August FasTrack is out

Mike, go here for info on the Isaac:
www.isaacdirect.com

Here's a copy of the email I sent to the CRB:

The August Fastrack has the following member advisory:

"Item 1. There seems to be some confusion amongst competitors and Scrutineers
regarding the requirement for all driver restraint devises to be able to be release
by a single action. The Club Racing Board would like to clarify that all safety
devices (including head and neck restraints), per GCR Section 20.4, shall free
the driver from their belts and the car with a single point of release."

I would like a clarification, because this seems to be rule making, not interpretation. GCR 20.4 specifically addresses belts, and nothing else. Before this rule is applied to ALL safety devices (window nets?), it needs to have member input, in order to flesh out all the ramifications.

My real concern is that I use an Isaac device, which has two attachment points. This interpretation would seem to prohibit the use of my Isaac. I understand the desire to have an easy exit from the car, but the Isaac releases are easy to work, and with a little worker training should not be an issue. I would also be willing to put a sticker near the window opening to alert the workers that I am using an Isaac.

Hopefully, an equitable solution can be reached. However, if I can no longer use what I consider to be the superior head and neck restraint device on the market, then I will be forced to seriously consider not racing with SCCA any longer.
 
Originally posted by Tobey:
...The Club Racing Board would like to clarify that all safety devices (including head and neck restraints), per GCR Section 20.4, shall free the driver from their belts and the car with a single point of release.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed the "including head and neck restraints" part the first time. That WOULD clearly include your Isaac system.

However, I agree whole-heartedly. That DOES appear to be rule-making, not interpretation. To support that point, imagine trying to protest someone for 20.4 on the basis of their H&N safety system. Would the Chief Steward/Scrutineer INTERPRET 20.4 (as it is currently written and begins "THE SHOULDER HARNESS [my emphasis] shall be the over-the-shoulder type. There shall be a single release...") to include the H&N system?

In addition, would anyone pony up the protest fee HOPING they will? I sure wouldn't!

(EDIT: typo)

------------------
Mike Spencer
NC Region
ITA/7 RX-7 (almost)
ITS RX-7 (just started)
1990 RX-7 Convertible (street car)

[This message has been edited by Mike Spencer (edited June 23, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by Tobey:
Here's a copy of the email I sent to the CRB: .....
Click to expand...

Tobey, you've got me wound-up on this one. Here's a copy of what I just sent;


Gentlemen -

I would like to respond to an advisory published in the August Fastrack. Specifically,

"Item 1. There seems to be some confusion amongst competitors and Scrutineers
regarding the requirement for all driver restraint devices to be able to be released

by a single action. The Club Racing Board would like to clarify that all safety devices

(including head and neck restraints), per GCR Section 20.4, shall free the driver

from their belts and the car with a single point of release."

As I am sure you are all aware, Section 20 specifically deals with Driver's Restraint System. After reading the entire section several times, I was able to find references to 5-point harnesses, 6-point harnesses, arm restraints, and window nets. Further, the harnesses were individually defined as consisting of lap belts, an over-the-shoulder type of shoulder harness, and anti-submarine strap(s). There are no references to head-and-neck (H&N) restraints anywhere in the section.

I believe that an attempt to include H&N restraints in 20.4 would be wrong for a number of reasons;

1) Rule 20.4 specifically addresses the shoulder harness. While some H&N systems use harnesses, others do not. Those that do are not of the over-the-shoulder type.

2) If you assume that 20.4 DOES include H&N restraints, wouldn't you also have to include H&N restraints in 20.1 and 20.2? If you consistently apply a definition of "shoulder harness" to include H&N restraints, all straps (including the H&N restraints) would be required to be 3 inches wide. I do not believe any of the available systems would then be legal. You would effectively be outlawing all H&N systems in SCCA.

3) The Competition Board is already recommending that "effective 1/1/05, FIA certified 2-inch wide shoulder harnesses be allowed to be used in conjunction with the HANS device" (Nov 21-23 meeting, published February Fastrack). That statement alone clearly separates the HANS device from the "shoulder harness".

