James the NHIS fatality in BMWCCA as explained to me was most likely an MI not a HNR issue.
R
HANS... the other shoe's dropped
- Thread starter Z3_GoCar
- Start date
James the NHIS fatality in BMWCCA as explained to me was most likely an MI not a HNR issue.
R
i am surprised that they allow open prod cars with a single roll bar.
i know that the front part of the cage is supposed to protect the driver (helmet below "line" between front "dash" bar and main bar.
as i recall, a few years ago there was a NASA Factory Five fatality where the car went off track upside down sideways, etc. and the single roll bar basically went into the dirt and the car ended up on the driver's head. they since allowed the FFives to add a front hoop at the same level as the main hoop.
the front high hoop ruins the appearance of the car imo but i would not race an open top without it.
driver was wearing a HANS iirc.
i know that the front part of the cage is supposed to protect the driver (helmet below "line" between front "dash" bar and main bar.
as i recall, a few years ago there was a NASA Factory Five fatality where the car went off track upside down sideways, etc. and the single roll bar basically went into the dirt and the car ended up on the driver's head. they since allowed the FFives to add a front hoop at the same level as the main hoop.
the front high hoop ruins the appearance of the car imo but i would not race an open top without it.
driver was wearing a HANS iirc.
mc-integra111
New member
It's actually Midwestern Council, short for Midwestern Council of Sports Car Clubs. I think it is pretty safe that they will not be requiring them any time soon.
Midwestern Council is not-for-profit.
To anyone that is not happy with the new SCCA rule (has been a rule with NASA), let me extend an invitation to participate in MCSCC events. SCCA regional and national licenses are accepted without club membership. You could also submit your racing background and get a MC license (this would require MC membership).
downingracing
New member
Thank you for the information - I appreciate it. I definately don't know much about MCSCC, but will look into it. Thanks.
Matt Downing
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I'd LOVE to run MW Council. From CT, it's not possible.
Kai, you're a smart guy, but you're missing the back story.
Also, the biggest killer in club racing is our lax medical screening. Most deaths have been because of medical incidents, and, in that we are lucky that they have been limited to the individual suffering the incident. (Not to sound crass). When something like that occurs, it is just luck and timing that the out of control car doesn't shoot down a pit road or someplace where spectators or workers are.
We won't fix the screening issue though, because if we actually DID screen more carefully, we'd lose a lot of drivers, and that would cost $.
But, I can not imagine that bright people who look at what REALLY happens on track, and who's REALLY being killed, can say with a straight face that the HNR rules are going to save more lives. Cuz the facts just don't back that up one bit. AND, when a guy dies from basilar skull fracture, he isn't unconscious behin the wheel of a floored throttle racecar, that could kill others.
I find it unnerving that we have decided to concentrate on an area that has shown little reason to worry, and ignore one that has shown repeated incidents, and incidents where the outcome was 'lucky'.
(this coming from a guy who spent the bucks 7+ years ago to get a great H&NR)
(This isn't to say that we shouldn't do things to keep ourselves safe. But certainly the method and road we've chosen has been unfortunate.)
Kai, you're a smart guy, but you're missing the back story.
Also, the biggest killer in club racing is our lax medical screening. Most deaths have been because of medical incidents, and, in that we are lucky that they have been limited to the individual suffering the incident. (Not to sound crass). When something like that occurs, it is just luck and timing that the out of control car doesn't shoot down a pit road or someplace where spectators or workers are.
We won't fix the screening issue though, because if we actually DID screen more carefully, we'd lose a lot of drivers, and that would cost $.
But, I can not imagine that bright people who look at what REALLY happens on track, and who's REALLY being killed, can say with a straight face that the HNR rules are going to save more lives. Cuz the facts just don't back that up one bit. AND, when a guy dies from basilar skull fracture, he isn't unconscious behin the wheel of a floored throttle racecar, that could kill others.
