Time to write those letters - Head and Neck Restraints

[golfRX]

go to racesafetydata and scroll down to the bottom and they have a link to the current specs (march 2009)

[dave parker]

Ok, I will play the dick and ask "Why?".

The head and neck restraint has been around for years in various designs. If you have raced with NASA you have had to wear one for the last two years. If you have done any "pro" racing you have had to have one. So why the big push to stop it from being compulsory?

Is it one of the following reasons:
1. You don't want to spend the money.
2. You are too good of a driver so you won't crash and CERTAINLY won't get hurt.
3. You don't agree with the narrow choice of devices that are allowed.
4. You could never be "comfortable" in one.

As someone else in this thread has said the club (SCCA) is covering its ass as advised by its lawyers. Why is this a big issue? Do you want the club to be decimated by a lawsuit filed by a grieving family member and their shark lawyer that the club was negligent in its duty to compel its members to protect themselves against injury after?

Please share your reasoning with the rest of the group.

cheers
dave parker

[chuck baader]

Good post, Dave. To me, my HANS was like other required car equipment...roll cage, racing seat, etc. You sure don't want to spend the money, but you know damn well you need it. QUITYOURBITCHING and get one. Chuck (who has worn a HANS for 3 years)

[JS154]

Good post, Dave. To me, my HANS was like other required car equipment...roll cage, racing seat, etc. You sure don't want to spend the money, but you know damn well you need it. QUITYOURBITCHING and get one. Chuck (who has worn a HANS for 3 years)

I concur fully. The HANS or similar type device can certainly make the difference between a survivable crash or one that is not, or the difference between a crash that you walk away from, vs on that you don't walk after, ever.

What happens if you go straight off at turn 10 in someone's fluid? There's about 2 feet of runoff there and it;s a 100 mph corner. I have a friend who is walking and talking today becuase of this exact scenario, and he was wearing a Hans.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk6HV-3iyi8[/ame]

[BruceG]

Wow...that is compelling video!!

[mgyip]

If I understand this thread, many folks agree that a H&N device is a good thing BUT they want to be able to wear whatever device they feel is safe, correct?

That's quite understandable but wholly unrealistic - if that were the case, you'd see anything from a "worthless" SFI 38.1 device to a stellar, home-engineered bungee-cord/rubberband neck-breaker. Without a certifiable standard, there would be no way to determine which device is theoretically safe and what devices are potentially lethal.

The argument of "mine is better than yours" is about as valid as "I'm faster than you because I'm touched and you're not". Based on the SFI 38.1 specs (regardless of what anyone things about how they were developed), an H&N device is afforded a standard that the sanctioning bodies and their legal eagles can use as a base-line. Is it the perfect test of an H&N device? For the scenario set forth by SFI, the answer is yes. That having been said, is their such a thing as a perfect "text book" crash? Probably one in a million...

I'm more than a bit embarrassed that SCCA is the last sanctioning body to mandate the use of an H&N device of any sort. It was painful to see SCCA taking out the long pearl-handled revolver, loading the silver bullets and pointing the barrel directly their their collective behinds. Apparently the concept of "risk adverse" spills over to "controversy adverse" as well. The harsh reality for SCCA (as it is for Stewards who must be the "Bad Guy" on occasion) is that not everyone will every be happy with every decision. Some people will scream and threaten, others will grumble under their breath and the vast majority will simply say "Thank you, may I have another".

The letter I'll write to SCCA is "It's about damn time you made a decision - ANY decision".

Matthew (chief rabble-rouser)

[tom91ita]

If I understand this thread, many folks agree that a H&N device is a good thing BUT they want to be able to wear whatever device they feel is safe, correct?

no. we want to be able to wear whatever device we choose that has been certified by an independent testing facility.

SCCA still has liability, they just transferred it to the non-SFI non-FIA cage design that they allow the system to be anchored to and to the tech inspectors. most harness installations do not meet the HANS requirements yet SCCA still allows it (i.e., grants log books and cars to go on track). and i met HANS and not H&NR.

my plans for 2012 are to continue to use an Isaac device and run with the Midwest Council of Sports Car Clubs. think of it as win/win. i can be safer and SCCA has reduced risk exposure because they will have fewer racers.

but seriously, why so narrow minded to think it has to be only SFI? in a rule book the size of SCCA's they could not have added a few more words to craft something that could meet the neck force performance standards in SFI at a list of crash labs?

as an engineer, i like the idea of the most direct means to an end. instead of adding an intermediate device between the helmet and the belts to transfer the force to the harness, why not take out the middle man so to speak? the Isaac is just more elegant.

i think this is just as compelling a video:

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/Video/SFIBoth.mpg

i think this side impact test data from the Delphi test labs is compelling as well:

[StephenB]

The letter I'll write to SCCA is "It's about damn time you made a decision - ANY decision".

