NASAs H&NR rule

[924Guy]

Great, meantime we're lucky to get another year out of our superior devices? I'm still wondering when my off-season upgrade budget is going to get sucked up by an overpriced piece of CF and the ISAAC goes on the shelf...

[snk328is]

FIA told us in 2002 that they would not consider new designs (they have a ton invested in the old one), and they have not.

SFI specs are voted on by the manufacturers only. How do you think that would work out? I don't want to insult people's intelligence, but it is naive in the extreme to think we would be welcomed in that camp. Besides, our lawyers don't like the idea.

Sanctioning bodies being sued will change it.
[/b]

So are we basically waiting for somebody with a HANS (or similar 38.1 HNR) to get killed, and then count on that unfortunate person's family to sue?

Sorry to be blunt and a little extreme in my example, but my point is that while we wait for a lawsuit like the above or even some kind of class action lawsuit, nevermind the kind of money involved in something like that, wouldn't it be in your company's best interests to court other SFI manufacturers and try to "work with them"?

What does your CFO think about the viability of ISAAC as a company while it weathers the storm of major sanctioning bodies "joining the bandwagon"? Can it survive an extended legal battle? Can it survive on SCCA customers alone?

Don't get me wrong, I'm still going to buy the ISAAC. However, as a potential user about to invest in a technology, I have a more than small interest in making sure my investment stays protected and more importantly, supported (replacement parts, spare parts, upgrades) and improved for the foreseeable future. I don't want to be stuck with a Betamax VCR.

Sorry for my naiveté but as an outsider to this whole deal, I'm just expressing how one person might see the situation.

[lateapex911]

I'm just guessing here, but I tend to doubt that Gregg is speaking based on suppositions. We really don't know what he's done, who he's called, etc in his day to day work. I imagine though, that he's been in contact with SFI, other SFI manufacturers of H&NR products, and snactioning bodies as well. Who knows, I could be wrong, and he could be sitting around eating Bon Bons and surfing YouTube and "gridgirls.com" all day!

You can see how the SFI does business...there is a certain "good ole' boy" way about it.

[JoshS]

So are we basically waiting for somebody with a HANS (or similar 38.1 HNR) to get killed, and then count on that unfortunate person's family to sue? [/b]

I can't believe this. You really think that SFI devices are unsafe, don't you,despite acres of evidence to the contrary?

Look, I'm not saying that the Isaac isn't also safe. But all of the innuendo suggesting that you'll die with any other system is just crazy talk.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I can't believe this. You really think that SFI devices are unsafe, don't you,despite acres of evidence to the contrary?

Look, I'm not saying that the Isaac isn't also safe. But all of the innuendo suggesting that you'll die with any other system is just crazy talk. [/b]

No, but I think the point is that in some situations the data shows that the ISAAC can be better than the HANS. The beef then becomes simple. A sanctioning body has just 'required' me to use a H&N system that was not my first choice and was 'better' for the reduction of injury that I could or have just sustained. That to me is a dangerous proposition. This industry is just not right for a 'requirment'.

[snk328is]

I can't believe this. You really think that SFI devices are unsafe, don't you,despite acres of evidence to the contrary?

Look, I'm not saying that the Isaac isn't also safe. But all of the innuendo suggesting that you'll die with any other system is just crazy talk.
[/b]

I do not believe SFI 38.1 certified devices are unsafe. If you got that impression from my postings, I would like to set the record straight that that is not my opinion.

Rather, I believe that I can get better protection from the ISAAC device and my problem with SFI 38.1 is the fact that because of a minor technicality, the ISAAC is excluded. I would like to participate with NASA and their new Spec3 series, but unless they allow the ISAAC, they won't be seeing my membership dues or racing license dues.

[gsbaker]

So are we basically waiting for somebody with a HANS (or similar 38.1 HNR) to get killed, and then count on that unfortunate person's family to sue?

Sorry to be blunt and a little extreme in my example, but my point is that while we wait for a lawsuit like the above or even some kind of class action lawsuit, nevermind the kind of money involved in something like that, wouldn't it be in your company's best interests to court other SFI manufacturers and try to "work with them"?

