Make Head and Neck Restraints Mandatory?

[lateapex911]

That's a good letter Chuck, as it shows a lack of bias.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Is it possible that the SCCA could put out a recommended list but not make them manditory? I know this is asking a lot but what are the ramifications?

How about this:

"Head and Neck restraints are highly recommended. SFI certification is also highly recommended but not manditory. Each competitor is expected to do their due diligence when selecting a H&N restraint system."

[BruceG]

I Like the wording, Andy! Perhaps just a few words of disclaimer if someone is dumb enough not to wear one,as well.

[raffaelli]

Is it possible that the SCCA could put out a recommended list but not make them manditory? I know this is asking a lot but what are the ramifications?

How about this:

"Head and Neck restraints are highly recommended. SFI certification is also highly recommended but not manditory. Each competitor is expected to do their due diligence when selecting a H&N restraint system."

Seems likely that it could get worded:
"Head and Neck restraints are highly recommended but not mandatory. SFI certification is required where a H&R is used." which is something I would prefer to avoid.



I am not in support of making me buy a H&R and will write a letter also.

But – what is the difference between mandating a belt or a helmet with a certain requirement and a H&R with a certain requirement? My first reaction is that they are the same and feel a bit contradictory for requesting a ‘hands off’ for the H&R and not for a belt or helmet.

[spnkzss]

I am writing to your request of member input regarding the possibility of mandating a head and neck restraint.

It is funny to me how times have changed. Racing has gone from a very grassroots, how do I go faster, type of mentality that required little to no safety standards to a, we (as an organization) may be held responsible for every little thing that goes wrong and must make sure legally that we are covered in every aspect possible. I understand the pressure the organization is under to make us as safe as possible and make the lawyers happy while doing it.

As a new father I have all of a sudden come to this need for self preservation. It’s a hard concept to grasp. Late 20 something and I’m no longer invincible. What’s worse is I have to admit it. Over the years I followed H&N debates. I watched, I learned, I researched, but I couldn’t bring myself to do anything about it. When I found out my wife was pregnant, that flipped things big time for me. I decided to go back and do my research again, this time with a different mindset of “It’s time to buy something. What is the best solution?”.

What concerns me about a mandated H&N restraint is SCCA as an organization will have to go with some sort of certified effort. You do not want people coming in and duct taping their head to the seat and calling that a H&N device. While it may work just fine, we all see some failed logic in it. Currently the only real industry standard is SFI 38.1. Unfortunately there are quite a few flaws with the 38.1 standard that eliminate some of the best performing products out there and may hinder products that have not been designed yet. Everybody falls back to the “Well all the professional series think it works.” While I agree with this and think something is better than nothing, I still believe it is my choice as to what device I feel is best for me and a device that holds a SFI 38.1 I don’t think is best for me.

While I am an ISAAC wearer (http://www.isaacdirect.com) this is not my full motivation for this request. I want to be allowed to choose as it is my neck that is out there. I think this type of technology is still new and think it will continue to develop into safer and better things, but SFI 38.1 has made the development kind of stagnant due to its limitations. While I agree everyone should be wearing something, I for one cannot force people to, and understand that the only way the organization could mandate something is by requiring SFI 38.1. Since I have quite a few issues with SFI 38.1 I have to ask that a mandate not be made.

I will be happy to discuss what I feel to be wrong with SFI 38.1, but I am sure you will be getting quite a few responses on this topic explaining them. If however there are questions I will be more than happy to give my understanding of the whole topic.

Thank you for your time.

Robert Luke
WDCR SCCA Member 319613

[SLUF]

Received a reply from our area director, Lisa Noble. They ARE LISTENING and there appears to be some thought being put into this by the board members.

[tnord]

Received a reply from our area director, Lisa Noble. They ARE LISTENING and there appears to be some thought being put into this by the board members.

don't let up, i've had lip service paid to me by BOD members before. this is too important to just let the chips fall where they may.

thanks for writing, call your buddies and tell them to write, and i'll see you on the track next year.

[joeg]

I would rather see the Board putting pressure on the manufactureres to lower prices on H&N gear.

If they were all $150 to $200 cheaper, this would be a no-brainer, IMHO.

[gsbaker]

How about this:

"Head and Neck restraints are highly recommended. SFI certification is also highly recommended but not manditory. Each competitor is expected to do their due diligence when selecting a H&N restraint system."

