HANS... the other shoe's dropped

.

just an FYI

one of our HANS devices was really old... before FIA or SFI stickers

so we sent it back for the $15 recertification, and it was back in our hands
last week, after only a week at HANS, with a newly minted sticker, and a new
head pad (replaced at no charge)

.
 
dickita15 said:
Just got home. Short term is had to do with recertification. Long term to soon to tell.
Click to expand...

If so, it's an asinine decision. It's a farking stupid decision. The only thing they've accomplished is to impose a barrier fee to racers. Whatever legal "protection" they think they were going to get by imposing this rule is GONE and non-existent.

If they don't accept the entire specification, then they have no justification for imposing the stupid rule.

I'm opposed to the rule, but if they are going to impose it, thinking it gives them legal protection, then for damn certain they need to accept the entire standard to get the protection.

This is like claiming you are using protection because you bought a condom but left it sitting on the dresser.
 
jjjanos said:
If so, it's an asinine decision. It's a farking stupid decision. The only thing they've accomplished is to impose a barrier fee to racers. Whatever legal "protection" they think they were going to get by imposing this rule is GONE and non-existent.

If they don't accept the entire specification, then they have no justification for imposing the stupid rule.

I'm opposed to the rule, but if they are going to impose it, thinking it gives them legal protection, then for damn certain they need to accept the entire standard to get the protection.

This is like claiming you are using protection because you bought a condom but left it sitting on the dresser.
Click to expand...

Go easy on Dick. He's on our side and just passing on the info.
 
JLawton said:
Go easy on Dick. He's on our side and just passing on the info.
Click to expand...

Not upset with Dick, but the BoD. This was supposedly done for liability concerns, but if they don't take the standard lock-stock-and-barrel, the assumed liability protection vanishes for those who have a device more than 5 years old.
 
Actually, it vanished for all, since you've now strayed from the all-hallowed "industry-accepted standard".

I appreciate what Dick and some others are trying to do, but the BoD needs to admit it can't meet the burden of this invisible threat AND please the membership at the same time. We've passed the point where more than a few people are going to be happy with any version of a change.

They need to do what SCCA used to do well- SET THE STANDARD, don't stoop to the trend set by others.
 
I realize the logic is difficult from where you all sit at home but this is at least a little good news. Sometimes I think the club would take shit if we delivered puppies and sunshine. There was also some potential good news about possible future changes in the standards setting industry. It’s real early so I cannot talk about it but if I had a non-compliant device I would not throw it away. Won’t help in 2012 but maybe someday things could change.
 
dickita15 said:
I realize the logic is difficult from where you all sit at home but this is at least a little good news. Sometimes I think the club would take shit if we delivered puppies and sunshine.
Click to expand...
The club takes flak because it makes stupid, assinine decisions and then waffles at the last minute. If SCCA was a parent, it would spend an entire NYC-LA drive threatening to turn the car around and never doing it. If SCCA had a chance to get laid and knew it, it would forget to bring the rubbers. If SCCA was an imperial stormtrooper, it would think that these aren't the droids it is looking for.

I repeat, voiding the recertification does 2 things only -- it forces lots of people to buy an SFI device or keeps alot of those without an SFI device at home and it eviscerates whatever legal protection they thought they were getting by adopting the spec.

The justification for imposing this requirement was liability concerns. If they don't require recertification, then there is no justification for the rule. There is no reason to have it at all.
 
Given all the video info on Youtube,etc as regards the lack of lateral protection of the HANS, doesn't that set the SCCA up for lawsuits from injured racers who would have chosen another brand H&N device for that reason?:dead_horse::dead_horse:
 
jjjanos said:
The club takes flak because it makes stupid, assinine decisions and then waffles at the last minute. If SCCA was a parent, it would spend an entire NYC-LA drive threatening to turn the car around and never doing it. If SCCA had a chance to get laid and knew it, it would forget to bring the rubbers. If SCCA was an imperial stormtrooper, it would think that these aren't the droids it is looking for.

I repeat, voiding the recertification does 2 things only -- it forces lots of people to buy an SFI device or keeps alot of those without an SFI device at home and it eviscerates whatever legal protection they thought they were getting by adopting the spec.

The justification for imposing this requirement was liability concerns. If they don't require recertification, then there is no justification for the rule. There is no reason to have it at all.
Click to expand...

Smart people disagree. Thank you for your input.
 
dickita15 said:
Smart people disagree. Thank you for your input.
Click to expand...

The same "smart" people that thought that adopting the rule provided liability protection?


2.7 Effective January 1, 2012, Head and Neck Restraint Systems shall be
inspected for recertification every five years after the date of original
certification. Product inspection, maintenance, and/or replacement procedure
is per individual manufacturer. Inspection must be done by the original
manufacturer only, and not their authorized resellers or dealers. When a unit
is determined by the manufacturer to be acceptable for continued service and
in compliance with the current version of the specification, the original
manufacturer shall place on the product a new SFI 38.1 conformance label
marked with the inspection date.​

Please educate me... if the only thing that protects the club is the use of device meeting SFI 38.1 (the assertion of these smart people) then if someone gets injured using a device that does not meet 38.1, the club is naked, liability wise (automatic conclusion from their assertion). Based on the new 38.1, which requires re-certification every 5 years, a device outside that window no longer meets 38.1, n'cest pas? Thus, SCCA will be allowing people to race in non-38.1 compliant devices and, by their own assertion, SCCA is now open to a liability complaint.

