December 08 is up

[Greg Amy]

Page 9:

MEMBER ADVISORIES
4. Driver safety equipment – The CRB would like input from the membership about whether head and neck restraints should be made mandatory.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Page 9:

MEMBER ADVISORIES
4. Driver safety equipment – The CRB would like input from the membership about whether head and neck restraints should be made mandatory.

Greg,

Shoud we try and have a united front on this? Otherwise they will get letters that read like this:

To whom it may concern re: manditory H&N:

No.

Thank you,

Joe Blow.
*****************
I would think that some substance would be great and I know you and Kirk are passionate about this...suggestions?

[planet6racing]

Mr. Gomberg:

Thank you. You comminicated well and made things happen. I am much happier with the way things have worked over the last 2 months than the previous 4.

[Greg Amy]

I would think that some substance would be great and I know you and Kirk are passionate about this...suggestions?

Well, if we were to assume a standard opinion (and that would NOT necessarily be a good assumption) then we do need to clarify points.

There's two issues here:

- One, should HNRs be mandatory
- Two, if yes to the above, do they need to conform to SFI?
- Two-point-One: If not, should SCCA require any that are voluntarily used to conform to SFI.

I suggest that if the answer to One is "yes, then Two quickly follows, as SCCA really has no choice but to require a "standard" for "required equipment". So, effectively, a "yes" answer to requiring HNRs is a mandate for SFI cert.

We need to vet this idea thoroughly.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, if we were to assume a standard opinion (and that would NOT necessarily be a good assumption) then we do need to clarify points.

There's two issues here:

- One, should HNRs be mandatory
- Two, if yes to the above, do they need to conform to SFI?
- Two-point-One: If not, should SCCA require any that are voluntarily used to conform to SFI.

I suggest that if the answer to One is "yes, then Two quickly follows, as SCCA really has no choice but to require a "standard" for "required equipment". So, effectively, a "yes" answer to requiring HNRs is a mandate for SFI cert.

We need to vet this idea thoroughly.

GA

I agree - but we must be swift in our responses.

[Greg Amy]

I agree - but we must be swift in our responses.

Let's start a new topic to vet it. - GA

[Greg Amy]

A few Court things of note:

- Anyone notice the "monocoque" argument? Reminds me of how we got to the "ship in a bottle" cages to full-up purpose-built cars in GT.

- The Knowles/Ziegler last lap incident at the Runoffs. I saw that on TV and thought Knowles crowded him (or to be exact, didn't leave enough room); I didn't know there was a protest and Ziegler was tossed from the win. Seems the Court of Appeals agreed with Knowles. I may go looking for that broadcast to look at it with a more-jaundiced eye.

- SM shocks. They apparently had a shock dyno; one guy "repeatedly tested approximately 100% over the baseline readings from the sample sets". He used the old SpecMiata argument of "but there's no specs!" Pwned.

[JoshS]

- The Knowles/Ziegler last lap incident at the Runoffs. I saw that on TV and thought Knowles crowded him (or to be exact, didn't leave enough room); I didn't know there was a protest and Ziegler was tossed from the win. Seems the Court of Appeals agreed with Knowles. I may go looking for that broadcast to look at it with a more-jaundiced eye.

All of the in-car videos and such were posted and discussed over on sccaforums immediately after the Runoffs.
http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/326310.aspx

I read all about it then and I would say that the Speed coverage doesn't change my mind: the stewards blew it by even starting an investigation, and once started, the wrong decision got made.

In reality, if anything was going to happen, it should have been initiated by Knowles, not by the stewards. It looks like a racing incident to me and unless one of the competitors wants to do something about it, the club should have just left it alone.

[Greg Amy]

...the wrong decision got made.

Josh, I agree, based on only my viewing of the Speed coverage. I have not looked at those links you posted but I will; but I did look at that speed coverage of the incident several times (I have a DVR). Based on that, I am in the "racing incident" camp.

However, I have a lot of respect for Brian Holtz; there must have been a damn good reason for that. I'll reserve further judgment on the incident 'til I see what's already been presented.

NOTE: I've Dan's and Tom's posts to a new HNR topic I started; please continue the discussion there. I am sure we have very little time to provide feedback to the CRB on this issue; I would not be surprised if there's already a consensus forming, one way or the other... - GA

[JoshS]

However, I have a lot of respect for Brian Holtz; there must have been a damn good reason for that.

Oh, me too ... but even good guys make bad calls every once in a while.

