...

6) Neck mobility isn&#39;t as good. Go figure. Could be I&#39;m not used to it yet.

7) My perception is everything to me and I realize a lot of what I just said is exactly that - perception. BUT I DO NOT FEEL AS SAFE AS I DID WITH MY ISAAC. Most of my fear comes from a) getting trapped in a [burning] car and b) taking a side/lateral-impact - the support just isn&#39;t there, as proven by my slightly sore neck after a stint with the HANS.

QUESTION:
What can be done to get the ISAAC legalized for Grand Am and other sanctioning bodies? Is this politicking at work? Is it $$$ to certify the ISAAC? GET ME OUT OF THIS HANS. </blockquote>

Gee, I detect a note of sarcasm.

Talk about liability exposure. If this guy gets barbequed his estate will own Grand Am and everyone named France.

[sgallimo]

Yeah, but they don&#39;t attach to your helmet.
[/b]

True but they are a head and neck device without a SFI 38.1 certification and so their use is also at risk.

[ddewhurst]

Single point release:

20.4. The shoulder harness shall be over the shoulder type. There shall be a single release common to the seat belt and shoulder harness.

That would be the single point release along with adding the anti submarine stuff correct.

I have straped myself into the car as described above, then I attached my ISAAC. Now I rotated my cam lock & with a common single point release my my belts are free of each other just as the rule specs they SHALL be.

Maybe a rule rewrite is in order.

What do you all think ?

David

[gsbaker]

Dave brings up a great point that has been lost in the shuffle, i.e. that the Isaac system does not violate the GCR. In fact, the GCR says nothing about H&N restraints.

Nevertheless, we prefer the spirit of the rules deal with getting out of the car, not getting out of the seat.

(Edit: Somewhere is a reference to using 2" belts with the HANS. FasTrack maybe.)

[Knestis]

A classic case of diddling around the edges of a policy rather than stepping back, asking what is the primary intention (and secondary, if they become important), and writing a clear regulation. In this case, we have the same issue going on at the "local" level (SCCA is one instantiation of the SFI-guided policy on H&N systems) as we have at the higher, world motorsport level, with the "single-point-of-release" silliness.

The "protect your head and neck" and "get out of the car" rules have to be made separate, to avoid the chick-egg goofiness:

1. If we care about egress, the CRB needs to write a rule addressing it - "All drivers must be able to get completely out of and 10 feet away from their race car in less than XX seconds when asked to demonstrate their ability to do so. This must be accomplished unaided in a stationary, upright position with all accessories, driver comfort, communication, harness, head & neck restraint, steering wheel, window net, and other potential hindrances in place, exactly as they will be in racing conditions."

2. A head and neck restraint system meeting the following head load reduction performance levels is (recommend/required): (insert performance standard here)

It is notable to me that they pussyfoot around actually REQUIRING H&N systems because they know good and well there will be a giant hew and cry from the membership, but are really brave about taking away my responsibility to my family for making the best decision for my own safety. Take this for what you will, as my "sprint racing" driver suit is NOT SFI rated but provides thermal protection FAR beyond the minimum SFI standard for our game.

K

[AntonioGG]

Knowingly banning any proven safety product is not the road to reduced liability.
[/b]

In case you were responding to me, I wasn&#39;t saying there was merit to their decision.
I&#39;m only trying to point out the current environment.

[gsbaker]

In case you were responding to me, I wasn&#39;t saying there was merit to their decision.
I&#39;m only trying to point out the current environment.
[/b]

No, no. It was a general comment. Sorry if I offended.

It&#39;s human nature for sanctioning bodies to feel secure when in a crowd of like-minded folks, but when it turns out to be lemmings headed for the cliff, someone needs to sound the alarm.

Kirk, as is often the case, has summed it up well. These are old rules that were put in place decades ago and no longer apply to a modern racing environment. So replace them with rules directed at performance, not design. Do you want to use explosive bolts and an ejection seat to bail? Fine. Show us that it works.

[Darryl Pritchett]

From my perspective at this time I have no head & neck restraint system. I am purchasing one at the end of this season just for my own reasons not anything to do with all this and am leaning towards the R3. My question is this. If the isaac is better then the Hans, or R3 ect. Why not reengineer it to meet the standards with a single point release system? Also does it meet or exceed all crash test? If it meets the standards and has equal or better crash test data then it should open the door up for a company like Isaac to excell in this market. If it cannot meet the standard for crash data then maybe it should not be allowed. It seems this is all about proving the Isaac&#39;s to be better then the Hans, R3 ect. If so meet the standard and let the perspective buyer make their buying decision, if not then lets move on.

