Time to write those letters - Head and Neck Restraints

i have already written three letters in the last three years and had some sidebar emails with BOD & CRB members as well as regional Comp directors.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you certainly put quite a bit of time and thought into that letter. It was extremely well done.
 
OK, now that we all have got that off our chest, we NEED to send in letters to affect an ammendment. Don't not do it on principle, take a second and just send one in.

Something like:

All SFI H&N's AND all 'Isaac' branded devices with their 'X' certification.

Just do it, don't ask why. If you care about it, send a letter (or resend your original).
 
Thank you Andy,
I doubt that it is possible to get the mandate reversed, however there may be a way to get the issac allowed. Not sure, but these is no way it will happen unless we get some letters. If you would rather sit up on your high horse than send a letter you lose the right to give me crap about it.
 
...and YES, we all give a crap, and we GAVE a crap years ago when this first surfaced. But that time is passed. H&N will be mandated. SFI will be a spec. The issue is different now. Can we get something else added based on performance?

WRITE IN.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
...and YES, we all give a crap, and we GAVE a crap years ago when this first surfaced. But that time is passed. H&N will be mandated. SFI will be a spec. The issue is different now. Can we get something else added based on performance?

WRITE IN.
Click to expand...

Thank Andy

That IS our ONLY approach from here. The past is the past.

I can promise you the following:

If we get 20 plus letters sent in, The CRB will be forced to at least look at it. I will do what I can to help. It is an uphill battle, but one I am willing to sacrifice my time and effort to take on.

If we get a few scattered letters, you will be forced to switch to a different device, stay home or race elsewhere.

Like it or not, that is the way the club works, we can save the debate and endless posts of how screwed up the club and system are for another day and deal with one subject at time.


Not sure why Dick and I would be participating in this thread if we weren't interested in helping, I don't race IT and not out to win any popularity contest. Although, I'm sure Kirk and Jake would vote for me. :023:

Thats the last post I'm going to make on this subject for awhile, so have fun with it guys.
Jim
 
Last edited:
Good post, and thread, thanks guys.

jdrago1 said:
Thank Andy

That IS our ONLY approach from here. The past is the past.

I can promise you the following:

If we get 20 plus letters sent in, The CRB will be forced to at least look at it. I will do what I can to help. It is an uphill battle, but one I am willing to sacrifice my time and effort to take on.

If we get a few scattered letters, you will be forced to switch to a different device, stay home or race elsewhere.

Like it or not, that is the way the club works, we can save the debate and endless posts of how screwed up the club and system are for another day and deal with one subject at time.


Not sure why Dick and I would be participating in this thread if we weren't interested in helping, I don't race IT and not out to win any popularity contest. Although, I'm sure Kirk and Jake would vote for me. :023:

Thats the last post I'm going to make on this subject for awhile, so have fun with it guys.
Jim
Click to expand...
 
Did mine last week (again).

Letter ID Number: #4610
Request: Writing to voice my objection over the SFI 38.1 requirement of the proposed HNR requirement for 2012. SFI 38.1 is a sham, a specification put together between SFI and the manufacturers of the HANS device.
I agree that a HNR rule should be implemented - but I disagree with using a specification that is the result of collusion to restrict fair trade and innovation. A properly worded rule would allow for tested, commercially available HNR devices. No one is suggesting that duct tape is a solution.

Steve Linn
Indianapolis Region
 
Just sent my letter:

"Although I am on my second HANS device, I feel very strongly that the SCCA should consider an independent performance-based measure for H&N restraint devices rather than just signing on to SFI’s version. I would like to be able to take advantage of the best performing safety equipment available rather than second best. The goal of an H&N device is to prevent a broken neck in an accident. Having egress issues override use of the best injury prevention device is inappropriate for a club that takes a strong stand on safety.
Thank you for considering my request.
Regards,
Chuck Allard
Member #51457
 
Be careful, you MIGHT get get what you wished for... and speaking of such similar arguments, I don't think we should wear seat belts at all becuase they will limit our ability to escape the vehicle in the event of an accident... what? :shrug: its about the same logic as the mandate/spec once you cut through the BS! :eclipsee_steering:

okay okay, I will cease and desist! I'm off to go write a letter...

jjjanos said:
Here's another thing to piss you off...

Like condoms, H&N systems are use ONCE. Where is the rule that requires the mandatory impound of these systems after a crash? That fancy label means squat once it is used. <sarcasm>Clearly, the club has left itself open to a huge liability here. <sarcasm>

They let someone out with a system that has been used and their fancy CYA that doesn't cover their sorry butts doesn't mean squat.

(Though I understand that most manufacturers will test a used device but the testing is almost as expensive as a new device.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt said:
OK, now that we all have got that off our chest, we NEED to send in letters to affect an ammendment. Don't not do it on principle, take a second and just send one in.

Something like:

All SFI H&N's AND all 'Isaac' branded devices with their 'X' certification.

Just do it, don't ask why. If you care about it, send a letter (or resend your original).
Click to expand...