Matthew (chief rabble-rouser)

+1

Originally Posted by JLawton
Mike,
these days not many people are arguing that they should have to wear one, but the fact that we are being mandated to wear only certain manufactures. Manufacturers that have been tested to be less safe than those that are not allowed. It's all about how the manufacturers are tied into SFI. It's all about the money.......... not safety. )

Jeff I would encourage you to look further into this. Isaac DID produce a product that met the standard and SCCA would have allowed that Isaac device just like all other SFI certified devices. Isaac themselves decided not to produce this product for us, the decision to only allow certain manufactures had nothing to do with SCCA and had everything to do with the manufactures themselves.

[jjjanos]

That's quite understandable but wholly unrealistic - if that were the case, you'd see anything from a "worthless" SFI 38.1 device to a stellar, home-engineered bungee-cord/rubberband neck-breaker. Without a certifiable standard, there would be no way to determine which device is theoretically safe and what devices are potentially lethal.

And this is a problem because? It was my choice and the manufacturer of shitty equipment is the one who carries the liability for his product.

The argument of "mine is better than yours" is about as valid as "I'm faster than you because I'm touched and you're not". Based on the SFI 38.1 specs (regardless of what anyone things about how they were developed), an H&N device is afforded a standard that the sanctioning bodies and their legal eagles can use as a base-line.

Nope. Ask the auto manufacturers if meeting government requirements protects them from liability. More importantly, it isn't clear to me that SCCA would have any liability for my failure to wear a H&N system. SCCA carries liability for certifying unsafe tracks and for having faulty operational standards (i.e. releasing cars from pit lanes into a pack of cars, etc), but the safety equipment? I don't think so.

The only lawsuit of which I've heard anything was when SCCA specifically prohibited the use of a safety device in one particular category and I believe the person who won that lawsuit was one of the pioneers in the H&N world. I.e. You can be sued for requiring people to use specific equipment when it can be shown that other equipment would have prevented that injury and SCCA was aware of that possibility.

Is it the perfect test of an H&N device? For the scenario set forth by SFI, the answer is yes. That having been said, is their such a thing as a perfect "text book" crash? Probably one in a million...

Wellllllll... the problem with the SFI standard has nothing to do with the crash scenario and everything to do with the design requirements mandated by the requirement.

I'm more than a bit embarrassed that SCCA is the last sanctioning body to mandate the use of an H&N device of any sort. It was painful to see SCCA taking out the long pearl-handled revolver, loading the silver bullets and pointing the barrel directly their their collective behinds. Apparently the concept of "risk adverse" spills over to "controversy adverse" as well. The harsh reality for SCCA (as it is for Stewards who must be the "Bad Guy" on occasion) is that not everyone will every be happy with every decision. Some people will scream and threaten, others will grumble under their breath and the vast majority will simply say "Thank you, may I have another".

Oh horse poop. There is absolutely no reason for requiring the SFI standard other then wanting to be like the cool kids. This decision is going to cost the club members and entries for no measurable gain. You race without a H&N system, the cost is on YOU, not the club. License keepers are going to go away.

The letter I'll write to SCCA is "It's about damn time you made a decision - ANY decision".

You are aware that SCCA did make a decision roughly 2 years before adopting this asinine regulation? SCCA recommended the use of a H&N system and said they were not going to require one. Based on that decision on their part, I now have an $800 piece of junk that offers me better protection than the piece of shit SCCA is shoving down my throat.

[gran racing]

A part of # 1. - I don't want to spend the money on a product that will keep me less safe than the one I already use. That's a big problem for me.

H&NR, right side net, different seat = hopes of getting close to what I already have. Unfortunately, I won't be able to get the expensive seat in this equasion so I'm going down in terms of safety. Yes, that really pisses me off.

3. Absolutely. GForce has an inexpensive option which does a decent job. There are others as well.

Eh, I won't go into this further as I've already been down that road.

[EV]

Ok, I will play the dick and ask "Why?".

The head and neck restraint has been around for years in various designs. If you have raced with NASA you have had to wear one for the last two years. If you have done any "pro" racing you have had to have one. So why the big push to stop it from being compulsory?

Is it one of the following reasons:
1. You don't want to spend the money.
2. You are too good of a driver so you won't crash and CERTAINLY won't get hurt.
3. You don't agree with the narrow choice of devices that are allowed.
4. You could never be "comfortable" in one.

As someone else in this thread has said the club (SCCA) is covering its ass as advised by its lawyers. Why is this a big issue? Do you want the club to be decimated by a lawsuit filed by a grieving family member and their shark lawyer that the club was negligent in its duty to compel its members to protect themselves against injury after?

