Make Head and Neck Restraints Mandatory?

[GBugg]

Email sent.

[tom91ita]

i believe that this may be a foregone conclusion and the best we can hope for is to mitigate. we should present potential alternates.

below is my letter. if they must do something, then make the decision based on how well the devices perform.

my comments regarding the 20% of budget is due to no-bid insurance is based on the Harris Platform statements here:

http://www.greatlakes-scca.org/node/501

i also forwarded my letter to the recent elected Great Lakes Area Director with the following comments;

I had read your platform statement and I know that you said;

"Continuing on along the current path will not lead SCCA to the future. The current BOD is highly biased to road racing and continuing the status quo."

With regards to H&NR, I believe that the status quo is actually the most desirable. Also, I do not think that following NASA in this regard will lead SCCA to the future.

If the use of H&NR is a foregone conclusion, can we at least require that the device pass a level of performance that can protect the driver in a lateral impact situation?

To whom it may concern:

I want to inform you that I am greatly concerned about Head & Neck Restraints (H&NR) and the ability of members to choose what is best for their vehicles and class of racing. I do not want to see our club make decisions based on speculation of what lawyers may or may not do.

I am particularly concerned that the December 2008 Fastrack states that there were two requests requiring a specific Manufacturer's device.

"11. Support for mandating the HANS device (2 letters). Thank you for your input."

Some clubs have recently made uninformed decisions and declared that SFI 38.1 H&NR are required. I know because I recently let my membership in NASA expire because of this. This was after two podium finishes at the NASA National Championships in 2006 & 2007. I decided to no longer race with NASA and focus on my roots in Improved Touring in part because I wanted to be free to select what I believe to be superior technology in H&NR. Well, to be honest, also because I wanted to be free to select superior technology in tires but that was a smaller issue by far.

It is my sincere belief that NASA's decision was uninformed because it was not based on performance. And for a club that claims to be a home for performance enthusiasts to base decisions on speculation of what may transpire in a courtroom instead of the performance that will transpire in a cockpit strikes me as ridiculous.

Please refer to the link below that shows the resultant forces in a direct and lateral impact and the performance of various devices;

http://www.isaacdirect.com/

Please pay particular attention to the Lateral forces that are listed;



Please note that some devices actually increased the Lateral load. Has anyone that has suggested that H&NR be required actually divulged the fact that you may be placing the membership at a higher risk? And if the HANS is mandatory as requested by two unnamed members per Fastrack, you are placing me at more risk. If you are making this decision based on courtroom speculation, you might want to speculate on that for a minute.

I would not presume that there might not be pressure, either real or imagined, on SCCA to pass some sort of H&NR requirement. But, honestly, this must be a performance based decision and not some knee-jerk reaction because someone read that another club did something.

It is my understanding that SCCA’s Legal Counsel is also its Risk Manager. It is also my understanding that 20% of the SCCA budget is insurance but that this has not been competitively bid for some time. This appears to be a conflict of interest in my opinion. If this is not correct, please advise.

If you feel compelled to do something then please consider the following:

Should this be based on the class of the vehicle? For example, Formula Atlantic has more potential for high energy impacts than Showroom Stock C. And if we are not going to consider this type of distinction, then why stop at wheel to wheel road racing. We should also extend it to H Stock Solo II. A racetrack that is specifically designed with run-off areas, guardrails, tire-walls and gravel traps cannot be compared with the immovable objects such as concrete light-pole supports in a parking lot, can they?

No doubt some of you are thinking that my comparison of H Stock to road racing Formula Atlantics is absurd. And justifiably so. Is it because of the difference in performance potential? Did we just use Performance to decide if something should be used or not be used? Then we are effectively on the same page in that the Performance of the device or vehicle should be considered.

I know that the primary sticking point with SFI 38.1 is that it requires a single release point. However, I believe that I am most at risk to a neck injury and not due to fire.

