Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

...as long as they can get out in XX seconds.[/b]
Click to expand...
Or as an interim step, given that some will balk at defining XX, require a subjective assessment. If the driver can demonstrate that they have given some thought, and dedicated some practice time, to rapid egress, they receive the proper checkmark at inspection time. They are getting out of their car as fast as they can, which is all anyone can ask.


Other then the Joey Hand incident. How many other incidents have been publicized that you get this grand number from? I only ask because read racing forums all the time, I read racing news every day, I only want to know where your statistics are comming from.
[/b]
Click to expand...

That's the problem; most of these are not reported so the sample size is small, especially at the amateur level. I can think of about a dozen over the past couple of years. Some more prominent instances are listed here.
 
Although the 19 pages of posts (so far!) prove that you guys are passionate about this issue, I am not here to debate the relative merits of ISAAC vs. the SFI standard. If indeed the BoD turned down the recommendation (which we will all read when Fastrack comes out next week), then if folks want to see the ISAAC incontrovertably legal in SCCA, the verbiage in the GCR needs to be fixed.

And with all due respect to Greg's protestations to the contrary, it is not just a few folks on the west coast. The number of releases required to get a driver clear of the seat belt and shoulder harness is the hang-up in FIA, NASCAR, ARCA, etc., and in SCCA as well.

Stan
 
...the verbiage in the GCR needs to be fixed.[/b]
Click to expand...
Most members believe that is a given.

And with all due respect to Greg's protestations to the contrary, it is not just a few folks on the west coast. The number of releases required to get a driver clear of the seat belt and shoulder harness is the hang-up in FIA, NASCAR, ARCA, etc., and in SCCA as well.

Stan
[/b]
Click to expand...
I can't speak for ARCA (nor the other 198 US sanctioning bodies), but single release is not the issue in FIA or NASCAR as there are at least three other SFI 38.1 "certified" products that are not allowed in those series. In fact, IIRC, the same holds for 36 of 40 domestic sanctioning bodies.

SFI just doesn't matter. You can count on one hand the number of Clubs that use 38.1, and none of them are large.
 
2. A separate requirement defining minimum egress time requirements - since it seems like this is an issue that we care about. The number of releases (or whatever) is an weak-at-best indirect measure of the time required to get the hell out of a crashed car. Since it is the latter that we care about, rather than the former, the policy should act directly on the desired intention of the rule. Add an item to the GCR that requires that drivers demonstrate, at the request of the appropriate officials, that they can get all the way out of their car with all of their accoutrements in place. If they want to handcuff themselves to the wheel, that's their own how-do-you-do, as long as they can get out in XX seconds.
[/b]
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying here, but I think you're missing something. Maybe it's a 3rd item. If you are unconscious in your burning car, how long it takes YOU to get out of your own car is irrelevant, as you won't even be trying. But YOU are the only one who knows all of the ways in which you are tethered to the car. The workers will not know.

So, you have to look at this from a worker's point of view, and this is where the single point of release rule probably comes. The worker will approach the car, release the net (because it's in his way), and THEN try to release the driver from the car. It is here that a single point of release is important. I'd argue that the drink tubes, radio cords, etc, are red herrings. Those are designed (maybe there should be a separate rule) to release just by pulling. As the worker pulls the driver out, those things should disconnect.

But the worker wants one single point of release (after the net), and doesn't want to have to hunt around for other ways that the driver might be attached.
 
Paul, use whatever you care to, but as Kirk stated it's best if the letter is not a copy.

Stan, why dose the SCCA eliminate a H & N safety devise that has approx equal forward load protection & 67% greater lateral load protection? Please don't identify F1, IRL, CHAMP cars, NASCAR, ARCA & other orginizations who depend on the HANS for lateral protection because all of these orginizations have added devises within the car to reduce side loads to the drivers neck. Please don't use the one release rule as an excuse because the one release rule as it's written says NOTHING about the driver. Rules are governed by the written words correct. The rule for my ITA 1st gen rotary motor specifies no porting which neans no porting.................... Or when the SCCA rules makers read the rules do the rules have two sides. One side per the written rule & one side per the intent rule. If you say yes to the two sided rule watch the 1st gen RX-7's start whipping the CRX's.

If the rules makers change the words within the written rule with reference to the one action release I can accecpt the revised rule. & at the same time you will need to get rid of all the other crap that a driver has connected to himself.

David Dewhurst
SCCA 250772
 
SinglePoint.jpg


No comment.
 
