Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

[ddewhurst]

***until I was on the other side of the fence.***

Raymond, if your mental make up has changed since you crossed the fence maybe you need to come back to the original side of the fence. If your mental make up has changed as per your previous description/above posts I would be more concerned about other decisions you may be involved in on your new side of the fence.

Anothers persons view
David

ps: It's my rule understanding from talking wth Topeka that rule 13.9./$250 don't mean diddle untill a protest is filed.

[x-ring]

David: As I understand it, the filer of a 13.9 gets a letter from Topeka with the findings of the first court, headed by the chairman of the stewards program, and the findings of the COA. The filer then keeps his letter, assuming the decision went his way, to show to the SOM should he be protested for this item at a future race to support his position of legality.

Kirk: As for a the publish / not publish thing, I *believe* this is to protect a competitors prep secrets. If you, for example, notice a chink in the rules armor that you want to take advantage of, but are unsure of the legality of doing so, you may file a 13.9 request. If it is held to be non-compliant you will recieve a letter to that effect, but it will also be published in FasTrack, so everyone knows it's been looked at and found non-compliant.

If the proposed action is found legal, you will recieve a letter from the COA telling you so, but no notice in FasTrack, so that your new prep secret is still secret.

Anyway, that's how it went on an SM action in my division earlier this year. YMMV.

[gsbaker]

Back on topic, we are not aware of any problem at the runoffs in terms of the CGR. The same with NASA at Mid-O.

[erlrich]

Back on topic, we are not aware of any problem at the runoffs in terms of the CGR. The same with NASA at Mid-O. [/b]

Gregg, just out of curiosity do you have a rough idea of the numbers of ISAAC users at those events?

[gsbaker]

Gregg, just out of curiosity do you have a rough idea of the numbers of ISAAC users at those events?
[/b]

That's very hard to say. We know generally what style of racing customers engage in, but it's impossible to know how many end up at those two events.

It was interesting the unsolicited e-mails we received from users saying they were going to use their Isaacs come hell or high water. More than enough for someone to find an Isaac system and make a test case if they were so inclined.

We know that tedious safety rule debates are not the most important topic when everyone is having fun at the Big Show, but it is interesing that we have heard nothing so far. Then again, it's only Monday. Maybe there was a big knockdown, drag out fight at the grid and no one has made been bail yet.

[anrkii]

Ignorant Noob here:

I was considering an isaac device, due to being brand new and having budget issues. do you guys, in your opinion think that the isaac device will be illegal, and not allowed to use in the near future?

also, doesnt drilling holes in the shell of the helmet for the mount "decertify" it?

[JLawton]

Ignorant Noob here:

I was considering an isaac device, due to being brand new and having budget issues. do you guys, in your opinion think that the isaac device will be illegal, and not allowed to use in the near future?

[/b]

Um, see the previous 22 pages................. <shrug> :P

[leggwork]

just to extend this mother of a thread - the Leatt brace has now achieved SFI 38.1 certification - quite a different device from the others - no tethers to restain side-to-side motion, and provides some lateral support as well.
cheers,
bruce

http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1

http://www.leatt-brace.com/ the Moto-R is the car version.

Ignorant Noob here:

I was considering an isaac device, due to being brand new and having budget issues. do you guys, in your opinion think that the isaac device will be illegal, and not allowed to use in the near future?

also, doesnt drilling holes in the shell of the helmet for the mount "decertify" it?
[/b]

regarding drilling holes decertifying the helmet - I was told that the Snell certification applies to the area above a certain line on the helmet. The anchors are attached below this line so don&#39;t affect the certification.
cheers,
bruce

[dj10]

just to extend this mother of a thread - the Leatt brace has now achieved SFI 38.1 certification - quite a different device from the others - no tethers to restain side-to-side motion, and provides some lateral support as well.
cheers,
bruce
http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1
http://www.leatt-brace.com/ the Moto-R is the car version.
regarding drilling holes decertifying the helmet - I was told that the Snell certification applies to the area above a certain line on the helmet. The anchors are attached below this line so don&#39;t affect the certification.
cheers,
bruce [/b]

Why would they want you to replace this every 3 years? More money for them? I do like the idea of head movemnet.

[gsbaker]

I was told that the Snell certification applies to the area above a certain line on the helmet. The anchors are attached below this line so don&#39;t affect the certification.
[/b]

You have been misinformed. The Snell certification can be void regardless of the location.

[leggwork]

You have been misinformed. The Snell certification can be void regardless of the location.
[/b]

hmmm, this is a reply I got from Joe Marko about a year ago about helmet warranties and snell certification ...

