Hans or Isaac?

Thanks Gregg. Let me know if this question is out of bounds. So are you anticipating that SFI won't certify the Isaac or have you already submitted and been rejected?[/b]
Click to expand...
We have been told by SFI that our design is not "certifiable", so we have not submitted it.

Oh, I did send the following letter to the CRB:...[/b]
Click to expand...
Good letter. Thank you. We greatly appreciate it.
 
Great letter Scott however you plagarized parts of my letter without permission.....(lol)!! :018: :D

Thanks for the compliment....and let's keep up the good work on this.

ISAAC users of the world unite!!

R
 
First I want to premise by saying I would support language to this effect.
"The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by their manufacturer to meet or exceed the minimum performance requirements of SFI Specification 38.1."[/b]
Click to expand...
I think it is highly likely that there are licensing issues with manufacturers making that representation without actually having the license to do so:

1.3 Use of the "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1" logo/designation, the authorized artwork style, or conventional lettering by a manufacturer, on a subject product, is intended only to indicate that the manufacturer of the product has represented that they have submitted the product to the recommended tests, with positive results, in compliance with the standards established herein.[/b]
Click to expand...

10.0 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Upon demonstration of successful compliance with all the requirements of the specification and the self-certification program and upon entering the licensing agreement with SFI, the manufacturer may advertise, present and offer the Head and Neck Restraint System for sale with the representation that their product meets the SFI Specification 38.1.[/b]
Click to expand...

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...

I suspect the text of the logo is part of the subject of what I am sure is a registered trademark. This is all extremely problematic for a manufacturer to make the representation in the proposal you wrote.

"The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. Only head and neck restraint devices that have successfully passed all the impact performance tests of SFI Specification 38.1. may be used."

I know some will say it is semantics - but semantics matter in the arena of law and licensing.

Even then the SCCA as an SFI member may not even be able to provide such a work around as part of their membership.

I think efforts to correct 38.1 would be better served if the rule is going to make any reference to it all.





Great letter Scott however you plagarized parts of my letter without permission.....(lol)!! :018: :D
[/b]
Click to expand...
Falls under fair use, tough! :P
 
Great letter Scott however you plagarized parts of my letter without permission.....(lol)!! :018: :D
Thanks for the compliment....and let's keep up the good work on this.
R
[/b]
Click to expand...

Hey Doc, I used your original letter as a basis for mine as well. Different words, but easily comparable. :024:
I copied the Insurance and Medical folks as well as an Executive Steward. Got good feedback from the Stew who was in complete agreement. This needs to be fixed.
 
It's important to keep in mind that there have been many personnel changes within the SCCA recently, and we suspect that some of what prompted the FasTrack piece is poor communication. The subject has been discussed and a general direction was coming together, but with new folks in new places there is some rebooting going on, so to speak. Anyone who has worked in a large organization knows that getting everyone on the same page telling the same story can be challenging.

Decision makers in the SCCA, and other bodies, "get it". They know what is happening and they want to do the right thing by the members while keeping their insurance carriers happy. One problem is that home-made H&N restraints are showing up at the track, and the Club fears that the use of an untested design could be dangerous. So please, don't duct tape your helmet to the roll cage. It just make matters worse.

It's not as bad as it looks, although I must admit the continuous stream of announcements inconsistent with the GCR looks stunningly messy.

We want to thank everyone for the letters they have written to the Club. Please keep them upbeat; they have a difficult job.
 
Even then the SCCA as an SFI member may not even be able to provide such a work around as part of their membership.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Is the SCCA a member of SFI? As a non-manufacturer, I would imagine not.
 
Is the SCCA a member of SFI? As a non-manufacturer, I would imagine not.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Yes the SCCA is a member sanctioning body. I think you have to be in order to use their standard in the sanctioning body rules.

http://www.sfifoundation.com/sancbody.html

The following sanctioning bodies are members of the SFI Foundation, Inc. Each organization listed here utilizes SFI Specifications within its rulebook. In addition to setting minimum performance standards for the industry, SFI also provides a technical and chassis inspector certification program that is used by some of the organizations.[/b]
Click to expand...
 