...IF the club were to state that we needed to have egress within 15 seconds, and someone were killed within that 15 seconds, say by another car impacting the stopped car in which the driver was in the process of extricating himself from, the club is no doubt fearful that they will be taken to court for setting a standard that killed a driver....
[/b]
Click to expand...
We're not telling them to get out of the car in the first 15 seconds, we're simply telling them that once they decide to exit the vehicle, they have to be able to do so in 15 seconds....
 
Stan,

If my posts have come across as, shall we say, energetic, it's only because we have a concern that the light at the end of the tunnel, as perceived by some sanctioning bodies, may be the headlight of an oncoming train. CRB members such as yourself have a thankless job, and we would hate to see it made worse by premature decisions.

As a member, thank you for your contributions.
 
I understand what you are saying here, but I think you're missing something. Maybe it's a 3rd item. If you are unconscious in your burning car, how long it takes YOU to get out of your own car is irrelevant, as you won't even be trying. But YOU are the only one who knows all of the ways in which you are tethered to the car. The workers will not know.

So, you have to look at this from a worker's point of view, and this is where the single point of release rule probably comes. The worker will approach the car, release the net (because it's in his way), and THEN try to release the driver from the car. It is here that a single point of release is important. I'd argue that the drink tubes, radio cords, etc, are red herrings. Those are designed (maybe there should be a separate rule) to release just by pulling. As the worker pulls the driver out, those things should disconnect.

But the worker wants one single point of release (after the net), and doesn't want to have to hunt around for other ways that the driver might be attached.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Excelent point Josh but I don't agree that all of the extra non-H&N "attachments" are red herrings. Granted your generic radio connection would most likely separate while the driver was heading away from the smoking hulk but I can't imagine how much force would be required to cause the tubes for my cool shirt to separate without using their two integrated releases. Given that those cooling tubes enter the crotch of my suit down in the dark recesses of the seat, I'd say they are much more of a concern than the releases on my Isaac which are in plain sight.

Additionally, while it's nice for us to bask in the fantasy that, should we be knocked unconscious, that brave, out-of breath (from just having run 350 yards carrying a fire extinguisher) corner worker is going to be able to blindly reach into the flames, flick off the belts, and drag that limp body that could out weigh them by as much as 50 to 100 pounds through that tiny window opening (of course having the car on its top with a bottom release net would certainly help). Not meaning to take anything away from us corner workers, but I've never seen any kind of worker selection criteria that took into consideration a person's ability to dead lift your average driver.
 
So, you have to look at this from a worker's point of view, and this is where the single point of release rule probably comes. The worker will approach the car, release the net (because it's in his way), and THEN try to release the driver from the car. It is here that a single point of release is important. I'd argue that the drink tubes, radio cords, etc, are red herrings. Those are designed (maybe there should be a separate rule) to release just by pulling. As the worker pulls the driver out, those things should disconnect.

But the worker wants one single point of release (after the net), and doesn't want to have to hunt around for other ways that the driver might be attached.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Josh, when i first got my Isaac, I, and Greg Amy, who wears a Wright device(?) got together and put on a little "look see" at lunch one day for the workers. I brought my car, we all suited up and demonstrated the systems, and the egress issues. Nearly every worker spent about 10 minute familiarizing themselves with the systems, and all seemed positive. When the methods of release were discussed in the case of an unconscious driver, the consensus was, "Doesnt matter...we cut though those belts in a second." When it counts, they know what to do.
 
When the methods of release were discussed in the case of an unconscious driver, the consensus was, "Doesnt matter...we cut though those belts in a second." When it counts, they know what to do.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Now with everything else I volunteer to do at tracks I only get to spend a weekend or two a year flagging but I have been on both sides of this discussion and can certainly agree. A couple of other points that many people may not be aware of. First, it seems that a least half the flaggers that I have met or worked with are always happy to show how big and how sharp the knife is that they carry with them. :o

Second, everyone has been happy to see and understand any type of additional restraints including the HANS, ISAAC, sternum straps and so. These people take their job seriously and as long as they have access to and the chance to see what they might have to deal with they are comfortable with that.

Finally, everything I have been told or overheard about a situation with fire is that the worker is NOT properly equipped to extract a driver. Concentrate on controlling the fire from a safe distance and wait for the cavalry in nomex, EV. If there is no threat of fire and the driver is unconscious or unresponsive, again as a worker I'm calling for EV and suggesting FCY. The last thing I am going to do is try and move the driver or release his belts. So as I see it the F/C worker issue here as a red herring. As for EV I imagine that they have training and procedures that cover dealing with the HANS (it's not possible to restrict neck movement with the HANS in place?) so similar training can be done for other devices. And at that point I don't think the EMTs should be in such a hurry.
 