[sgallimo]

.... Why not reengineer it to meet the standards with a single point release system? ......
If so meet the standard and let the perspective buyer make their buying decision, if not then lets move on.
[/b]

You&#39;ve hit upon the point rather nicely. The current Isaac design performs better than the leading "single point release system". To redesign the Isaac to follow that single point release design would lead to a reduction of performance and safety. The "feature" that allows the HANS to meet the single release aspect of 38.1 is the "feature" that could allow the belts to slip off during an impact. By leaving that "feature" out of its design, the Isaac removes that risk of accidential device detachment - thus dramatically improving driver safety.

This is why folks want a SFI performance certification instead of the current SFI implementation certification. We continue to fight because we want the SCCA to allow us to select from the available devices that meet the performance specs.

[ryotko]

...My question is this. If the isaac is better then the Hans, or R3 ect. Why not reengineer it to meet the standards with a single point release system? Also does it meet or exceed all crash test? If it meets the standards and has equal or better crash test data then it should open the door up for a company like Isaac to excell in this market. If it cannot meet the standard for crash data then maybe it should not be allowed. It seems this is all about proving the Isaac&#39;s to be better then the Hans, R3 ect. If so meet the standard and let the perspective buyer make their buying decision, if not then lets move on.
[/b]

All of your points have been addressed. You really should read the thread before you jump in on page 15 with all the answers. To sum it up, the problem isn&#39;t with any of the available products, it&#39;s with a bad SFI spec. that&#39;s being poorly implemented by SCCA.

-Bob

[gsbaker]

Details here.

[lateapex911]

From my perspective at this time I have no head & neck restraint system. I am purchasing one at the end of this season just for my own reasons not anything to do with all this and am leaning towards the R3. My question is this. If the isaac is better then the Hans, or R3 ect. Why not reengineer it to meet the standards with a single point release system? Also does it meet or exceed all crash test? If it meets the standards and has equal or better crash test data then it should open the door up for a company like Isaac to excell in this market. If it cannot meet the standard for crash data then maybe it should not be allowed. It seems this is all about proving the Isaac&#39;s to be better then the Hans, R3 ect. If so meet the standard and let the perspective buyer make their buying decision, if not then lets move on.
[/b]

Not so simple.....

This gets messy....the SFI standard isn&#39;t about crash tests. Cynics will point out that its about cash flow, but the physical properties of the standard are very exclusive to all other architecture types. I encourage you to read the spec. It requires a "Main unit" that is held in place by the belts, but free to leave with the driver, and involves point of release language. It further goes on to define materials and such. Not surprisingly, the people involved with the HANS were &#39;instrumental&#39; in the writing of the spec.

After reading that spec, I found it hard to, in my mind, design anything materially different than a HANS clone. It&#39;s as though our government, when the light bulb was invented, contacted LFI (Lighting safety Institute) and asked for a standard. LFI went to the leading expert in the field, a Mr Edison, and asked him to help write the specs, because really, the LFI knew little about the device. So they produced a standard that decreed that all future LFI standard lighting devices would use a glass spere with a filiment as the light source.

Which leaves little room for advancement and innovation.

Simply put, it&#39;s a dumb ass standard, written for all the wrong reasons.

And this discussion is NOT about the Isaac...although it has become the poster child for the non SFI units as it does happen to perform very well, arguably better in some cases that the devices that we will be allowed (or forced) to use.

But, (to carry the light comparision further) because it uses an HID light source instead of a filiment, we can&#39;t use it. Draconian.

The SFI spec, 38.1, is available not on the SFI ste, but on the HMSmotorsort site, here:
http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1...ecification.pdf

Note item 2.2 and B is most interesting.

A classic case of diddling around the edges of a policy rather than stepping back, asking what is the primary intention (and secondary, if they become important), and writing a clear regulation. In this case, we have the same issue going on at the "local" level (SCCA is one instantiation of the SFI-guided policy on H&N systems) as we have at the higher, world motorsport level, with the "single-point-of-release" silliness.

