Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

[gprodracer]

Andy,

Excellent, and intelligent replies as usual. Here are some not so intelligent responses, but help us all out with them please.
Spec tires, a restraint, but voted on by the members.
No bias ply tires, a restraint, but voted on by the members of the affected classes.
Certified harnesses, a restraint, but the option of no harnesses at all, is not allowed, period. You either have the restraints that are allowed, or you are not allowed to race..period.
Certified helmets, you must wear the certified helmet, but the option of wearing no helmet, or any other helmet is not allowed, and you do not race.
Head and neck restraints. You are STRONGLY recommended to wear one (but not required to).
If you do wear it, it must be brand X,Y, or Z ONLY. All other brands, even though they have proven to be effective in preventing head and neck injuries, are now ILLEGAL according to the new rule, and you are not allowed to race. WTF???
I realize that H&N systems will probably become manditory in the future, but why are the ones that are not brands X,Y,and Z the only ones that are allowed now? To me, some protection is much better than none at all, and this new rule is outlawing systems that have proven test results that they provide excellent protection, but haven't recieved SFI certification yet. I would prefer to drive my street car with seat belts that don't meet the SFI specs than be told that I can only drive my car with SFI belts, or drive with no seatbelts at all.
Am I making any sense at all?
Help us all out here please!
Thanks,
Mark

 

[pgipson]

This is my e-mail to the CRB (and my BoD member, my Re and another BoD member I know very well)

Item 18 on page F-6 of the August 2006 Fast Track (reproduced below) appears to be in error in at least 2 ways.


Item 18. Effective 11/1/06: Add new section 11 to section 20 as follows:
11. Head and Neck Restraint
The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck
restraint devices must be certified by the SFI Foundation and bear the SFI 38.1 label.

First, the section only recommends the use of a Head & Neck restraint system. Since a system is not required, the competitor is free to either choose to use a system or not, depending on their own personal preference. This is the only item of safety equipment that is afforded such treatment. I think that either a positive declaration is required (shall use) or the GCR should be silent on the issue. The approach my club has taken is neither “fish nor fowl” and is not appropriate. My personal opinion is that the GCR should be silent on this subject.

Second, the requirement that any Head & Neck restraint system used must be certified by the SFI is a fallacy since the SFI does not certify that products meet specifications. SFI develops and administers the specifications. Manufacturers self-certify compliance of their products to the appropriate specifications. SFI is not a testing house and does not issue “certifications” of products. This is obvious in reading paragraph 1.2 of SFI 38.1

“ … Certification that products meet such minimum standards is made by the product manufacturer and products are not certified, endorsed or approved by SFI under this program. …”


As you can see, the proposal as written would eliminate the use of all available Head & Neck restraint systems since none are certified by SFI to meet 38.1. The manufacturers of each system that bears the SFI 38.1 label have certified to SFI that their products are in compliance.

Since the intent seems to be to keep the use of Head & Neck restraints optional and still educate the driver community to the perceived benefits of such devices, perhaps better wording for Item 18 might be:


Item 18. Effective 11/1/06: Add new section 11 to section 20 as follows:
11. Head and Neck Restraint
The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by the manufacturer to meet the impact performance requirements published in SFI Foundation specification 38.1 dated 25 October 2004.

Thanks for your time and consideration of these thoughts.

Sincerely

Paul Gipson
AZ Region SCCA
Member # 131424
Spec RX7 # 11[/b]

 

[Bill Miller]

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]

While I understand your position Andy, I don't think it applies. As of now, it's an optional piece of equipment, I'm not sure a line does have to be drawn. And while lines do get drawn, there's a track record of drawing them in the wrong place.

 

[shwah]

As I said in page 1, I expect to be purchasing a HANS in the next year or two.

When these conversations come up, the good folks who brought us the ISAAC always say to wait and see. That part of the process is just about done. The next step will be call and order. The shame is that every time I have seen the question asked about what could, or is being done to meet the specification with ISAAC, those same folks go dead silent.

Putting our head in the sand won't change where we end up. I certainly don't think it is an ideal place, but overall the collective racer's necks will be safer. Individually those of us that chose to protect ourselves too soon with the wrong product (you know, the one that approaches the root of the problem by controlling accelleration rather than position, and providing good side load protection) will loose a bit of safety and a sizeable chunk of cash.

I figure I will try to sell my ISAAC to a 'track day' guy when the time comes. The shame is that I just glued ISAAC mounts to my SA2005 helment for this season, and may have to replace that too.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

You guys all make good points. My of-the-cuff comments were aimed at Bill's 'restraint' of trade issue. I don't think that applies. There are plenty of things we can't buy in SCCA.

Having said that, H&N stuff is getting more common. People are using it with great results. Let me pose an extreme - and stupid example.

