Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

[gsbaker]

...Just a defined set of minimums with the .org maintaining the test data for public review? It's a big step beyond what we originally envisioned but...is it feasible??

There was a time 40 years ago when Kuhns was just some guy at the race track, too...

K
[/b]

Yes, it is very feasible. We continue to be told that the only reason SFI is attractive is because there is no alternative industry standard that could be considered. Take the Niki approach; just do it. Post just the facts, data you know to be either peer-reviewed or taken from the crash sled DAS. Keep it simple. One chart to start.

I think you'll be surprised at the reaction.

[RSTPerformance]

I've sent my letter.

I also ran across another device from South Africa:

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

Dave Z
[/b]

Interesting... Dave thanks for keeping us updated!!!

Raymond

[ddewhurst]

****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.***

K, I would hope that you used some data to come to the conclusion that you could VERY easily decide ^. :P

If I were King (Man law) I could VERY easily make a data decision to chose three H & N systems & say you SHALL use one of the named H & N systems. The King rule leaves politics out of the equasion.

Primary function of a H & N system is to eliminate neck injurys................

Secondary function of a H & N system is to allow the driver to egress from the car. (Joey Hand, nuff said.)

[Knestis]

Problem is, Dave that the primary POLICY ISSUE in the minds of the current decision-makers might not be in line with the primary purpose of a head-and-neck system. That was the upshot of my letter - that SFI 38.1 is thought to serve an apparent (if untested?) indemnification purpose, and gets tangled up in secondary purposes (egress, mandate of particular design features) to the potential detriment of actually serving your stated first purpose.

The Club has to get its goals and priorities (what we policy geeks talk about as "intentions") straight for this policy implementation - and communicate them with the membership - before it gets wound up in the detail language of the rule.

K

[Dave Burchfield]

"I agree. I will vote no on SIF certification. Larry Dent, Area 4 Director"

Count one for reason and good judgement.

[lateapex911]

The Club has to get its goals and priorities (what we policy geeks talk about as "intentions") straight for this policy implementation - and communicate them with the membership - before it gets wound up in the detail language of the rule.

K
[/b]

Well, it seems to me that there are three groups involved here. (Excluding the obvious manufacturers).

The club

The racers

The SFI

What are the intentions of each??

The racers want the freedom to protect themselves, and in the way that they see fit. In other words, each wants to choose the level of protection, ease of use, and expense that he sees best. It's safe to assume that we as racers are fine with being told what that level of protection needs to be at a minimim.

The Club wants to protect itself from liability. (It does this in the interest to protect us, the members, so that we have a club to race with in the future, and that other on going interests of the Club are not affected.)

The SFI wants to......hmmm.....???? This is where it gets cloudy in my mind. Well, I know the SFI collects money (from a diverse group of interested parties) in exchange for creating safety standards, and for managing the manufacturers' compliance to those standards. Interestingly, it collects from manufacturers, as well as it uses the same manufacturers to help in the actual creation of the certification standards.

I called SCCA tech advisor Jeremy Thoenis today, about some other business, and discussed the HNR thing brieflyI left with the impression that he felt that there wasn't any option other than to mandate SFI devices...at least eventually. He cited the fact that all other major sanctioning bodies have allready adopted such rulings, and that the club has no way to set their own standards. I commented that the problem with the recommendation on the books for voting was that it would actually reduce the safety level of SCCA drivers, and that the SFI specs went beyond concerning themselves with the actual performance of the devices and into the realm of the design and architecture of the devices. I suggested that the club use the SFI performance standards as a way of allowing certain devices, but he stated that the one point of release rule was part of the specification. He reminded me that my issues weren't with the club, but with SFI, and that the club has no other viable option.

Of course, I see his point...to a degree.

But I was left with two glaring, and nagging thoughts.

First, our converstion kept coming back to the clubs position, and the fact that the SFI was the only option, rather than discussing the real issue.....better safety for the drivers. (I know, at this point, it's obvious, that that's really not the issue.)

Secondly, I have no idea how, or why, the clubs counsel feels so compelled that the SFI is the only and best legal umbrella. To me, it is patently obvious that the SFI isn't an organization that is completely altruistic. I wish I could understand the mechanism that our club sees that they (and I guess, the entire world) feel is so ironclad.