We have been told by SFI that our design is not "certifiable", so we have not submitted it.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Interesting choice of words as a response from a group (SFI) that may very well be "certifiable" in there own right! :119:



edit=clarity
 
Good discussion.

Going all the way back to the original post, I chose the Isaac. I felt it offered the most comprehensive protection in the widest range of possible incidents.

If I were purchasing today I would choose a HANS, since rightly or wrongly, it is the only 'high performance' H&N device that I expect to be legal next year.

I really do hope that there is a solution available for current Isaac users by mid year.
 
Good discussion.


I really do hope that there is a solution available for current Isaac users by mid year.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Retro fit the HANS with the ISAAC viscoelastic dampers instead of the webbing......hhmmm Greg, collaborative effort?

Dibs on the royalties!!

R
 
Pleeze excuse me for saying this, but I don't understand the term used for the SCCA as "They"...I thought "We" are the SCCA.......or do we pay dues for the bennefit of "THEM"......off subject I guess, but while keeping up on this post I keep feeling it is us against them...

David
cool but sunny Fla. today
 
If this gets approved codified in the GCR, I want to see race officials make people remove their ISSAC. They have no idea how ugly this will get.
 
Pleeze excuse me for saying this, but I don't understand the term used for the SCCA as "They"...I thought "We" are the SCCA.......or do we pay dues for the bennefit of "THEM"......off subject I guess, but while keeping up on this post I keep feeling it is us against them...

David
cool but sunny Fla. today
[/b]
Click to expand...
Perhaps there are days when some aren't feeling the included and represented feelings of club membership based on leadership or rule making actions.

The realities of a club this size which is often more a deifinition and representation of a finite leadership group can easily result in a member (particularly one that is of a perceived minority or unrepresented view) at any given time utilizing correctly or not the exclusive 'they' rather than the inclusive 'we' in terms of the club.

Only an observation, not a conclusion or judgment.
 
According to a small blurb at the bottom of page 17 in the April SportsCar, there are three devices approved at this time. The HANs and the Hutchens II and R3.
Carl
 
Pleeze excuse me for saying this, but I don't understand the term used for the SCCA as "They"...I thought "We" are the SCCA.......or do we pay dues for the bennefit of "THEM"......off subject I guess, but while keeping up on this post I keep feeling it is us against them...

David
cool but sunny Fla. today
[/b]
Click to expand...

I think it is pretty natural that when someone makes a decision that you did not make, and do not agree with that you refer to the decision makers as 'they', as opposed to 'we' that don't feel it was a wise one.
 
George, WKA ia also a member. ;)

Here is a little bit of news from the May, 2006 Circle Track mag.

Safety Alliance:

Simpson Performance Products is now an authorized distributor and factory trained installer for the HANS Device. The cooperative effort presents a wider platform for the head-and-neck restraint. As part of the effort, the "Simpson Safe Racer Program" will offer extended payment terms for the purchase of a HANS Device.

Extended payment terms is saying a lot.......................
 
Great letter Scott however you plagarized parts of my letter without permission.....(lol)!! :018: :D

Thanks for the compliment....and let's keep up the good work on this.

ISAAC users of the world unite!!

R
[/b]
Click to expand...
ARG Doc!! I almost plagarized the whole thing! Sorry about leaving out the "shout out" and thanks for appending your letter -- it's what prompted me to send mine in.
 
Scott, excellent letter. You can add my name to it if you wish:

Jeff Young
NCR 55
Member No. 304971

David, I run an open ITS car. While I fully agree the Isaac should be allowed, jsut one point of clarification. The arm restraints attach to the cam lock -- basically they are pinned in by one of the belts. They release with a single twist of the camlock harness as well.

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top