Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

***there are several board members (both CRB and BOD) that have responded to many issues here.***

Bill, names of several CRB anf BoD members ^ please.
 
Can we list what items have to meet what safety standard? I'll start:

Fuel cells. None for IT. Some other classes have to meet FIA specs for a new cell, but that expires at 5 years and is ignored by SCCA.

Seats. None. But must be one piece and have rear support, unless they meet FIA 8855-1999 (an old spec?). Is some classes stock seats aren't even allowed, and they met a higher spec than the FIA spec.

Cages. SCCA specs. Some FIA cages aren't legal for SCCA.


Those are three examples where SCCA does not rely soley on someone else to set the spec. Others?
 
The most appropriate comparison is DRIVER'S SUITS:

Driving suits that effectively cover the body from the neck to the
ankles and wrists, manufactured of fire resistant material, worn
with underwear of a fire resistant material. One piece suits are
highly recommended. All suits and underwear shall be made of the
following accepted fire resistant materials: Nomex, Kynol, FPT,
IWS (wool), Fiber glass, Firewear™, Durette, Fypro, PBI, Kevlar,
NASAFIL, or any suit carrying an SFI 3-2A/1 or higher certification
patch. Underwear of PROBAN is approved. The following specific
manufacturer(s) material combinations are also recognized: Simpson
Heat Shield, Leston Super Protex, FPT Linea Sport, Carbon X, and
Durette X-400. Underwear is not required with three-layer suits or
with suits carrying FIA standards of 8856-1986 or 8856-2000 or
SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch . FIA
homologated driving suits and underwear are recommended.

(2006 GCR, emphasis mine)

In this case, it's probably appropriate to make the requirement based on materials and number of layers. Regardless, they didn't specify particular TPI burn-through test performance and did not align exclusively with one or a group of manufacturers, or one foundation.

With H&N systems, the best answer would be specific, impact head-load-reduction test results from an independent lab, since there are more than one way on the market to skin this particular cat.

K
 
The Board voted and the results won't be official until they are reviewed and published, which takes a couple of weeks.

In the meantime, your Area representatives may have more information...
 
I just discussed this with the CRB...and they weren't talking, although I didn't ask about this specific issue. Cryptically, they said that the BoD voted "as expected"...and that, certain items have been leaked on the SCCA site...

Not really anything definate, eh???

(Not related, but the top 24 concept flew and "certain new classes were added" according to the SCCA site press release.)
 
Greg - Are you leading us???...[/b]
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. We have no idea. The response we got from SCCA staff was very neutral. Apparently they are reluctant to speak for the Board since the wording is not final until published. Of course, in this case it is either "Yes" or "No", but you get the idea.

They did mention, however, that the vote is not secret and Board members are not obligated in any way with respect to comments. So if you e-mailed or called before, do it again and you will probably get the answer.
 
Absolutely not. We have no idea. The response we got from SCCA staff was very neutral. Apparently they are reluctant to speak for the Board since the wording is not final until published. Of course, in this case it is either "Yes" or "No", but you get the idea.

They did mention, however, that the vote is not secret and Board members are not obligated in any way with respect to comments. So if you e-mailed or called before, do it again and you will probably get the answer.
[/b]
Click to expand...


Hopefully one of the BoD members that posts here will share this information w/ us.
 
Nothing listed about H&N restraints in the CRB recommendations to the BOD on the SCCA web page, so I guess another bullet dodged... for now... :happy204:
 
Maybe they're trying to give the board members time to run for cover. "As expected" does not have a good sound to it. Maybe I'm a pessimist and hopfully I'll be proved wrong.

Davd
 
Well, that's what makes me go "Huh??""

MY BoD man, (the chair) indicated he thought it was the wrong thing to do now, and he seemed receptive to my suggestion that it be tabled. And I got the impression that he thought the other Directors were in agreement, at least a lot of them. Which is NOT to say that it's a slam dunk majority!

My discussions with the CRB, on the other hand, indicated that THEY thought it was the way to go, and that they HAD to do something. So...if THEY think it went "as expected", that's bad.

But it is SO nebulous, and definition sensitiive, that I could see it going either way.

IF it's tabled, I'd like to know NOW rather than later, so that any strategies that could be put in play could be initiated now, as opposed to later.
 
My BOD board memeber seemed to be on the same page as your Jake. He said he was pushing to suspend any voting on the issue until some issues were investigated and questions answered. So my expectation is the BOD wouldn't have voted at all or if they did they would reject the proposal based on a lack of information/justification.
 
Tick, tick, tick... Well, at least the next FasTrack is due soon.

If I sound bored it's because I am. The wife is travelling, the pets are all snoring and the next Netflix doesn't arrive until tomorrow -- and I was so looking forward to "Vampire Vixens from Venus".

So perhaps a contest is in order? No one seems to know which way the voting went, so how about everyone sign up for "Yes" or "No". "Yes" means the Board accepted the CRB's proposal to require SFI "certified" products, and "No" means they tossed it. It's possibe the Board just postponed the issue, but we can call that a "No".

I don't think a poll will work, so everyone who wants to bet can just post "Yes" or "No" here. Everyone who is right gets something. I have no idea what, but we can work out the details later. Whatever you guys think is fair, assuming we agree. ;)
 
Hoping that it will be a NO. Something about the scales of justice...one side holding facts and reason (NO Vote) while the other side holds politics (yes Vote)...or something like that. Unfortunately, I think they'll vote YES.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top