Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

This just in from the August FasTrack as a submitted for the BoD for approval.
Keep those cards and letters comming! If this passes, I will save myself some money next year by not renewing my license. :angry:

It simply amazes me that they think nothing is better than something that doesn't have an SFI sticker on it. :018:
[/b]
Click to expand...
So, let me get this straight....as of 11/1 (The ARRC), I put my Isaac on the shelf, and go with nothing?

Hold on phone's ringing.....hey! It's NASA calling??

Sad thing is everyone will now follow the chicken shit SCCA lawyers lead.

THIS is the worst day in the clubs recent history...........

Common sense takes a direct kick to the nuts.

(As an aside, everyones pointing at Joey Hands wild ride. They all say how his SFI device saved him. Really?? How the F%^k does anyone know that?? A wild ride to be sure, but I've seen Sprint car drivers do that every weekend since the begining of time, and be ready to race in the next heat in a backup car...wearing nothing more than a foam collar. So unless somebody has some real data on neck loads IN that crash, I aint listening to the moth flapping masses. On the other hand, it's undeniable that his SFI device had a strong role in trapping him in a car filled with gas and oil.)
 
I really don't think that they think SFI is better. After all the debates I agree its a CYA for a litigation centric society in the US. Common sense is coffee is hot yet people sued over it. common sense is that parents should have their kids at home by a reasonable hour, yet we have curfew laws.
 
I just sent my letter in to the CRB stating that I opposed the proposed change, and that the day I was told I couldn't wear my ISSAC, that would be the day I cancelled my SCCA membership.

And while I understand the litgious (sp?) nature of today's society, all they had to do was say that the stongly recommend the use of a H&N device, and left it at that. It's an optional item, and you let people make their own decisions as to wearing one or not, and which one to use.
 
And another thing...SFI doesn't certify the device, do they?? So the wording essentially eliminates every device...

And.....I should apologise for mis reading the exact wording originally, as I see this is just a repeat of what was published in February, and I thought, at that point, that the SFI part was a recommendation, not a requirement.


I would say that, if this is passed, I will need to give significant consideration to my future in the SCCA.
 
Folks read the hand writting on the wall. The HANS is only a start. The right side net is only a start. The $2,000 seat. The friken HANS provides minimal lateral load reduction therefore the friken lawyers will make sure we are safe in their eyes by forcing WE THE PAYING MEMBERS to buy all kinds of other $hit because the HANS provides minimal lateral support.

Hey, I totaled a ITA car last year & survived with zero after effects including no bruises or red marks wearing no H & N support. The impact was sideways/backwards wher my right side helmet kissed my right shoulder & then the left side helmet bounced off the paded side hoop three times. What the FUNK would the HANS have done for me ? .................NOTHING

I got away with it once but I'll not try for twice. When my new car is complete count me with an ISAAC or GONE from SCCA.

Now that YOU guys have got me really pi$$ed it's time for a letter to every but head within the SCCA who I beleive has something to do with this sorry a$$ed issue. :mad1: I will ask them to state ALL load reduction
specifications for ALL the H & N systems for all SCCA members to view within the SportsCar rag.
 
So, let me get this straight....as of 11/1 (The ARRC), I put my Isaac on the shelf, and go with nothing?

Hold on phone's ringing.....hey! It's NASA calling??

Sad thing is everyone will now follow the chicken shit SCCA lawyers lead.

THIS is the worst day in the clubs recent history...........

Common sense takes a direct kick to the nuts.

(As an aside, everyones pointing at Joey Hands wild ride. They all say how his SFI device saved him. Really?? How the F%^k does anyone know that?? A wild ride to be sure, but I've seen Sprint car drivers do that every weekend since the begining of time, and be ready to race in the next heat in a backup car...wearing nothing more than a foam collar. So unless somebody has some real data on neck loads IN that crash, I aint listening to the moth flapping masses. On the other hand, it's undeniable that his SFI device had a strong role in trapping him in a car filled with gas and oil.)
[/b]
Click to expand...

