Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

I think that they voted in favor of the member feedback they recieved, and I think that most members felt we should not have any rules at this time!!!

:birra: Raymond
 
This vote will carry the "no." It's the next one we really have to worry about, I think.

K

EDIT - if I win, I want a pony.
 
My hope is that the vote will be a "NO" If we are successful this time, it has to be only the beginning of a massive effort to "educate" the CRB and the BOD. Maybe this is the time to begin keeping our ideas such that they could be compiled, researched, and presented in a landslide.
 
The will (or have) voted "no".

However, there are discrepancies in both Florida and Ohio that will demand a recount. Something about some guy named Chad getting hung. Oh, sorry, wrong election....
 
I'll buck the trend and say:

"Yes"

and, if so, I won't be racing next year. While the membership can have all the input it wants, if the lawyers say that the club won't exist if the rules stay as they are, the BOD will be forced to do something.

Sorry.
 
I vote for a 'No' vote based on communication with my Director prior to the meeting. I agree that something will be added to the GCR in the near future. Hope it will be something reasonable.
 
Well, that woke everyone up.

Regardless of which way the vote went, I agree that the fat lady has yet to sing. I also agree with Dave that the time is ripe for a more proactive stance, which reminds me of an observation made recently by a party who shall remain annonymous. Allow me to paraphrase:

Annonymous Party (AP): "So, an Isaac is as good as SFI designs in frontal impacts?"
Me: "Well, you can tune a HANS to get under 1,000N neck tension on the Delphi sled, which is better, but you need a four belt shoulder harness."
AP: "That's great if you hit something at 300Gs, but you're dead by then anyway, right?"
Me: "Right. Soft tissue injuries in the chest cavity start around 150Gs or so."
AP: "And no SFI design can touch an Isaac on side impacts, right?"
Me: "Not even close."
AP: "And SFI designs can lose the belts in amateur road seats whereas the Isaac will keep them in place on the shoulder -- and they can cause egress problems, right?"
Me: "The SFI designs don't always have those problems, of course, but they can, yes."
AP: "So, it is then safe to say that SFI designs don't really offer any practical safety advantage over the Isaac designs, and have documented safety weaknesses, right?
Me: "A good summary, yes."
AP: "And the SCCA wants to use SFI as a point of reference, right."
Me: "They prefer referring to an outside standard, yes."
AP: "Then the solution is obvious."
Me: "What's that?"
AP: "Petition the SCCA to ban all SFI head and neck restraints."

Sounds good to me.

Oh, one other thing that I didn't want to bring up before the vote because it would just muddy the waters. A free pony to the first person who can name the day jobs of two of the three members of the CRB's Safety Committee, listed about a third of the way down the page here: http://www.scca.org/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=0...30&x=080|070&~=.
 
They are in retail sales/distributors of safety equipment....namely SFI approved safety equipment. Where is my pony?

For the record...since I have been the only YES vote thusfar, if I win, donate the prize to someone else. Thanks anyways...I don't want to "win" something based on that outcome...

Do I sound bitter? I assure you I am not. I am quite happy actually. Personalized plate on the new bike "NJYN LIF"
 
Google is your best friend folks....

.........and the results will be eyebrow raising.

It's the midwest steward guy that has me scratching my head.

For my part, I really want to understand better the procedures, and the methods that are utilized in writing such recommendations.
 
You mean, Arnie Kuhns, President of SFI? This is NO conflict, absolutely not. It is in the best interest of SFI to retain the gathered power they have by "encouraging" all sanctioning bodies to mandate only SFI approved equipment, regardless if it is in the best interest of the sport or the drivers. They stand to lose in large porportion if anyone moves away from their standards. Imagine what may go through the minds of other sanctioning bodies minds if SCCA comes up with a better means to qualify H&N systems.
"Umm......SCCA isn't using the SFI approval becaus they came up with a different means to qualify equipment that meets all the legal requirements and is a more comprehensive evaluation. What do they know that we don't?"

Others may begin asking questions...............questions result in lost power and lost revenues.

Am I missing something here?..........or was I born yesterday?.........
 
Joe Marko - principal in HMS Motorsport and "safety expert" (multiple web entries say it, so it must be true), Hans and Schroth dealer.

Arnie Kuhns - my position on SFI's mission has been beaten to death here. His primary job is to convince sanctioning bodies to adopt his standards, thereby forcing racers to give his company money.

I don't know anything about Ed Ozment.

K
 
When Ed was a steward up here, he seemed like a pretty good guy. Had a chance to talk to him a little at the drivers school when he was the steward and I was an instructor. His wife, Terry, received some promotion in the SCCA that he obviously went with.

I really wish I didn't know about the people on the safety committee. :( :bash_1_:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top