We have lots of sharp minds on this site, and a number of lawyers. I have expected to read a somewhat confusing (to me, LOL) explanation of the legal implications and the sound and fast legal reasons the SFI is the all singing, all dancing, get out of jail free trump card somewhere in this or another thread, but so far, I've missed it.

Anyone care to fill me in?? Please???

[gsbaker]

I called SCCA tech...there wasn't any option other than to mandate SFI devices...the club has no other viable option.[/b]

You could put a cardboard stand on a street corner, label it "Chuck's Lemonade and Head Restraint Load Data" and have them lined up around the block.

[ddewhurst]

***Have any of you who will vote to make the SFI specification 38.1 mandatory for all SCCA Club Road Racers viewed any data from accident history within SCCA Club Road Racing that shows a history of drivers breaking their necks or any data that shows SCCA Club Road Racers who have had an accident had acquired injuries because they didn't have a one release motion to free themselves from their race car ?**

One small part of my letter to SCCA.

Can anyone provide data to answer the two questions within my questions to the SCCA voters? No maybe or what if, pure facts.

Within NASCAR they had several facts (4 IIRC) that they needed something in a hurry. The had a need.

[gsbaker]

Dave,

2-3 years ago there was a fatality involving a side impact in a Corvette. Although Zimmerman raced SCCA, his crash occurred at an EMRA event, IIRC.

[Greg Amy]

During last week's National event at LRP I had a quick conversation with two BoD members. One indicated he was unaware of the issue until the emails and letters starting coming in, the other indicated he was undecided on the issue and is learning more. Both seemed empathetic to the issues brought up such as those expressed in this topic. I explained my thoughts on the subject and both thanked me for the input. It seems this will be a pretty interesting fly-on-the-wall discussion at *that* BoD meeting.

I also had a hypothetical discussion with an NER steward about my thoughts on "civil disobedience." He agreed that it puts the club in a tight spot: allow me to race with the device contrary to the GCR and he gets his and the region's butt handed to him; make me remove it and I get hurt and the club as a whole in is trouble. He also pointed out that if he allows me to race and I still get hurt they're probably ALL in trouble...

I'd suggest continuing with emails clearly stating your reasons for opposition. In the end it may do nothing more than delay the implementation, but at this point time is a good thing in order to encourage discussion and options...

Greg

[Doc Bro]

My letter from Thursday hope it helps:

Dear Sirs;



My name is Robert A. Breault, DMD, member #344578, from the NER. I am writing to express a few thoughts in regards to the SCCA’s position on Head & Neck Restraints. I have done significant research in regards to my use and support of HNR’s and I firmly believe that they are of paramount importance in the prevention of injuries related to rapid deceleration. I have also served as a Doctor on the head and neck trauma team of a level 1 trauma hospital, where we focus on the surgical treatment of injuries pertaining directly to this subject. I am concerned about the SCCA’s unilateral endorsement of SFI 38.1 as I feel that it doesn’t take into account all aspects of deceleration injury, namely off axis force. While I do understand the umbrella offered to my club that 38.1 provides, I do not believe it will keep drivers alive. The vulnerability that I see is the necessity of a single point release dictated by 38.1. This single point release is a moot point as winged seats, radios, cool suits, drink tubes, and helmet fresh air systems all are restraints in some capacity. I feel that the SCCA would be better protected by endorsing the SFI performance standard not the design standard. This would allow the drivers to choose a system that best suits their individual needs. I would love to see all competitors wearing a HNR, however mandating which system they must wear, may leave the SCCA exposed to litigation. If we as a club endorse the performance standard the exposure is decreased. It allows the competitor to research the design that suits their needs best thus shifting the burden of responsibility off the SCCA. It is caveat emptor. I have witnessed a driver die while wearing an SFI 38.1 approved device that had become dislodged during the impact.



