Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

[erlrich]

If it doesn't you won't have to worry about anything again.
Does it look like that the SCCA will make the HANS devices mandatory soon?
[/b]

Dan, I get the impression that there are many within the SCCA who would like to see that happen. I also strongly believe that the current proposed rule is intended to be the first step in that direction. I have no doubt that if this one passes a mandatory SFI certified H&N restraint won't be far behind. That will be a sad day for me, as I really enjoy racing with the guys I'm racing with now.

On a related note, can any of our attorney racers here explain what the difference would be, from a legal liability standpoint, between requiring that racers use an SFI certified device and simply recommending that they use one? There are other instances in the GCR where a safety measure is recommended, I don't understand why that wouldn't work in the case of H&N restraints.

[dj10]

Dan, I get the impression that there are many within the SCCA who would like to see that happen. I also strongly believe that the current proposed rule is intended to be the first step in that direction. I have no doubt that if this one passes a mandatory SFI certified H&N restraint won't be far behind. That will be a sad day for me, as I really enjoy racing with the guys I'm racing with now.

On a related note, can any of our attorney racers here explain what the difference would be, from a legal liability standpoint, between requiring that racers use an SFI certified device and simply recommending that they use one? There are other instances in the GCR where a safety measure is recommended, I don't understand why that wouldn't work in the case of H&N restraints.

[/b]

How about signing a waiver, would or could that do it? Although, I'm not a supporter of the manditory H&N restraint I do believe it has it's place in HIGH speed cars, as seen in pro racing, T1, GT1 etc. I just would like to make my own decision when I feel it is right for me to use it without some organization manditating it.

[lateapex911]

Not that I want to get involved in this debacle but what you've posted is exactly the thought behind the "single point of release" rule. The window net is a restraint as is the recommended right-side net - the latest ruling of having the window net drop down befuddles me though - I'd rather that it fall AWAY from the vehicle (read: fall up) when the vehicle is inverted.

Having watched Puskar Motorsports at Nelson last weekend, they have an "extricator" who removes the driver from the vehicle. Aside from his belts, when the "extricator" pulls the driver, everything else WILL break away which is how those periphreals are designed. For example, F.A.S.T. specifically states that their water line connectors are break-away in case the driver needs to exit the vehicle NOW.
[/b]

And the flipside is the rest of the world.

I've watched Pro drivers, guys who get in and out of cars for a living....guys who are as cool under pressure as anyone, have their heads or bodies stuck in cars after incidents, and it's happened for all the items that need releasing to get out of the car. Sure, a radio connector pops right out when pulled from the right direction... and it's easy to set it up so that it will always pull from the right direction, but lots of teams haven't set it up that way. Hence guys get their heads stuck in the car after a crash. The HANS is no different.

The one point release rule is a total joke, as evidenced by Kevins sternum strap. (Sorry Kevin). Heck, grid workers are actually complimenting him on it, even though by the strictest definition, his restraints now require TWO points of release. Huh?? Should this mandate come to pass, these will be the SAME grid workers who will take an Isaac from his car to protect him from having too many points of release, but won't say "Boo" about his sternum strap!?

The bottom line here is that the SCCA has a set of requirements that were written long before things like HNRs were around, and they've essentially closed their eyes to the release rules' hypoctrical nature.

For the SCCA, now is the time to step back and look at the big picture. Use common sense in the rules. Mandate double buckles on window nets (like mine), mandate methods of drink tube, radio harness and air tube connections. But don't keee jerk reaction HNRs situation requiring 38.1 devices, then further knee jerk it by realizing the huge weakness in lateral impact protection 38.1 devices provide by then requiring huge "wing" seats....which would make the already difficult egress issue even worse.

This is that point in time where we will look back a year from now and say, "That's when we got in this mess".... Let's control our destiny, let's think big picture and not just react out of fear.