I find it unnerving that we have decided to concentrate on an area that has shown little reason to worry, and ignore one that has shown repeated incidents, and incidents where the outcome was 'lucky'.
(this coming from a guy who spent the bucks 7+ years ago to get a great H&NR)
(This isn't to say that we shouldn't do things to keep ourselves safe. But certainly the method and road we've chosen has been unfortunate.)
For what its worth, this is what I sent the board.
Terry, I understand that there is a proposal for requiring HANS devices in club racing. I own a device, but I think its excessive for SCCA to require them at the regional level. In 1984, I started club racing in a used showroom stock VW rabbit. The car came with a bolt in cage, fire extinguisher, and belts. It had a stock seat. My total safety investment was $150 for a used drivers suit and helmet, and new nomex underwear and gloves. I then raced that car for 6 years and the only safety investments were a seat, and a new suit. Neither was required by rules.
Were it just the HANS, I wouldn't be writing. What I would like to point out is the drip drip drip of added expenses caused by club racing rules changes. First was the 10 year requirement on helmets, then the requirement of 5 years on belts, then changed door bar rules, changed window net mounting, then seat back support rules, SFI/FIA driver suit rules, kill switch rules, tow hook rules etc. From what I see, with the continuous rules changes and now HANS devices means most new drivers wanting to start racing with a used car should be expecting to spend nearly $2000 just for car updates and the gear, belts, helmets and required car changes just to get to the track. That is a pretty steep hurdle to see if they like racing. And for anybody with a regional car in the garage that hasn't been racing for a year or two, a HANS may just be the thing to persuade them to find a new hobby.
I have heard of no compelling story that for races at regional courses, that a HANS devices is required. When I started racing, cost was everything. I don't think things have changed today. Please look at the costs and benefits and then the trends in regional car counts before adding another barrier to growing our sport.
I wasn't sure where to send this, please pass it on to the appropriate committee.
Terry, I understand that there is a proposal for requiring HANS devices in club racing. I own a device, but I think its excessive for SCCA to require them at the regional level. In 1984, I started club racing in a used showroom stock VW rabbit. The car came with a bolt in cage, fire extinguisher, and belts. It had a stock seat. My total safety investment was $150 for a used drivers suit and helmet, and new nomex underwear and gloves. I then raced that car for 6 years and the only safety investments were a seat, and a new suit. Neither was required by rules.
Were it just the HANS, I wouldn't be writing. What I would like to point out is the drip drip drip of added expenses caused by club racing rules changes. First was the 10 year requirement on helmets, then the requirement of 5 years on belts, then changed door bar rules, changed window net mounting, then seat back support rules, SFI/FIA driver suit rules, kill switch rules, tow hook rules etc. From what I see, with the continuous rules changes and now HANS devices means most new drivers wanting to start racing with a used car should be expecting to spend nearly $2000 just for car updates and the gear, belts, helmets and required car changes just to get to the track. That is a pretty steep hurdle to see if they like racing. And for anybody with a regional car in the garage that hasn't been racing for a year or two, a HANS may just be the thing to persuade them to find a new hobby.
I have heard of no compelling story that for races at regional courses, that a HANS devices is required. When I started racing, cost was everything. I don't think things have changed today. Please look at the costs and benefits and then the trends in regional car counts before adding another barrier to growing our sport.
I wasn't sure where to send this, please pass it on to the appropriate committee.
Flyinglizard
New member
We race with these groups, SCCA, NASA, NASCAR, Chumpcar, etc. The faster cars get more respect from the drivers, simple as that.
The TA drivers that go 167 on the back straight @ Sebring have A H&N.
The Super lates that track out @ 80mph 1 in off the wall, have H&N.
The ITB cars that round the T 17 flagger flat down @ 113 dont have H&N.
It seems to be a self regulated deal. The fast cars that can hit the wall @ 125mph seems to have the H&N. No rules, just common sense
If SCCA "recommends" that a H&N be used, the liabilty is done.