What does your CFO think about the viability of ISAAC as a company while it weathers the storm of major sanctioning bodies "joining the bandwagon"? Can it survive an extended legal battle? Can it survive on SCCA customers alone?

Don't get me wrong, I'm still going to buy the ISAAC. However, as a potential user about to invest in a technology, I have a more than small interest in making sure my investment stays protected and more importantly, supported (replacement parts, spare parts, upgrades) and improved for the foreseeable future. I don't want to be stuck with a Betamax VCR.

Sorry for my naiveté but as an outsider to this whole deal, I'm just expressing how one person might see the situation.
[/b]

Great post. I should take this opportunity to thank everyone--users, non-users, and especially those who intend to be users--for working so hard trying to find a way to make this happen.

First, don't worry about Isaac. Of all the segments of all the markets, amateur road racing is about as small as it gets. Our CFO sleeps very well and grins like a drunken monkey. Aerospace programs average about seven years to ramp up, and arthroplasty-type medical devices don't offer solid feedback until 10+ years. Isaac will be around for a very long time. In ten years all head and neck restraints will be of the Isaac style.

In the short term:

1) NASA erred in this decision, for purely tactical reasons, and will probably reverse itself by June. The error was in not following SCCA's lead. Why? Because risk management of this sort depends on following the industry standard, and when it comes to amateur road racing SCCA is the industry standard. It is the 800# gorilla.

2) Someone is going to get hurt. Soon. And it will deal with the release issue. Just as an example, check this thread: specmiata.com. For over five years we have been actively telling anyone who will listen that the philosophy on this subject is wrong. Apparently, input more graphic is required.

3) SFI ain't cutting it. Santioning bodies are behind the RSI model. That's where future standards efforts will reside.

4) In spite of what Jake said, I do not eat bon bons and watch YouTube. I eat potato chips and watch YouTube. There are standards, ya know.

[erlrich]

Just as an example, check this thread: specmiata.com. [/b]

Wow - anyone interested in this debate should read this thread; one HANS user comments about how he CANNOT get out of his seat without detaching the teathers first, and another driver talks about how he couldn't get out of his upside-down car until he took his helmet off. While I have no doubt the HANS is an excellent device for preventing H&N injuries during an accident, it's what it does for you after the accident that concerns me.

[Grumpy]

A quote from Jerry Kunzman from before the 38.1 mandate.

Hello All,

Please allow me to explain an important point here. We (NASA) have discussed the idea of mandating head and neck restraint systems for a while now. The problem is that if we mandate use of a system (any), then it leaves the door open for any homemade contraption that may arise; thus putting the onus our tech inspectors.

If we specified certain models, we would be 1) lobbied by other manufactures to include their devices and 2) lobbied by competitors to allow use of other devices not on the list or have their choice added to the list. In the latter case, the disallowance of a particular personal safety device is not a smart move and could even be a liability.

The answer is the use of standards, such as SFI. Before SFI came out with 38.1, we were in a real bind. Now all we have to do is refer to that standard, when we go to a mandate. That takes a lot of the liability off of NASA and the onus off the inspectors. Most importantly, it should also give the racers some level of comfort knowing that at least the device they have chosen meets with some known standards. This is the same with belts, helmets, and other safety equipment.

Now, down to brass tax: when and what. “When” will be determined by a number of factors, and a large factor is “industry standard.” When a safety mandate becomes industry standard, we should follow suit. As for “what,” it will be devices that have SFI tags (or possibly FIA, if they come out with something). It is our hope that more devices become approved and prices come down before mandating use of a system becomes “industry standard.”

For those of you that have a concern, I sympathize with you. It’s a balance between budget and your personal safety. You may want to bite the bullet and get a safety device now even if there is a chance you may have to discard it later. It’s your safety. If you are really that concerned, then take chance… by not taking any chances. Buy one now and use it to save your neck not your wallet. If you are not concerned, that’s a valid personal choice; and you should have no problem at this point.

