Time to write those letters - Head and Neck Restraints

[Knestis]

So instead of saying...

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.

You might have said...

Isaac DID produce a product that met the standard and SCCA would have allowed that Isaac to generate profits from members just like all other SFI certified devices. Isaac themselves decided not to compromise our safety, the decision to only allow certain manufactures had nothing to do with SCCA and had everything to do with principles and the sense to not do something that would expose the company to liability by making racers LESS safe.

K

[924Guy]

...Isaac themselves decided not to compromise our safety, the decision to only allow certain manufactures had nothing to do with SCCA and had everything to do with principles and the sense to not do something that would expose the company to liability by making racers LESS safe.

K

I'd love to hear the legal professional's perspective on this decision... if he's willing to make a statement (and I could understand if he'd prefer not to)...

[Knestis]

I don't even have to play a lawyer on TV to know that if they released a system that performed less well in standardized tests than the original, that it would be the basis of the plaintiff's legal team's strategy. To be clear though, I do NOT even act at being a lawyer and that's my interpretation, not that of the ISAAC folks or any real attorney.

K

[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.

[jjjanos]

I am not arguing less safe verses more safe... I am only stating the fact that any manufacturer can make a product that meets the SFI regulation.

And then the ISAAC wouldn't be an ISAAC anymore, would it?

[jjjanos]

I don't even have to play a lawyer on TV to know that if they released a system that performed less well in standardized tests than the original, that it would be the basis of the plaintiff's legal team's strategy.

Ask Ford about the Pinto....

[StephenB]

I'd love to hear the legal professional's perspective on this decision... if he's willing to make a statement (and I could understand if he'd prefer not to)...

I wonder why this liability would be different then other safety items like race seats for example? A quick search came up with Racetech seats that are FIA approved and some that are not FIA approved. I will be honest in saying that I would have purchased an SFI version of the Isaac if I was given the opportunity. I feel as though they are a "better" company for me that is less interested in profits and more interested in me and my safety...

And then the ISAAC wouldn't be an ISAAC anymore, would it?

I was thinking Issac more as a brand not a specific product. But I totally get what your saying and agree... It would no longer be the Isaac that we want. (myself included)


I am also wondering from those that may be more knowledgeable... Could the Isaac meet the FIA 8858 specifications? Then we could all petition SCCA to allow FIA Head and Neck supports! I am sure the FIA isn't as biased as a lot of us feel and maybe we could use this to our advantage...

Stephen

[tom91ita]

I........
I am also wondering from those that may be more knowledgeable... Could the Isaac meet the FIA 8858 specifications? Then we could all petition SCCA to allow FIA Head and Neck supports! I am sure the FIA isn't as biased as a lot of us feel and maybe we could use this to our advantage...

Stephen

as i read it, the FIA is specific as to how to test the HANS and not a "H&NR"

http://www.fia.com/resources/documen..._2002_hans.pdf

EDIT: going back to the original January 2010 fast-track, the motion was not SFI 38.1, it was just SFI....

so how did we get to SFI 38.1 when that is not what they passed? seriously.....

was this another case of they had to vote for it and pass it so we could find out what was in it?

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...strack-jan.pdf

MOTION:

To mandate the use of Head and Neck Restraints certified by SFI or FIA in Club Racing as of 1/1/12. (Creighton/Allen) PASSED, Opposed: Sauce, Lybarger, Langlotz, Gordy and Introne. Abstention: Noble

[RacerBill]

as i read it, the FIA is specific as to how to test the HANS and not a "H&NR"

http://www.fia.com/resources/documen..._2002_hans.pdf

As I read the FIA standard, their use of HANS means 'Head and Neck Support' not a particular company.

However, in reading the specifics of the specification, the method of testing was clearly designed for testing the HANS product, even including a company logo in the sample certification label.

Is interesting that there is no requirement for 'single point of release' as there is in the SFI specification, but there is a requirement for the time it would take to cut through the teathers. Why would you need to do that if the system was released when the belts are released? In case the device gets hung up on part of the car and prevents the driver from exiting?

