Make Head and Neck Restraints Mandatory?

[lateapex911]

I can't use that when I want to run a Mustang Challenge race. I can't use my Hybrid either in those races. I have a modest budget at best. I can't afford a different H&N and helmet package for each sanctioning body I want to race with.

I guess I was thinking of the wrong Mustang Challenge race. The one I know of uses the cars built by Ford, which sold for $75K. A guy I know rents one for the season, and it works out to be about $10K a race.

if that's the same series you're going to do two events in, I wouldn't mind having your "modest budget", LOL.

[Cobrar05]

I guess I was thinking of the wrong Mustang Challenge race. The one I know of uses the cars built by Ford, which sold for $75K. A guy I know rents one for the season, and it works out to be about $10K a race.

if that's the same series you're going to do two events in, I wouldn't mind having your "modest budget", LOL.

1. A used $75k Mustang Challenge car is a lot less. A lot.
2. That $10k includes A LOT of professional race team overhead. Tractor Trailer, Max tools, Crew, Hospitality and so on.
3. The races are sprint races. 4 sessions. One set of new tires and a little more than on tank of fuel. If I wanted to run a
Mustang Challenge race I could do it for 30% of a rental. That would qualify as modest.

[Knestis]

Hey - on the egress question, note this little item in the December Fastrack:

Item 2. Effective 1/1/09: Add the following sentence to section 9.1.3.D.9.m:
If equipped, the vent window and its supporting structure may be removed.

K

[ddewhurst]

Letter sent............

***Item 2. Effective 1/1/09: Add the following sentence to section 9.1.3.D.9.m:
If equipped, the vent window and its supporting structure may be removed.***

As much as some of you guys (not you K) dislike the Spec Miata I believe this ^ is a trickle down safety rule from Spec Miata.

[lateapex911]

Letter sent............

***Item 2. Effective 1/1/09: Add the following sentence to section 9.1.3.D.9.m:
If equipped, the vent window and its supporting structure may be removed.***

As much as some of you guys (not you K) dislike the Spec Miata I believe this ^ is a trickle down safety rule from Spec Miata.

You're right. The original request was for SMs to get the allowance when running in IT. But, it is a good idea, and therefore, it will be implemented across the board.

[lateapex911]

1. A used $75k Mustang Challenge car is a lot less. A lot.
2. That $10k includes A LOT of professional race team overhead. Tractor Trailer, Max tools, Crew, Hospitality and so on.
3. The races are sprint races. 4 sessions. One set of new tires and a little more than on tank of fuel. If I wanted to run a
Mustang Challenge race I could do it for 30% of a rental. That would qualify as modest.

Hey, it's modest for my pal who runs the season, LOL. I'd love to have a part of his "modest'!

The series isn't even a year old, yet...what are used ones selling for? Is the series growing next year?

[88YB1]

Letter sent yesterday. opposed to mandated H&NR. Pro choice.

Chuck
ITA#34
Atlanta Ga

[Cobrar05]

Hey, it's modest for my pal who runs the season, LOL. I'd love to have a part of his "modest'!

The series isn't even a year old, yet...what are used ones selling for? Is the series growing next year?

There are four cars on the market that I know of. All around the $50k mark. All not selling. There built 77 of the cars and have more than half that number still unsold.

Its a buyer's market. The price of a used race car will drop further.

[spnkzss]

What professional racing sanctioning bodies allow the ISAAC to be used?

I am still having a big problem with this statement cause everybody keep saying. Just because it is DOESN'T make it RIGHT.

[evanwebb]

On the off chance that anyone would like to get back on-topic, I posted this also on the Prod website:

Just a note, if the HNR requirement is for an SFI 38.1 rated device there are several available on the market so the choice is not just the HANS. I am especially interested in the new DefNder unit which seems to have very good numbers especially in the angle/side impact scenario. Lots of people also like the ISAAC which is not SFI rated, hopefully some provision can be made there.

