Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

[itracer]

There's no rule requiring them (only because nobody's been hurt YET) so no standard that they are CURRENTLY required to meet. [/b]

There is a rule at New Hampshire International Speedway.

From the Supps:
29. Hot Track Helmets – No participant may enter the Hot
Track without a Helmet. Main straight outer wall and
travel lane on pit road are Hot. All Helmets must have a
chinstrap. Subject to review.

This includes flaggers, crew, etc. "Review" is to make sure it is a bike helmet or similar. No real regulation -- yet.

[Knestis]

Well, isn't THAT interesting! Thanks...
K

[JimLill]

ASTM and SEI already collaborate on helmets for equestrians..........

ASTM has a Committee F08.53 on Headgear and Helmets

http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/C...4541+1155664094

[JimLill]

and from the FIA

http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/826...Hans_system.pdf

[Bill Miller]

Head and neck restraints: The CRB recognizes that there are head and neck restraints in the market that are not certificated by the SFI or FIA.
As the SCCA is not in a position to establish standards and conduct testing, we rely on outside certification bodies where available, similar to
other requirements we have for driver safety equipment. Products not currently allowed because they are not certificated will be authorized once
they meet the required certification(s). We would also like to remind competitors that the current wording of GCR section 20.5 requires a single
point of release freeing the driver of the seat belt assembly (reference August 2004 Fastrack)[/b]

From the Sept. '06 FasTrack as a 'Member Advisory'

The Head and Neck restraint issue was discussed and the CRB's consensus was that we
should recommend Head and Neck restraint systems that are SFI approved and not allow any
others without SFI approval. There was also discussion about making Head and Neck restraint
systems mandatory as other sanctioning bodies are moving in that direction. No conclusion was reached as to a time table or how the
membership would respond to a mandatory rule.[/b]

From the Aug. 7, '06 minutes of the BoD meeting.

[lateapex911]

I read those passages as well and went.."Huh??????"

Does one hand know what the other is doing???

Contradictory to say the least.

Nevertheless, it's looking dark and forboding on the H&NR horizon. It looks like tens of thousands of dollars woth of perfectly good devices will soon be rendered worthless, and we'll race with less protection and safety. Or we'll line the pockets of a tilted organization furhter........

[gsbaker]

Thanks Bill. Very timely as we just sent the following to the BOD:

<blockquote>Dear Board Member,

We want to pass on a letter from a racer who has used our product for three years and recently been forced to purchase a HANS device after moving to Grand Am. With the exception of an introductory paragraph, it is presented here in its entirety. No emphasis has been added.

Please note item #3.

<blockquote>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 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>

Bryan</blockquote>

[gsbaker]

I read those passages as well and went.."Huh??????"...[/b]

The best is "Products not currently allowed because they are not certificated will be authorized once
they meet the required certification(s)." No products are not currently allowed. "Certificated"?

Relax, Jake. They are just going over the CRB position of several months ago.

[Bill Miller]

I read those passages as well and went.."Huh??????"

Does one hand know what the other is doing???

Contradictory to say the least.

Nevertheless, it&#39;s looking dark and forboding on the H&NR horizon. It looks like tens of thousands of dollars woth of perfectly good devices will soon be rendered worthless, and we&#39;ll race with less protection and safety. Or we&#39;ll line the pockets of a tilted organization furhter........
[/b]

Contradictory? I&#39;m not sure where you get that Jake. I read both of them to say &#39;only SFI approved devices are allowed&#39;

The &#39;single point of release&#39; is going to be interesting in terms of how it deals w/ sternum breakers, err, I mean sternum straps.

[DavidM]

Do I take this to mean that the BoD has voted to approve the rule allowing only SFI certified devices? If so, then too bad. I will be requesting a roll call of the BoD vote to see who voted for and against the rule. That way I know if I should vote against my BoD member - assuming I&#39;m still with SCCA. I can&#39;t say that I&#39;m too surprised as I get the impression the BoD has other parties whispering in their ear. I&#39;m stating this mildly without using those adult words when I say that this makes the BoD look like a bunch of puppets more concerned with doing a CYA and bowing to industry than serving the members. Harsh, maybe, but the time for pleasant debate is rapidly fading into the distance.

David

[gsbaker]

Do I take this to mean that the BoD has voted to approve the rule allowing only SFI certified devices? If so, then too bad. I will be requesting a roll call of the BoD vote to see who voted for and against the rule. That way I know if I should vote against my BoD member - assuming I&#39;m still with SCCA. I can&#39;t say that I&#39;m too surprised as I get the impression the BoD has other parties whispering in their ear. I&#39;m stating this mildly without using those adult words when I say that this makes the BoD look like a bunch of puppets more concerned with doing a CYA and bowing to industry than serving the members. Harsh, maybe, but the time for pleasant debate is rapidly fading into the distance.