They cannot have it both ways. If 38.1 is the only thing that protects the club, then allowing people to race with non-38.1 compliant stuff leaves the club unprotected. Period, end of story, game over.

You can spin this anyway you would like, but this is a binary. There is no grey area.
 
dickita15 said:
I realize the logic is difficult from where you all sit at home but this is at least a little good news. Sometimes I think the club would take shit if we delivered puppies and sunshine. There was also some potential good news about possible future changes in the standards setting industry. It’s real early so I cannot talk about it but if I had a non-compliant device I would not throw it away. Won’t help in 2012 but maybe someday things could change.
Click to expand...

Hey Dick,

As the op and owner of a R-3 I purchased in 2006, and is SFI stickered to expire next September according to the "new" SFI 38.1, I wanted to thank you for the breathing room from the re-cert spec as they just launched it. Here's to hoping that the Snell foundation gets into performance spec'ing H&N restraints instead of SFI's bussiness spec'ed model.
 
jjjanos said:
The same "smart" people that thought that adopting the rule provided liability protection?

2.7 Effective January 1, 2012, Head and Neck Restraint Systems shall be
inspected for recertification every five years after the date of original
certification. Product inspection, maintenance, and/or replacement procedure
is per individual manufacturer. Inspection must be done by the original
manufacturer only, and not their authorized resellers or dealers. When a unit
is determined by the manufacturer to be acceptable for continued service and
in compliance with the current version of the specification, the original
manufacturer shall place on the product a new SFI 38.1 conformance label
marked with the inspection date.
​
Please educate me... if the only thing that protects the club is the use of device meeting SFI 38.1 (the assertion of these smart people) then if someone gets injured using a device that does not meet 38.1, the club is naked, liability wise (automatic conclusion from their assertion). Based on the new 38.1, which requires re-certification every 5 years, a device outside that window no longer meets 38.1, n'cest pas? Thus, SCCA will be allowing people to race in non-38.1 compliant devices and, by their own assertion, SCCA is now open to a liability complaint.

They cannot have it both ways. If 38.1 is the only thing that protects the club, then allowing people to race with non-38.1 compliant stuff leaves the club unprotected. Period, end of story, game over.

You can spin this anyway you would like, but this is a binary. There is no grey area.
Click to expand...


JJ, obviously you do not understand the meaning of “thank you for your input”. :)
 
dickita15 said:
I realize the logic is difficult from where you all sit at home but this is at least a little good news. Sometimes I think the club would take shit if we delivered puppies and sunshine. There was also some potential good news about possible future changes in the standards setting industry. It’s real early so I cannot talk about it but if I had a non-compliant device I would not throw it away. Won’t help in 2012 but maybe someday things could change.
Click to expand...

I truly hope that you understand that I personally appreciate your willingness to push the issue and to communicate with the membership but I have to tell you - as that guy willing to be here to listen - that if the Club forces me to replace my present, perfectly good, proven device for 2012, THEN goes a different direction a year or so later, I just don't know if I can stand it. It's not even about the money. It's about whether I have any confidence in - or even want to be associated with - the organization anymore.

And while JJ's presentation can be a smidge abrasive, he's abso-freaking-lutely 100% correct. To turn his point around a little, if the Club can disregard the recertification element of 38.1, it can allow non-SFI systems and be in exactly the same place, exposure-wise.

K
 
Our risk management professionals do not agree. Now I am 100 percent with you I wish risk management was ok with not doing the industry standard at all but at this time we are being advised that there is no reason to change our rules to require recertification. Now that may change and we may have to go that way at some time in the future depending on what the rest of the industry does or maybe, just maybe, we can find encourage an industry standard setting authority that actually uses science to set standards.
 
Dick,

I too appreciate your efforts. But as an engineer, i don't think the BOD at large understands the concept of "Industry Standards" any better than they understood the concept of math or charts that showed the performance of what they were mandating....

but at this time we are being advised that there is no reason to change our rules to require recertification.
Click to expand...

as I see it, SCCA will have to change the rules to NOT require recertification. the rules as presented in Fastrack says we have to have equipment that complies with SFI 38.1 (forgetting the few that might double dip with FIA right now for the sake of the discussion...).

If SFI 38.1 has recertification requirements, then SCCA has to accept that too. Otherwise SCCA is not in compliance and the liability still exists.

i am wondering if i need to be monitoring the NASA& BMW forums to see where this is ultimately headed.
 
Wow, did JJJ have one too many bloody marys tonight? LOL.

I am encouraged by the concept of an alternate body for standards than the evil empire.....
the timing, of course, could be better.
 
tom91ita said:
Dick,

I too appreciate your efforts. But as an engineer, i don't think the BOD at large understands the concept of "Industry Standards" any better than they understood the concept of math or charts that showed the performance of what they were mandating....



as I see it, SCCA will have to change the rules to NOT require recertification. the rules as presented in Fastrack says we have to have equipment that complies with SFI 38.1 (forgetting the few that might double dip with FIA right now for the sake of the discussion...).

If SFI 38.1 has recertification requirements, then SCCA has to accept that too. Otherwise SCCA is not in compliance and the liability still exists.

i am wondering if i need to be monitoring the NASA& BMW forums to see where this is ultimately headed.
Click to expand...

Actually Tom you have the wording a little off. Besides precedent has already been set by SCCA and others in the industry. See fire systems, fuel cells, window nets or driver suits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top