January Fastrack

[RacerBill]

According to Fastrack, the CRB recommended to the Board that IF H&N restraints were mandated, only SFI/FIA approved H&N restraints be allowed. The CRB recommended that H&N restraints be strongly recommended, not mandated. At least that's what I read.

[BruceG]

I agree with Jake...wait till the first time a driver sues because they had to wear a H&N(didn't wear one before) and was injured! I use a Hans(my choice) and I think that guys in states that don't have a helmet law for motorcycles and chose not to wear one are probably missing an essential truth...but so be it. I don't know how much more or less Ken Payson would have been injured at LRP last summer without a H&N...but make it a driver choice.

Why not have a disclaimer at registration that if you chose not to wear one, you do so at your own peril. Enough big brother.

Perhaps. next the BOd should mandate astronaut type diapers for drivers so that when you piss yourself in an accident, you don't contaminate corner workers....LOL.

[erlrich]

According to Fastrack, the CRB recommended to the Board that IF H&N restraints were mandated, only SFI/FIA approved H&N restraints be allowed. The CRB recommended that H&N restraints be strongly recommended, not mandated. At least that's what I read.

You're right Bill - apparently it was the Board that decided to adopt the mandate, and by a very narrow margin - 7 to 5 IIRC, with one abstention.

[mc-integra111]

I am disturbed by this as well. I thought that the member input was that this should be recommended and not required. It does not give me a good impression of SCCA if they ask for member input and then do the opposite of what the members want. I plan on using the new CRB form to express my point of view.

[Ron Earp]

I long ago gave up the idea this was a club by members for members.

[Knestis]

I'm less worried about whether the BoD is doing exactly what "the members" want, and more worried that they aren't really looking at the complex and important questions at hand.

How may of the 7 that voted to support it really knows how SFI works, and what "approval" gets us...?

K

[JeffYoung]

I don't know guys. I give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I don't think this has much if anything to do with the Board kowtowing to SFI of their own volition.

It seems to me they are faced with a situation where nearly every major motorsports sanctioning body is requiring a H&N device, and most are requiring it to comply with SFI 38.1 or the FIA standards.

If they failed to follow suit, they would be putting themselves at extreme risk.

Frankly, I think the fact they held out as along as they did shows that they do listen to membership as much as the can.

P.S. Liability issues aside as a former ISAAC owner, I think we should all have the ability to review the options on H&N restraints and make an informed choice -- and live with it. Unfortuantely, that is not the way the world works.

[Z3_GoCar]

I imagine that this has come about because of pro-racings use of SFI H&N restraints for years now. The only real sticking point with SFI, other than their philosopy as mostly a marketing tool, is that the ISSACS will never be included. Then why not petition to have it added, as in " SFI, FIA, and the ISSACS"?

[Knestis]

I don't know guys. I give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I don't think this has much if anything to do with the Board kowtowing to SFI of their own volition.

It seems to me they are faced with a situation where nearly every major motorsports sanctioning body is requiring a H&N device, and most are requiring it to comply with SFI 38.1 or the FIA standards.

If they failed to follow suit, they would be putting themselves at extreme risk.

Frankly, I think the fact they held out as along as they did shows that they do listen to membership as much as the can.

P.S. Liability issues aside as a former ISAAC owner, I think we should all have the ability to review the options on H&N restraints and make an informed choice -- and live with it. Unfortuantely, that is not the way the world works.

Have you read the SFI 38.1 "standard," Jeff? It can be distilled down to five pieces:

1. The actual performance standard - max noggin connection compression and tension, and NIJ.

2. The test protocol - which is a rehash of the DELPHI test method applied to all H&N systems.

3. A bunch of language about licensing that is more about marketing than anything else.

4. A description of the architecture (see also, HANS blueprints)

5. A disclaimer that covers their butts while providing SCCA with no cover that I can identify, saying among other things that, The granting and assignment of the "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1" logo/designation is in no way an endorsement or certification of product performance or reliability by SFI.

We use "standard" as though the mere EXISTENCE of the standard is enough - that its substance doesn't matter. What if 38.1 said., "H&N restraint systems must be blue." Would SCCA gain any protection even if every other sanctioning body in the world adopted it? As a good lawyer, wouldn't you dig into the SFI architecture requirement if someone were burned because she couldn't get out of the window of their Spec Miata because of her HANS?

K