[mgyip]

I've watched Pro drivers, guys who get in and out of cars for a living....[/b]

I've worked with some of those Pro drivers and my job is to get them in and out of the car. We find that our drivers get "stuck" b/c they don't want to break the equipment - radio connections, etc.

Back to the issue at hand - I agree that SCCA is behind the times and I don't want any sanctioning body to mandate which HNR device I must use nor do I want them to mandate that I must use one but that's a separate issue. The more mandates and regulations, the more of a PITA for me as a racer.

[Xian]

I'll be at the ARRC wearing my Issac. I will be protesting as well if forced to remove it. IF this rule passes, it would be something of a statement if a large portion of the IT field was kicked off grid because of their H&N restraints.

David
[/b]

Same here. I'm guessing that nothing will be said about the Isaac... I think there are too mayn people who currently use them for the SCCA to start policing them.

Christian, who will continue wearing his Isaac until they pull him from the grid.

[ddewhurst]

Letter sent with positive fedback returned. If your on the fence & have not written YOUR letter do it quickly because I beleive each letter will count.

David Dewhurst
SCCA 250772

[erlrich]

Letter sent with positive fedback returned. If your on the fence & have not written YOUR letter do it quickly because I beleive each letter will count.

David Dewhurst
SCCA 250772 [/b]

Hmmm, I've sent letters to the BoD and my region's director, and have heard nothing back from either...

Maybe I should use some other salutation than "Dear A**hole".

[ddewhurst]

With respect to my H & N restraint letter I received a second positive stroke this a.m. GET YOU LETTERS SENT TODAY.

[Speed Raycer]

With respect to my H & N restraint letter I received a second positive stroke this a.m. GET YOU LETTERS SENT TODAY.
[/b]

Dave, shoot me a copy. I'd like to see what you wrote that's getting you good responses. All I got wasthe form response & one positive response (from my VOTE NO perspective), but the details were a little disheartening (some apparent misinformation about the Isaac)

[mustanghammer]

I do not support the SFI 38.1 requirement. I sent my e-mail to the BOD but was not specific to the devices I prefer or whether or not I agree with SFI 38.1. To me, that isn't the point of this issue. Mandating a spec for a recommended piece of safety gear isn't logical.

I compared this to recommended Fuel Cell specifications for IT cars. IT cars don't have to have cells but the driver may install a non-FIA cell (JAZ, RCI, etc) if they wish.

[Bill Miller]

I do not support the SFI 38.1 requirement. I sent my e-mail to the BOD but was not specific to the devices I prefer or whether or not I agree with SFI 38.1. To me, that isn't the point of this issue. Mandating a spec for a recommended piece of safety gear isn't logical.

I compared this to recommended Fuel Cell specifications for IT cars. IT cars don't have to have cells but the driver may install a non-FIA cell (JAZ, RCI, etc) if they wish.
[/b]

Yet another great example of why this rule would be silly.

[jjjanos]

Can you say "restraint of trade" lawsuit? I know that people in Topeka can! :119:
[/b]

SCCA would not be violating the various anti-trust laws. SCCA could mandate that you use a suit produced by X, shoes made by Y and a helmet made by Z for the same reason that Bridgestone is the only tire allowed in CART.

The only one who might be in violation is the SFI Foundation and then only if they set the standard in collusion with a manufacturer.

Frankly, I find the requirement that...

"Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations."

is a bit arbitrary and capricious given that drivers attach other things to their helmets that require more than the release of the seat belts to get out.

I also am troubled by the cost of SFI 38.1 compliant restraints versus other systems whose performance appears to be as good or better but which fail because of the single-point of release requirement.

Having discovered the availabilty of a restraint system for considerably less than $1,000, I intended purchasing such a system this racing season - greatly increasing my level of personal safety. Upon learning that these less expensive but just as effective devices might not be SCCA legal and surmising that SCCA ultimately will mandate that I use the far more expensive SFI 38.1 compliant systems, I no longer intend to purchase a system at this time. Consequently, the rules process has acheived a result contrary to its intent and instead of increasing my safety, it has reduced it.