Lobbying sanctioning bodies, such as NASA to allow the use of other devices without SFI tags (after a mandate takes place) is pointless. We will be using a standard or standards along with the mandate. So, if you want to lobby, you can either lobby the manufactures to get their devices certified by SFI, or lobby SFI, FIA, etc. for different criteria used in certification, so as to get more devices to pass.

Lastly, there are a number of devices on the market. We have no way of knowing which ones were submitted for testing. Testing costs a good deal of money and it’s up to the manufactures to decide if they want to pay it and have theirs tested. The test results belong to those that pay to have the test done. So, disseminating the fact that a device failed is not likely.* The bottom line is that we don’t know which other devices have been tested or will be tested. It is possible that a lot of devices have not yet been submitted for testing.

I am sorry that this is long, but I am hoping that it will explain our position. This may be posted elsewhere and/ or forwarded; however I ask that nothing be taken out of context (please publish the whole section or message).

Jerry Kunzman
Executive Director
National Auto Sport Association

[pgipson]

A quote from Jerry Kunzman from before the 38.1 mandate.

Hello All,

Please allow me to explain an important point here. We (NASA) have discussed the idea of mandating head and neck restraint systems for a while now. The problem is that if we mandate use of a system (any), then it leaves the door open for any homemade contraption that may arise; thus putting the onus our tech inspectors.

If we specified certain models, we would be 1) lobbied by other manufactures to include their devices and 2) lobbied by competitors to allow use of other devices not on the list or have their choice added to the list. In the latter case, the disallowance of a particular personal safety device is not a smart move and could even be a liability.

The answer is the use of standards, such as SFI. Before SFI came out with 38.1, we were in a real bind. Now all we have to do is refer to that standard, when we go to a mandate. That takes a lot of the liability off of NASA and the onus off the inspectors. Most importantly, it should also give the racers some level of comfort knowing that at least the device they have chosen meets with some known standards. This is the same with belts, helmets, and other safety equipment.

Now, down to brass tax: when and what. “When” will be determined by a number of factors, and a large factor is “industry standard.” When a safety mandate becomes industry standard, we should follow suit. As for “what,” it will be devices that have SFI tags (or possibly FIA, if they come out with something). It is our hope that more devices become approved and prices come down before mandating use of a system becomes “industry standard.”

For those of you that have a concern, I sympathize with you. It’s a balance between budget and your personal safety. You may want to bite the bullet and get a safety device now even if there is a chance you may have to discard it later. It’s your safety. If you are really that concerned, then take chance… by not taking any chances. Buy one now and use it to save your neck not your wallet. If you are not concerned, that’s a valid personal choice; and you should have no problem at this point.

Lobbying sanctioning bodies, such as NASA to allow the use of other devices without SFI tags (after a mandate takes place) is pointless. We will be using a standard or standards along with the mandate. So, if you want to lobby, you can either lobby the manufactures to get their devices certified by SFI, or lobby SFI, FIA, etc. for different criteria used in certification, so as to get more devices to pass.

Lastly, there are a number of devices on the market. We have no way of knowing which ones were submitted for testing. Testing costs a good deal of money and it’s up to the manufactures to decide if they want to pay it and have theirs tested. The test results belong to those that pay to have the test done. So, disseminating the fact that a device failed is not likely.* The bottom line is that we don’t know which other devices have been tested or will be tested. It is possible that a lot of devices have not yet been submitted for testing.

I am sorry that this is long, but I am hoping that it will explain our position. This may be posted elsewhere and/ or forwarded; however I ask that nothing be taken out of context (please publish the whole section or message).

Jerry Kunzman
Executive Director
National Auto Sport Association
[/b]

E-mails and internet forums will be the trial lawyers feeding grounds.

[spnkzss]

Lobbying sanctioning bodies, such as NASA to allow the use of other devices without SFI tags (after a mandate takes place) is pointless. We will be using a standard or standards along with the mandate.


