Make Head and Neck Restraints Mandatory?

[RexRacer19]

Here is the letter that I am sending:

I am writing this letter based on your request for input regarding head and neck restraints. I am currently using a H&N restraint and feel the are beneficial to increasing the level of safety in racing. Personally, I don’t feel that safety should be mandated, and that “personal responsibility” should be the standard on which we go on. However, I realize that this is not the socially acceptable norm in this day and time.

Despite the fact that I am both a user and proponent for H&N restraints, I am very concerned about the direction that the club will take in this matter. Most every other club has adopted the SFI 38.1 standard for H&N restraints. The problem is that the standard excludes one of the best performing H&N restraints on the market, the ISAAC Device. When you go by crash performance data alone it resides at or near the top of the list in all categories. It also offers an additional benefit to the other H&N restraints in side impact crashes.

The only criteria that keeps the ISAAC from meeting SFI 38.1 is the “single point of release” clause. The ISAAC can be configured such that one easy pull of a tether will release the driver’s helmet from it. The fact that the device stays with the car is an advantage, in my opinion, for driver egress. When you consider that many drivers are hooked up to cool suits, radios, etc. the single point of release argument seems bogus. Other devices, such as the popular HANS or R3 that stay with the driver, have proven to hinder the driver’s ability to egress quickly. This is especially true on vehicles with smaller window openings. Further complicating egress issues are the seat designs that are required to “supplement” H&N restraints. These winged seats can both hamper vision and can add additional complication to egress. I find it odd that the most popular H&N restraint requires both special belts, and winged seats to provide maximum protection for the driver. In the mean time the only device excluded from the SFI 38.1 certification requires none of that to actually work better.

When I built my race car, it was built to exceed the minimum safety standards. The roll cage far exceeds the minimum standards for the class (Improved Touring). The seat is a FIA spec seat, and a substantial steel mounting frame was integrated into the chassis of the car. Care was taken in mounting the belts properly, and the car has a fire system; an item not required for Improved Touring. All of this was at extra expense to me. I applied this same logic when shopping for a H&N restraint. The ISAAC exceeds the standard and offers increased performance/benefit to the other devices on the market based on my research. Based on this, I feel that being mandated to use anything other than the ISAAC would reduce my level of safety in the car during a crash.

I realize that this is probably a difficult decision for the club. I am sure there is probably pressure to adopt a policy for the use of H&N restraints due to insurance and/or liability concerns. I sincerely hope that the SCCA will take a leadership roll if standards must be adopted by allowing other standards besides SFI 38.1 that are based on performance. Because racers should know that performance is what really matters.


Sincerely,
Jeff Underwood
BRR-SCCA
Member: 274916

[gsbaker]

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...

A thoroughly practical approach. Patience is a virtue.

[erlrich]

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.

Oh, I agree, and probably the majority of those recommendations are for items optional to one class & required in another, or for optional upgrades (e.g. 6 or 7-point harness in place of the required 5-point); I was just trying to point out that it is not at all unusual for the SCCA to recommend the use of a piece of safety equipment when its use is deemed beneficial but not critical.

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...

Which is why I suggested that the SCCA "highly recommend" the use of a H&N restraint as well as "highly recommending" that the device conform to SFI 38.1 - although in retrospect since the current language only recommends the use of a H&N restraint with no mention of any spec it probably would have been better to just ask that it be left as is.

[lateapex911]

We had the ITAC cn call last night, and i understand that there is a large "Voter turnout" on this one, and that's a great thing. If you haven't written, please do.

Also, I think a call or email to your local BoD person is in order. As Dickita (cha cha cha!) wisely pointed out above, history has shown that the leaders of the club are loath to go against the will of the members and make unpopular decisions. let them know where you stand on the issue.

In an ideal world, I would love to see the club issue a statement that gave some time window of the current "no mandate" stance, as I feel a lot of people are NOT buying protection because they are waiting for what they feel is inevitable. Knowing that we are good to go for the forseeable future could actually help increase driver safety dramatically.

[Cobrar05]

I wonder if the seat belt/harness or helmet requirement debate looked like this?

[Allspeed]

"I wonder if the seat belt/harness or helmet requirement debate looked like this?"

Yes it did. I remember when Nomex was first required (yes, I am that old). One quote I remember was "I can buy a new set of tires for the cost of a Nomex suit".

When Army surplus Nomex gloves were banned, a similar outcry.

When new Snell requirements appeared for the first time, more of the same.

Once drivers were reminded that a harness might help them drive the d**n car, they dropped those arguments.

Boys will be boys.

My stance is that if a head and neck restraint becomes required, ALL proven effective devices should be allowed. I don't like the possibility of hidden agendas/conflict of interests. I also don't know what the word proven means but some standard should be available.

I agree that a device that provides lateral as well as fore and aft protection would be the most effective.

I sometimes think we've made racing TOO safe and too many "wankers" survive to procreate at a later date, producing more "wankers",,

I think most of us will do whatever is finally decided, as we have in the past, 'cause addicts don't have choices.

Mike

[tnord]

In an ideal world, I would love to see the club issue a statement that gave some time window of the current "no mandate" stance, as I feel a lot of people are NOT buying protection because they are waiting for what they feel is inevitable. Knowing that we are good to go for the forseeable future could actually help increase driver safety dramatically.

count me as a data point. I had every intention of buying an ISAAC this year as I just got married a month ago, so my perspective has changed. I will not buy one until we get direction.....and if the wrong direction is chosen, maybe I won't buy one at all.

[teritanz25]

It seems to me like someone is looking for this to goto a vote somehow. I just purchased a H@N systems this week. I am happy with my decision to wear one. I personally feel it is a better idea to have one than not to. But, that being said I still feel it is up to each individual to decide what is important to themselves. I hate wearing Nomex socks but do so because I am told to and that make me mad. But I also understand why I should.

So, I vote " NO " to a mandate at this time. Maybe in the future when we all have more information and also more consistent info I will change my mind.

Thanks. You all have a great day!

[Cobrar05]

I face in NASA as well as the SCCA. So I have an SFI Head and Neck restraint already. So, I really don't care about this rule. The argument about taking car of your own safety, though, is bogus and a laugh. Somebody has made the same argument on any safety device that is made manditory.

Richard Petty would have raced bare handed til his last day and lets not even talk about what Dale Earnhardt would have raced without if allowed to.

I understand the complaints and the reasons for them. I would like to run a couple of Mustang Challenge races next season. They require HANS. I own a Hybrid. So, I would to change or own two pieces of equipment.

[lateapex911]

I race in NASA as well as the SCCA. So I have an SFI Head and Neck restraint already. So, I really don't care about this rule. The argument about taking car of your own safety, though, is bogus and a laugh. Somebody has made the same argument on any safety device that is made manditory.

Uh, with respect, no.

You miss the point. The issue here isn't, as you are suggesting, that a mandate will force us to spend the money on safety gear that we'd rather have for entry fees, race rubber, or beer, or that we all have a natural inclination to avoid devices to increase our safety.....it is that a mandate will force many to downgrade their safety.

Many have already, (i myself have been wearing a device for 5 or more years now..) chosen a device that has superior numbers in more modes than what a mandate will likely require. IF we have a mandate, my understanding is that the club has little option but to issue a spec, and that will be a SFI 38.1 spec. While I'd LOVE to see them suggest an RSi performance listing, or wording that requires it to meet the 38.1 performance parameters, I know better.

So, for many who currently run a state of the art device, forcing them to purchase a 38.1 compliant device requires them to also go out and get a halo seat, special belts, and the proper mounts for the above, just to get back to the same approximate position they were in before the mandate. But wait, there's more. They're actually less safe in other ways, because climbing out their window is now an order of magnitude harder, as the available real estate used to egress has been chopped by the halo seat. (And lets not even talk about the crap they'll be trying to wiggle through that reduced opening with, crap that's been shown to get caught on stuff and hang up in televised races. Hey, sure, nobody's died because they've been trapped in a burning car, but, given a choice, I'd rather wriggle through without that stuff than with it, and I think anyone who's honest would agree. less is more at that point.)

Oh, and they'll be throwing away a perfectly good device that cost around $800, and spending another $1600 or so, yet for all that money, they will be worse off. That's the icing on the cake.

So, no, this isn't just whining about raising the safety bar.

Richard Petty would have raced bare handed til his last day and lets not even talk about what Dale Earnhardt would have raced without if allowed to.

Funny that you mention that. Few have had the moxie to call NASCAR on the real deal there, but they are as responsible for Dale's death as anyone, other than Dale, of course. Everyone loves dale, but his actions got this whole thing rolling. If NASCAR had drawn the line, and demanded that the belts in his car be installed correctly, and worn appropriately, he'd be alive today.

[Dave Gomberg]

...

IF we have a mandate, the club has little option but to issue a spec, and that will be a SFI 38.1 spec. While I'd LOVE to see them suggest an RSi performance listing, or wording that requires it to meet the 38.1 performance parameters, I know better

So, let's be clear here. Jake. If the club adopted a mandatory head and neck restraint rule and allowed SFI 38.1 or either RSI or a specific list of other devices (that included the ISAAC), you would be fine with that?

Dave

[lateapex911]

So, let's be clear here. Jake. If the club adopted a mandatory head and neck restraint rule and allowed SFI 38.1 or either RSI or a specific list of other devices (that included the ISAAC), you would be fine with that?

Dave

oh, ABSOLUTELY, Dave. That would be awesome. But, we've all heard in the past, that the club doesn't want to be in the business of specifying, and making standards. Now, that could be viewed as hypocritical, as there are other examples where thats currently the case, but, it has seemed that up to now, SFI has ruled the discussion.

hey, I would LOVE to be wrong, and to my eye, the club needs to concern itself with a method of allowing the devices that perform, and keeping the riff raff out.

Further, as I stated above, some form af affirmative statement would open the floodgates, allowing the masses to go ahead and purchase devices with the confidence they wouldn't own an albatross in a year.

[tom91ita]

as soon as this out http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=20133 i am getting one. i can afford a $99 "albatross" but do not want a $600 or whatever albatross.

when/if this hits the market, i think with it being so affordable, everyone will want one.

heck, i would buy one for a friend for the weekend. some spend this kind of money in a weekend on refilling the kegerator.

[Knestis]

So, let's be clear here. Jake. If the club adopted a mandatory head and neck restraint rule and allowed SFI 38.1 or either RSI or a specific list of other devices (that included the ISAAC), you would be fine with that?

Dave

You bet. My letter says exactly that. I refuse to let the Club tell me that I can't use a system that I purchased because its test results were better than the other (38.1 listed) choices.

I think it's pretty unfortunate that a large portion of the "No" letters that the Club will get, will be based on resistance to having ANY H&N system. They're potentially too valuable to ignore, and drivers dragging their heels to adopt new technologies to protect themselves is the primary reason we're in the mess we are with SFI, etc.

K

[dj10]

They can pry my gun from my cold dead hand!!!.........woops..........sorry.........wrong subject. :~)

[BruceG]

Anybody have any info on the new Defender system?

Thanks

Bruce

[JimLill]

Anybody have any info on the new Defender system?

some numbers in here........

http://www.am-rennsport.com/HNR.html

I heard they'll start shipping to customers mid-Dec

[924Guy]

My (VERY LONG-WINDED) letter sent to CRB and BOD... (yes, my boss dreads reading my emails and reports at work, too easy to type a book... I suppose I shoulda cc'd it to the ITAC?)

I am writing to address the request for comments (Nov 08 Fastrack) on the potential mandate of use of head and neck restraints in Club Racing.

Let me preface this by spelling out my experience with H+N restraints over the past 4 years or so. I bought an ISAAC early on, in '04 as I recall, and have been using it ever since. Since then, I have been in about 6 incidents, all but one of those with the wall. I also have a HANS, as I am required to for work; I work for Bosch Engineering (in Detroit) in the area of Vehicle Dynamics - specifically development and testing of stability control systems. While it's not a typically used piece of equipment in our line of work, I spent the better part of this summer in a very high performance car on the racetrack, and was required by our customer's safety standards to use one. So I have plenty of time with that system as well, though (this being a safer test environment) we were fortunate to have no incidents resulting in use of the HANS.

So my experience with the HANS is limited to "normal" on-track driving, and I cannot rate its effectiveness in an impact. However I did experience significant pinching and bruising just in normal driving, and had MANY occasions where I spent my weekends off nursing a stiff neck and pulled muscles - which I've never experienced in my racecar, despite the greater cornering ability of the latter. (The test vehicle was equipped with full race seats, 5-points harnesses, etc, so no differences there).

By contrast, with the ISAAC, I have never experienced any such strain or injury in its use - normal or during incidents.