The next issue becomes egress from the vehicle. I will simply point to Joey Hand’s incident at Mid Ohio where he was trapped in the car by his SFI approved device. While it saved his life in the accident, it would have killed him if the fuel that was pouring onto him had ignited as he was trapped. Every competitor knows that racing automobiles is dangerous, we all know that one product cannot safeguard against everything. Let’s agree to allow the HNR to protect from deceleration injuries both on and off axis. Let’s let our fire systems and fire suits give us protection from egress if that is the only concern with other HNRs.



Sincerely,

Robert A. Breault, DMD.

[lateapex911]

Nice letter. Aren't window nets a restraint too??

I wish I had the medical credentials you have! Maybe I'll just say i got my device based on the advice of a Doctor friend who races! (They don't have to know the serial number order, LOL)

[RacerBill]

Update: I received a reply to my letter to our area director - Larry Dent, and the BOD that my letter was received and is being reviewed. Larry again indicated his opposition to the SFI requirement as written in the proposed rule change.

Last night I was copied on an email from Jim Julow, SCCA President. So, the issue is being discussed at many levels within the Club.

Please discuss this proposal with any members that may not have access to the Internet (I know more than one), and get them to write to the Board. Their opinions should be heard as well.

[TimM ITB]

Anybody heard anything more on the vote for the H&N requirement?? When is it due to happen??

I have sent in my letter, just wanted to know when to expect to hear results from Topeka?

thanks,

Tim M

[gsbaker]

The weekend of August 26th is what we heard.

[Knestis]

I had a random thought the other evening. Has anyone thought to contact ASTM to see what it takes to have helmets standards listed for racing? They do exactly the same thing for bicycle and other sporting head gear and it's my understanding that they are more open in their practices than are Snell or SFI...

K

[gsbaker]

That is a very interesting idea.

[lateapex911]

Hmmmmm..and you'd think they have the legal aspect down pat, as there are WAY more bike helmets sold, and way more bike injuries than in car racing, and the average bike rider (and family of) isn't nearly as risk aware as the average car racer.

[gsbaker]

Makes sense, Jake. Beyond that, I find it interesting to broaden things somewhat:

... contact ASTM to see what it takes to have [insert item here] standards listed for racing? They do exactly the same thing for bicycle and other sporting head gear and it's my understanding that they are more open in their practices than are Snell or SFI...
[/b]

After using ASTM specs for years I am embarassed to admit that I know little about how the organization functions. Given that they go from sporting headgear to implant grade titanium alloys (ASTM Spec F136-02a), and most everything in between, I suspect it acts as an umbrella organization for parties ("Committees") that have a common interest in setting a standard for whatever interests them.

Hmm.

Kirk, are you up on these guys?

[Knestis]

...contact ASTM to see what it takes to have [insert item here] standards listed for racing? [/b]

Eggs-actly.

I don't know much but i learned a little talking with the guy who supplied our Triple 8 over-the-wall helmets for the enduros.



They are skate boarding helmets, which have their own ASTM F1492 standards. This means that, unlike bike helmets that are not expected to hit the ground very often, skate helmets have a resilient liner that doesn't collapse - recognizing the realities of the current state of the skating art.

There are helmet conflicts going on in the "extreme sporting" industry, with manufacturers trying to dual-purpose helmets certified for bicycles (higher drop-test standard but only one impact required, I think?) for the skate market. Others make the same shell with different liners for different markets and our helmet guy was telling me that skate/bike parks like his have to require the "proper" certification, but have trouble with people replacing the less comfy EPS bike liners with the comfy, softer foam skate liners. Or something like that.

Anyway, the way I understand ASTM works, it convenes panels (or subpanels) of professionals in whatever area is being addressed, which design standards. I can't imagine that it's completely free of politics but if the football helmet manufacturers feel like they get sufficient indemnification by certifying their products are ASTM compliant, there's probably something to it.

K

PS - part of my logic of getting the Triple 8 helmet people invoved was to introduce them to the club racing enduro market, and vice-versa. It didn't cost us much to put 8 of our crew guys in helmets for pit stops and it's one less thing to give me heartburn during the weekend, that someone will trip over an air hose and clobber their noggin on the wall. There's no rule requiring them (only because nobody's been hurt YET) so no standard that they are CURRENTLY required to meet. I was thinking that I needed to send them a report on our happiness with them, right before I read a post and was reminded that we're in a holding pattern on the H&N question...