Jerry Kunzman
Executive Director
National Auto Sport Association
[/b]

AGAIN, I understand that the sanctioning bodies are stuck between a rock and a hard place, but that is a very close minded statement. If our "leaders" can&#39;t be open minded about all things then it is kind of hard make the club better. It is ok for the sanctioning bodies to be firm with their decision, but to come out and say that if you try to do something else and try to change our minds it is pointless, well.... <_<

[snk328is]

AGAIN, I understand that the sanctioning bodies are stuck between a rock and a hard place, but that is a very close minded statement. If our "leaders" can&#39;t be open minded about all things then it is kind of hard make the club better. It is ok for the sanctioning bodies to be firm with their decision, but to come out and say that if you try to do something else and try to change our minds it is pointless, well.... <_<
[/b]

To add to the above, doesn&#39;t NASA have any influence on organizations like SFI?

I know the SCCA has its problems, but as it pertains to this HNR issue, I think they did the right thing by not requiring SFI 38.1... for now.

Perhaps now is the time for SCCA racers to begin lobbying the people who they can influence most readily. Those peers who don&#39;t own an HNR, are on the fence as to which HNR to invest in and those who are thinking of getting into racing.

[Knestis]

Posted in its entirety from elsewhere...

I can see how Jerry came to his conclusion but I would respectfully submit that it lacks any substantive consideration of a few important issues.

...if we mandate use of a system (any), then it leaves the door open for any homemade contraption that may arise; thus putting the onus our tech inspectors. [/b]

Absolutely agree but to suggest that this is what those opposed to alignment with SFI are proposing is ludicrous. Arguing against well-reasoned objections by suggesting we&#39;re proposing that people be allowed to duct tape their helmets to their rollcages (a real example from this debate) is disingenuous in the extreme.

If we specified certain models, we would be 1) lobbied by other manufactures to include their devices and 2) lobbied by competitors to allow use of other devices not on the list or have their choice added to the list.[/b]

Again - that makes complete sense. But, again - that&#39;s NOT what&#39;s being proposed. To keep arguing against propositions that haven&#39;t been made is either intellectually dishonest or represents a lack of understanding of what IS being proposed.

...the disallowance of a particular personal safety device is not a smart move and could even be a liability.[/b]

This is partially correct and finally gets to the point some of us are trying to make: To disallow any particular device that has demonstrated superior performance in the same lab tests as those applied to those with 38.1 stickers is begging for a suit. This is the root of the contention that, very unfortunately, someone MAY have to do so before the sanctioning bodies will consider other options. That does NOT have to be the case, but that&#39;s the ultimate outcome absent any other consideration by NASA, et. al.

The answer is the use of standards, such as SFI. ... Now all we have to do is refer to that standard, when we go to a mandate.[/b]

This is a VERY important passage. It&#39;s a window into what Jerry (therefore NASA) and others think SFI 38.1 actually is. There is indeed a performance standard embedded in the licensing and marketing language and functions of 38.1 but it&#39;s a small portion of what gives 38.1 (and any other SFI spec) "policy power." The term "industry standard" is meaningless in this situation, by the way. 38.1 is a "standard" accepted by a group within the auto racing industry, created primarily to enact trade and marketing functions within the market. Insert your favorite VHS/Beta argument here only if you are willing to abrogate the moral high ground of actually keeping racers safer.

For those of you that have a concern, I sympathize with you. It’s a balance between budget and your personal safety.[/b]

...and sadly, this is evidence that the point is being completely missed here. I would gladly spend another $700 or whatever if I believed that what I was buying provided me with the best safety available. I will NOT go willingly to the store to spend that amount to make myself LESS safe, just to satisfy a less-than-well-considered effort on the part of some to avoid liability, and a decades-old effort to buy exclusivity in a portion of the racing market.

We will be using a standard or standards along with the mandate.[/b]

And this is all that we are asking - that NASA, SCCA, and the rest mandate the use of head and neck restraint systems that have demonstrated, under the same test conditions in the same labs, at least the minimum performance required by the text of 38.1. Set free the marketing and trade functions of SFI. Failure to do this suggests that the ultimate point here is not our safety, but is in fact some other motivation.