I rig up a home-made H&N system. It's made up of a an extra seat-back-brace bracket that I rest my helmet on and have my crew guy duct tape my helmet to. This piece of flat steel is what is attached to my noggin.

The point is that this is the most rediculous attempt at a H&N system. Is it better than nothing? Nope. So these things seemingly need to be policed. How do we do it? Lord knows we don't need individual local interpretation on these things so some sort of standard needs to be applied.

That standard is the SFI rating. Yes it sucks for users of excellent equipment that isn't SFI rated, but to me it isn't as backward as some people make it out to be.

 

[RSTPerformance]

sorry if this has been asked before.... but

What/who makes or sets the SFI standard?

Why did someone who set the SFI standard decide that it had to be a single release? (IE where did the influence come from?)

Raymond

 

[erlrich]

sorry if this has been asked before.... but

What/who makes or sets the SFI standard?

Why did someone who set the SFI standard decide that it had to be a single release? (IE where did the influence come from?)

Raymond [/b]

Raymond, as I understand it the SFI writes the standards with help from it's participating members, who also happen to be the manufacturers of the safety equipment. This is from SFI's website:

<span style="color:#ff0000">- new product!"

</span></span><span style="color:#330033">So what you have is the companies (some of them) getting together with the standard-writing organization to write the standards for their own products. Now I'm just a dumb accountant, but I do seem to recall hearing a term in some of my auditing courses that seems appropriate here - "conflict of interest".

 

[Eagle7]

Letter sent to my BOD member (requesting a NO vote). Response received was in total agreement.

 

[Knestis]

Ack. I'm way too busy to be able to devote the kind of thinking to this issue that it deserves right now but, at the time SFI 38.1 was written, there was really only one player in the market - the Hans.

There are all kinds of complaints possible here and we are really in a policy hard spot. Among other things, if the Isaac manufacturers compromised a design that their R&D says provides the best noggin control, just to meet the SFI rule, their lawyers could fairly become VERY worried about liability exposure. Picture the plaintiff's lawyer:

"So, Mr. Baker - am I to understand that you knowingly sold a head and neck support system that did NOT peform in your tests, as well as your original system? That you willfully put Mr. Jones' neck on the line by marketing 'safety equipment' that you KNOW wouldn't protect him to the full extent possible?"

For its part, SCCA needs the liability coverage afforded by SFI. SFI LOVES that whole deal because it generates revenues from us racers (indirectly) through the manufacturers. We are forced, in essence, to patronize them. The manufacturers generally think the deal is OK because they just pass the costs on to us, and they get to indemnify themselves by adhering to "industry standards."

The people who get dicked on this deal are the end users, because we are collectively too damned lazy to make our own smart decisions regarding safety equipment, and take responsibility for getting hurt if worst comes to worst. If ALL racing safety stuff were optional AND we (and our estates) would quit being so litigious, we wouldn't be here. But we are.

The only real solutions to the impass are...

** Convince SFI to do away with the misguided "single point of release" standard. If time of egress is really the issue, sanctioning bodies should make it a performance test for all drivers (like FIA does for F1 cars), in their unique cars, with their unique physiques and all of the crap they hook to themselves. They are not likely to do this, I don't think for the bizarre reason that by enforcing their own standard, they take on more liability than they would by not having ANY egress standard. Picture that courtroom again - "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the plaintiff is is going to prove to you today that the Sports Car Club of America let my client's husband burn to death, by specifying an emergency egress standard, that HE MET during technical inspection, but that did not save his life in an actual fire situation..."

** Convince Isaac to build a system that meets that requirement. I can understand how they'd be equally reluctant to do that (see above).

** Convince SCCA to allow any system that meet the actual head-and-neck protection performance standards of the SFI rule. This might work...

Like others, I'm going to continue to use my non-SFI system next year because test data suggests that it provides me with the best protection in MY situation, in MY car. I hope that the stewards at races I attend will understand that by telling me to remove it, they make my day in court (or my surviror's) even easier than the cases described above. Or I invoke the "driver comfort" clause of the ITCS.

K

 

[RSTPerformance]

Raymond, as I understand it the SFI writes the standards with help from it's participating members, who also happen to be the manufacturers of the safety equipment. This is from SFI's website:

<span style="color:#ff0000">- new product!"

</span></span><span style="color:#330033">So what you have is the companies (some of them) getting together with the standard-writing organization to write the standards for their own products. Now I'm just a dumb accountant, but I do seem to recall hearing a term in some of my auditing courses that seems appropriate here - "conflict of interest".
[/b]

Greg (Isaac)-

Can you add to this? If the SFI specs are created by the members of "SFI" then why are you and/or someone from the company a member? I would think that if you were a member you might be able to get things changed and could have prevented what is happaning (A good product being "outlawed").

