Time to write those letters - Head and Neck Restraints

[pitbull113]

As we know in 2012 the scca is mandating the use of a head and neck system. This rule is not written in stone. I'm urging all members to write the scca and let them know we do not need this rule. If you choose to wear one fine but we should have the right to race without it if we want to.Thank you.

[CRallo]

My issue is with the SFI requirement...

This has been around and around a couple times and many other sanctioning bodies have already had this debate and "lost" but maybe there is still something to be learned there...

[RacerBill]

Pardon me, I just threw up again! I made the mistake of visiting the SFI website again. The first thing that I did was try and find out what the specifications are, but in many cases, the actual specifications for products are not available for viewing by the public. Then, I read the following:

Openness
Participation shall be open to all interested persons who might be directly or materially affected by the Spec. Participation is not conditional upon membership in any organization.
Technical Committees
Technical committees are comprised of individuals from all facets of industry, scientific and motorsports sanctioning organizations with expertise in their areas of endeavor to provide a comprehensive cross-section of knowledge.
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.
Publication and Disclosure
SFI Specs shall be published and made available to the public as soon as possible after approval by the SFI Board of Directors.

How does any of this apply to SFI 38.1? The fact that it is not published is contrary to the Publication and Disclosure statement.

How was their Openness and Due Process statements applied in the development of 38.1?

I know, the legal eagles in Kansas are going to say, 'We have to use something, and they are the only game in town'. Humbug!

Wait a minute! Do I see a crack in their armor? How about 60,000 SCCA members writing to the SFI to change 38.1 playing the 'Openness' card - "all interested persons who might be directly or materially affected by the Spec."


Edit: OK, letter written to SFI requesting the actual specification of 38.1. Let's see how 'OPEN' they really are.

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Aanselm]

The debate about which is better using a 38.1 device or the Isaac really has nothing to do with the actual device, it is more about the fact that people who make Isaac refuse to pay SFI to get the certification. IMO

[Knestis]

...because the people who wrote 38.1 included not only performance standards but also specific design restrictions that effectively rule out the Isaac. In essence, the SFI standard describes a Hans. When Defender came out with a product that had the 38.1-mandated features, Hans filed suit.

K

[tom91ita]

this is part of what bothers me so much. that club members and "managing" members apparently have not bothered to read SFI 38.1 if they had, they would not refer to SFI as a "testing company" nor suggest that Isaac does not have a sticker because they refuse to buy them.

please read the standard.

http://www.racesafetydata.info/SFI381_09.pdf

or at least this excerpt (all bold/underlined are my emphasis):

2.1 Head and Neck Restraint: An active Head and Neck Restraint System is a
protection ensemble providing an alternative load path which decreases both
neck stress and head excursion during a vehicle impact without reliance on
helmet impact into structures or nets.

2.2 Separate Restraining Devices:

A. Linkages attached to the helmet which transfer restraining loads directly
to the helmet from the main device which is secured to the driver's
shoulders, torso, etc. Methods for attachment of these linkages to the
helmet and main device shall be prescribed by the manufacturer.

B. The main device shall be a mechanism held tightly to the driver's torso by
seat belts or other strap systems such that the reactive load carrying
components move directly with the torso and controls head, neck, and
torso relative positions during forward or off-center impact situations.

2.3 Reaction Linkage: The means by which the head force necessary to limit
displacement of the head with respect to the torso is reacted. Acceptable
reaction linkages could include load paths to the torso or to the restraint
webbing. Direct attachment to react loads to a fixed point or points on a
vehicle structure or restraint webbing will not be acceptable because of the
potential for torso displacements with respect to these points. Imposed
loading by the reaction linkage to other areas of the body should be applied
using approaches demonstrated to be practical without imposing risk of

serious injury.

2.4 The Head and Neck Restraint System must be designed and manufactured
to allow freedom of movement of head, torso, arms, etc., commensurate with
operating a race vehicle under all race and associated conditions.

2.5 Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user
and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other
than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint

System during emergency situations.

.....The SFI standard and Isaac is an entirely different subject. I sympathize and understand your frustration. I am not Anti Isaac. If you want to petition the club to accept another testing company that is certainly your right and I encourage it. But understand, like it our not, the club must protect itself, not sure why that seems like such an "evil" thing? Whether we agree with SFI or not, it is the industry standard and not adhering to an industry standard puts the club at an unnecessary risk.......