We have no way of knowing which ones were submitted for testing. Testing costs a good deal of money and it’s up to the manufactures to decide if they want to pay it and have theirs tested. The test results belong to those that pay to have the test done. So, disseminating the fact that a device failed is not likely.[/b]

The exactly describes the current situation with SFI, which appears to be of no concern. Again - either there&#39;s a real misunderstanding of how their system works, or someone is hoping we&#39;ll ignore it. An RSI-like system would daylight that information, taking SFI&#39;s licensing restrictions out of the picture, providing racers with actual test results. How can that be a bad thing for us?

If anyone wants to argue the proposition in bold above, please do. We (okay, "I" if nobody else gives a damn) want to understand what reasonable objections would have to be worked through for this kind of policy to come about. And please don&#39;t think this is just about H&N systems. How are you going to feel about SFI rollcages if you stay in the sport long enough?

K

EDIT - the more I puzzle on these issues, the more I&#39;d like to see the licensing agreement that sanctioning bodies sign with SFI. I would not be surprised if there were a clause in there that stipulated that, in order to invoke SFI standards (1) the organization must be a member, and (2) that by becoming a member, they effectively agree to NOT allow the approval of non-SFI-member manufacturers&#39; products. It&#39;s probably put in nicer terms but functionally, this wouldn&#39;t surprise me at all. Again - make charges of black helicopters but only if you are willing to provide me with a copy of that licensing agreement to demonstrate how wrong I am. What I describe is completely consistent with the functions of 38.1 and my personal experiences with SFI.

[Speed Raycer]

Insert your favorite VHS/Beta argument here [/b]

Interesting to note that BETA was actually a far superior quality, but us consumers know what happened there. BETA was (and still is in some areas) the broadcast industry standard until digital came along. The pro&#39;s knew what was better but the masses got to use the lesser version

[spnkzss]

To add to the above, doesn&#39;t NASA have any influence on organizations like SFI?

[/b]

Actually, no. From what has been stated in quite a few places over the last few weeks, the manufacturers set the standard with SFI. "They" work to decide what "minimum" spec "they" need to abide by. And that right there is what the main argument is with SFI....period.

[lateapex911]

Except that, there are those who proclaim to be in the know, (a HANS rep) that state the 38.1 spec was NASCAR driven.

(Now, a simpleton look shows the HANS to be pre-existing and NASCARs involvement to be that of a big bear leveraging the existing HANS product into "spec", but then perhaps I&#39;ve been watchng too many "Bourne Identity" movies...)

In the end, this is a big onion, and it&#39;s very multi layered. Howver, the more you peel, the worse it smells.

[JohnRW]

Interesting to note that BETA was actually a far superior quality, but us consumers know what happened there. BETA was (and still is in some areas) the broadcast industry standard until digital came along. The pro&#39;s knew what was better but the masses got to use the lesser version
[/b]

Nope nope nope nope nope nope nope. Gotta correct you here, lest this become a "fact, due to repetition".

Beta - as in BetaMax the home VCR tape format - was dead long before BetaCam - a completely different tape format - got full traction as a broadcast format.

While they share the same size cassette and the same width tape, they&#39;re COMPLETELY different formats.

The success of VHS is largely due to price...and the porn industry (really). Sony perceived an image problem in that industry, and dissuaded (in subtle ways) distributors from using BetaMax. VHS had an open door at that point. If you want to see the future in consumer technology, just keep an eye on the porn industry...really.

(next year will be my 30th in broadcast TV...25 of&#39;em as "Chief Engineer", "Dir. of Engineering" or "VP Engineering" in assorted places.)

[spnkzss]

In the end, this is a big onion, and it&#39;s very multi layered. Howver, the more you peel, the worse it smells.
[/b]

And I thought it was allergy&#39;s that were making my eyes water.

[gsbaker]

E-mails and internet forums will be the trial lawyers feeding grounds.
[/b]

Pgipson gets it.

[Grumpy]

Pgipson gets it.
[/b]

Does anyone really believe that NASA did this without consulting their "risk management" people. You may not like what they have come up with but I think they thought this out.