4) As the current "advisory" is written, you are very probably making illegal one of the newest, and (arguably) most effective safety devices available to a driver today; The Isaac system. I feel quite certain that the CRB is not intentionally trying to prevent a driver from using quality safety equipment.

Rather than try to pigeon-hole a (relatively) new safety device into the existing rule structure, may I respectfully suggest that it would make much more sense to add a completely new section that deals with Head & Neck Restraints. This would allow them to be defined, as well as controlled.

Thank you for your consideration.

________________________



------------------
Mike Spencer
NC Region
ITA/7 RX-7 (almost)
ITS RX-7 (just started)
1990 RX-7 Convertible (street car)
 
As someone stated in an previous post the window net is another required release action. The door opening is another release action. If this bunch of genius rules writters is so on top of the situation then how come they allow hand held fire extinguisher in IT ? How many actions does that thing take before you can get to the harness action, the window net action & the door action.

Disgusting at best............. Might they be
confused.gif


Have Fun
wink.gif

David
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
As someone stated in an previous post the window net is another required release action. The door opening is another release action. If this bunch of genius rules writters is so on top of the situation then how come they allow hand held fire extinguisher in IT ? How many actions does that thing take before you can get to the harness action, the window net action & the door action.

Disgusting at best............. Might they be
confused.gif


Have Fun
wink.gif

David
Click to expand...

Maybe! But I don't really think it's that bad. Rule 20.4 specifically addresses the shoulder harness. That's it!

Calling a H&N system part of a shoulder harness is a stretch (sorry, no pun intended), but (almost) arguable. I don't think anybody is going to try to say a radio connection, window net or the door falls under the definition of "shoulder harness".

But who knows....
frown.gif


------------------
Mike Spencer
NC Region
ITA/7 RX-7 (almost)
ITS RX-7 (just started)
1990 RX-7 Convertible (street car)
 
Well now. I think I'll just pop into the IT board to see what's shaking. Holy smokes!

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...The Club Racing Board would like to clarify that all safety devices (including head and neck restraints), per GCR Section 20.4, shall free the driver from their belts and the car with a single point of release.</font>
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

It looks like the HANS device is forbidden in SMs and other small, closed-cockpit cars! And if NASCAR adopts this philosophy, it’s bye-bye HANS!

Okay, okay, I’m having a little fun here, but not much. This subject, at least within the SCCA, is screwed up beyond all recognition (Isn’t there an acronym for that?), but people are making a good-faith effort to put things right. It is unfortunate this was mentioned in the FasTrack before the details were worked out. Here is a brief summary of what is going on:

1) SCCA Pro Racing includes the Isaac system in its list of accepted, mandated H&N restraints. It takes the position that the driver needs to demonstrate that they can quickly egress from the car, and does not care how it is done.

2) SCCA Club Racing recognizes that it has created something of a monster by concentrating on the means rather than the ends. They are making a sincere effort to fix it. We're not privy to the internal debate in Topeka, but I suspect the main issue is whether they continue to tweak the GCR as is, or flush all egress-related rules and switch to a Pro-style performance measure.

SCCA Club Racing has contacted us for our input on this subject, and has been very receptive. (See the subject FasTrack, page F-165, center column, item #6.) Without getting into the details, we offered two observations:

1) Getting out of your seat means nothing if you cannot get out of your car. This is not some philosophical position; we are aware of real instances where drivers have been trapped in burning cars by competing products. Had nets not melted or corner workers not been there to put out the fire, these guys would have been vacuumed out of their cars once everything cooled off. We purposely designed the Isaac system so it would be left behind if you have to bail. It’s been an uphill battle, but drivers are slowing coming around to agreeing that <1 second to pop the pins is a small price to pay for a guaranteed exit.