If SCCA stipulates which H&N , than they have gained liability.
The short tracks have a lot more hard impacts than SCCA. few require any H&N, most recommend them.
SCCA has no regard to potential crash violence. The ITB cars dont carry the same inertia as the T1 or T2 cars.
Maybe the answer is to base any requirement on terminal V on track.
To put them all together , makes no sense.IMHO
My Son has a Dfender. When it looks like the straps are done, they will get renewed.
Use all the safety stuff you can afford. Pick the best one for you.
More rules just get more people to do something else.
Chumpcar had 3300 drivers last year for a reason.
MM
The TA drivers that go 167 on the back straight @ Sebring have A H&N.
The Super lates that track out @ 80mph 1 in off the wall, have H&N.
The ITB cars that round the T 17 flagger flat down @ 113 dont have H&N.
It seems to be a self regulated deal. The fast cars that can hit the wall @ 125mph seems to have the H&N. No rules, just common sense
If SCCA "recommends" that a H&N be used, the liabilty is done.
If SCCA stipulates which H&N , than they have gained liability.
The short tracks have a lot more hard impacts than SCCA. few require any H&N, most recommend them.
SCCA has no regard to potential crash violence. The ITB cars dont carry the same inertia as the T1 or T2 cars.
Maybe the answer is to base any requirement on terminal V on track.
To put them all together , makes no sense.IMHO
My Son has a Dfender. When it looks like the straps are done, they will get renewed.
Use all the safety stuff you can afford. Pick the best one for you.
More rules just get more people to do something else.
Chumpcar had 3300 drivers last year for a reason.
MM
Marcus Miller
New member
and the PNW club is ICSCC www.icscc.com, or 'conference'.
Its made up of 4 (or 5) clubs in the area, running a common ruleset. They even recognize most if not all GCR classes, as the cars sit. They recognize several NASA classes, and they have additonal conference specific classes. I was surprised when I reviewed thier points standings, and race results to see they draw a large number of racers. They have larger fields than SCCA in this area.
The member club I'm joining cascades sports car club has been around since 1956. Certainly not newbies to the game.
I also ponied up 5 years ago, and bought a HANS; it was an uneducated purchase, from the perpective that I didn't know about/ think about side impacts. If I knew then I should have added a winged head restraint seat, I would have looked elsewhere.
Marcus formerly member #344609
i wonder if any thought was given to potential "retrospective" liability.
for instance, if the club adopted this policy because of fatal injuries to driver "X" at track "Y" then could the family of driver "X" sue under the grounds that if SCCA had had been following 'industry standards' then said driver would have survived?
for instance, if the club adopted this policy because of fatal injuries to driver "X" at track "Y" then could the family of driver "X" sue under the grounds that if SCCA had had been following 'industry standards' then said driver would have survived?
mc-integra111
New member
At the event this year it was about 50/50. The event was also run under SCCA safety rules.
IF the event would be run in the same format, SCCA safety (i.e. HNR) rules would be in effect. The good news is that I place an emphasis on IF, because I (unofficially) highly doubt the event will be undetaken in the same manner as last year.
Z3_GoCar
New member
Thanks for pointing that out Rob, I did not know that. As for the Spec Cobra fatality, I talked with a F&C worker that was there that day. It's the same track that I rolled the Z3 at, and the dirt is a fine silty soft and usually very dry. Dropped wheels will form a cloud of dust that hangs around for several laps. Let's just say his passing was quick, and very irreversable.
darthmonkeyIT
New member
From a conceptual stand point regarding overall speed relative to the need for a H&R; Overall speed has little to do with it. Its about how fast the deceleration is.
Sure overall speed plays into how violent the incident is but if you are going 40 and hit another car you probably will feel little to nothing since both objects will move. If you are doing 40 and hit a stiff unprotected concrete wall the car (and your harnessed body) will stop in practially an instant leaving your head to be the forward moving object.