No comment.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Well, I have a comment... <_<

Those who argue that "drink tubes, radio cords, etc, are red herrings" are, IMO, just plain wrong. In my mind those items are just as much a factor in driver extraction as ISAAC connectors, perhaps more, which is why I think the language needs brought up to date with the technology. After all, rescue workers have learned to deal with those other items without a second thought, so I doubt that ISAAC connectors are a make-or-break additional factor.

I've already said it, but it bears repeating...we need to clean up the language of the GCR to delineate seat belt/shoulder harness release requirements and separate out and deal clearly with all the other impedimentia which complicates driver extraction. If the BoD has indeed voted no on the SFI question then we are back to square one and now is the time to re-engage on refining the language to permit the ISAAC, if that is what folks want.

Stan
 
Stan, I have to say, that's one of the most succinct and well rounded points of view I have gotten from you folks in the Grand Poobahs seat.

I hope we are at square one, and can try to let the greater good, and logic help guide us to a situation that serves the drivers in a manner that allows them to feel empowered and safe.
 
As a worker, I'll give you my perspective. It's just mine. It may or may not be representative of the way other corner workers feel, but I know several that definitely feel the same way.

If you wreck and I respond, as I approach the car I'm looking for movement of any sort. If you're moving and the car's not burning, I'm going to make you do as much as possible to extract yourself with my help, because you're less likely to hurt you than I am, especially when we're both juiced on adrenaline.

If the car is burning, and you're moving, _anything_ tangles you up for basically any time at all, I'm going to cut or break it if I can. If the car is burning and you're not moving, anything I can't figure out in exactly 0.001 seconds how to disconnect, I'm cutting or breaking. I am getting your ass out of there, and doing my damndest not to burn myself up in the process.
 
...we need to clean up the language of the GCR to delineate seat belt/shoulder harness release requirements and separate out and deal clearly with all the other impedimentia which complicates driver extraction. If the BoD has indeed voted no on the SFI question then we are back to square one and now is the time to re-engage on refining the language to permit the ISAAC, if that is what folks want. [/b]
Click to expand...
That sums things up perfectly, Stan - thanks for being the voice putting our safety before other considerations.

However, I'd remind everyone that this is not just about the Isaac - it's just the poster child for what is currently wrong with the system. Whatever decisions get made need to leave room for future technologies that might make their way into this arena, that might make H&N systems even more effective, or to allow new safety innovations that interact with these or other systems. A new regulation that says, "this, this, and this design are all OK" comes up short if it prevents innovation down the road.

K
 
And don't forget to add "and not decided by those who have a financial interest in the spec that is written"

I could have sworn I suggested that we try to get the rule in the GCR changed 5 pages ago!!

Everyone who has posted...I personally have learned volumes from this one thread. I'm with Jake...thank you all for all your expertise and insight. When we get the word (on this round of rulings) we will all have a much clearer picture of what we need to do next to get a clear, sane set of guidelines for OUR OWN SAFETY.

Respectfully,

Mark
 
Doug thanks for doing what you do to keep us safe.

Stan, Thank you. The only thing I've ever wanted is for the SCCA to let ME live by my HNR decision.

R
 
Doug and all the others that have responded from a workers prospective - Thanks!!

As in life, we only see our own side of the story. Hearing what you are thinking will help us help you (does that make sense?).

Good stuff!!
 
As a worker, I'll give you my perspective. It's just mine. It may or may not be representative of the way other corner workers feel, but I know several that definitely feel the same way.

If you wreck and I respond, as I approach the car I'm looking for movement of any sort. If you're moving and the car's not burning, I'm going to make you do as much as possible to extract yourself with my help, because you're less likely to hurt you than I am, especially when we're both juiced on adrenaline.

If the car is burning, and you're moving, _anything_ tangles you up for basically any time at all, I'm going to cut or break it if I can. If the car is burning and you're not moving, anything I can't figure out in exactly 0.001 seconds how to disconnect, I'm cutting or breaking. I am getting your ass out of there, and doing my damndest not to burn myself up in the process.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I'll second this. Having just finished working a vintage event (with one major incident at Road America), my knife was always with me and always sharp. If anything were to tangle while I was responding, it would have been cut before the driver even knew it. The safety team that was on station with us was of the same opinion and, if they had to, would take the roof off the car to get to you.

Harnesses can be replaced. As a worker, I want the driver out of the car and over the wall as fast as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top