Please share your reasoning with the rest of the group.

cheers
dave parker

I think #3 is what PO'ed many people who have already realized the need, and purchased one at a fair cost believing that it was the best/safest choice, but are now not able to continue to use their device due to narrowly crafted specs by a standards organization that had an early producer of one such device help them with the spec. In other words, the maker made a device, and had SFI write the spec based on their product.

[Russ Myers]

I have not seen any documented need for such a device. Therefore, I don't want to spend money on something that has not been proven to be ABSOLUTLY necessary. Prove a negative.

Russ

[Greg Amy]

Stop eating burgers and fries, and stop using so much salt on your food; both are bad for you. And stop smoking! Put your coat on when you go outside, too, or you'll catch the death of a cold. You need more exercise. Stop slouching and sit up straight!

Because it's good for you. And I'm the Mom, that's why.

[erlrich]

Ok, I will play the dick and ask "Why?".

The head and neck restraint has been around for years in various designs. If you have raced with NASA you have had to wear one for the last two years. If you have done any "pro" racing you have had to have one. So why the big push to stop it from being compulsory?

Is it one of the following reasons:
1. You don't want to spend the money.
2. You are too good of a driver so you won't crash and CERTAINLY won't get hurt.
3. You don't agree with the narrow choice of devices that are allowed.
4. You could never be "comfortable" in one.

As someone else in this thread has said the club (SCCA) is covering its ass as advised by its lawyers. Why is this a big issue? Do you want the club to be decimated by a lawsuit filed by a grieving family member and their shark lawyer that the club was negligent in its duty to compel its members to protect themselves against injury after?

Please share your reasoning with the rest of the group.

cheers
dave parker

Dave, to answer your question with a question; why should this be required? Where is the demonstrated need (in Club Racing)? I wrote a request to allow a piece of safety equipment on IT cars a while back, and the Fastrack response was "there has been no demonstrated need". So I'm asking now; have we seen deaths, or even serious injuries, that have made this level of protection necessary? They're asking people to spend $600-$1200 (or more) on a piece of safety equipment that nobody has shown a need for. That's my first beef with the rule. So maybe that gets filed under #1, but I think maybe we should make a 1.a. - "You don't want to spend the money on something that isn't necessary".

My second beef has more to do with the way SFI and HANS have handled this whole thing - the SFI spec by all accounts was written by Hubbard, and they have gone out of their way on more than one occasion to try and prevent other companies from marketing competing devices. When you're talking about a safety device, and you have a company out there trying to prevent other, competing devices from being available to consumers...well, let's just say that leave's a bad taste in my mouth. If I continue to race with SCCA after this year (I'm about 50/50 right now), and I do end up having to spend money on some device, I can sure as hell gaurantee you it won't be from HANS.

Lastly - and this wasn't one of the choices - the members of this club decidedly opposed the requirement for a mandatory H&N device, and even the CRB opposed it, yet the BoD decided to go against the member's wishes and institute the requirement.

That's my $.02

[lateapex911]

Ok, I will play the dick and ask "Why?".

The head and neck restraint has been around for years in various designs. If you have raced with NASA you have had to wear one for the last two years. If you have done any "pro" racing you have had to have one. So why the big push to stop it from being compulsory?

Is it one of the following reasons:
1. You don't want to spend the money.
2. You are too good of a driver so you won't crash and CERTAINLY won't get hurt.
3. You don't agree with the narrow choice of devices that are allowed.
4. You could never be "comfortable" in one.

As someone else in this thread has said the club (SCCA) is covering its ass as advised by its lawyers. Why is this a big issue? Do you want the club to be decimated by a lawsuit filed by a grieving family member and their shark lawyer that the club was negligent in its duty to compel its members to protect themselves against injury after?

Please share your reasoning with the rest of the group.

cheers
dave parker

Well, Dave, just to state the obvious again...


My reasoning is mostly related to #3.
I have had an Isaac since the year they came out. it offers superior numbers to the Hans.*
Now I must buy something SFI. Which has inferior numbers to what I currently have.
This means I must:
But a new device $700.
To REMAIN AS SAFE AS I CURRENTLY AM, I must also buy a new seat, to make up for the new devices poor protection. So, new seat, proper mounts, etc etc, easy $1000. (lets ignore, for now, the whole seat spec debacles)
(Now, as an example of SFI workings, we have the belt SFI rule, where some "member" of the SFI (a company that wants to sell more belts) reported that if the belts are left outside in the Florida sun, and get rained on everyday, they can degrade due to UV exposure, so, the 5 yr rating should be reduced to two years. Funny how the SFI jumps on that and the whole SFI belt buying world now buys belts 2.5 times as often. How'd you like YOUR business products to have a mandate that results in 2.5 times the sales!?). I spent the big FIA bucks, so I'm good there, I think.
But wait...even after spending the $1700, I'm still less safe. Why? Because if/when I crash, and I'm upside down/ pinched against a barrier/on my side/whatever, I now get to wriggle through a window thats 33% smaller in opening size than it was before, thanks to the new 'safer' seat that I got to make up for the inferiority of my new mandated H&N device, that replaces my superior performing but "dangerous and illegal head and neck restraint".