I was a trained member of an Emergency Response team at a chemical plant. We were always drilled that head and neck immobilization was crucial. I have never seen the emergency response team at a track rush to an incident and immediatley drag out the driver as quickly as possible due to a concern for fire. It has always been a measured response to assess the situation and determine if the patient needs to be stabilized while others stand by with extinguishers.

If you feel compelled to implement something, please asses the true risks and base the decision based on performance as outlined at the Racing Safety Institute ( http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/ ) rather than at SFI where specific H&NR producers were involved with writing the requirements that improved their position in the market.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Tom

[lateapex911]

It is my understanding that SCCA’s Legal Counsel is also its Risk Manager. It is also my understanding that 20% of the SCCA budget is insurance but that this has not been competitively bid for some time. This appears to be a conflict of interest in my opinion. If this is not correct, please advise.

Tom, that's a letter chock full of interesting info, but this one caught my eye immediately.

At the risk of his web bots zooming in on the mention of his name, Matt8erg (HA! I foiled them by a graphic "slip" heh heh heh..) has done lots of digging into that very subject. I haven't seen nor read him since a wedding last April...wonder where he's been and what his digging unearthered?

[tom91ita]

more from the source from the Harris Platform document at http://www.greatlakes-scca.org/node/501 (this was for the Area 4 Director - Great Lakes)

2. Are you aware that the SCCA’s Legal Counsel is also its Risk Manager?
His salary is partially paid by commissions from the insurance carrier he
recommends. I am not implying there is anything criminal about this
arrangement; only than it is clearly a conflict of interest. Insurance
represents 20% of the club’s operating budget and we have not bid this
contract in many years. We have an insurance committee, but they never
meet. We must have separate functions of legal representation and
insurance procurement. SCCA’s President has also noted this need.

[tom91ita]

Jake,

is this you?

4. Require egress times (Gulick). This might be in conflict with the American Disabilities Act.

since the HANS may not be the best protection and the HANS is sometimes deemed dentrimental to exit times, what are to we to conclude?

being concerned about being in conflict with ADA as reason for not requiring a minimum egress time but seeking input on if we might have to use a potentially inferior device strikes me as odd......

[lateapex911]

That was me. I was attempting a "pre-emptive strike" if you wil,l at establishing a standard that would, I hoped, give us a footing should the SFI38.1 thing ever come up again. A little foundation work, but....Foiled, drat!

[tom91ita]

i decided that since i race in multiple divisions/areas, i would send a note to directors in adjacent areas.

however, i could not find a good accurate summary of this at SCCA.com. the site did not reflect the most recent elections. also, some links said what area they were and others did not.

so i grabbed the link for all via [email protected] and sent the following;

All,

I have decided to share my thoughts with all of the Board because I have hopes of running races in many areas in the future. My current goals are to run at least one event per year outside of division at venues that have a long history. Thus my travels to Road Atlanta this year for the ARRC.

I think that the fundamentals of H&NR are crucial. Please study up on this issue and require the CRB to do the same.

Any H&NR requirements that ignore the physics involved should be resisted. I know that some feel that the HANS is needed because NASCAR and Formula 1require them. However, to make no distinction between 200 mph cars that run in packs of 40+ or cars that can pull ~5 G's and Improved Touring C or Showroom Stock C shows questionable judgment.

I purchased what I thought was superior Head & Neck protection (even if it does not meet SFI 38.1). Similarly, I let my NASA membership lapse because I thought I had selected the superior road racing club. Please confirm my faith that SCCA is a member-driven organization rather than following in the footsteps of a business driven NASA. .

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Tom

[ITA_honda]

Honestly, as good of a device as HANS is....I dont think they should make is manditory. when I first started to race, I didnt use one. I had to save up money for it. Entry fees, tires etc were all I could afford. I couldnt afford it and I know there are more racers out there that are working off a budget and all they can afford is the entry fees and tires.

I think that it should still be optional.