HANS... the other shoe's dropped

tom91ita said:
as i am no longer an scca member, LeMons is exactly where i am headed next year.
Click to expand...

and as Lemons and Chumpcar grow they will be eventually implementing the same rules. just takes one lawsuit and they will be playing by the same rules.

Welcome to modern day times, where lawsuits create the safety section of every rulebook.
 
Sandro said:
and as Lemons and Chumpcar grow they will be eventually implementing the same rules. just takes one lawsuit and they will be playing by the same rules.

Welcome to modern day times, where lawsuits create the safety section of every rulebook.
Click to expand...

It's interesting to look at who does, and does NOT require this stuff. Most roundy rounds do NOT. Even though these guys have hundreds of horsepower, slack cage rules and big old immovable walls a few feet up the track.
SVRA USED to require 38.1, but, recently REMOVED the requirement. If THAT doesn't open you up to a legal whacking, what will!?)
Midwest Council, and a PNW council/club have not required them.

i'm looking at my car and thinking "How old does it have to be to run vintage?". Sadly a move to an area of sanity isn't possible.

This is just another brick in the wall.
 
mossaidis said:
lemons or chump car series anyone? It's your only option at this point, and maybe EMRA or other local clubs :)
Click to expand...

No thanks. For me it is SCCA or nothing. I will never run with a group/club that is for-profit. I've got my reasons and they are all I need to make that decision.

Matt

(Who has not purchased a device yet and am not sure if/when that will happen...)
 
downingracing said:
No thanks. For me it is SCCA or nothing. I will never run with a group/club that is for-profit. I've got my reasons and they are all I need to make that decision.

Matt

(Who has not purchased a device yet and am not sure if/when that will happen...)
Click to expand...

I have a great device, you can buy it cheeeeep. Slightly used, but it performs better than the almighty HANS. Called an Isaac or something, LOL
 
Just a few thoughts on the subject:

Any way we can take a lesson from how states have come to repeal Motorcycle Helmet Laws?


Wow, this IS a slippery slope!!!

Call me blind, but I didn't see it coming...

Might this be the ammo we need to win the battle to repeal/rephrase the 38.1 requirement? Did the greedy bastards push too far?

Can we organize? Would there be enough people to walk away?

How do they decide when to listen to the membership and when not to?

How do we break SFI?

Maybe I'll just drink the koolaid and get it over with!


K, thanks
 
BTW when does the HANS patent run out? I'm not a patent lawyer, but I was under the impression that most patents are only good for 7 years HANS has been around a lot longer than that, I would expect the patent to expire soon, thus allowing people like Defender room to come back in.

The point of the pantent is to allow the manufacturer to have a decent production run w/o competition thus gaining back their developement costs. But its not forever.

Another question - why do the SFI & FIA Stickers on my 2005 HANS both have "VOID" all over them? That is some trick that HANS played to have the SFI sticker magically read VOID on it two weeks after the need to have it re-inspected every so often gets implemented. I just looked at my HANS and noticed the VOID markings on both stickers.
 
mine also have the low contrast "void" notation all over them

I'm thinking that the "void" word sticks to the HANS
even if you peel the sticker off, so the peeled off
sticker would say "VOID" in high contrast

but I'm not going to try it to make sure! :)
 
the "void" is for if you get in an accident, they are supposed to peel the sticker, leaving the words "void."

Otherwise you could go put it on ebay and someone will be buying a Hans that could be damaged.
 
???? Who is "They"???
How does it get damaged in an incident?? How does anyone KNOW it's been damaged??

There is no HANS police unit at every track with every sanctioning body running around checking hidden G shock units to see if it should be 'voided"...:shrug:
 
Kirk-

I'm not sure that those of us who commented here were "asleep at the switch since 2005."

Many have answered the call and sent letters, only to have the BoD make a decision that flies in the face of both membership feedback and the recommendations of those who govern the affected program (seems like the old days of Comp Board 1 and Comp Board 2...). I think that's why many of us are frustrated to the level that we are- we have followed the procedure, written the paper, and discussed the situation with those who "represent" us, all to no avail. I am simply hoping that this new development, along with pressure from the membership and an obviously divided BoD, might get us the swing votes needed to explore other options...
 