> Bell and a few other manufacturers have stated that installing HANS clips in
> their helmets voids their warranty. With regard to SNELL, it does NOT effect
> the SNELL rating as the test part of the helmet for the SNELL rating does
> not cover the lower parts of the helmet where the HANS is mounted. SFI and
> the other sanctioning bodies in the US do not have a problem with the HANS
> installation recommendations. SFI, NASCAR, IRL and others have tested many
> different helmets with the HANS with no real issues.
>
> Most of the statements by helmet manufacturers are for product liability
> legal issues.
>
> So installing the clips will NOT VOID THE SNELL RATING but may void the
> factory warranty on the helmet. Many helmet manufacturers such as Arai,
> Simpson, Soumy and others are pre-installing mounting points and or clips. I
> expect that we will see more of this in the future.
>
> Joe Marko
> HMS motorsport

[gsbaker]

Per Snell:

"Cosmetic changes to certified headgear are permissible. Such changes are generally limited to marking or trimming the headgear with manufacturer approved paint or tape. Otherwise, modifications to certified headgear effectively create new configurations which shall not have the confidence and certification of the Foundation until properly evaluated. Manufacturers must not place the Foundation&#39;s certification label in any modified headgear without the Foundation’s written authorization."

[gprodracer]

Gregg,

By your Snell Foundation quote, then all the helmets with microphones, and radio equipment installed by the radio manufacturers have voided the Snell rating also? That being said, what does that really mean? Has someone sued the Snell Foundation, and Snell stated that the rating was void due to a unapproved hole drilled into the helmet?
I&#39;m confused...can you share any insight on this? If you void the Snell rating, what does that really mean to us average racers.
Thanks,
Mark

[gsbaker]

Gregg,

By your Snell Foundation quote, then all the helmets with microphones, and radio equipment installed by the radio manufacturers have voided the Snell rating also?[[/b]

Apparently. That is how most people interpret the Snell language.

That being said, what does that really mean? Has someone sued the Snell Foundation, and Snell stated that the rating was void due to a unapproved hole drilled into the helmet?[/b]

Snell doesn&#39;t have much of a choice in this regard; nor does any manufacturer for that matter. The product has been tested and shown to work as originally designed. Because no one knows how the end user intends to modify it, they are forced to say "Don&#39;t modify it."

I seriously doubt that something as small as a hole for a drink tube would constitute a serious structural deficiency. However, I have seen photos of a female driver with a 2-3" diameter hole in the back of her helmet to accommodate a ponytail. As soon as you start drawing a line you get in trouble, so most manufacturers just avoid that whole can of worms.

This is one reason our adhesive is so popular. It works on any helmet and the only modification (removal of the gel coat and paint) is cosmetic.

If you void the Snell rating, what does that really mean to us average racers.[/b]

Not much. It becomes a matter of don&#39;t ask, don&#39;t tell. The insurance carrier probably requires safety gear to be "certified", so the sanctioning body puts it in writing. Commons sense tends to prevail at the track level. Drink tubes are okay, ponytail holes are not.

[leggwork]

fwiw, Joe Marko just reiterated his opinion that mods in the lower 2" of the helmet do not invalidate the snell cert. I can see how a ponytail hole would be over the top!

<blockquote>SNELL does NOT invalidate helmets that have been “modified” in areas of the helmet where the structure of the helmet are not covered by their test area. If this was the case, every person who puts a radio system, water system, or air system, in the lower two inches of the helmet would also be violating the SNELL certification. This is simply not the case as the SNELL certification does not extend to within 2” of the bottom edge of the helmet.
Joe Marko
HMS motorsport</blockquote>

[gsbaker]

fwiw, Joe Marko just reiterated his opinion that mods in the lower 2" of the helmet do not invalidate the snell cert. I can see how a ponytail hole would be over the top![/b]

Got that right!

Joe is free to believe whatever he wishes.

The Snell Foundation&#39;s Web site is here. Click on Standards >SA/K2005 > Modifications. Does it say anything about where the modification is located? Nope.

[JimLill]

quick link..........

http://www.smf.org/standards/2005/sak2005/...l#MODIFICATIONS

[lateapex911]

fwiw, Joe Marko just reiterated his opinion that mods in the lower 2" of the helmet do not invalidate the snell cert. I can see how a ponytail hole would be over the top!

<blockquote>SNELL does NOT invalidate helmets that have been “modified” in areas of the helmet where the structure of the helmet are not covered by their test area. If this was the case, every person who puts a radio system, water system, or air system, in the lower two inches of the helmet would also be violating the SNELL certification. This is simply not the case as the SNELL certification does not extend to within 2” of the bottom edge of the helmet.
Joe Marko
HMS motorsport</blockquote>
[/b]

key word here:
Opinion.....

Seems to me that Joes opinion must be based on some other non published info....

...cuz that link to the quote seems pretty clear.

[leggwork]

FYI the 38.1 sled test results and videos are now posted on the Leatt site. Interested in hearing others opinions.
cheers,
bruce

just to extend this mother of a thread - the Leatt brace has now achieved SFI 38.1 certification - quite a different device from the others - no tethers to restain side-to-side motion, and provides some lateral support as well.
cheers,
bruce

http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1

http://www.leatt-brace.com/ the Moto-R is the car version.

cheers,
bruce
[/b]

[gran racing]

Does Joe have any direct relationship with Snell - on their board or something else? Just curious how he&#39;s involved with the process other than being a retailer of safety equipment.