Make Head and Neck Restraints Mandatory?

[RacerBowie]

That's just grand. So all of us who wrote to Phil Creighton about this apparently didn't make our case nearly well enough to help him get properly educated.

[gsbaker]

Phil needs to call the insurance carriers and ask what would happen if SCCA adopted a spec that excluded safer products--and then listen to the "gulp" coming over the phone.

Seriously. Don't listen to anyone (including me) other than the carriers.

[924Guy]

Evan - you make out some good points. First off, the responsibility of SCCA to educate its members. Seems like that has been lacking, given that past safety equipment reviews in SportsCar, our official publication, have omitted the ISAAC device (in the list of H+N devices - article predating 38.1). I wonder if they still do? Or maybe ISAAC isn't paying enough advertising bucks??

Other point - industry standards. Very good point. Compare to other auto-related standards: so many FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) - the meat I get to deal with at the day job all the time. Roof crush standards on trucks comes to mind, but it's one of the lesser-known ones.

In this case, we're talking about not even so much as an industry standard, but a Federally-mandated standard!

That didn't save Ford from some serious hell in court over the Firestone tire debacle; somehow arguing that the Exploders met all applicable Federal vehicle safety standards etc. didn't save them from being held liable. Lack of tire pressure monitors, standard stability control, etc - hey, the technology's out there, why don't you have it?

So, perhaps the arguments coming from the CRB/BOD may be a little lazier than prudent...

[tom91ita]

wow, now there is a prod guy calling me, an IT driver, a blabbler on a computer. i love it!

great note. but it is dissappointing that our previous notes did so little.

vaughn, good analogy for the ford explorer & tires.

i wonder if jet aircraft would have been developed if airplanes had been held to an SFI propeller design...

p.s., if NASA is the leader in this, why aren't we all flocking there? or should we?

[Knestis]

SportsCar very specifically favors advertisers in its "guides." I've had personal experience with that. Beyond that, it's all been said in this forum a thousand times, and we've made our case to the club - at least I hope we all have. If they decide to restrict options - current, that is - with demonstrated advantages in performance AND put in place huge disincentives to innovate, it's a very bad move. It will not of course be the first bad move made by management in the name of expediency and/or butt covering.

K

[irondragon]

Seems to me that while SCCA has been debating the need for mandatory H&N devices for a while, the current urgency derives from NASA's decision to require them.
It may be that NASA regrets that decision, but this is not the year for SCCA to follow it.

First, there seems to be a lot of disagreement on just which devices will be acceptable.
There are quite a few out there but evidently only one acceptable to SFI.
If SCCA determines that SFI is the standard to follow, then that should be made known along with an encouragement to all H&N device providers to get their products in compliance.
But don't shut out all but HANS, because the others haven't done it yet.
This just stifles development. Given some time, the serious providers will deal with SFI. Then there will more and better devices to choose among.

Second, for very real economic reasons, this is just not the time to do it. We are all in favour of safe racing. No one is AGAINST the concept of preventing injuries.
But a many of us are FOR a lot of things, and safe racing is just one of them; also included are the availability of $$ to spend on racing in the immediate months to come.

Fact is, while racing may drive some of us to irrational economic behaviour, there is a finite amount of money that each of us can spend in a year.
The 2009 season looks to be one that is short on $$.
So the idea of a mandatory expenditure of $600-800 on a bunch of questionably needed neck hardware just means that for some drivers there will be a couple of events for which there is no entry money. Not the year to mandate new expensive gear.
Let's wait a bit and take a look at what is really needed and what might become available to meet the needs.
Bill Miskoe

[gsbaker]

Seems to me that while SCCA has been debating the need for mandatory H&N devices for a while, the current urgency derives from NASA's decision to require them.
It may be that NASA regrets that decision, but this is not the year for SCCA to follow it.

That is an excellent summary of the current situation. NASA had absolutely nothing to gain by their decision, and should have followed SCCA's lead.

]First, there seems to be a lot of disagreement on just which devices will be acceptable.
There are quite a few out there but evidently only one acceptable to SFI.
If SCCA determines that SFI is the standard to follow, then that should be made known along with an encouragement to all H&N device providers to get their products in compliance.
But don't shut out all but HANS, because the others haven't done it yet.
This just stifles development. Given some time, the serious providers will deal with SFI. Then there will more and better devices to choose among.

Second, for very real economic reasons, this is just not the time to do it. We are all in favour of safe racing. No one is AGAINST the concept of preventing injuries.
But a many of us are FOR a lot of things, and safe racing is just one of them; also included are the availability of $$ to spend on racing in the immediate months to come.

Fact is, while racing may drive some of us to irrational economic behaviour, there is a finite amount of money that each of us can spend in a year.
The 2009 season looks to be one that is short on $$.
So the idea of a mandatory expenditure of $600-800 on a bunch of questionably needed neck hardware just means that for some drivers there will be a couple of events for which there is no entry money. Not the year to mandate new expensive gear.
Let's wait a bit and take a look at what is really needed and what might become available to meet the needs.
Bill Miskoe

Bill,

Agreed. This is the same logic that drove the establishment of RSI, and it came in large part from sanctioning bodies--including SCCA. Since RSI acts as an umbrella organization with certification based on performance only, it covers all the test criteria while leaving drivers with a complete choice of all products that meet industry standards.

With an RSI mandate there are no tradeoffs; no sacrifice of safety, no limitation of choice, no conflict of interest and no money changing hands. It's almost too easy.

(http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/Head%20and%20Neck%20Restraints.html)