2) Given that tweaking the GCR to accommodate belts, H&N restraints, radio connectors, etc. could be cumbersome, a Pro-like approach to egress may be the best way to go. We are not recommending a specific time limit, but rather that the driver demonstrates that they have practiced rapid egress to the point where it becomes second nature. Jake Gulick does this regularly; I’m sure he could chime in as to whether this approach makes any sense.

Those are the highlights. Other stuff is going on, but it’s more business/politics than safety.

This is a case of safety technology getting ahead of the rules. The rules will eventually come up to speed and I hope it happens soon. Here is the nightmare scenario: Tech bounces Isaac, driver borrows “other product”, driver gets barbequed, SCCA gets sued into the next dimension. No winners there.

Lastly, I’m not sure what to say (except thanks) to those of you who say you will dump the SCCA if you can’t use your Isaac. Wow. You guys are on the A list for Rolex tickets.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
Originally posted by gsbaker:
...SCCA Club Racing has contacted us for our input on this subject, and has been very receptive. (See the subject FasTrack, page F-165, center column, item #6.)...
Click to expand...

Gregg -

Not to rain on your parade, but while you paint a fairly optimistic picture item #6 is listed under "are submitted for information only, or require no further action by the Club Racing Board."

That sounds an awful lot like those "Thank you for your input" responses they publish all the time.

Don't misunderstand. I hope I'm wrong!!
frown.gif


------------------
Mike Spencer
NC Region
ITA/7 RX-7 (almost)
ITS RX-7 (just started)
1990 RX-7 Convertible (street car)
 
Mike,

I hear ya. This could get ugly in the short term, but I have the impression from communications with Topeka that they recognize there is a problem with how some folks are interpreting 20.4--and it is not in the best interest of driver safety.

BTW, could someone post the text of 20.4? It's been forever since I read it, I left my GCR out of town and the replacement isn't here yet.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
Originally posted by gsbaker:
Lastly, I’m not sure what to say (except thanks) to those of you who say you will dump the SCCA if you can’t use your Isaac. Wow. You guys are on the A list for Rolex tickets.
Click to expand...
Well, I have other problems with SCCA that have almost made me quit racing with them. If this rule is truly interpretated so that I can't use my Isaac, it will be the last straw. Let's hope that some intelligent, cordial, reasoned input will change things for the better.
 
Here's the introduction to section 20, followed by 20.4

20. DRIVER’S RESTRAINT SYSTEM
All drivers in SCCA-sanctioned speed events shall utilize either a five or six-point restraint harness meeting the following specifications. Arm restraints are required on all open cars including open Targa tops, sunroofs and T-tops. The restraint system installation is subject to approval of the Chief Technical and Safety Inspector. (Note: SFI requirements for Driver’s Restraint System does not include arm restraints at this time. Window nets need not be dated.)

....

20.4
The shoulder harness shall be the over-the-shoulder type. There shall be a single release common to the seat belt and shoulder harness. When mounting belts and harnesses it is recommended that they be kept as short as reasonably possible to minimize stretch when loaded in an accident.

The shoulder harness shall be mounted behind the driver and supported above a line drawn downward from the shoulder point at an angle of twenty (20) degrees with the horizontal. The seat itself, or anything added only to the seat shall not be considered a suitable guide. Guides must be a part of the roll cage or a part of the car structure.

Only separate shoulder straps are permitted. (“Y”-type shoulder straps are not allowed.) “H”-type configuration is allowed.
 
Originally posted by gsbaker:
BTW, could someone post the text of 20.4? It's been forever since I read it, I left my GCR out of town and the replacement isn't here yet.
Click to expand...

