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