Sure overall speed plays into how violent the incident is but if you are going 40 and hit another car you probably will feel little to nothing since both objects will move. If you are doing 40 and hit a stiff unprotected concrete wall the car (and your harnessed body) will stop in practially an instant leaving your head to be the forward moving object.
Don't go fast enough to need a H&N restraint. Bologna!
Simple story. 30 MPH in a car. Head on, straight into a concrete barrier. Where would you rather be? You're brand new whatever with 14 airbags? Or you racecar with an FIA seat, 6 point belts, a helmet, and no H&N restraint?
It's an easy fact based answer. You DON'T want to be in the racecar. Test data exists to prove it. 30 MPH! If you wish, think of the H&N restraint as a helmet restraint. At the deceleration rates in even a 30 MPH sudden stop the extra weight of the helmet is a killer.
Risk is a whole different story. Please don't confuse it with the facts and physics.
Simple story. 30 MPH in a car. Head on, straight into a concrete barrier. Where would you rather be? You're brand new whatever with 14 airbags? Or you racecar with an FIA seat, 6 point belts, a helmet, and no H&N restraint?
It's an easy fact based answer. You DON'T want to be in the racecar. Test data exists to prove it. 30 MPH! If you wish, think of the H&N restraint as a helmet restraint. At the deceleration rates in even a 30 MPH sudden stop the extra weight of the helmet is a killer.
Risk is a whole different story. Please don't confuse it with the facts and physics.
Last edited:
It is beyond question that in a collision (only) having a H&N restraint is better than not having one. Where it gets fuzzy is whether the H&N reduces the overall risk of injury/death (decrease in collision only, but increased risk for fire and especially for fire if upside down).
It is also beyond question that in a collision (only) having the airbags is better than not having them.
SCCA requires airbags to be disarmed do they not?
Think of the liability involved in that... Attorney for the plantiff - "You required these drivers to disable a safety device, thus increasing the risk of injury and death?"
AFAIK, the only succesful safety equipment-related lawsuit lost by SCCA dealt with SCCA prohibiting racing seats in SS. I'm remembering this 3rd hand and from several years ago, so parts or all of it could be in error.
The car went into a roval wall backwards, the seat collapsed and the driver never walked again. He won his lawsuit (which also included the requirement that SCCA allow racing seats in SS cars.) That driver, who I believe is now deceased, also was very involved in designing a H&N restraint system and, I believe, fund raising for testing the device was done on this site.
It is also beyond question that in a collision (only) having the airbags is better than not having them.
SCCA requires airbags to be disarmed do they not?
Think of the liability involved in that... Attorney for the plantiff - "You required these drivers to disable a safety device, thus increasing the risk of injury and death?"
AFAIK, the only succesful safety equipment-related lawsuit lost by SCCA dealt with SCCA prohibiting racing seats in SS. I'm remembering this 3rd hand and from several years ago, so parts or all of it could be in error.
The car went into a roval wall backwards, the seat collapsed and the driver never walked again. He won his lawsuit (which also included the requirement that SCCA allow racing seats in SS cars.) That driver, who I believe is now deceased, also was very involved in designing a H&N restraint system and, I believe, fund raising for testing the device was done on this site.
Marcus Miller
New member
+1 gimme the pillow, thanks.
This shouldn't be a hnr v no hnr discussion. It's why SFi v fia+SFi v no requirement we need to focus on.
Marcus Miller
New member
pants, I don't (didn't) know about the law suit, but the rest as I remember it (I believe) is correct. RIP, sir.
M.
Thought it might be interesting to see what some other countries are doing re: H&N devices. It appears that Ireland only requires them for upper level FIA and Rally events. The only mention(of course) is a HANS.
http://www.motorsportireland.com/UsefulInfo/safety.aspx
http://www.motorsportireland.com/UsefulInfo/safety.aspx
Last edited: