January Fastrack

[lateapex911]

Major headline, for racers:

SFI or FIA Head and neck restraints WILL be required 1.1.2012

To me, this is a major point of disillusionment. To wit: One year ago, the mebers were asked for input on the subject. Overwhelmingly, racers form all points ov view were against such a mandate.

A month ago, we were asked AGAIN for input.

This time, the BoD didn't bother to wait for response. Nor did they respect the members wishes of just a year ago. Why ask for input at all?
here's an outtake from this very Fastrack, regarding the BoDs wishes when it comes to input:

The following subjects will be referred to the Board of Directors for approval. Address all comments, both for and against, to the Club Racing Board. It is the BoD’s policy to withhold voting on a rules change until there has been input from the membership on the presented rules. Member input is suggested and encouraged.

Well, that paragraph flies in the face of this recent action. And it's an action that will cost racers a LOT of money. Really, if you are a BoD member reading this and voted for the mandate, it doesn't look professional, and that's being nice. While I fully recognize that leaders of an organization must at times make moves that are against the wishes of that organization for the good of the whole, I have yet to see how this is anything but "sky is falling" paranoia. Tell us about the anayisis that was performed to reach this conclusion. What are the injury and fatality statistics in club racing? What input does the insurance carrier have?*

The only good thing...is that the BoD, famous for it's constant "Ok, new rule" penchant, will flip on this one as they have on so many others.



* Let me go on record with wild guesses as to those questions. At the time of the vote, I bet more drivers die of individual health issues (heart attacks) while on course than any other reason. And, I bet we've seen as many fatalities due to injury to those who were wearing some form of protection as those without. I'd also bet that of those deaths, non were basilar skull fracture. (In the past 5 years, lets say, but if records go back further, I'd love to know). I'll also bet that the insurance carrier had no input in the decision, positive or negative. I get the feeling the members consulted Pete Lyons our staff member who negotiates insurance contracts, who probably said it was "a good idea".

[Knestis]

I would LOVE to have someone explain to me, as an early adopter of a non-SFI H&N system chosen based on his own review of available test performance data, how this mandate makes me SAFER.

I admit that I might have a more personal problem with SFI, having had the "every driver in the US will have to buy SFI suits - it'll be GREAT!" pitch from two Bell Racestar guys at SEMA, back in 1987 or so. I was there with a suit manufacturer I was working with at the time. We'd just left a how-do-you-do meeting with Arnie Kuhns and they were trying to convince us over drinks that it was the wave of the future. Problem is, every benefit that they described had to do with the potential to force racers to buy from SFI member manufacturers. Not a word about making them safer.

K

[RacerBill]

According to Fastrack, the CRB recommended to the Board that IF H&N restraints were mandated, only SFI/FIA approved H&N restraints be allowed. The CRB recommended that H&N restraints be strongly recommended, not mandated. At least that's what I read.

[BruceG]

I agree with Jake...wait till the first time a driver sues because they had to wear a H&N(didn't wear one before) and was injured! I use a Hans(my choice) and I think that guys in states that don't have a helmet law for motorcycles and chose not to wear one are probably missing an essential truth...but so be it. I don't know how much more or less Ken Payson would have been injured at LRP last summer without a H&N...but make it a driver choice.

Why not have a disclaimer at registration that if you chose not to wear one, you do so at your own peril. Enough big brother.

Perhaps. next the BOd should mandate astronaut type diapers for drivers so that when you piss yourself in an accident, you don't contaminate corner workers....LOL.

[erlrich]

According to Fastrack, the CRB recommended to the Board that IF H&N restraints were mandated, only SFI/FIA approved H&N restraints be allowed. The CRB recommended that H&N restraints be strongly recommended, not mandated. At least that's what I read.

You're right Bill - apparently it was the Board that decided to adopt the mandate, and by a very narrow margin - 7 to 5 IIRC, with one abstention.

[mc-integra111]

I am disturbed by this as well. I thought that the member input was that this should be recommended and not required. It does not give me a good impression of SCCA if they ask for member input and then do the opposite of what the members want. I plan on using the new CRB form to express my point of view.

[Ron Earp]

I long ago gave up the idea this was a club by members for members.