HANS... the other shoe's dropped

[ShelbyRacer]

But only until my career in adult films takes off.

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

That is certainly different context for both head and restraint. Perhaps that's a new market for SFI. I mean, since they seem to enjoy screwing people...

[callard]

Like that's gonna happen

[tom91ita]

Disappointed that you decided to support the root cause of this mess.....

the five stages of grief are as follows:

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

i think i am at stage 5.

i raced without a H&NR waiting for the CRB to make a decision. they decided they were not mandatory. i bought an entry level Isaac. BOD votes and my device is not accepted. i was likely naive and short-sighted to not go SFI or FIA.

now the rules are SFI or FIA are required and must be periodically inspected (maybe). to me the next step past "inspection" will be replacement of webbing/belt material like seat-belts.

and who has the least amount of webbing? HANS.

[jjjanos]

"The GCR does not specify this requirement."

Is incorrect. The GCR specifies that your device must be certified in accordance with the listed standards. One of those standards requires recertification every 5 years, therefore, to be certified in accordance with that standard, you must get it recertified at that point. If your device only carries the SFI 38.1 label, then according to the last known rule on this, the device must be "certified in accordance with SFI 38.1" If your sticker says your device was certified more than 5 years ago, then your device no longer is certified in accordance with SFI 38.1. Period, end of story. The approved wording did not invalidate the expiration date like it implicitly does on window nets.

As for the legality of the CRB interpretation of the rule -- technically it is meaningless. The CRB does not adjudicate the meaning of the GCR. However, SOMs and the CoA likely will accept this intorturation of the GCR wording since, in theory, the CRB would have asked the BoD what was intended by requiring these devices.

[Greg Amy]

I wait, with bated breath, for the first one of you to drop the $25 down to protest your own device as no longer properly certified. I can get you a 5-yr-old one to use for the weekend.

I'll even reimburse you the $25 if you ultimately lose...

PM me.

GA

[tom91ita]

fyi, NASA does not require the H&NR to meet SFI 38.1 but only to have the sticker. CCR 2011.8 (august, 2011)

15.17.8

Head and Neck Restraint

Use of a head and neck restraint system or device, carrying an SFI 38.1 certification label, is mandatory for all drivers as of July 2, 2008. References and information can be found in “Appendix D,” section #29.0 of the CCR. Additionally, HANS brand devices with FIA 8858-2002 or FIA 8858-2010 certification labels are acceptable in lieu of SFI 38.1 labels.

[jjjanos]

I wait, with bated breath, for the first one of you to drop the $25 down to protest your own device as no longer properly certified. I can get you a 5-yr-old one to use for the weekend.

It won't be a drive who makes the stink. It will be a tech inspector or a steward who has drunk the H&N kool-aid.

fyi, NASA does not require the H&NR to meet SFI 38.1 but only to have the sticker. CCR 2011.8 (august, 2011)

Y'all see the difference in the wording?

[John Nesbitt]

Metaphysical.

But only until my career in adult films takes off.

No matter how hard I rub my eyes, I can't make the image go away.

The horror! The horror!

[Greg Amy]

It won't be a drive who makes the stink. It will be a tech inspector or a steward who has drunk the H&N kool-aid.

Trust me, they won't care. All they care about is the sticker.

Y'all see the difference in the wording?

Yes. The NASA wording simply means it has to have a sticker stuck on it, not that it actually has to be certified. So to the letter of NASA's rules, I can legitimately put a sticker on the ISAAC and be compliant, as far as they're concerned.

See how that works?

GA

[lateapex911]

That is pretty odd, there are interpretations in that I have not seen on anything from SFI. The whole FIA certifications only good at FIA events is ludicrous. Not true and just makes no sense.

Sure it makes sense! If you are a retailer of the device and stand to make some money off the recerts, or gain some other benefit. And tossing a little extra scare tactic in there for good measure is always a nice touch, something the HANS folks are probably fine with....

Are you doubting the need for drivers to be as safe as possible Dick?? Will more drivers be killed because they got their HANS units recertified needlessly?
Just another brick in the wall........

Tom, Disappointed that you've decided that the minor reason you cite trumps the principal of the whole mess. If it weren't for HANS and their wording of the 38.1 Specification, we'd have the freedom of choice, and we wouldn't be in this disgusting mess.
I certainly won't be putting a dime in the devils pocket.

[tom91ita]

Jake,

is there a non-SFI and FIA only device on the market?

it was my understanding that the FIA was effectively static test procedures of SFI devices. that is pull this hard and it shouldn't break instead of dynamic sled tests.

[jjjanos]

Trust me, they won't care. All they care about is the sticker.

Maybe I'll go and be a tech inspector next year....

Yes. The NASA wording simply means it has to have a sticker stuck on it, not that it actually has to be certified. So to the letter of NASA's rules, I can legitimately put a sticker on the ISAAC and be compliant, as far as they're concerned.

Well... according to the SCCA technical memo, I can do that for SCCA too. I.e. my device doesn't need to meet the technical specification, it only needs a sticker.

See how that works?

[Greg Amy]

Well... according to the SCCA technical memo, I can do that for SCCA too. I.e. my device doesn't need to meet the technical specification, it only needs a sticker.

Logic "fale".

"Certified in accordance with SFI 38.1" (SCCA) logically differs significantly from "...a head and neck restraint system or device, carrying an SFI 38.1 certification label..." (NASA)

You would truly suck as a scrutineer. And probably piss off a lot of people in the process...

GA

[tom91ita]

is HANS the official H&NR of NASA?

you need HAN(d)S if you are to "Carry" a label right?

[jjjanos]

Logic "fale".

