Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

[Daryl DeArman]

Close but no cigar, Daryl. One is a HANS dealer, but not the other.
[/b]

It was just a guess...I didn't look to see the members' names. Just figured there would be a Conflict, and I didn't think what could be a bigger conflict than retailers of the HANS...should have gone bigger with my guess.

Who knows, maybe the silver lining is that because such a huge conflict of interest exists that risk management won't allow it to happen simpy to avoid future exposure if it does....damned if you do, damned if you don't. Maybe they just go with what the members want and blame it on us! That would be cool, imagine that, 'us' responsible for our own choices...what a concept!

[CaptainWho]

As a worker, I want the driver out of the car and over the wall as fast as possible.
[/b]

And my lily white ass about a half a microsecond behind the driver.

[RacerBill]

How many of you are logged onto the SCCA website, waiting for them to post FastTrack?

[gsbaker]

Not me.

[RacerBill]

It's up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gsbaker]

Kirk gets the pony!

[its66]

The following items were rejected by the Board of Directors
GCR
Item 18. Effective 11/1/06: Add new section 11 to section 20 as follows:
11. Head and Neck Restraint
The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by the SFI Foundation
and bear the SFI 38.1 label.

[gsbaker]

FYI, under the CRB minutes:

MEMBER ADVISORIES
GCR
1. Those members who choose to use a head and neck restraint are strongly urged to purchase an SFI certified unit. Those devices that have alternate attachment points to the driver restraint system are noncompliant with current rules.

We've discussed this above. Be it known that Isaac systems have no "alternate attachment points". All of our attachment points are primary.

[Knestis]

Kirk gets the pony!
[/b]

I'm going to call her "Appeal."

K

[lateapex911]

Well, this is starting to look like an interesting situation. It appears that certain factions in the CRB are very desirious of the SFI mandate, although the BoD rejected it, or are being pressured from either the Safety Commitee or the clubs legal counsel..

So we get a new "recommendation", that reminds us that ....something that attaches with 'alternate' methods is 'noncompliant' with the current rules. Read what you want into the term "current", but, the rule specifically states that the belts be released with a single point of release, but it never mentions that the driver be relesed at all.

So to my reading, this advisory is either wrong, or is a defacto rules change attempt.

The cynic in me worries that the same CRB members want me to race with nothing, as opposed to my tested and proven device that I currently wear. And according to the recent survey conducted here, they want about half of us who wear a device that meets the SFI performance standard to take them off. That's about 30% of the guys racing who answered the poll here.

That's disturbing.

[RacerBill]

Jake: I have already sent a note to the CRB asking what 'current rules' the devices that use 'alternate attaching points' are noncompliant with, and what attachment points they are alternate to. That advisory is so gray...........

[M. Hurst]

FYI, under the CRB minutes:

MEMBER ADVISORIES
GCR
1. Those members who choose to use a head and neck restraint are strongly urged to purchase an SFI certified unit. Those devices that have alternate attachment points to the driver restraint system are noncompliant with current rules.

We've discussed this above. Be it known that Isaac systems have no "alternate attachment points". All of our attachment points are primary.
[/b]

G. Baker and I agree on almost nothing, ..But if I were a scruitineer or steward (a hypothetical situation <_< ) and handed this rule, there&#39;s no way I could interpret this as saying the Isaac is non-compliant.

I have no idea what the intent was here. Was the intent to ban the Isaac, allow it, or is it intentionally vague so it does neither?

BTW, what is an SFI certified unit? The SFI doesn&#39;t "certify", it enters into license agreements, which in the case of 38.1, includes successful frontal and offset sled testing...among other things.

[Knestis]

... I have no idea what the intent was here. Was the intent to ban the Isaac, allow it, or is it intentionally vague so it does neither? ... [/b]

Good ol&#39; fashioned weasel language, I think.

K

[gsbaker]

G. Baker and I agree on almost nothing...[/b]

I agree 100%, Mike. But that&#39;s only on technical matters; your heart is in the right place.

And you have certainly nailed this one. If the CRB doesn&#39;t like Isaac systems they should have the GCR changed to reflect that position. Incomprehensible language in an "Advisory" helps no one -- and doesn&#39;t change the rules.

[lateapex911]

Well, one thing is for sure. I&#39;ll be wearing my Isaac, and it won&#39;t come off until an official presents me with a written protest or an RFA. And then we&#39;ll go thru the paperwork mess to let the Court of Appeals rule.

[tderonne]

I think the intent is to not allow any device that would attach directly to the seat, cage, or car.

In other words, don&#39;t duct tape your helmet to your seat.

[924Guy]

But are the seat, cage, or car considered part of the driver restraint system?

[tderonne]

But are the seat, cage, or car considered part of the driver restraint system?
[/b]

Not per GCR section 20, it only talks about belts.

[RacerBill]

The following is the response that I got from an email to the CRB.

"The CRB is referring to GCR section 20.4 and any device that requires more than a single release point to free the driver from the safety harness. "

[gsbaker]

We expect the Board, which just quashed this subject in its recent vote (it&#39;s just alternative language to the SFI spec), will send risk management down the hall to patiently explain to the CRB that if it takes safety equipment away from drivers and one is killed, the SCCA will be sued into the next dimension.

This is beginning to bore me, and the people I work with don&#39;t enjoy playing defense.