Also interesting is the fact that their tests seem to be frontal inpact only.

"The most severe loading of the HANS system

is a frontal crash where the driver’s head is not restrained by contact with

the protective headrest."


Looks like they are relying on a FIA approved seat to protect from a angular or lateral inpact. Are we going to be required to have our seats adhere to a standard now? I ain't sayin', I'm just askin' !

I suppose that a similar certification document and the required test equipment could be developed for the Isaac system, but at what kind of cost?

[Davegt74]

wow they are doing tests at 50 "G"s

here is a 40 "G" test

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=GfZjN2ceVOI



david

[erlrich]

Hey guys - does anyone know if the old Hutchens D-Cel devices were SFI stickered? I'm guessing not, but I can't seem to find out for certain.

[Bob Roth]

My letter to SCCA club racing.

Terry, I understand that there is a proposal for requiring HANS devices in club racing. I own a device, but I think its excessive for SCCA to require them at the regional level. In 1984, I started club racing in a used showroom stock VW rabbit. The car came with a bolt in cage, fire extinguisher, and belts. It had a stock seat. My total safety investment was $150 for a used drivers suit and helmet, and new nomex underwear and gloves. I then raced that car for 6 years and the only safety investments were a seat, and a new suit. Neither was required by rules.

Were it just the HANS, I wouldn't be writing. What I would like to point out is the drip drip drip of added expenses caused by club racing rules changes. First was the 10 year requirement on helmets, then the requirement of 5 years on belts, then changed door bar rules, changed window net mounting, then seat back support rules, SFI/FIA driver suit rules, kill switch rules, tow hook rules etc. From what I see, with the continuous rules changes and now HANS devices means most new drivers wanting to start racing with a used car should be expecting to spend nearly $2000 just for car updates and the gear, belts, helmets and required car changes just to get to the track. That is a pretty steep hurdle to see if they like racing. And for anybody with a regional car in the garage that hasn't been racing for a year or two, a HANS may just be the thing to persuade them to find a new hobby.

I have heard of no compelling story that for races at regional courses, that a HANS devices is required. When I started racing, cost was everything. I don't think things have changed today. Please look at the costs and benefits and then the trends in regional car counts before adding another barrier to growing our sport.

I wasn't sure where to send this, please pass it on to the appropriate committee.

regards
Bob Roth
LaCrosse Wi,

[gran racing]

I'm totally addicted to racing yet looking at how I need a new helmet, a different H&NR system, belts (didn't I just freaking buy a new set?!!!).... I'm with ya Bob, if I were new it sure would be another tough barrier to break through for me.

[shwah]

I have not had time to do many races since 2008. I hope/plan to get back to more events next year. Since I will be knocking a lot of rust off the first few events, I am seriously considering just running MWCSCC events with my ISAAC and putting off a new HNR purchase until the following year.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm totally addicted to racing yet looking at how I need a new helmet, a different H&NR system, belts (didn't I just freaking buy a new set?!!!).... I'm with ya Bob, if I were new it sure would be another tough barrier to break through for me.

Time to go karting. F1 Outdoors.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11-WdCjVUbU[/ame]

[Knestis]

Look hard at karting before you dive in. My big complaint when we went back to it in the '90s was that the days were long and the tracktime short, with 3-day schedules at the major races. Standing around time made Solo look like a thrill-a-minute.

K

[Butch Kummer]

It's a moot point since my physical stature precludes karting but:

Another thing about karting is your head is the roll bar. That's fine when you're young and have no sense, but as you mature you realize others are depending on you.

YMMV...

[DavidM]

Picturing Butch in a cart made me laugh

[FV90]

Too bad we didn't get a picture of him on a racin' lawn mower at Sparta..... or did we?

[tom91ita]

Too bad we didn't get a picture of him on a racin' lawn mower at Sparta..... or did we?

Sparta as in Michigan?

i grew up about 1.5 miles from where they race them by the airport....