Time to write those letters - Head and Neck Restraints

[jdrago1]

Ok, I will play the dick and ask "Why?".

The head and neck restraint has been around for years in various designs. If you have raced with NASA you have had to wear one for the last two years. If you have done any "pro" racing you have had to have one. So why the big push to stop it from being compulsory?

Is it one of the following reasons:
1. You don't want to spend the money.
2. You are too good of a driver so you won't crash and CERTAINLY won't get hurt.
3. You don't agree with the narrow choice of devices that are allowed.
4. You could never be "comfortable" in one.

As someone else in this thread has said the club (SCCA) is covering its ass as advised by its lawyers. Why is this a big issue? Do you want the club to be decimated by a lawsuit filed by a grieving family member and their shark lawyer that the club was negligent in its duty to compel its members to protect themselves against injury after?

Please share your reasoning with the rest of the group.

cheers
dave parker

My opinion is similar to what Dave posted above. I understand many of the objections, but disagree with most...

1) The Money... We all hate spending money.. What about buying new belts when they expire or helmets when the snell rating moves up? Yet we all buy them and find a way to pay for it.

3) choice..Mostly the Isaac debate. That has been debated for a long time, I am pretty neutral on that device, meaning I don't think it is near as good as many of you say, nor as bad as many others say. I prefer the HANS, but would wear another H&N if the HANS was not allowed.

As far as not proving they work, You can argue anything if you have enough time and effort, IMO there is no doubt the head and neck supports save lives. If one live is saved, it is worth all the complaints IMO.
If I could only run the hans and helmet or my suit and helmet, I would hand my suit, gloves and shoes over immediately to put my hans on.
We really don't need helmets or seat belts either? Why is it OK to mandate them, but not H&N?

[Greg Amy]

If one live is saved, it is worth all the complaints IMO.

So, when is the CRB/BoD banning club racing altogether? I mean, "if one life is saved" is the de facto standard for safety, then it's certainly "worth it", right...?

If I could only run the hans and helmet or my suit and helmet, I would hand my suit, gloves and shoes over immediately to put my hans on.

That's a very...well, "silly" is the nicest thing I can think of...thing to say, Jim, given the significant number of people that have died in auto racing accidents throughout history due to fire.

You say there is "no doubt" these devices save lives. How many people are you aware of, Jim, that have lost their lives in club racing due to lack of a head and neck restraint?

We really don't need helmets or seat belts either? Why is it OK to mandate them, but not H&N?

Because people are intelligent enough to recognize that many racers have lost their lives due to being flung around inside a vehicle upon impact, and due to burning to death in a fire.

What's the stats for lack of H&NR?

GA

[tom91ita]

i have an Isaac. i don't want to spend money again.

i bought the Isaac after SCCA said H&NR would not be mandated.

my SFI/FIA harness is attached to a NON-SFI certified (SCCA only certified) roll-cage.

forget the line in the sand about water bottles. wait until we are told we have to have SFI certified cages. welded by certified welders. with material certifications for the main hoop. and x-rays to prove weld penetration. surely if a we can prevent one harness bar from failing in a crash, it will be worth it.

the harness bar failed in the car of the one race i was in where there was a fatality.

15 year olds can race after parents have signed a waiver even though the Supreme Court of Florida has ruled that parents cannot do that. that does not lower the club's liability/exposure. that is a marketing decision and not a safety decision. SCCA wants to say that "insert next hero driver's name here" came from SCCA in its TV and magazine spots.

any safety device you buy may have a counterfeit SFI sticker on it. wait until that happens with an H&NR. and SCCA will not tell us what devices have these because they don't know either.

the HANS transfer force via helmet, anchor, tether, to HANS gizmo, to seatbelt. Isaac is helmet-anchor-tether-belt. fewer links in the chain so fewer failure points.

i have never argued against the requiring an H&NR but i am dead set against it NOT being performance based. for crying out loud, we are a club that looks for performance in practically every aspect of our sport and now we cannot use something that has superior numbers.

last i checked, there was nearly 1000 words in the beginning of the GCR that said that SCCA is not liable for what i am doing.

i have written detailed letters with charts, graphs, lawsuit references, etc. will i race next year, maybe. but the ARRC this year is definately out of the question. the fuel budget will likely pay for next year's H&NR. and it will not be a HANS!

i wonder if the colonoscopy i am getting next month is with an SFI certified device or will just feel like it....

