HANS... the other shoe's dropped

erlrich said:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here written the BoD to ask for an explanation as to why the rule was enacted (i.e., what the rationale was for adoption)?
Click to expand...

I received some direct responses from BoD members to a letter I sent immediately following the escalation in the 38.1 requirements.

Including one from the Chairman, who I believe to be be jjjanos representative. Interesting Mr. jjj feels free to bust Dick's chops after looking out for our best interests, but anyway....

The short answer I got was, as has been posted earlier, legal counsel recommends the SCCA follow "Industry Standards".

There are a bunch of mistatements that have been thrown around here too. Peter Lyon is Risk Management, 'aka' Insurance, and not the outside legal counsel I believe the BoD has been obtaining guidance from.
 
preparedcivic said:
Including one from the Chairman, who I believe to be be jjjanos representative. Interesting Mr. jjj feels free to bust Dick's chops after looking out for our best interests, but anyway....

The short answer I got was, as has been posted earlier, legal counsel recommends the SCCA follow "Industry Standards".
Click to expand...

Sugar, spice, skittles, cupcakes, warm fuzzies, puppy dogs... there is that sufficiently nice?

1. I'm asking questions regarding consistency. Don't tell me we need to do X, and then have the club do not X.
2. We no longer are following industry standards (not X), but we still are being told that we need to do X. I'm sorry, but something smells slightly off in a small scandinavian kingdom.
3. Relaxing the inspection rule helps those who already own these devices. It harms those who would prefer to use the device of their own choice because relaxation makes it less likely that SCCA will drop the 38.1 requirement.
 
I just saw two ads in the new GRM for the Simpson Hybrid that is 38.1 certified. Did i miss this conversation (which is a good possibility) or is this new?
 
Jeff, off topic, but could you send me an e-mail at jeff.youngATus.abb.com?

Have an ITAC question about Saturnalias.

Thanks man.

Jeff
 
Sfi 38.1

wELL, a shoe has dropped, and not the way SFI wanted it to, I think! See Club Racing Memo RM 11-10 which is not requiring a five year reinspection of SFI Certified Head and Neck restraints. :happy204:I received the notice in yesterday's e-mail Hooray for SCCA in thinking about racer's and not SFI!!


JOHN E. FINE
 

Attachments

Means nothing. The SFI rule we have in place was adopted and blessed by lawyers BEFORE the recertification deal. Current rule applies now even though the recertification thing is out there.

Recertification might be required when the NEXT rule gets written and reviewed by lawyers.
 
Opinions may differ. When we adopted 38.1, we adopted the WHOLE standard. SCCA is waffling in ways not consistent with the agreement they have in place with SFI.

K
 
the phrasing sounds a lot like what the BOD over-ruled;

OLD rec about H&NR


The use of a head and neck support system is highly recommended.​
Click to expand...

NEW rec about H&NR recertification


SCCA is recommending, but not requiring, that SFI 38.1 HNR devices be inspected and recertified by the manufacturer every five (5) years as per the SFI requirement.​
Click to expand...

i consider the CRB sending something out as pretty much the same as what the BOD eventually over-ruled with their vote.

i know that some liken this to the window net. however, i consider the window net to be an ancillary safety device. it is secondary to the seatbelts and helmet.

the seatbelts and helmet are both required to be periodically updated/replaced. the H&NR is much closer in purpose and function to the seatbelt than a window net. it has essentially become a primary safety device.

and IF the rumors, legend and folklore about the insurance companies MADE us adopt SFI 38.1, then we need a ruling from them and not a memo from the CRB.

p.s., i have decided to drink the kool-aid and buy a HANS after the new year (device will last longer). why HANS? fewer belts to replace when the re-certification becomes mandatory.

p.p.s. but only if HANS will supply with a FIA sticker as well.
 
tom91ita said:
the phrasing sounds a lot like what the BOD over-ruled;

OLD rec about H&NR



NEW rec about H&NR recertification



i consider the CRB sending something out as pretty much the same as what the BOD eventually over-ruled with their vote.

i know that some liken this to the window net. however, i consider the window net to be an ancillary safety device. it is secondary to the seatbelts and helmet.

the seatbelts and helmet are both required to be periodically updated/replaced. the H&NR is much closer in purpose and function to the seatbelt than a window net. it has essentially become a primary safety device.

and IF the rumors, legend and folklore about the insurance companies MADE us adopt SFI 38.1, then we need a ruling from them and not a memo from the CRB.

p.s., i have decided to drink the kool-aid and buy a HANS after the new year (device will last longer). why HANS? fewer belts to replace when the re-certification becomes mandatory.

p.p.s. but only if HANS will supply with a FIA sticker as well.
Click to expand...

Disappointed that you decided to support the root cause of this mess.....
 
tom91ita said:
p.p.s. but only if HANS will supply with a FIA sticker as well.
Click to expand...

Do you race FIA events Tom? The reason I ask is because utimately this is the SFI response to latest buletin:

"In an email from CDOC

Quote:
Beginning Jan. 1, 2012, Head and [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]Neck[/COLOR][/COLOR] Restraints must be recertified every five years. This means that during 2012, competitors using a HANS Device with a date of original certification in 2006 or earlier must have their device recertified. Those who have a HANS Device with a date of original certification in 2007, must be recertified according to the month on the SFI sticker. For example, a device with an original certification of June 2007 would expire in June 2012.



The procedure outlined by SFI states, in part, "Inspection must be done by the original manufacturer only, and not their authorized resellers or [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]dealers[/COLOR][/COLOR]." Devices passing the inspection will receive a new SFI 38.1 conformance label marked with the inspection date.



HANS [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]Performance[/COLOR][/COLOR] Products will recertify the HANS Device for a $15 fee (shipping not included).



Some devices may need replacement rubber on the legs or may have tethers that are more than five years old and therefore need to be replaced. If these need to be replaced you will be charged for these items at the standard price.



Competitors may use an FIA certified Head and Neck Restraint at an FIA event in the U.S. without meeting the SFI's recertification requirement. But events not on the FIA sporting calendar and held in the U.S. will require an SFI 38.1 sticker for any device 5 years or older.
Tethers for the HANS Device are manufactured from polyester, which gives them a longer span of use when compared to other material such as nylon.

Competitors should inspect their HANS Device and tethers after any impact where the device comes into use. It's likely that the tethers should be replaced.



lol wut"


I don't know any club race that's on the FIA callender, maybe something run under ALMS, but how many here run with them?
 
Knestis said:
Opinions may differ. When we adopted 38.1, we adopted the WHOLE standard. SCCA is waffling in ways not consistent with the agreement they have in place with SFI.

K
Click to expand...

Irony: getting sued over the rule you put in place to avoid getting sued.

something something choose your bedfellows carefully?
 
That is pretty odd, there are interpretations in that I have not seen on anything from SFI. The whole FIA certifications only good at FIA events is ludicrous. Not true and just makes no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top