David
[/b]

Well put sir, but I believe this is simply the BoD acknowledging the proposal of the CRB, not the vote itself.

[sgallimo]

We would also like to remind competitors that the current wording of GCR section 20.5 requires a single point of release freeing the driver of the seat belt assembly[/b]

And I would like to remind the SCCA that the current wording of GCR section 20.5 requires the single anit submarine strap of a five point harness to have a single release common to the seat and shoulder belts....

I guess since I&#39;m using a six point harness, I can use my Isaac.

Cripes those goobers even screw up pissing me off.

[JoshS]

And I would like to remind the SCCA that the current wording of GCR section 20.5 requires the single anit submarine strap of a five point harness to have a single release common to the seat and shoulder belts....

I guess since I&#39;m using a six point harness, I can use my Isaac.

Cripes those goobers even screw up pissing me off.
[/b]

I don&#39;t get it. 20.5 talks about how a 5-point harness has to work. 20.6 talks about how a 6- or 7-point harness has to work. Both have the same single-release wording. I don&#39;t see what any of it has to do with H&N restraints.

[Greg Amy]

Congratulations, SCCA: you have just taken a giant leap backwards by actually making racing more dangerous. Fewer people will be using head and neck restraints as a result of this, myself being numero uno.

http://tinyurl.com/nls47

[lateapex911]

Head and neck restraints: The CRB recognizes that there are head and neck restraints in the market that are not certificated by the SFI or FIA. <--( THAT&#39;s funny!)
As the SCCA is not in a position to establish standards and conduct testing, we rely on outside certification bodies where available, similar to
other requirements we have for driver safety equipment. Products not currently allowed because they are not certificated will be authorized once
they meet the required certification(s). We would also like to remind competitors that the current wording of GCR section 20.5 requires a single
point of release freeing the driver of the seat belt assembly[/b]

(reference August 2004 Fastrack)


From the Sept. &#39;06 FasTrack as a &#39;Member Advisory&#39;

The Head and Neck restraint issue was discussed and the CRB&#39;s consensus was that we
should recommend Head and Neck restraint systems that are SFI approved and not allow any
others without SFI approval. There was also discussion about making Head and Neck restraint
systems mandatory as other sanctioning bodies are moving in that direction. No conclusion was reached as to a time table or how the membership would respond to a mandatory rule.[/b]

From the Aug. 7, &#39;06 minutes of the BoD meeting.


The contradictory part is highlighted.

In short, they said (and there is a long standing recommendation that goes before the board in 5 days) that they SHOULD recommend a ruling regarding usage of, and allowable H&NRS. But...the other line discusses "Products not currently allowed"...

Since there IS no list of products not currently allowed, that statement is pretty contradictory...or flat wrong. The whole things getting to be a very sad joke............

[Xian]

Congratulations, SCCA: you have just taken a giant leap backwards by actually making racing more dangerous. Fewer people will be using head and neck restraints as a result of this, myself being numero uno.

http://tinyurl.com/nls47
[/b]

At this point, I&#39;m still planning to roll into the ARRC grid with my Isaac... I really doubt that any of the grid workers are going to ask me to remove it. If they do, I&#39;ll refuse. Are they going to kick me out for using ADDITIONAL safety equipmet? Again, very doubtful, imo but we&#39;ll see in November.

Christian

[gprodracer]

Just another thought (angle) on this. The words " that the current wording used by GCR section 20.5 requires a single release" blah blah blah!!!

So why can&#39;t we re-word section 20.5 instead of outlawing a piece of safety equipment that is not (as of yet) manditory??

The other parts in Fastrack that got to me were the "the usual letters", and something about "the general consensus was" that any H&N must be SFI "certificated"

"Here&#39;s Your Sign..."

Suggestions as to what to do next people?? I have a bad feeling it may get uglier from here.
Please post any ideas.
Thanks,
Mark

[Speed Raycer]

Hmmm... maybe the Isaac can fall under a driver Comfort & conveinance item.... a Head and Neck Support! No rule against those!!!

[sgallimo]

Dear Mr Baker and Company,

I&#39;m writing to let you know how your patiented "Driver Aid Management" device has been working for me these past few years. I&#39;ve been using them exactly as described in your very helpful User&#39;s Guide. I use one side to corral those troubling radio wires connected to my helmet and the other side to keep track of that pesky drink tube. All it took was your device and a little velcro. They&#39;ve been fantastic! They&#39;ve completely removed ALL worry about getting my hands tangled up in loose wires or hoses while on the track. All I can say is, DAM they&#39;re good! And based on what I&#39;ve been reading lately, your product works much, much better than the other guy&#39;s system.

Thanks again from one happy and satisfied customer.

[sgallimo]

Oh, and say goodby to the ole neck collar, 360 degree helmet support, thingies. They&#39;re head and neck restraint systems and they do NOT have SFI 38.1 stickers...