[Terry Hanushek]

i wonder if the colonoscopy i am getting next month is with an SFI certified device or will just feel like it....

Quote of the Month

T

[CRallo]

Quote of the Month

T

if not the year! lol

[wlfpkrcn]

The way it was explained to me by NASA when I asked about the ISAACS-

"We need to use SFI 38.1 devices because there is no way to dictate if other devices are safe. Someone could duct tape a 2x4 to the seat and call it a H&N device. "

You can say look at the "testing data"... "The ISAACS is safer" but the bottom line is SCCA/NASA need to have safety equipment meet a "Safety Certification" and the ISAACS doesn't. It's unfortunate, but it is the reality.

The other thing I don't understand. You guys say there is no proof that there has been a death that could have been prevented by a H&N device and that they are not needed at a club level. Then the next post says " My device is better than a 38.1" Which one is it? We don't need them or we need them just not a 38.1 device?

All that being said. I own a 38.1 device and I don't have to worry about not being allowed on track

[gsbaker]

The way it was explained to me by NASA when I asked about the ISAACS-

"We need to use SFI 38.1 devices because there is no way to dictate if other devices are safe. Someone could duct tape a 2x4 to the seat and call it a H&N device. "

You can say look at the "testing data"... "The ISAACS is safer" but the bottom line is SCCA/NASA need to have safety equipment meet a "Safety Certification" and the ISAACS doesn't. It's unfortunate, but it is the reality.

When did that happen? Isaac systems meet RSI spec 602, and are labeled as such.

[gsbaker]

For the record, SFI may accept input from anyone, but only the members vote on the spec. If enough members decide to write a competitor out of the spec, it will happen.

[Eric Parham]

Geeez, I take a short multi-year break, and all hell breaks loose. I'm sure glad I decided to try coming back this year reather than next

I love my Isaac, and wouldn't feel safe anymore without it. I've only had time to read halfway through this thread so far, but have the following questions:

When did that happen? Isaac systems meet RSI spec 602, and are labeled as such.

Gregg, could you point us to a link for RSI spec 602?

Has SCCA (BOD rather than CRB?) been formally asked to list safety equipment meeting the above RSI spec as an official option to the SFI 38.1 (a.k.a. HANS) devices?

[jdrago1]

So, when is the CRB/BoD banning club racing altogether? I mean, "if one life is saved" is the de facto standard for safety, then it's certainly "worth it", right...?

That's a very...well, "silly" is the nicest thing I can think of...thing to say, Jim, given the significant number of people that have died in auto racing accidents throughout history due to fire.

You say there is "no doubt" these devices save lives. How many people are you aware of, Jim, that have lost their lives in club racing due to lack of a head and neck restraint?

Because people are intelligent enough to recognize that many racers have lost their lives due to being flung around inside a vehicle upon impact, and due to burning to death in a fire.

What's the stats for lack of H&NR?

GA

So, when is the CRB/BoD banning club racing altogether? I mean, "if one life is saved" is the de facto standard for safety, then it's certainly "worth it", right...?

That's a very...well, "silly" is the nicest thing I can think of...thing to say, Jim, given the significant number of people that have died in auto racing accidents throughout history due to fire.

You say there is "no doubt" these devices save lives. How many people are you aware of, Jim, that have lost their lives in club racing due to lack of a head and neck restraint?

Because people are intelligent enough to recognize that many racers have lost their lives due to being flung around inside a vehicle upon impact, and due to burning to death in a fire.

What's the stats for lack of H&NR?

GA

Greg
Come on.. racing will always have its dangers and will always be dangerous unfortunately some will die doing it. You can draw your lines anywhere you like, I draw mine after the h&n, you somewhere before the H&N.