What I can certainly say is that if membership truly cared about these issues, we did a piss poor job at making it well known. I wonder how many letters were actually written? 30? Maybe 50? As Kirk and others are saying, we put ourselves in this position. Infact, I'm just as frustrated with all of the people that complain about this and never took 10 minutes to write to the BOD about it.

Maybe we as the Improved Touring category are more impacted with this due to it being an "entry" class and having lower spending budgets? Not sure if that's actually the case or not.
 
Do you really think that it would have mattered how many letters were written?? I don't,this was a decision that was made at the BOD level for reasons that we may or may not understand, believe, or for that matter buy and right wrong or indifferent we have to abide by in order to continue to play.

I bought a DeFender after I was told that we had not adopted the 5 year recertification plan and I felt that I could at least get 3 to 4 years regardless from a device that was more comfortable and in my opinion better.
 
Harvey said:
Do you really think that it would have mattered how many letters were written?? I don't,this was a decision that was made at the BOD level for reasons that we may or may not understand, believe, or for that matter buy and right wrong or indifferent we have to abide by in order to continue to play.

I bought a DeFender after I was told that we had not adopted the 5 year recertification plan and I felt that I could at least get 3 to 4 years regardless from a device that was more comfortable and in my opinion better.
Click to expand...

I also bought a Defnder. My only concern now is showing up for tech next year and being told my device isn't on the "list" (being current SFI approved 38.1 devices). Then having to try and explain that the SFI sticker is still valid. Not to mention in four years if Defnder does not exist anymore I will not have an OEM to send my unit to to be recertified.

Here's to in four years Defnder still being around or another manufacturer providing a product on par if not better then the Defnder. Cause HANS doesn't fit that bill.

-Sean
 
Except that (many of) you are continuing to miss the point. The issue is not H&N systems. They are pretty well understood to actually protect drivers. The issue is SFI, which now - because it actually affects their own pocketbooks - more drivers are suddenly beginning to understand.

Lots of the letters that were written took the "don't require me to use a device" position. That was not likely to gain any traction given the mechanisms by whick people are hurt and killed in race cars.

When "those ISAAC complainers" raised concerns about SFI's practices, we got told that "given the choice between VHS and Beta, you chose Beta" (truly, I found a quote) or words to that effect. They patted themselves on the back for making the right choice and ignored how SFI works (because THEY were clever enough to pick correctly), but now some of them are - gasp - discovering that it might NOT have just been black helicopters circling.

Yeah - I'm annoyed but now it's directed at the membership as much as, or more than, the decision makers.

K
 
Lots of the letters that were written took the "don't require me to use a device" position.
Click to expand...

I see nothing wrong with that and view it as an easier sell than trying to pioneer another way to define what's considered acceptable and what's not.
 
darthmonkeyIT said:
I also bought a Defnder. My only concern now is showing up for tech next year and being told my device isn't on the "list" (being current SFI approved 38.1 devices). Then having to try and explain that the SFI sticker is still valid. Not to mention in four years if Defnder does not exist anymore I will not have an OEM to send my unit to to be recertified.
Click to expand...

Defnder owner here as well. :shrug:

"Techincally", they should only be looking for an SFI or FIA sticker, not for any specific type/brand of device or working from a "list". We'll see..... :rolleyes: "Currently" the date on the SFI sticker shouldn't matter either, but I feel that's going to change.

darthmonkeyIT said:
Here's to in four years Defnder still being around or another manufacturer providing a product on par if not better then the Defnder. Cause HANS doesn't fit that bill.
Click to expand...
:023: <insert toasting beers icon>
 
I believe my letter said something to the effect of:

If you can't come up with a better specification than SFI, then we shouldn't have a requirement.

My argument all along has been exactly what you're saying Kirk- SFI gives SCCA and other organizations a way to *say* they care about driver safety, while doing (almost) nothing to actually improve it.

I have a rock that keeps tigers away...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top