In terms of making the devices mandatory, maybe just ponder this: if you have a HNR already or plan to purchase one, the "rational consumer" theory of economics would seem to indicate that you should be in favor of making the devices mandatory in SCCA since there is no downside to having your marginal insurance risk reduced by having everyone on the grid wearing one (and thereby reducing risk by some amount.) If you wear one and a competitor doesn't, and that person is injured and insurance rates go up then your total cost goes up more. I don't think anyone expects that our insurance rates will go down if we are all racing wearing HNRs, the risk is rather that the current rates will go up if we don't and there are preventable injuries incurred.

In a perfect world we would have unbiased medical opinion to evaluate whether a HNR would have helped in cases of club racing accidents (SCCA, NASA, BMW, etc.) and that would help us objectively quantitatively evaluate how much extra risk we are incurring by not mandating these devices. I don't know of any such study, maybe someone on here knows of any studies or at least collection of statistics across multiple club racing organizations?

Lastly, if your opposition to these devices is based on some past event where you hit a wall with your racecar and walked away without a scratch, please don't be convinced that you have a superhuman neck and you don't need an HNR. You got lucky that time, relatively minor changes in the impact geometry might have resulted in large increases in the loads imparted to your body and you might be telling a significantly different story today. Just think about it a bit...

I've worn the HANS and the ISAAC (borrowed from friends) in the past and really its not a big deal, try it before you make a statement like "I'm not interested in racing while wearing one of those devices", borrow a HNR from a buddy at the track and wear it for a couple sessions and see what if anything you specifically don't like about it, there is probably a workaround like the sliding tethers or quick release for the HANS or using a different type of device like the damper-based ISAAC or the devices that are securely attached to the driver only like the R3 and Hybrid systems.

I'm buying an HNR before next season...

[evanwebb]

Gregg have you guys looked at doing a device that would incorporate your dampers and a wearable brace like the R3?

[924Guy]

Good call, Evan, about what this would likely mean to our rates... doubtful to think that they'd ever go down, only not go as high as quickly.

However, and this seems a little surprising from someone who's not only aware of but has in fact used an ISAAC, your rational theory concept does not include any factor for the fact that those of us who have already purchased safe, effective, functional, non SFI 38.1-compliant devices would be SOL if a mandate is applied, and out of pocket the cost of these devices, since we'd have to now replace them with compliant devices. So your model is in fact a bit over-simplified, IMO.

As for your follow-on question (if the ISAAC damper technology has been applied to a brace or collar type of base) - well, I don't mean to speak for Gregg, but I'm pretty sure he already pointed out that it's ruled out thanks to patents...

It's good to hear you'll be buying a device... but are you truly satisfied with the options available now? Will you still be if they have to be 38.1 compliant? Before the Defender showed up, I wasn't; now I'm a little more hopeful.

[tom91ita]

.....I'm buying an HNR before next season...

i am too. i plan to buy it early in 2009 (birthday present/excuse). after the 2009 GCR is issued.

i expect that it will not be SFI compliant. it will be from Isaac. and it will be the least expensive variant that meets a performance level that i deem is appropriate.

and if i am SOL due to changes in the future, i will give up one race event that summer to fund any replacement if i continue to race.

[DavidM]

I am sure its complex. I said I was not an expert. I was not calling you a loon.
I find the H&N thing a nightmare because its not uniform. SCCA guys seem to like the ISAAC. I can't use that when I run a NASA race. I can't use that when I want to run a Mustang Challenge race. I can't use my Hybrid either in those races. I have a modest budget at best. I can't afford a different H&N and helmet package for each sanctioning body I want to race with.

I'm not sure how this is an issue. You want to race with those other organizations so you have to get an SFI device, which is perfectly legal in SCCA. Some of us don't care about racing with those other orgs and would like the choice of using a non-SFI device in SCCA. You would still be perfectly legal with your SFI device with any of the options being proposed. Where's the issue?