As far as my example, obviously I would wear a suit if given the choice, but if in an either or scenario. It is an easy decision for me. I have never seen a SM burn to the ground or even burn significantly since I have started racing, but I have seen a basal skull fracture of an SM driver. I personally have hit a wall head on at Topeka T2 at 60-70 MPH plus at turn 2, walked away with no injuries. Would I have been injured with out a H&N? Who knows. But glad I had it on...
In my class, regardless of your "opinion" my life is far more at risk due to collision than fire. And no SM jokes please


As to this...
You say there is "no doubt" these devices save lives. How many people are you aware of, Jim, that have lost their lives in club racing due to lack of a head and neck restraint?

Not sure it is really appropriate to comment, but it is widely held opinion that a fatality that occurred last year "most likely" have been prevented with a H&N, Any H&N, not just a HANS.


The SFI standard and Isaac is an entirely different subject. I sympathize and understand your frustration. I am not Anti Isaac. If you want to petition the club to accept another testing company that is certainly your right and I encourage it. But understand, like it our not, the club must protect itself, not sure why that seems like such an "evil" thing? Whether we agree with SFI or not, it is the industry standard and not adhering to an industry standard puts the club at an unnecessary risk.



Jim

[Knestis]

... the club must protect itself, not sure why that seems like such an "evil" thing? Whether we agree with SFI or not, it is the industry standard and not adhering to an industry standard puts the club at an unnecessary risk.

SCCA pointedly elected to NOT adhere to the industry standard of requiring a bail-out test when requested to do so through the member rule-change request process. I'll flat out say what Jake suggests: That was a non-starter because too many fat, out-of-shape, entry-fee-paying, friends-of-the-PTBs would fail it.

And I'd be thrilled if we could use "empirical data," Jim. But we can't because the business agreement between SCCA and SFI prevents it.

Disingenuous arguments are incredibly tiresome, particularly from the people who are charged with guiding the organization.

Kirk (who is trying like hell to NOT CARE but is continually appalled at the pitiful lack of leadership demonstrated by so many of our "leaders")

[tom91ita]

.....the vast majority of deaths have been because of personal health issues, NOT from mechanical causes that resulted in injuries that were fatal. ..

..........I'll flat out say what Jake suggests: That was a non-starter because too many fat, out-of-shape, entry-fee-paying, friends-of-the-PTBs would fail it..........

will you two drop this line of arguments?

next SCCA will no longer be able to serve beer, burgers and brats at the Saturday night dinners!

we'll end up having to be served SFI certified veggie burgers and tofu fries.

[DoubleXL240Z]

For the record I believe the brats are FIA, and are good for 5 years!!
I know the hotdogs are!!

[jjjanos]

The head and neck restraint has been around for years in various designs. If you have raced with NASA you have had to wear one for the last two years. If you have done any "pro" racing you have had to have one. So why the big push to stop it from being compulsory?

Since I don't race with NASA (and this is one of the reasons) or pro, does that mean I can ignore the mandate that makes me less safe?

1. You don't want to spend the money.

I already spent the money on a system I think is better.

2. You are too good of a driver so you won't crash and CERTAINLY won't get hurt.

The needs of a driver in a GT1 driver and the needs of someone in ab ITB Honda whose top speed is about the point where the GT1 car gets off idle are vastly different.

Using your logic, the HANS should be mandated for street driving...

3. You don't agree with the narrow choice of devices that are allowed.

I don't agree that the better option is not allowed.

As someone else in this thread has said the club (SCCA) is covering its ass as advised by its lawyers. Why is this a big issue? Do you want the club to be decimated by a lawsuit filed by a grieving family member and their shark lawyer that the club was negligent in its duty to compel its members to protect themselves against injury after?

I think people are greatly overestimating the likelihood of such a lawsuit winning. The standard for a participant who has signed the waiver requires gross negligence, I believe and this doesn't meet that for the club. The club allows and encourages the use of the device.

So, when is the CRB/BoD banning club racing altogether? I mean, "if one life is saved" is the de facto standard for safety, then it's certainly "worth it", right...?

That's a very...well, "silly" is the nicest thing I can think of...thing to say, Jim, given the significant number of people that have died in auto racing accidents throughout history due to fire.

Well no. How many of them have died recently? How many have died on track from heart attacks? The suit certainly contributed to those attacks... get hotter, heart pumps faster to try and dispel the heat, faster heart rate equals stress to the heart.