That's just about perfect. Over time, all the low performance products have left the market; you cannot buy a bad H&N restraint these days. As long as there is a manufacturer's label on it and any type of certification we avoid the bungee cord and duct tape varieties.

[gsbaker]

I would rather see the Board putting pressure on the manufactureres to lower prices on H&N gear.

If they were all $150 to $200 cheaper, this would be a no-brainer, IMHO.

We will be testing a model with an introductory price of $99 soon, and it will meet industry performance standards.

[gsbaker]

We would also encourage members to offer the RSI certification as an alternative as it includes industry standard performance requirements.

http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org...estraints.html

[Greg Amy]

How about this:

"Head and Neck restraints are highly recommended. SFI certification is also highly recommended but not manditory. Each competitor is expected to do their due diligence when selecting a H&N restraint system."

Thing is, why even mention it at all if it's not mandated? Is it actually in SCCA's best interest to even formally recognize the existence of such devices without requiring them and making them meet an external specification?

Once you recognize its existence, you open yourself up to a whole 'nother can of worms...

[Flyinglizard]

Maybe they should have a fire system, along with the HANS. Most of the firesystem cars can generate enough G forces for death, along with egress time fire coverage. The IT cars are slower,catch fire more often , (except for the British production cars).
Or maybe, there should be a time limit for egress, shown at annual tech. Maybe should be 80% or less of the firesuit rating time.
MM

[shwah]

We would also encourage members to offer the RSI certification as an alternative as it includes industry standard performance requirements.

http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org...estraints.html

I mentioned this in my letter as an alternative to SFI for verifying product performance.

[spnkzss]

I received a response to my letter:


Robert,
Thank you for your very insightful and thoughtful response. Your comments reflect the type of response that is very helpful for the Club leadership to make sound decisions.

At the moment the feedback is going in the direction of strongly encouraging everyone to wear a device of their choice but to not make wearing a device mandatory.

[gsbaker]

Thing is, why even mention it at all if it's not mandated? Is it actually in SCCA's best interest to even formally recognize the existence of such devices without requiring them and making them meet an external specification?

Once you recognize its existence, you open yourself up to a whole 'nother can of worms...

I hate to admit it, but that's a good point. Similar to a local apartment that found itself in court because it referred to the community gates as "security" gates, rather than controlled access gates (or some such thing). As luck would have it, a maintenance issue required the gates be left open one night, the same night someone got mugged in the parking lot.

[erlrich]

Thing is, why even mention it at all if it's not mandated? Is it actually in SCCA's best interest to even formally recognize the existence of such devices without requiring them and making them meet an external specification?

Once you recognize its existence, you open yourself up to a whole 'nother can of worms...

I think that might be a good strategy with respect to brand new, untested technology; but for something like H&N restraints that are so commonly used, and mandated by most professional sanctioning bodies, and now by a number of amatuer bodies, I don't think you can just ignore the issue. My letter to the CRB also included the preference for leaving H&N restraints as "highly recommended" but not required.

Just out of curiosity, I searched the 2008 GCR for the word "recommend" (or "recommended") and found 125 occurrences. Just sayin'

[Greg Amy]

Just out of curiosity, I searched the 2008 GCR for the word "recommend" (or "recommended") and found 125 occurrences. Just sayin'

I'd be interested in the context of those "recommends", in terms of:

- "what" they're recommending;
- if those "recommends" are "required" in other classes (e.g., fuel cells in IT); and,
- if those "recommends" all have external specs they must meet.

Remember (at the risk of sounding like a broken record - for you younger people, that's something we used to use to listen to music), if H&NRs are "recommended" or "mandated" my prediction is that they WILL be required to meet an external spec. And, that spec is SFI 38.1...

[gsbaker]

...my prediction is that they WILL be required to meet an external spec. And, that spec is SFI 38.1...

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the spec is the problem. So, change to an equivalent spec, perhaps?

This problem, on a broader scale, will only get worse if the Club continues to support a spec monopoly.

[Greg Amy]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the spec is the problem. So, change to an equivalent spec, perhaps?

Gregg, you know where I stand. While you're pointing out what we'd LIKE to happen, I'm simply pointing out what likely WILL happen.

Here's what's got to happen:
- Short term: no mandate, no recommendation.
- Long term: change the external spec requirements/get a new spec approved. THEN worry about mandates/recommendations.

Try doing it the other way around, and you know what'll happen...