Just to put it in context;

20. DRIVER'S RESTRAINT SYSTEM
(basic definition)

1. A five-point system, recommended for use...

2. A six-point system, recommended for use...

3. The material of all straps shall be Nylon...

4. The shoulder harness shall be the over-the-shoulder type. There shall be a single release common to the seat belt and shoulder harness. When mounting belts and harnesses it is recommended that they be kept as short as reasonably possible to minimize stretch when loaded in an accident. <paragraph> The shoulder harness shall be mounted behind the driver and supported above a line drawn downward from the shoulder point at an angle of twenty (20) degrees with the horizontal. The seat itself, or anything added only to the seat shall not be considered a suitable guide. Guides must be a part of the roll cage or a part of the car structure. <paragraph> Only separate shoulder straps are permitted. (“Y”-type shoulder straps are not allowed.) “H”-type configuration is allowed.

5. The single anti-submarine strap of the five-point system shall be...

6. The double leg straps of the six-point system may be...

7. Each seat (lap) and shoulder belt of the harness (5 or 6 points), shall have an individual mounting point...

8. All driver restraint systems shall meet SFI Specifications 16.1...

9. Harness Threading: Assemble in accordance with manufacturers instructions.



------------------
Mike Spencer
NC Region
ITA/7 RX-7 (almost)
ITS RX-7 (just started)
1990 RX-7 Convertible (street car)
 
Well, if the SCCA rules out the Isaac, I really don't care. I'm going to wear it when I am on track and other drivers/officials can protest me all they want. It's literally my neck on the line!

Now, if NASA would just expand into the Midwest and if I'd get off my butt and check out Midwest Council...

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
 
Originally posted by gsbaker:
BTW, could someone post the text of 20.4? It's been forever since I read it, I left my GCR out of town and the replacement isn't here yet.
Click to expand...

What a hoot. I get home and the new GCR is on my doorstep.

Sure enough, harnesses only.



------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
Guys... I just ordered a new set of harnesses (literelly JUST ordered them) from RacerWholesale... 6-point G-Force with the standard latches for $64.00... You can't tell me that $32.00 a year is going to make or brake your racing budget...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
You can't tell me that $32.00 a year is going to make or brake your racing budget...
Click to expand...
NO... but the $$$ I just plopped down for the Isaac sytem might if it's suddenly a paperweight...

The camels back is definitely starting to show some hairline fractures.

My letter's been sent...



------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it

Izzy's Custom Cages
 
Originally posted by gsbaker:
This subject, at least within the SCCA, is screwed up beyond all recognition (Isn’t there an acronym for that
Click to expand...
Yup, it's called FUBAR...

I won't quit racing with scca if they outlaw my ISSAC, but I certainly won't be happy about it.

At this point I've grown a bit tired of all the questioning, and second guessing on the part of some officials, and some of my fellow competitors. Normally this type of stuff doesn't bother me, but in this case I've got people making comments to my wife about the "supposed" ISSAC shortcomings. She of course doesn't understand all the ins and outs of head restraint systems. But it doesn't help matters when she is standing in impound, and sees that I'm the only driver climbing out with an ISSAC, and everybody else has the hans. Nor does it help matters when she hears random workers/officials making comments about the ISSAC requiring two points of release, vs one on the hans.

At any rate, if it does come to pass that the ISSAC is indeed outlawed, I will sell it and buy a hans device. I prefer the ISSAC for easy of use and comfort. As a practical matter, I don't believe there is much difference in the actual performance characteristics between the two, in the event of a crash. Yeah, I've seen the graphs, the studies, the internet arguments etc.

Wayne
 
I might be wrong about this, but isn't there only one point of release to get you helmet off? That would release the Isaac with one move. Just a technicality. Anyway I think you're on the right track that 20.x doesn't mention H&N anyway.
Have fun & be safe
 
Wayne if it does come to the point that it is "outlawed" by the SCCA. Let me know how much you want for your device. I'll buy it and take a friend with me to NASA.

Now that I've said that, I don't believe SCCA will outlaw the device. I am going to give them the benifit of the doubt, perhaps this reaction is just an unintended consequence of them trying to clarify the wording of the rule. Not a direct attempt to outlaw the ISAAC. If it was an issue of lobbying/politcs than I assure you that neither the SCCA or HANS will be in my future.

--Daryl DeArman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top