David

[evanwebb]

Hi Vaughan, just to clarify about the "rational consumer" thing; I wasn't necessarily expecting that a mandate to use a HNR would have include the SFI 38.1 compliance, I really hope it doesn't. I agree that if the mandate includes the SFI compliance then all ISAAC & other non-SFI solutions (Wright device, etc.) would be, as you say, SOL. And that would be a damn shame in many ways. I haven't looked at the RSI deal for quite awhile and I've forgotten what its all about, I'll have to look again: IMHO the standard the motorsports organizations are using should be on the ability of the device to mitigate the medical consequences of various types of impacts and that is not necessarily the exclusive focus of the 38.1 standard.

Of course most real consumers & markets have a significant percentage of irrationality acting much of the time ;-) I just thought I'd bring up the Econ 101 topic for consideration...

I'm kinda psyched about the DefNder considering its price but I would really like to see some feedback from people who have used it (or at least worn it for awhile...) The pictures sure are flashy!

Good call, Evan, about what this would likely mean to our rates... doubtful to think that they'd ever go down, only not go as high as quickly.

However, and this seems a little surprising from someone who's not only aware of but has in fact used an ISAAC, your rational theory concept does not include any factor for the fact that those of us who have already purchased safe, effective, functional, non SFI 38.1-compliant devices would be SOL if a mandate is applied, and out of pocket the cost of these devices, since we'd have to now replace them with compliant devices. So your model is in fact a bit over-simplified, IMO.

As for your follow-on question (if the ISAAC damper technology has been applied to a brace or collar type of base) - well, I don't mean to speak for Gregg, but I'm pretty sure he already pointed out that it's ruled out thanks to patents...

It's good to hear you'll be buying a device... but are you truly satisfied with the options available now? Will you still be if they have to be 38.1 compliant? Before the Defender showed up, I wasn't; now I'm a little more hopeful.

[BruceG]

Anyone else see the Formula VEE race at the Nationals on the SPEED chan?

There was an off course incident between 2 VEE's where one of them had a major rollover. If ever there was an example for the need for HNR(which the driver did not have), this was it. During rollover, the driver had so much side to side head and neck movement that it is a wonder he walked away from it. Absolutely scary!!

[Greg Amy]

During rollover, the driver had so much side to side head and neck movement that it is a wonder he walked away from it. Absolutely scary!!

The HANS H&NR does nothing for side-to-side head restraint...in fact, as far as I know, *no* SFI 38.1 H&NR restricts side-to-side head movement.

Hey, just sayin'...

[BruceG]

Hi Greg. Thanks for the HNR info. Don't know how much a HNR would have protected this driver but it definately would have helped.

[spnkzss]

Hi Greg. Thanks for the HNR info. Don't know how much a HNR would have protected this driver but it definately would have helped.

And unfortunately that "understanding" is why some of us are trying to make sure 38.1 is NOT mandated.

Yes, that was ugly with LOTS of neck movement.

[Greg Amy]

And unfortunately that "understanding" is why some of us are trying to make sure 38.1 is NOT mandated.

In fact, Bruce, I was wearing a HANS during my big crash at the Glen last September.

In the video you can see my head move laterally SIGNIFICANTLY, farther than I ever thought it could. My head hit the diagonal rollcage tubing THREE TIMES; that tube is/was so far away from my head that we NEVER thought it would get there, and it was not protected by padding.

I'll have to see if Cameron has those video screen shots hanging out somewhere...

Everyone should get it out of your minds that an SFI H&NR is for lateral movement; it's not. Its primary - I'd even call it exclusive - function is to stop forward momentum of the head/helmet in forward impacts only. If you're worried about lateral movement, you need to be looking at "halo" seats, and the formula guys need to be looking at getting their heads inside the cockpit openings (like they do in Indy, F1, etc. That's why they have those inserts that clip in after the driver ingresses...) - GA