Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

[Knestis]

Problem is, Dave that the primary POLICY ISSUE in the minds of the current decision-makers might not be in line with the primary purpose of a head-and-neck system. That was the upshot of my letter - that SFI 38.1 is thought to serve an apparent (if untested?) indemnification purpose, and gets tangled up in secondary purposes (egress, mandate of particular design features) to the potential detriment of actually serving your stated first purpose.

The Club has to get its goals and priorities (what we policy geeks talk about as "intentions") straight for this policy implementation - and communicate them with the membership - before it gets wound up in the detail language of the rule.

K

[lateapex911]

The Club has to get its goals and priorities (what we policy geeks talk about as "intentions") straight for this policy implementation - and communicate them with the membership - before it gets wound up in the detail language of the rule.

K
[/b]

Well, it seems to me that there are three groups involved here. (Excluding the obvious manufacturers).

The club

The racers

The SFI

What are the intentions of each??

The racers want the freedom to protect themselves, and in the way that they see fit. In other words, each wants to choose the level of protection, ease of use, and expense that he sees best. It's safe to assume that we as racers are fine with being told what that level of protection needs to be at a minimim.

The Club wants to protect itself from liability. (It does this in the interest to protect us, the members, so that we have a club to race with in the future, and that other on going interests of the Club are not affected.)

The SFI wants to......hmmm.....???? This is where it gets cloudy in my mind. Well, I know the SFI collects money (from a diverse group of interested parties) in exchange for creating safety standards, and for managing the manufacturers' compliance to those standards. Interestingly, it collects from manufacturers, as well as it uses the same manufacturers to help in the actual creation of the certification standards.

I called SCCA tech advisor Jeremy Thoenis today, about some other business, and discussed the HNR thing brieflyI left with the impression that he felt that there wasn't any option other than to mandate SFI devices...at least eventually. He cited the fact that all other major sanctioning bodies have allready adopted such rulings, and that the club has no way to set their own standards. I commented that the problem with the recommendation on the books for voting was that it would actually reduce the safety level of SCCA drivers, and that the SFI specs went beyond concerning themselves with the actual performance of the devices and into the realm of the design and architecture of the devices. I suggested that the club use the SFI performance standards as a way of allowing certain devices, but he stated that the one point of release rule was part of the specification. He reminded me that my issues weren't with the club, but with SFI, and that the club has no other viable option.

Of course, I see his point...to a degree.

But I was left with two glaring, and nagging thoughts.

First, our converstion kept coming back to the clubs position, and the fact that the SFI was the only option, rather than discussing the real issue.....better safety for the drivers. (I know, at this point, it's obvious, that that's really not the issue.)

Secondly, I have no idea how, or why, the clubs counsel feels so compelled that the SFI is the only and best legal umbrella. To me, it is patently obvious that the SFI isn't an organization that is completely altruistic. I wish I could understand the mechanism that our club sees that they (and I guess, the entire world) feel is so ironclad.

We have lots of sharp minds on this site, and a number of lawyers. I have expected to read a somewhat confusing (to me, LOL) explanation of the legal implications and the sound and fast legal reasons the SFI is the all singing, all dancing, get out of jail free trump card somewhere in this or another thread, but so far, I've missed it.

Anyone care to fill me in?? Please???

[gsbaker]

I called SCCA tech...there wasn't any option other than to mandate SFI devices...the club has no other viable option.[/b]

You could put a cardboard stand on a street corner, label it "Chuck's Lemonade and Head Restraint Load Data" and have them lined up around the block.