Brian posted in the sccaforums thread:

My only part in the process was submitting the original RFA (Request For Action), as I was the Operating Steward for the race. I saw the two cars go past start/finish and then got the emergency call from the corner worker. The RFA was not filed against Bill alone. It named both drivers, both car numbers and simply read, "Investigate contact between Car #05 and Car #35", siting GCR Section 6.8.1, paragraphs A-D. I gathered the witness reports from the corner workers and turned them over to the SOM's. I did not testify as I was not a witness to the incident. You saw my name in the appeal notice only because I was the person who submitted the RFA.

So he wasn't intending to pass judgement, but just by issuing the RFA, he was causing judgement to be passed. Perhaps there was a standing "rule" for the operating steward that he was to do that, in which case it wasn't his call, I'm just not sure.

I'm not really trying to put blame on anyone but "the system." I just think it should be a competitor-policed sport. This is no different, in my opinion, than people assuming that tech will notice someone else's illegal car. A competitor should have to file paper if they suspect an illegal car, and a competitor should have to file paper if they didn't like some on-track behavior.

[jjjanos]

Josh, I agree, based on only my viewing of the Speed coverage. I have not looked at those links you posted but I will; but I did look at that speed coverage of the incident several times (I have a DVR). Based on that, I am in the "racing incident" camp.

Wow. Was Ziegler even with the door? No. Had Knowles driven essentially the same line the previous lap (see video)? Yes.

Hard to reconcile the above statement with this from you...

http://www.roadraceautox.com/showpos...4&postcount=57

According to you, it was Knowles corner and Ziegler is completely in the wrong.

[dj10]

Greg,

Shoud we try and have a united front on this? Otherwise they will get letters that read like this:

To whom it may concern re: manditory H&N:

No.

Thank you,

Joe Blow.
*****************
I would think that some substance would be great and I know you and Kirk are passionate about this...suggestions?

Why can't the people that don't want to wear them sign a waiver? That way the SCCA will be protected & we won't be forced to buy some $1000.00 pos that may or may not work.

"- SM shocks. They apparently had a shock dyno; one guy "repeatedly tested approximately 100% over the baseline readings from the sample sets". He used the old SpecMiata argument of "but there's no specs!" Pwned."

I got a kick out of this one.:~)

[BruceG]

Greg,

Shoud we try and have a united front on this? Otherwise they will get letters that read like this:

To whom it may concern re: manditory H&N:

No.

Thank you,

Joe Blow.
*****************
I would think that some substance would be great and I know you and Kirk are passionate about this...suggestions?

Isn't this a little bit like those folks who don't wear motorcycle helmets in the states that don't mandate their use? You can have the wind in your hair, look like Marlon Brando(maybe) and opt to kill yourself because you're too dumb to wear the only protection that might save your life!

We're supposed to be adults and informed on safety issues. Have everyone sigh a waiver...if they chose to not spend the money and purchase a HANS or related device, nonbuyer beware.
We all know if you don't inspect your brakes and hubs ever, you will have an event at some point. Do we need that mandated in the CGR, as well?

Too much regulation, too little common sense!

Bruce

[BruceG]

PS. In the Speed Chan. weekly newsletter theur is an article about a 20 yr old professional race in critial condition in the hospital becuase he had a car wreck and was thrown from the vehicle because he wasn't wearing a seat belt.

You can't legislate againt stupidity!!

[erlrich]

Too much regulation, too little common sense!

Bruce

Thank you. The reson I hate the seat belt laws, even though I would never think of going out on the road without wearing mine, is that I consider it common-sense issue, not a legislative one. One of the points I made in my letter to the CRB was that we should attempt to educate all drivers as to the benefits of H&N restraint systems, in the hopes that more would choose to use them, but then leave it up to the drivers to decided if the risks warrant their use.

[Knestis]

... I would think that some substance would be great and I know you and Kirk are passionate about this...suggestions?

I used up a lot of bandwidth and oxygen on this issue over the past 4 years, and have come to the conclusion that most club racers don't WANT to think about safety hard enough to make their own decisions - let alone make a difference, policy-wise.

The fundamental problem here is that the only people who are really going to get involved in the SCCA version of this conversation now, are the early adopters who shopped around, liked the safety advantage afforded by the Isaac, and made that choice for themselves absent any requirement by the Club. Their position will be perceived as protecting their investment and will be largely dismissed: There's simply too few of them to matter and decision-makers will put "safety" (the club's, not individual racers') ahead of what they believe to be "saving money."

