Head and Neck Restraint poll

[lateapex911]

****Sadly, I can not edit my poll. The second choice, (the "HANS" option) SHOULD have read "HANS or other SFI approved device", so as to include the Hutchens II and the R3***

And, as been pointed out below, I might have been clearer with option 3 as well. So, to clarify, it refers to Devices such as: the Iasaac, and the Wright device, as well as other devices that I might not be aware of that exceed the SFI performance standards.

And to further clarify, by "Performance standards", I am refering to the actual load reduction that the device acheived in instrumented testing, not it's adherance to all facets of the SFI 38.1 standard.

__________________________________________________ ______________________________________
In the other thread, we've seen a lot of disention in the ranks, but perhaps there is a silent majority. To understand the issue better, I think it's important to get a feel for whats actually out there. (And yes, I know this is unscientific.)

And in the second question, if you were responsible for the clubs future, what would you REALLY do??

Feel free to vote your conscience. Nobody needs to comment, nor will your votes be traced.

*edited for clarifications and spelling*

[RSTPerformance]

Jake-

I responded but I think that the poll was not written in a understanding way and you may get some incorrect answers. I would guess that the third choice is for Isacc or similar - meets or exceeds load requirements but not all SFI requirements. The last choice I am guessing is for something in the ranks of "home made?" I don't think that was clear especialy to those who did not or are not reading the other lengthy posts.

Since people might not know where their system falls in your catagories mybe your poll should actually poll what people are actually wearing. be sure to include all companies currently on the market, and also be sure to include a No H&N Restraint and a "other."

Just my thoughts.

Raymond

[lateapex911]

Hmmm...well, I wrote it based on the concept that anyone buying such a device would likely know it's ability to meet or not meet the standard. I could be wrong about that I guess.

[Catch22]

Jake,
Can you delete this one and try again?

I'm well versed in whats happening and even I had a hard time understanding your choices as currently worded. For example, I'd suggest #3 read "tested device that exceeds SFI performance threshold but is not SFI approved such as the Isaac,..."

[erlrich]

I find the second half of the poll more telling - 10 to 1 against the new rule! Too bad none of us took the initiative to start a petition when this proposal first came out.

[shwah]

It is encouraging to see such a high percentage wearing some sort of protection. However this is not at all representative of what I see at the track. I would be surprised if 25% of racers wear anything.

This is the point that makes the unfortunate rule wording still have the potential to help the collective club racing community - IF they just make it mandatory rather than optional.

[lateapex911]

It is encouraging to see such a high percentage wearing some sort of protection. However this is not at all representative of what I see at the track. I would be surprised if 25% of racers wear anything.


[/b]

Agreed. That's the unscientific part. Polling THIS audience isn't entirely representative of the entire demographic.

The folks that post here are likely more involved and are probably more likely to be early adopters. Of course thats speculation, but I think it's probably reasonable.

If the rule comes to pass as written, how many of us here will continue with the club? How many will go buy a 38.1? How many will use nothing? How many will leave?

I fear that this ruling won't actually increase the the number of drivers that use a legitimate system (Lets define that conservatively as one that provides 38.1 performance level protection) as significantly as they rule makers hope.

[JamesB]

I plan to wear one next year. I would like one this year but the funds are not there till winter. What the rule did for me was limit my scope of comparison shopping.

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

How about a new poll w/ the actual device choices? List any of the ones that you can, as well as a NONE and an OTHER choice.

[lateapex911]

OK, why not?

But lets get some help here, as I don't want to blow THIS one too, LOL.

Here are the devices I am aware of:

SFI 38.1 certifiable:
-HANS
-Hutchens II
-R3

Others:
-Isaac
-Hutchens
-Wright device
-White device

What am I missing???

[jake7140]

Taking a break in between installing the helmet mounts for my ISAAC! If SCCA 'outlaws' ISAAC, I will just race with Midwestern Council and/or NASA (assuming they don't follow suit), or go karting or circle tracking; or wear it anyway. If push came to shove, and they would give me crap on grid, I'd give the dumb routine, then disconnect, and reconnect during lap 1 or something else sneaky.

[JeffYoung]

Jake, I believe Simpson makes one and G-Force has one that offers some sort of minimal protection.