Done.
 
i hope we can get enough letters to make them take notice. guys if you have friends that are scca members let's talk to them as well and get them writing too. i know alot of you guys are fed up with this bs since it started but this really is our last chance to get this changed. we spend hours on the web posting about unimportant crap take 5 more to write the scca. thank you-charlie brown :rolleyes:
 
Jake, the best thing to do is buy a DeFnder & call it a day.:dead_horse: Protection as far as I read the tech info is equal to the Issac & way better than the HANS. No additionasl lateral load reduction devise required as is required for the HANS.:023:

Take the fight to Hans by procuring a SFI rated H&N other than HANS.

Anyone know the results of the HANS lawsuite against DeFnder?:shrug:

Back under my rock:006:

Oh, before I go.

SCCA Letter response:

Thank You For Your Input
 
Last edited:
dickita15 said:
... If you would rather sit up on your high horse than send a letter you lose the right to give me crap about it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, Dick.

And if we write letters, you (the collective, y'all) lose the "right" to invoke Secret Car Club of America privileges to let the issue peter out without a transparent, legitimate up-or-down vote by the CRB, a public position, and a recommendation - one way or the other, however the body decides - to the Board...?

No perma-table. No "couldn't get it on the agenda." No kicking the can down the road and not forwarding a proposition to the Board. No individual behind-closed-doors lobbying in lieu of a vote. No "Here's a summary of the letters we got." No non-decision. No abstaining. No keeping your heads down and hoping it will go away. No, "Oooh, this is too hard." No abrogation of CRB authority and responsibility to guide club racing policy decisions. No crap.

Deal?

We know you can't guarantee any particular outcome but if we fulfill our role in the process, will the CRB do the same...?

K

EDIT - And no "Gee, we only got 19 letters. Too bad we came up one short of being forced to look at it."
 
Last edited:
Knestis said:
Fair enough, Dick.

And if we write letters, you (the collective, y'all) lose the "right" to invoke Secret Car Club of America privileges to let the issue peter out without a transparent, legitimate up-or-down vote by the CRB, a public position, and a recommendation - one way or the other, however the body decides - to the Board...?

No perma-table. No "couldn't get it on the agenda." No kicking the can down the road and not forwarding a proposition to the Board. No individual behind-closed-doors lobbying in lieu of a vote. No "Here's a summary of the letters we got." No non-decision. No abstaining. No keeping your heads down and hoping it will go away. No, "Oooh, this is too hard." No abrogation of CRB authority and responsibility to guide club racing policy decisions. No crap.

Deal?

We know you can't guarantee any particular outcome but if we fulfill our role in the process, will the CRB do the same...?

K

EDIT - And no "Gee, we only got 19 letters. Too bad we came up one short of being forced to look at it."
Click to expand...

Well Kirk that is a pretty long list of nefarious things I am not allowed to do and I cannot control the actions of everyone in the process but I will do my best.
 
Letter written - #4642:

I would like to put in my support to the request to revisit the head and neck restraint requirements. As the rules currently stand, all drivers will be required to use an SFI 38.1-compliant device as of 2012.

I have been using a head and neck restraint since well before 38.1 came out; as I'm going to point out, that's obviously an ISAAC, as it will no longer be accepted next year and will now have to be replaced.

As it happens, I plan to change to a HANS, which is 38.1 compliant; likewise, my wife, who also races, has been and will continue to run a HANS. However, I chose the ISAAC because it made the most sense, both in cost and technically - its protective capability - for the car I was running at the time - my ITB car. Likewise, I plan to switch to a HANS, as I am switching to a DSR, and the HANS makes the most sense technically, though not financially, for that cockpit arrangement.

This approach, selecting by virtue of the most technically appropriate solution, has already proven itself out; I have personally been involved in two substantial hits over the years I have raced with the ISAAC, and it has indeed helped protect me from spinal injury.

For the SCCA to mandate use of specific devices through the enforcement of 38.1 is no service to the membership, as it specifically limits the range of devices, excluding some that are proven effective, merely on the basis of unrelated design factors.

Numerous wordings have already been proposed to the CRB and BOD that would restrict allowed H+N devices to those meeting appropriate performance standards, such as RSI or the performance parts of the SFI spec ONLY. Rather than re-hashing these again here, I will simply state that I support a solely performance-based spec, vs. the design factors currently in use in the SFI 38.1 spec.

If you are unaware of these design factor details, you need to read the 38.1 spec and truly understand what it means to be 38.1-compliant. Note, also, that no H+N restraint is SFI-certified, any more than any set of seat belts, etc. Every document the CRB and BOD release referring to SFI-certified components shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what SFI, its business model, and its safety standards are and how they work. This is very concerning - do you truly know what you are signing us up for?

The concept of a single-point release has no more relevance to the club or pro racer than does the concept of a timed exit requirement.

In summary - for the good of the membership and the Club Racing program, please review and reevaluate the club's proposed policy towards the proposed implementation of an SFI requirement for H+N restraints. This is NOT a policy which the whole of the membership supports: while we accept and understand the desire for safety, and most already use a H+N restraint, do not limit our access to very good, affordable, and effective devices. Leave us the room to choose, as the mature adults we are, and don't bend over to let the lawyers run the club. That's the most direct route to closing our doors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top