Fuel cell technology... even on a stock tank ... is light years beyond the death traps that killed Savage, Bandini, Williamson, etc. In fact, it's because of those deaths that we have the better fuel cells.

[lateapex911]

How many have died on track from heart attacks? The suit certainly contributed to those attacks... get hotter, heart pumps faster to try and dispel the heat, faster heart rate equals stress to the heart.
.

This is another point, and a disturbing one.
We all see the need to be properly suited, and accept the repercussions. I for one feel no debilitating effects from being suited up on a hot day, but then again, I train and workout more than most people in my demographic.

Regardless, we've seen a significant amount of deaths recently due to on track internal 'events'. Heart attacks and the like. If I'm remembering my stats correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), the vast majority of deaths have been because of personal health issues, NOT from mechanical causes that resulted in injuries that were fatal.

But I haven't heard one PEEP about how these guys are getting on track, and whether it would be prudent to look at the screening process the club employs to weed the potential candidates from the population of racers.

It's of course, in a graying club, hugely politically incorrect to utter the concept that maybe some of the elders shouldn't race.
People say, "Listen if he wants to go out that way, who are we to stop him? He's doing what he loves". That's been a response when I've brought this subject up privately.

Well, other than the fact that he might take out other cars, or spectators, or his family could sue SCCA ...just as they could over the head and neck restraint thing....that's a nice position and sentiment.

But, the fact remains that more people have died in that manner than any other, and the club is EQUALLY exposed to lawsuits from it, yet, as far as I know, nobody has batted an eye or thinks we should review our policies.
Why is that?

[lateapex911]

3) choice..Mostly the Isaac debate. That has been debated for a long time, I am pretty neutral on that device, meaning I don't think it is near as good as many of you say, nor as bad as many others say.

Interesting. So you don't really think testsled results run by Delphi (et al) engineers are valid?

Honestly, its worrisome that a CRB member will be guiding the decision based on his feelings, when empirical data exists.

As for your question regarding why we need and accet the mandating of belts and helmets...please, at least bring relevant comparisons to the conversation.
I am not limited in my choice of belts to one obviously flawed standard. Lets face it, EVERYone knows that HANS wrote the SFI 38.1 standard, and did it in a restrictive manner with aspects that don't do anything but dampen innovation, regardless of performance potential. And the Snell foundation runs its business in an entirely different manner. You're comparing apples to rotten tomatoes Jim.

[dickita15]

Honestly, its worrisome that a CRB member will be guiding the decision based on his feelings, when empirical data exists.

For the record the CRB never voted or recommended that the H&N devices be mandatory. That was a 100% BOD decision.

[jdrago1]

For the record the CRB never voted or recommended that the H&N devices be mandatory. That was a 100% BOD decision.

While it was not something the CRB voted on, I also don't hide behind it was a bod decision. I agree with the mandate.


As for this...

Originally Posted by lateapex911
Honestly, its worrisome that a CRB member will be guiding the decision based on his feelings, when empirical data exists.


Empirical data exists the other way as well, just doesn't fit in to your agenda of slamming my opinions or credibility.

[lateapex911]

3) choice..Mostly the Isaac debate. That has been debated for a long time, I am pretty neutral on that device, meaningI don't think it is near as good as many of you say, nor as bad as many others say.

Originally Posted by lateapex911

Honestly, its worrisome that a CRB member will be guiding the decision based on his feelings, when empirical data exists

.


Empirical data exists the other way as well, just doesn't fit in to your agenda of slamming my opinions or credibility.

See, Jim, I responded to what you wrote. NOW you claim there is contrary data. That's QUITE a bit different than "I think" and "People say", isn't it.
MY agenda has nothing to do with slamming you...my agenda is to not have to spend vast sums of money to go backwards in my safety. Why is that hard to understand?

[lateapex911]

For the record the CRB never voted or recommended that the H&N devices be mandatory. That was a 100% BOD decision.

Understood. But I have been told in the past, by people in positions to know, that they make their recommendations to the BoD in regards to this subject. As such, I would think the BoD would consider their input, along with other inputs, in their vote.

I fully understand that that is different than an official 'recommendation" from the CRB, inasmuch as they are not charged with making one.