"Certified in accordance with SFI 38.1" (SCCA) logically differs significantly from "...a head and neck restraint system or device, carrying an SFI 38.1 certification label..." (NASA)

Ahhh, but the memo says that a device does not need to be certified in accordance with SFI 38.1 -- what does SFI 38.1 require? Oh... that pesky 5 year thing.

The GCR language - The use of a head and neck restraint system certified in accordance with SFI 38.1, FIA 8858-2002 or 8858-2010 is required; an SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858-2002 or 8858-2010 label must be properly affixed to the device.

What the memo effectively turns this rule into:
The use of a head and neck restraint system with an SFI 38.1 label properly affixed to the device or a head and neck system certified in accordance with FIA 8858-2002 or 8858-2010 with a FIA 8858-2002 or 8858-2010 label properly affixed to the device is required.

[Greg Amy]

So, if you truly think this is wrong, it is your responsibility to do the right thing, instead of bitching about it on the Internet...

Put up or shut up. PM me with your PayPal address for that $25.

GA

[Greg Amy]

Bump. I'm feeling a bit of being a heel here.

Look, dude, you're right; your logic is unassailable. It makes no sense that the Club is choosing to select only the easier parts of a "standard" against which to judge. And to take a "stance" and yet cherry-pick which part of that stance to support make absolutely no logical sense.

But, you know what? So what.

Seriously...so what?

Do you think the Club is going to lay its Johnson out there, play the "Occupy Topeka" card, and actually try take a moral stand on this SFI stuff? Seriously...? C'mon! You know as well as I that the Club has to toe the line here and pretend that SFI is the Standard Against Which All Safety Devices Are To Be Judged. And when backed against the wall, the hard stuff falls.

My very close friend and compadre Prof Knestis is frustrated because the Club wants to PRETEND that it has standing on this stuff, but doesn't want to take the hard line on it and instead relents on the "easy" parts and waffles on the hard parts, thus can't take the moral high ground. Because if they did take the hard stance we all know the membership would revolt and they'd have to take the even-harder stance of actually having to develop a true standard.

Well, you know what? Shocked. Absolutely shocked, I am.

Everyone likes to thing that this is a moral, ethical, political organization, but when it comes down to it and the veneer is pulled back, the Sports Car Club of America is nothing more than us, a bunch of frustrated Club racers that want to pretend they are something more than an amateur organization running club races on select weekends. In the end, we're all the same, and we have the same goals, with the same fears. To enjoy racing and not get our asses handed to us.

So let's enjoy.

GA

[JeffYoung]

Good post, and I totally agree.

Bump. I'm feeling a bit of being a heel here.

Look, dude, you're right; your logic is unassailable. It makes no sense that the Club is choosing to select only the easier parts of a "standard" against which to judge. And to take a "stance" and yet cherry-pick which part of that stance to support make absolutely no logical sense.

But, you know what? So what.

Seriously...so what?

Do you think the Club is going to lay its Johnson out there, play the "Occupy Topeka" card, and actually try take a moral stand on this SFI stuff? Seriously...? C'mon! You know as well as I that the Club has to toe the line here and pretend that SFI is the Standard Against Which All Safety Devices Are To Be Judged. And when backed against the wall, the hard stuff falls.

My very close friend and compadre Prof Knestis is frustrated because the Club wants to PRETEND that it has standing on this stuff, but doesn't want to take the hard line on it and instead relents on the "easy" parts and waffles on the hard parts, thus can't take the moral high ground. Because if they did take the hard stance we all know the membership would revolt and they'd have to take the even-harder stance of actually having to develop a true standard.

Well, you know what? Shocked. Absolutely shocked, I am.

Everyone likes to thing that this is a moral, ethical, political organization, but when it comes down to it and the veneer is pulled back, the Sports Car Club of America is nothing more than us, a bunch of frustrated Club racers that want to pretend they are something more than an amateur organization running club races on select weekends. In the end, we're all the same, and we have the same goals, with the same fears. To enjoy racing and not get our asses handed to us.

So let's enjoy.

GA

[Chip42]

2 weeks ago I tried on a safety solutions -> simpson hybrid pro. was very comfortable in the car and I generally liked the design. but the chest belts didn't fit me well at all, and had very little in the way of adjustments. tried a large and a medium. (I'm 6'4", 200# with wide shoulders and chest)

wound up settling (and it took a long night and a LOT of bitching) on a hans sport, 20° medium. current sale and a friendly dealer meant the price was fantastic, and the thing fit - can't argue that. It came with the sliding tethers and new, optional quick release helmet latches like DefNder and SS already used so I can get out of the thing in a hurry if needed.

I know I'm less safe than I could have been, and I can't afford a winged seat right now so I'm pretty unhappy about it. I will be trying on the full range of Hybrid sizes at PRI to see if there is an option that works and meets the silly SFI regs. I'm still looking for something that takes the good work started by hubbard downing and expands upon it as the defender, safety solutions, and non SFI (like the Isaac) products have done.

it really upset me to buy what is, long and short, a generally good product from a company that refuses to 1: acknowledge that it could be better, 2: improve upon it in ways that address that acknowledgement, and 3: practices suffocating marketing techniques. I'm now demonstrably safer than I was, and less safe than I could be. it's a weird feeling.

[lateapex911]

it really upset me to buy what is, long and short, a generally good product from a company that refuses to 1: acknowledge that it could be better, 2: improve upon it in ways that address that acknowledgement, and 3: practices suffocating marketing techniques. I'm now demonstrably safer than I was, and less safe than I could be. it's a weird feeling.

Now, assuming you're coming from a position of not wearing anything, think how you'd feel if you were making this move after owning something better....