Unfortunately:

Originally posted by 'NASA 2006 GCR'
IMPORTANT NOTICE: It is expected that use of a head and neck restraint system or device, meeting SFI 38.1 may become mandatory for all road race series as soon as January 1st, 2007.
Click to expand...
Each year they change the year until SCCA does something, then I would expect NASA to follow suit within months if not less.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lateapex911]
And another thing...SFI doesn't certify the device, do they?? So the wording essentially eliminates every device...[/b][/quote]It kinda got blown by but that was the first thing I said when the FasTrack came out with the recommendation. The wording unequivacly would require a H&N device which does not exist at all despite all of us understanding what they meant. When will someone that can write what they mean or mean what they write start working for the CRB?
 
For the most part, I'm going to stay out of this because you guys are on a roll, but Dave has just made a brilliant observation:

...I will ask them to state ALL load reduction specifications for ALL the H & N systems for all SCCA members to view within the SportsCar rag.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Has anyone, including the SCCA, seen any data from SFI--or anyone else for that matter--that demonstrates any SFI "certified" products actually passed the test?
 
I sent my letter of comment against this due to competitve products without approval already purchased.

this thread is like racing, we are now back at the same point in this discussion. I am out, I will await the outcome of the BoD vote before I bother to spend money on my H&N. I already planned on one, and I dont have any die hard ties to any vender. Legal to the rules is all I care about.
 
while I agree with all you guys that choice is good, todays fastrack is just a summary of all the things the CRB has sent to the BOD over the last 6 months to vote on at there August rules meeting.

call or write you director. they will vote on this at there August meeting, (that meeting is usually the first weekend in August)
 
SFI Foundation does not certify anything and explcitly states such in their licensing.

Manufacturers certify their equipment's compliance with an SFI standard. As written SCCA just negated the use of any H&N restraint.

14.0 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS
Testing procedures and/or standards contained in this specification are intended for use only as a guide in determining compliance with the minimum performance requirements as defined herein. 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. SFI, its officers, directors and/or members assume no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for failure or malfunctions of a product under this program.[/b]
Click to expand...

All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by the SFI Foundation and bear the SFI 38.1 label.[/b]
Click to expand...

Buzz, no product is certified BY the SFI.
 
I sent my letter in last week opposing the rule. I will continue to wear my Issac regardless of whether the rule passes or not. If it becomes an issue I will either head to another organization or seriously consider filing a class action lawsuit against SCCA (how's that for litigation). This issue makes me wonder if the people who run this organization have a clue (or are politically motivated by various equipment manufacturers).

As a note for you people who have yet to send a letter. I sent mine to both [email protected] and [email protected]. It appears that both those addresses just go to some administrative mailbox that some dude looks at and then forwards on as he sees fit. I suspect that my e-mail was only forwarded to the CRB and not the BoD based on the reply I recieved. I would suggest sending your e-mail directly to BoD members if you want them to read it. I will be forwarding my original message directly to them.

David
 
Damn, it appears that my fears have come to pass. "Spec Hans" is now a requirement. (this is not a HANS bashing post, for any who might take it that way. The HANS is an excellent product) We all know that a H&N system will become a requrement as soon as the first neck injury happens, and SCCA gets sued.
Greg, if you're reading, I did some research, and I'm certainly interested in your product. Here is where I start asking dumb questions..

What is it going to take to get your product SFI "certified"? I'm sure it is expensive, but is that the only thing that is keeping the ISSAC from getting certified? (I'm not implying that you aren't willing to spend the cash, you are in business to make a profit just like everyone else, just wondering if there are other factors that we aren't aware of) What are the other factors (if you can state them, you won't offend me if you say "None of your business", or "It's way too complicated")

If it is strictly a dollars and cents thing, (again, if I'm getting too much into your business, just say so..no problem, I'm just throwing out ideas here!) how many more guarenteed sales would you need to overcome the $$ problem? No specifics, "a crapload more than we currently have" will suffice.

Quitting the SCCA is really not an option for me, but I 100% agree with the need for viable options to this new rule!
The next letter I'm writing is to the CRB to voice my STRONG opposition to this rule.
To all the posters, keep us all updated as to what you are doing to help stop the madness.