Ah yes, this rule will be a HUGE step forward for me. More money, less actual safety. SO glad we have assholes in our country who sue just to sue and legal depts who run around in fear because settling is cheaper than the day in court..

So, yea, I'm looking at huge money to go backwards in safety.

*I have just learned that there is possibly an SFI device that offers the same protection as I have now. I'll have to confirm that. Even still, it's beyond annoying that because of some SFI racketeering, that i'll end up wasting more money on something I have absolutely no need for.

[Matt Rowe]

More money, less actual safety.

That summarizes my reason as well.

Actually I am still hoping to find a device a can wear while still wearing my device of choice. That is at least more money, equivilent safety.

[RacerBill]

(Now, as an example of SFI workings, we have the belt SFI rule, where some "member" of the SFI (a company that wants to sell more belts) reported that if the belts are left outside in the Florida sun, and get rained on everyday, they can degrade due to UV exposure, so, the 5 yr rating should be reduced to two years. Funny how the SFI jumps on that and the whole SFI belt buying world now buys belts 2.5 times as often. How'd you like YOUR business products to have a mandate that results in 2.5 times the sales!?).

Again, the observed dealings of the SFI do not relate to their PUBLISHED (on their own website), objectives "Openness" and "Publication and Disclosure". If you read their website, there is a section with the heading "What do the letters 'SFI' stand for?". Their answer is that the S does not stand for SEMA as it once did. but does not go on to tell us what the S stands for now. Make up your own meaning, I guess.


Jake: The following paragraph is from the SFI website. It refers to an opprotunity to appeal any decision made by SFI by any 'interested parties', not just members.

Due Process
Open hearings with adequate notice of all activities shall be given, copies of these procedures shall be available, and the opportunity to be heard or to appeal any decision shall be provided to all interested parties. All activities are to be conducted with fairness toward all interested persons.

[lateapex911]

This has come up in the past, Bill.

It's rhetoric. Like the guy who listens to his wife, hears her out, then says, "We're doing it my way".

I think they WILL listen, and WILL accept input, but, they make their call as they $ee fit. oops, did I typo there? not really.

[RacerBill]

this has come up in the past, bill.

It's rhetoric. Like the guy who listens to his wife, hears her out, then says, "we're doing it my way".

I think they will listen, and will accept input, but, they make their call as they fit. Oops, did i typo there? Not really.

[jdrago1]

Ok, I will play the dick and ask "Why?".

The head and neck restraint has been around for years in various designs. If you have raced with NASA you have had to wear one for the last two years. If you have done any "pro" racing you have had to have one. So why the big push to stop it from being compulsory?

Is it one of the following reasons:
1. You don't want to spend the money.
2. You are too good of a driver so you won't crash and CERTAINLY won't get hurt.
3. You don't agree with the narrow choice of devices that are allowed.
4. You could never be "comfortable" in one.

As someone else in this thread has said the club (SCCA) is covering its ass as advised by its lawyers. Why is this a big issue? Do you want the club to be decimated by a lawsuit filed by a grieving family member and their shark lawyer that the club was negligent in its duty to compel its members to protect themselves against injury after?

Please share your reasoning with the rest of the group.

cheers
dave parker

My opinion is similar to what Dave posted above. I understand many of the objections, but disagree with most...

1) The Money... We all hate spending money.. What about buying new belts when they expire or helmets when the snell rating moves up? Yet we all buy them and find a way to pay for it.

3) choice..Mostly the Isaac debate. That has been debated for a long time, I am pretty neutral on that device, meaning I don't think it is near as good as many of you say, nor as bad as many others say. I prefer the HANS, but would wear another H&N if the HANS was not allowed.

As far as not proving they work, You can argue anything if you have enough time and effort, IMO there is no doubt the head and neck supports save lives. If one live is saved, it is worth all the complaints IMO.
If I could only run the hans and helmet or my suit and helmet, I would hand my suit, gloves and shoes over immediately to put my hans on.
We really don't need helmets or seat belts either? Why is it OK to mandate them, but not H&N?