To this day, a too-large proportion of SCCA Club racers don't wear ANY H&N system and won't until there's a mandate. When the mandate comes, they'll follow directions. This group seems likely to vote "no" to any mandate. They'll eventually lose out but by then the SFI/not argument will have just happened somewhere.

Those who, for whatever reason, already have systems from SFI-member companies will be passive at best knowing that the cards will likely fall in their favor - or at least not foul up their choice. At worst, they'll buy into SFI tribalism and fight any other option, because that's what people do sometimes.

I'll write my letter but I'm going to put it in big terms that most people don't want to think about: We should be required to use H&N systems that meet specific test performance thresholds - even those that underly the SFI "standard" - but should be able to pick from any manufacturer willing to do those tests in independent settings, for a variety of reasons:

** Allows innovation and new technology

** Provides maximum variety of options to meet a greater range of racers' needs

** Encourages the racer to be a consumer of safety - to learn more than just "me need SFI sticker"

** Prevents unfair market protection that costs us $$

** Removes a potential barrier to entry for new choices

K

[erlrich]

i Used Up A Lot Of Bandwidth And Oxygen On This Issue Over The Past 4 Years, And Have Come To The Conclusion That Most Club Racers Don't Want To Think About Safety Hard Enough To Make Their Own Decisions - Let Alone Make A Difference, Policy-wise.

Amen.

i'll Write My Letter But I'm Going To Put It In Big Terms That Most People Don't Want To Think about: We Should Be Required To Use H&n Systems That Meet Specific Test Performance Thresholds - Even Those That Underly The Sfi "standard" - But Should Be Able To Pick From Any Manufacturer Willing To Do Those Tests In Independent Settings, For A Variety Of Reasons:
...

K

I would love to believe that argument would find a receptive ear in Topeka, but I hold out little hope that the issue will ever boil down to more than a yes/no question. And if the answer is yes, I firmly believe the yes will actually be twofold; "YES to mandatory H&N restraints, and YES to SFI". I applaud your attempt, and if this comes to pass I hope you will prove me wrong, but at this point I'm going to have to stick with "no" as the answer to the question. I'm hoping that those who do not currently use, and do not want to use, any device will weigh in. Sometimes the right answer for the wrong reason is better than no answer at all.

[Knestis]

And there's the trap as I see it, Earl - by voicing a "no," you help the PTB avoid the harder thinking now and let them take the easy way out, because you take your numbers out of the pool of votes supporting the right thing (more choice) and leave it as "Isaac uses" (voiceless minority) vs. everyone else.

If everyone who hasn't yet purchased would scream loud and long about having choices taken away from them, when the mandate happens - and it WILL come - you won't be left with as many. And next time, it's going to be "you don't have SFI kevlar right side nets," or "sorry - that crappy FIA number isn't going to make your seat legal." No, I'm not making this up.

One thing for sure: All of this crap is CERTAINLY a disincentive to the early adopter. I'm probably going to get dicked here in the next couple seasons, because we bought over-the-wall helmets for our enduro crew - the ONLY team I've yet seen at the VIR, Summit, or Longest Day races so equipped - when someone decides that the same hardware is only going to keep my guys' punkin's safe if we cross SFI's hand with geld to buy a damned sticker.

K

[dickita15]

If there is one thing I have learned about the BOD in this club is one of their biggest concerns is to avoid making negative decisions, in other words they really do not have the courage to go against what is actually a pretty small amount of letters. A very small number of letters, probably 100 or so from pissed off prod and touring drivers reversed the entire class consolidation plan in two weeks.
I will write, and I do and will mention that I do own a SFI compliant device, but I still believe that this is a bad decision, both from a personal responsibility and restraint of technology point of view.
With enough letters (emails) this will die for now, but the more they get the longer is will be before it come up again.
Take two minutes right now to write [email protected]

[raffaelli]

If everyone who hasn't yet purchased would scream loud and long about having choices taken away from them,
K

I have not purchased. I poked around in the past couple of weeks trying to find out what side of the mandate and SFI / NASA fence the SCCA was heading.

I see it two fold:

1. The 1k for the restraint is 2.5 race entries at LRP - half my projected season. The money is alloted. The purchase will make me a by stander for half the season. (For me this is a false argrument since I also budgeted for the restraint and will not impact the number for races I enter, but will impact others)

2. I do not believe I as safe as I can be with SFI restraints as I am with non SFI restraints. I went down this road with NASA. I let my membership lapse and will not race with them since I HAVE to use a restraint I feel is less safe.