I am opposed to the seat back brace requirement proposal from the June 2010 fasttrack for the following reasons:
1- Many FIA seats were not designed to accommodate such a brace. Steal frame seats offer few suitable mounting locations, and carbon fiber and fiberglass seats may be structurally compromised by unregulated modifications to accomplish the requirement - adding dangers where currently they do not exist.
2- Suitable mounting is already an unregulated requirement left to the discretion of the competitor and scrutineering staff. A back brace is not a magic bullet to repair this problem, it in fact offers more opportunity for damages to the driver in a collision / accident than no brace due to the potential for failures of design and the necessary proximity of the brace to vital organs and the head.
3- Suitable language controlling the mounting of an FIA seat in agreement with FIA testing procedures and instructions for the tech shed to aid in evaluating such mountings is a much more desirable and workable alternative. in the end liability shall fall upon the competitor or his agents, not the club. The GCR and many event sups indemnify the club, regions, and tracks from damages resulting from faulty safety gear. this language may be able to be made more specific to the limited liability of the technical volunteers and organizers.
It is understood that a properly installed seat and brace combination can be demonstrated to be safer than a seat without a brace, even when mounted properly. given the variety of cars, seats, competitors' size and budgets, a catch all such as this proposal may lead to is likely more dangerous than it is helpful, and certainly a hindrance on the membership.
thank you for your time.
Bookmarks