I agree that SCCA NEEDS to have a "line drawn" as Andy points out. I would also think that with the line drawn exceptions can be written into the rule when a proven company presents itself to SCCA. We see this in the GCR now... An example would be "certified" Driving Schools.

Raymond

 

[cherokee]

Do other racing orgs. have to abide by the SFI deal, what about the folks in europe, is there a FIA spec for H&N? I would think that there would be. Are there any others then SFI and FIA?

Perhaps if it said that it had to meet SFI or FIA or whatever specs it would be ok. That should keep the example that Andy talked about above from being an issue and only good products that did testing would be ok.

I am not happy about it, but if that is what it takes I will do it, and I would think that NASA or whoever will be right behind. People are sue happy look at the story about the track day Porsche deal. You know it is only a matter of time before it happens, and they are trying to cover the bases. Just like with the belt rule, they are just trying to be covered when the lawyers get going. Anyone that thinks the lawyers will not get going after John Doe hits the wall and Mrs. Doe trys to sue the pants off the SCCA is living in a dream world, it is going to happen.

I will give them (Topeka) a chance, this rule is not final they tossed it out to get input. I would think they want to know our point of view. I am not up to speed enough to offer much on this, but most think that something is better then nothing as long as it is a quality, tested, something.

 

[gsbaker]

Great observations but lousy timing. I can't do much with this now, but I must say that threads such as this are why this board is so good.

Two quick points:

1. Sanctioning bodies do not like SFI. It's a point of reference but they are not obligated to follow any SFI spec. Judging by their reactions, I (personally) believe SFI has overplayed its hand in that the vast majority of sanctioning bodies (all but BMWCCA, IIRC) have ignored a spec which is nearly two years old--and the more field experience that is collected the worse it looks.

2. We have an SFI design but we refuse to bring it to market just to meet the spec. As with all "certified" designs, it loses the belts. It's less safe, and we are not in the business of making less safe safety products. Asking us to change our designs to become SFI compliant is like asking Ferrari to dump its product line and build a Yugo.

Good stuff.

 

[Daryl DeArman]

Do other racing orgs. have to abide by the SFI deal[/b]

NO. Nobody has to, all organizations that adopt the SFI deal do so voluntarily, probably under advisement by council and their risk management people.

what about the folks in europe, is there a FIA spec for H&N?[/b]

YES there is. 'Amazingly' the FIA spec also dictates design features that exclude everything except the HANS. Interestingly, none of the F1 teams that I am aware of use a HANS like you or I would be able to buy. They modify the HANS design to meet their own requirements and then 'buy' the rights to use the HANS name on the device. That way HANS can say all the F1 drivers use a HANS. One can look at the technical specs for the FIA approved devices and you will see all the F1 team versions approved as different HANS models...wonder why a standard HANS wasn't good enough for them? Perhaps there was an egress issue? Or a can't put my head where I can see issue? Or a the belts might come off issue? Or....

 

[lateapex911]

Some general reactions to points raised:

-Regarding the setting of the standard.

The SFI is the classsic middleman, and have carved themselves a great niche in the system. Their science behind 38.1 was largely based on the studies of the same folks that designed the HANS system. I think history will show that the HANS was designed before the 38.1 standard, so it is no coincidence that the standard in effect madates a HANS, or a HANS clone. It's so obvious, that in my eyes, it's a racket, plain and simple. Confict of interest? You bet.

That standard, in my opinion, is actually HARMFUL to our (the racers ) safety. Why? Because the standard is so limiting, and rigid, and leaves the certification up to the whim of the SFI organization that it is a huge limit on the product category's development. BETTER devices CAN'T be introduced...only those of the same architecture as the standard madates are worth making, because if there is no end market, there is no point in making a better solution.
-
(And yes, I admit that within the restrictive architecture of the SFI spec marginal improvements can be made, but no really significant developments are to be had. It's a system that stifles innovation and large scale safety improvements)

-Regarding lawyers:

In some ways, the "Jury of our peers" is really backfiring, because idiots are awarding large settlemnts that fly in the face of common sense. If the lawyers weren't making money hand over fist in cases like this, we'd have no cases like this.

It is ironic to me, that some moron poured coffe on herself, claimed she had no idea it was hot, and now I need to throw away an arguabley superior product and am forced to choose either nothing, or something inferior.

The dumbing down of our society is really pissing me off.


-Regarding the decision:

The BoD will certainly get a letter from me, and I will discuss it with my local BoD man, Bob Introne. But I fear that the BoD may be forced to adhere to what the clubs councel advises.


-Regarding other club options:

Sadly, the SCCA is seen in this industry as the "Standard setter"...other clubs can, in court, utilze an effective defense if brought on a liability case, of stating that their rules mirrored those of the SCCA. Once SCCA madates the 38.1 or nothing rule, other clubs will follow in record time.