[Knestis]

It would be interesting to do a quick correlational study to see how many of those who checked "would vote to pass the GCR rule" also checked "wear the Hans." I'm still wrestling to fully understand the dynamic of why someone who chose an SFI-stickered system would want to keep OTHERS from using a system with as good or better head load reduction numbers, that hasn't lined SFI's pockets with $.

Seriously - I'd like to hear why, if you are one of those people...

K

[erlrich]

It would be interesting to do a quick correlational study to see how many of those who checked "would vote to pass the GCR rule" also checked "wear the Hans." [/b]

When I made my earlier post in this thread the count was 30 to 3; later when I came back and saw the "would vote" count was up to 10 my first thought was "the Hans users must have finally checked in". My next thought (which left me thinking I've been hanging around here way too much lately) was "I wonder how many new members have joined today".

[dickita15]

my first thought was "the Hans users must have finally checked in".[/b]

Earl,
not all Hans users voted in favor of the proposed rule.

what I really do not understand is that the CRB is not saying that you have to wear a device but want to ban any that do not meet this industry standard. now I would understand if the insurance lobby said you must have all you drivers wear a approved device or your rates will go way up/ or we will drop you, but apparently we have not reached that point in time. the proposal is we recomend you wear one but we think that a device that does not meet the "industry standard" is more of a liability than not wearing one at all.

I just don't get it.

[tom91ita]

its seems interesting to me that the poll would suggest that over 50% of the racers are using HNR. that is not what the empirical evidence would suggest when i am at the track.

are the most of the ones in this thread users of HNR?

it is still relatively rare that i see a true HNR. i still see mostly horse collars (including mine).

now i did upgrade to a really good horse collar and plan to buy a HNR next year. most likely a HANS.

but i would vote for the isaac and others to be allowed as long as they have demonstrated they have a significant reduction in forces. and for me, demonstrated is a documented crash test (the designer/owner does not have to demonstrate, imho).

now perhaps the crash test should be per some identified protocol. it comes down to performance and choice. i

tom

[Knestis]

I think Andy(?) may have alluded to this apparent mismatch earlier, or elsewhere.

I think that this proposal is understood by the decision-makers to be half measure, along the way toward mandating use of a system. If they'd thought that they could have gotten away with mandating a system for EVERYONE next year, they would have done it. They went the "recommended" route to ease people into the idea, figuring (quite correctly, I think) that the stink would be even larger than it currently is, had they made everyone spend $900 by this fall.

HAD there been a mandate, it would clearly have been for 38.1-compliant systems. There wasn't a mandate but the desire to go 38.1 was irresistable, so we get a proposal that makes absolutely no sense in real policy terms.

My interpretation.

I think that the "someone will chain their head to the rollcage" is slightly red and slightly herring-flavored. Yeah - it's possible but the rule could just as easily have said, "The following systems are approved..."

K

[erlrich]

Earl,
not all Hans users voted in favor of the proposed rule.[/b]

Dick - I'm sure that's true, but I would guess, as Kirk alluded to, that the vast majority of those who said they would vote for the rule are also Hans users.

what I really do not understand is that the CRB is not saying that you have to wear a device but want to ban any that do not meet this industry standard. now I would understand if the insurance lobby said you must have all you drivers wear a approved device or your rates will go way up/ or we will drop you, but apparently we have not reached that point in time. the proposal is we recomend you wear one but we think that a device that does not meet the "industry standard" is more of a liability than not wearing one at all.
I just don't get it. [/b]

You're certainly in the majority on this one. The only reason I can see (and this has been put forth numerous time already - see above) to have done it this way was to lay the foundation for mandating an SFI-certified device at some point in the future.

[JuanPineda]

I suspect a bigger reason that SCCA wants to mandate standards for H&N restraints is to ensure that they are safe. Should this devce be allowed on track?

> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6428043.pdf

What about home made devices?

-Juan

[sgallimo]

I suspect a bigger reason that SCCA wants to mandate standards for H&N restraints is to ensure that they are safe. Should this devce be allowed on track?

> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6428043.pdf

What about home made devices?

-Juan
[/b]

Should that device be allowed on track? Yes, if it passes the [future] SCCA documented performance tests.

As for the concerns about home made devices, I see that the SCCA has no difficulty in ensuring [enforcing] that I only use one of the two approved carburetors on my Nissan Pulsar. I don't see any reason they can't have the same success with establishing, and enforcing, an all inclusive list of approved head and neck restraints.