Jim, SFI mandates a design. it is not a testing company. SFI requires the device manufacturer to provide the test results, the name of the testing company, etc.

also, please tell me what "industry standard" allows parents to sign waivers for minors and allows them to race? don't say other clubs "allow" it. there are racing organizations that do not require 38.1 (which then allows Isaacs....)

please do some reading on Kirton v. Fields where the Florida State Supreme Court ruled that minors have rights that parents cannot rescind.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...2/18/96427.htm

The court said there is “injustice” when a parent agrees to waive the tort claims of a minor child and deprive the child of the right to legal relief when the child is injured as a result of another party’s negligence.

...Honestly, its worrisome that a CRB member will be guiding the decision based on his feelings, when empirical data exists.

....Lets face it, EVERYone knows that HANS wrote the SFI 38.1 standard, and did it in a restrictive manner with aspects that don't do anything but dampen innovation, regardless of performance potential. ....

The debate about which is better using a 38.1 device or the Isaac really has nothing to do with the actual device, it is more about the fact that people who make Isaac refuse to pay SFI to get the certification. IMO

i believe that my version of the Isaac meets the single point of release since one can slide the tethers off the belt after the belt is released. but there is no "main device" between the tethers and the belts and thus it cannot meet SFI 38.1. sidebar: as an engineer, i prefer the simplest design that meets the performance requirements.

...because the people who wrote 38.1 included not only performance standards but also specific design restrictions that effectively rule out the Isaac. In essence, the SFI standard describes a Hans. When Defender came out with a product that had the 38.1-mandated features, Hans filed suit.

K

not sure what has happened but Defender is not listed as certified on the SFI website. i think that has been discussed here or elsewhere but i have not kept up on this. anyone have further info? (EDIT: currently approved per Dave Gran's follow-up)

http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1

[gran racing]

It's still accepted. Something about a delay in getting information on the site updated. (I was curious and called Defender.

[tom91ita]

It's still accepted. Something about a delay in getting information on the site updated. (I was curious and called Defender.

Dave,

thanks for the info. good to hear.

i think it is an interesting price point and i like the fact that they are fighting HANS on this. if i get something, it will not be a HANS.

there is some "chatter" on a land speed forum that there may be a $400 version ...

http://www.landracing.com/forum/inde...,prev.html#new


not sure if it is a misunderstanding of the current pricing or new model, etc.

From what I understand, Joe Hanson (DJ Safety) is in the process of having his new H&N restraint approved. With any luck this will be done soon, and will work very well with the lakesters and liners that cannot fit a conventional H&N.

I think the certification on the DJ unit was imminent thus the acceptance from the SCTA. From what I understand, it is actually approved now. $400 is a good deal IMO and another plus is that there isn't anything sticking up behind your head.

i tried a bit of googling and did not see anything.

[theracinglawyer]

Wrong...wrong...I survived a wreck at the glen, that the Board certified Emergency Physician said if I did not have a HANS device on I would not have survived....Ever represent a quadriplegic I have and it is something that breaks your heart....Mandatory for every racer..costs less than a set of tires...Just like seat belts, if you don't want to wear them DON'T RACE.

[theracinglawyer]

I must apologize I used the word HANS..I meant to to say any devise that does the same thing...HANS has become the generic term...like xerox for copy machines and kleenex for facial tissues...any devise that will protect you and your neck in an accident should be mandatory. sorry for that miss que.

[ITEGT]

Wrong...wrong...I survived a wreck at the glen, that the Board certified Emergency Physician said if I did not have a HANS device on I would not have survived....Ever represent a quadriplegic I have and it is something that breaks your heart....Mandatory for every racer..costs less than a set of tires...Just like seat belts, if you don't want to wear them DON'T RACE.

If you did not have on a HANS specifically or an equivalent H&N restraint? Thank you for the above post, you answered my question before I could hit the reply button.

For me its not the fact that a H&N restraint is going to be mandatory next season but that we as racers have been rail roaded into two choices of which restraint we can buy and be legal.

[JLawton]

Wrong...wrong...I survived a wreck at the glen, that the Board certified Emergency Physician said if I did not have a HANS device on I would not have survived....Ever represent a quadriplegic I have and it is something that breaks your heart....Mandatory for every racer..costs less than a set of tires...Just like seat belts, if you don't want to wear them DON'T RACE.

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.