Of the 6 incidents I referred to above, 4 were distinctly lateral impacts (angle of impact over 45 degrees from the vehicle's longitudinal axis) with impact barriers - armco with and without tires. In EVERY case, I was able to easily walk away from the impact without any injury. Indeed, I never even experienced any neck strain or other symptoms, excepting mild headaches from the worst two hits (one onto armco at 70mph, and the following impact), despite the car suffering badly. Indeed, one lateral impact into armco was sufficient to bend the rack gear in my steering rack. Not the tie rods, the rack gear itself, a very sturdy piece of metal. Another impact was strong enough to shear a front brake caliper casting outright, among other damage.

The HANS has no benefit to the user in lateral impacts; indeed, its effectiveness is limited to a very narrow cone of about ± 15 degrees, as I recall.

The last, most recent impact, one of the more spectacular incidents, occurred only a few weeks ago at the '08 ARRC Championship ITB race in Road Atlanta. On lap 4, while struggling to regain control of my car at turn 7, I was broadsided by Sam Moore in his Volvo, who had the misfortune to be following so close as to have no chance to avoid my spinning car.

The resultant impact was the one I always feared was the worst case for us club racers; spin center track and get t-boned by the next car up, before having a chance to move out of the way. Not a headlong impact into a concrete oval-track wall, as the HANS is designed for. I can't speak for most club racers, but I know I don't race on too many street courses or ovals.

The resultant impact registered at least 5g on my data acq. system (already heavily filtered), and induced a yaw acceleration that pegged my yaw rate sensor at over 90 deg/second - truly hard to imagine - and spun the car 270 degrees back the other way. After this impact, I was able to snap the car back around, find a gear, and resume forward progress. Thanks to a good bit of luck and good preparation with the right equipment, I was not only able to finish the remaining 16 laps of Road Atlanta at a competitive pace, I was in fact able to run as high as 2nd in class before succumbing to a determined challenge and coming home 3rd on the podium. Poor Sam's race, unfortunately, was ended right after the impact, as he appeared to bounce off of my car and directly into the wall just past Turn 7.

I am certain without a doubt, on review of the data and video, that I would have been lucky to avoid serious injury if I had been wearing any lesser head/neck system - let along finish the race! In such a lateral and rotational impact, the HANS, well-acknowledge to be the best of the SFI 38.1-compliant devices, can be expected to provide little to no benefit, in my opinion.

Therefore I would like to submit my opinion to the Boards that the current statement in the rules, recommending the use of a head and neck device, be /retained as-is/. If any modification is made to the current wording, the only change I could support is "strongly recommends." Any other wording, in particular to require compliance with currently-recognized standards such as SFI 38.1, will decidedly not be in our best interests as racers. As it currently stands, such a requirement will deprive us of access to one of the most effective devices currently on the market, and one that I feel in my extensive real-world crash-test experience to be the best suited for our purposes - not the needs of a professional racing organization with decidedly different venues and goals.

I would also like to remind the Boards that the safety and head and neck requirements of different constructions of vehicles require substantially different approaches. Center nets don't make much sense in single-seater formula cars.

Please do not follow the ever-increasing trend to try to absolve the Club of liability in this dangerous sport. Let us continue to make our own responsible, well-considered decisions about what equipment best suits our needs, for the cars we drive.

Instead, if any action is to be taken, /please/ put the effort and resources of the Club into encouraging the development of improved safety devices, and into improving the access of competitors to those devices - in particular, awareness and education of what devices are available, and how they're useful. I suspect if better, more complete information became available to racers about the benefits and usage of new and existing safety devices, there would be far less resistance to the implementation of safety requirements, and resulting usage would be more effective.

Thanks for your time, your attention on this matter, and your continued efforts on behalf of the Club!

[tom_sprecher]

...The argument about taking car of your own safety, though, is bogus and a laugh. Somebody has made the same argument on any safety device that is made manditory...

No offense, but to say you and I have diametrically opposing sociological views would be an understatement. I say to each his own and no one else. Too bad many in this country can not understand this concept and can not be content to leave the rest of us alone.

Damn. America used to be a great place to live and play. Not so much anymore.

Blame it on those who refuse to take responsiblity for their own actions, those who sympathize with them and the lawyer scum that feed upon both.

[Cobrar05]

What professional racing sanctioning bodies allow the ISAAC to be used?

Sprech: Are you suggesting member should be able to race in street clothes, without a helmet and safety belts? I don't understand where H&NR becomes anything more than the next step along those lines.

Is the SCCA mandate for a window net wrong? Is the mandate that the window net must be mounted a specific way a compound on an injustice?