Thanks,
Mark P. Larson
CFR #164010
 
So okay I'm new to SCCA. Second year member. Who is my director and how do I contact him? I searched the SE Division and national web pages but could not find any information concerning elected leaders. I am an Isaac Link user and would like to continue to use it. If someone can point me in the right direction I will add my vote of opposition to the SFI spec.

Chuck
PS: can we get the Isaac FIA approved?
 
Andy,

As I have done before, I didn't express my point well enough. The R-3 is an excellent product as well.
Let me try again, although I'm not sure if this is 100% what I am trying to get across.

The "Spec $1000 (insert product name here) Classes". I would just like to get an answer, from anyone who is involved in the rule making process, how they came to the conclusion that no H&N device is safer for us drivers than having the choice to use a non SFI rated one?
I am not crying "poor pitiful me!", but they have priced a considerable amount of members out of the market, not to mention making all of the drivers that have already invested in other systems now have very expensive canopy tie downs
If it is a legal "we are afraid of being sued over the non SFI rated products" situations, well...I may not like it, but someone officially state that.
People who are considering leaving SCCA, please don't! Lets all contact some people, and see how things came about, and what we can do to work something out. There has got to be some sort of compromise!
Mark
 
I can't speak for Gregg, but I know that there are a few hurdles to getting an SFI spec.

Go here: http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1...ecification.pdf

Basically, they state that to meet their requirements, the device must rest on the shoulders and realease with the release of the belts.

There's more, but it clearly was designed with very specific design parameters and requirements, and I'd be shocked if wasn't done with input from the designers of the HANS.

To me, I think requiring the unit rest on the shoulders and the one release mandateare effective at eliminating other designs, such as the Isaac.

There are perfomance levels that need to be met, with SFI personel in attendance, as well as money paid in exchange for the use of the SFI logo.

I think the list of current products that meet the spec are the HANS, the Hutchens II and the R3.

To me, it would seem that SFI can choose what to or not to approve. I didn't study the spec in great depth, but devices like the Issac appear to be longshots for approval.
 
Can you say "restraint of trade" lawsuit? I know that people in Topeka can! :018: :119: [/b]
Click to expand...

Hubberbucket! (You have to talk with Bill in his own language...) :)

Spec Tires are a restraint.

No Bias plys are a restraint

Certified harnesses are a restraint

Certified helmets are a restraint

...and the list goes on and on. Line are drawn in the sand everywhere in the GCR. This one is no different than saying your M rated helmet isn't good enough. Sure it's better than nothing but it ain't good enough. They drew there line and it sucks it seemingly eliminated a good alternative but it's the line. Where would you draw yours - because one does have to exist.
 
Hubberbucket! (You have to talk with Bill in his own language...)

Spec Tires are a restraint.

No Bias plys are a restraint

Certified harnesses are a restraint

Certified helmets are a restraint

...and the list goes on and on. Line are drawn in the sand everywhere in the GCR. This one is no different than saying your M rated helmet isn't good enough. Sure it's better than nothing but it ain't good enough. They drew there line and it sucks it seemingly eliminated a good alternative but it's the line. Where would you draw yours - because one does have to exist.
[/b]
Click to expand...
It seems vastly different than items 3 & 4 and I am not sure 1 & 2 are in the spirit of the argument. An M rated helmet doesn't meet the minimum standard for a standard piece of equipment. Certified harnesses do not meet a minimum standard for a standard piece of equipment. To disallow a sled tested (and in my case, well crash tested) piece of recommended and voluntary additonal safety equipment is tantamount to disallowing wearing a helmet if it were not a Shoei or Arai.

I cannot help but feel some are being penalized by this rule for taking initiative to make themelves safer. If the SCCA's stance is that I cannot wear an Isaac Device (which I personally have tested in a very profound way and I don't know that the BoD has) and must run nothing or purchase a Hans or R3, that's not remotely akin to dictating the minimum standard helmet or belts I run in the car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top