The "protect your head and neck" and "get out of the car" rules have to be made separate, to avoid the chick-egg goofiness:

1. If we care about egress, the CRB needs to write a rule addressing it - "All drivers must be able to get completely out of and 10 feet away from their race car in less than XX seconds when asked to demonstrate their ability to do so. This must be accomplished unaided in a stationary, upright position with all accessories, driver comfort, communication, harness, head & neck restraint, steering wheel, window net, and other potential hindrances in place, exactly as they will be in racing conditions."

2. A head and neck restraint system meeting the following head load reduction performance levels is (recommend/required): (insert performance standard here)

It is notable to me that they pussyfoot around actually REQUIRING H&N systems because they know good and well there will be a giant hew and cry from the membership, but are really brave about taking away my responsibility to my family for making the best decision for my own safety. Take this for what you will, as my "sprint racing" driver suit is NOT SFI rated but provides thermal protection FAR beyond the minimum SFI standard for our game.

K
[/b]

Agreed.....but it is my impression that the club, or the CRB, or perhaps the BoD, has chosen to follow their paid legal counsels advice that they are not in the position to decide what is, and what is not acceptable.

In my discussions with those involved, they are loath to consider such an idea. "Can&#39;t do that" or "Not our place to define such a thing" and so on.

From a common sense view, that makes no sense. We should wear NOTHING(?) rather than we look at the big picture?

But from a legal view, I guess common sense and actual safety are not on the list of concerns.

[turboICE]

Of course legal counsel is not concerned with actual safety. Legal counsel wants to know if they had all their ducks in row when presented to a jury.

Consider the average jury&#39;s reaction to the rule and the spec. A spec exists and the rule utilized it. Do you think for a second they will have any desire to gain sufficient understanding that the spec was manipulated in its creation and as a result the rule reduced safety? From their perspective an "independent" body set a spec and the rule relied on it. Legal counsel says the club is good to go.

Which makes me wonder why we even have any group in the club with safety in the title. If they are going to pass on their responsibility for our safety to those who are trying to address legal liability - what is the point? Oh to give the appearance that it was the safety group who determined and put the rule in place for a jury, of course.

The whole thing is a farce and I really don&#39;t understand how such a large group of persons representing the club and claiming to be addressing safety can actually stomach this result.

[Darryl Pritchett]

Thanks (Gsbaker) for you post with details on the Isaacs. Now I am not an engineer nor claiming this is a simple solution. I actually like the idea of the Isaacs.

My idea and feel free to shoot it down if its not possible. How about having a back piece similar to the R3 that straped around your torso and the Isaacs attaching to that. Would this not solve the single point release issue and still protect the driver if the belts were to come off the unit due to the fact of the unit straped to the back. Yes it may not work quit as good as todays unit but if it passed the standard and is still better then the Hans, would we all not win by having another alternative choice.

Just an idea.

[lateapex911]

I just spoke with my area Director, Bob Introne, and voiced my opinion regarding the issues here. He was open minded, and supportive, and very approachable. I&#39;m not sure he wants his views repeated here, but I was pleased and relieved to find him so open to the discussion.

I encourage others to do the same. Go to your regions website, get the contact info, and call or write. I think that they would like to know what you think, and it&#39;s our job to let them know how we want our club run.

[gsbaker]

Thanks (Gsbaker) for you post with details on the Isaacs. Now I am not an engineer nor claiming this is a simple solution. I actually like the idea of the Isaacs.

My idea and feel free to shoot it down if its not possible. How about having a back piece similar to the R3 that straped around your torso and the Isaacs attaching to that. Would this not solve the single point release issue and still protect the driver if the belts were to come off the unit due to the fact of the unit straped to the back. Yes it may not work quit as good as todays unit but if it passed the standard and is still better then the Hans, would we all not win by having another alternative choice.

Just an idea.
[/b]

And it&#39;s a good idea. The problem is one of liability. Because SFI requires a design that does not positively capture the belt, the belts are allowed to slide off the shoulder. This is extremely dangerous, for obvious reasons.

Personally, I have no interest in telling a jury that we knowingly provided our now-deceased customer with an inferior design so we could make more money. Someone will eventually get sued over this and the spec will change, assuming SFI survives.

[erlrich]

Just curoius - and maybe we have a few tech and/or grid workers here who could provide some insight - who would be responsible for checking the H&N devices for compliance, assuming they were not a required piece of equipment (i.e., not required to undergo annual inspection)? As far as I can tell if the equipment is not required then tech really wouldn&#39;t care about it, and I&#39;ve never heard of grid workers checking equipment for SFI compliance, so realistically who is going to tell us we can&#39;t use our non-SFI restraint?