[mustanghammer]

Yet another great example of why this rule would be silly.
[/b]

Thanks. I think we need to keep our argument simple.

I also pointed out that the club will be held liable if an ISSAC, Hutchens, Wright, White, etc owner dies on the track when they were not allowed to use said safety device. Any loving spouse or parent would sue the club blind for that one!

[sgallimo]

"Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations."
[/b]

I've said it before. I think the Isaac fits this requirement. To disengage the Isaac head and neck restraint system during emergency situations, no additional motion is required other than the release of the seat belts. The spec doesn't differentiate between "releasing the belts from the head and neck restraint system" and "releasing the seat belts from the driver".

And we don't even have to address the notion that a worker cutting the belts with a knife constitutes a "release of the seat belts" and of their attendant head and neck restraint system.

[mustanghammer]

How is this for service!

I totally agree with your well thought out note. Larry Dent,
Director Area 4

On Jul 28, 2006, at 11:28 AM, scott peterson wrote:

> Dear BOD Members
>
> I do not support this proposal.
>
> Head and Neck restraints are a recommended piece of
> safety gear. Limiting the use of this RECOMMENDED
> safety gear to products that only meet SFI 38.1 is not
> logical. For example Fuel Cells are recomended for
> IT cars. However there is no requirement that if a
> fuel cell is used that it meet FIA specifications.
>
> A fatility that could have been avoided through the
> use of a H&N restraint that the driver owned but
> wasn't allowed to wear (not SFI 38.1 approved) will
> cost this club dearly. The club and it's members
> would be better served by making no decision in this
> matter.
>
> We should use our club's leadership in american road
> racing to force the safety industry to require better
> and fully disclosed testing which would result in
> better safety standard specifications.
>
> Scott Peterson
> #175876

[gsbaker]

[RSTPerformance]

Thanks. I think we need to keep our argument simple.

I also pointed out that the club will be held liable if an ISSAC, Hutchens, Wright, White, etc owner dies on the track when they were not allowed to use said safety device. Any loving spouse or parent would sue the club blind for that one!
[/b]

I wonder how many drivers whome get hurt in anyway will all of a sudden become would have been users?

I wonder how many HANS users whome get hurt in anyway will all of a sudden become I would have been a user if...?

I am sure that in the near future someone will see the jackpot at the end of the rainbow and a simple neck cramp (that never existed in the first place) will become a major $$$ lawsuit...


As for my letter...

I played things a little different and in my letter first I stated that I oppsed the rule and then I asked 6 simple questions for clarification on why they were making these dicesions and how it would benefit the members or the club as a wole. I figure any decision or recomendation has an explination and that we deserve to know and understand it explained directly from those who are making the decisions. This isn't to say that I don't trust any of you!!! Actually I do trust most of you, but I want to here what "they" have to say about it. I will let you all know what I learn!!!

Raymond

[Xian]

How is this for service!

I totally agree with your well thought out note. Larry Dent,
Director Area 4[/b]

Don't feel too special... he sent me the same response today :P

FWIW, one of Larry's duties is as Liaison to the SCCA's Insurance Committee... I suspect insurance is one of the many reasons behind the pending rule addition.

Christian

[Dave Zaslow]

I've sent my letter.

I also ran across another device from South Africa:

http://www.leatt-brace.com/r_product.asp

Dave Z

[Knestis]

Took a lot of thinking but my letter is finally off.

In looking back at this strand, it just ISN'T possible to "keep it simple." If I were a Director worried about the Club's liability exposure, and someone wrote me a letter explaining that it was stupid to "recommend" H&N systems but require that they be 38.1-compliant in cases where a driver chooses to use one, I could VERY easily decide that the best answer is to quit dinking around and simply require SFI systems of everyone, starting in November 2007.

It is absolutely necessary to address the complexities of this issue, take control of the situation, and put drivers' safety TRULY ahead of other interests, including protecting the Club from liability.

K