-Regrding the rulebook.

If passed, it's HANS or HANS clone or nothing. But the next step is the dropping of one little word.."Recommended". Then it's HANS or HANS clone or no racing.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

2. We have an SFI design but we refuse to bring it to market just to meet the spec. As with all "certified" designs, it loses the belts. It's less safe, and we are not in the business of making less safe safety products. Asking us to change our designs to become SFI compliant is like asking Ferrari to dump its product line and build a Yugo.
Greg,
Good stuff. [/b]

While I applaud your fundamental stance on your product, I liken it to cage rules. I know nothing about building cages. With only 8 points to work with, there are people who design and build this stuff that provides excellent safety within the rules. If we were allowed 10 points, 12 points, 14 points, I bet even I could design a safer cage - but there are limitations.

Do yourself - and all of us a favor...bring the best product to market you can within the existing guidelines and you will continue to be the man here with the IT guys. When or if the spec evolves, you will either be ready or you can move with it to continue to provide us with top-notch stuff at affordable prices.

AB

 

[m glassburner]

So If I read this right....If I wear my hutchens I device after 11/1/06 I could be disqualified
for trying to protect my own neck ?? Or not wear anything at all ?? That's crazy <_<
Who do I need to contact to let them know how I feel ?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

So If I read this right....If I wear my hutchens I device after 11/1/06 I could be disqualified
for trying to protect my own neck ?? Or not wear anything at all ?? That's crazy <_<
Who do I need to contact to let them know how I feel ? [/b]

The same people you should always contact when you have something you want to weigh in on. The CRB and your local BoD rep.

AB

 

[sgallimo]

While I applaud your fundamental stance on your product, I liken it to cage rules. I know nothing about building cages. With only 8 points to work with, there are people who design and build this stuff that provides excellent safety within the rules. If we were allowed 10 points, 12 points, 14 points, I bet even I could design a safer cage - but there are limitations.

Do yourself - and all of us a favor...bring the best product to market you can within the existing guidelines and you will continue to be the man here with the IT guys. When or if the spec evolves, you will either be ready or you can move with it to continue to provide us with top-notch stuff at affordable prices.

AB
[/b]

So Andy, what do you do when the best product on the market doesn't fit within the guidelines?
The option that you left out is to "fix" the bad guideline....

 

[gsbaker]

...Do yourself - and all of us a favor...bring the best product to market you can within the existing guidelines and you will continue to be the man here with the IT guys. When or if the spec evolves, you will either be ready or you can move with it to continue to provide us with top-notch stuff at affordable prices.

AB
[/b]

Andy,

I understand completely. Clearly, the best solution for all, particularly for Club officials who have a tough job, would be for us to develop an SFI version of the Isaac designs--especially if the concept could be retrofitted for existing Isaac customers. The problem is that we spent the last half of '05 doing just that and were left with the same old SFI design problem: We lose the belts, just like HANS, R3, HII and whatever else qualifies.

Our lawyers do NOT like the idea of detuning the product just so we can make more money, and that's putting it mildly. Kirk's post above was spot on--except he didn't mention the money part.

Plaintiff's counsel: "So, Mr. Baker - am I to understand that you knowingly sold a head and neck support system that did NOT peform in your tests, as well as your original system? That you willfully put Mr. Jones' neck on the line by marketing 'safety equipment' that you KNOW wouldn't protect him to the full extent possible?"

Mr. Baker: "Yeah, everyone and their brother pretty much knows that that design concept sucks, but we sure made a ton of money with it!"

We feel very badly for Isaac users, actual or potential, who are stuck, but the decision has been made.

As far as the SCCA BoD votes goes, I don't really see this as being a difficult decision. The low-risk thing to do is simply not consider the proposal, or vote No. The biannual SAE Motorsports Engineering Conference is coming up in December and I'm sure there will be papers presented on this subject. There is no value in voting in August to implement a rule change effective in November when that rule may look silly at month later.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Plaintiff's counsel: "So, Mr. Baker - am I to understand that you knowingly sold a head and neck support system that did NOT peform in your tests, as well as your original system? That you willfully put Mr. Jones' neck on the line by marketing 'safety equipment' that you KNOW wouldn't protect him to the full extent possible?"

Mr. Baker: [/b]

"No sir, Mr. Counsler. We produce 2 versions of the Issac currently. The first, which the Plaintiff was wearing, meets the highest industry standards for safety to date, and is the miaximum (as it were) required by the sacntioning body he was running with. The second, exceeds all current standards but is currently not certifed for use by said sanctioning body."

So Andy, what do you do when the best product on the market doesn't fit within the guidelines?
The option that you left out is to "fix" the bad guideline.... [/b]

Can't that be said for almost any part on any of our cars?