ShelbyRacer
New member
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
That is certainly different context for both head and restraint. Perhaps that's a new market for SFI. I mean, since they seem to enjoy screwing people...
HANS... the other shoe's dropped
- Thread starter Z3_GoCar
- Start date
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
That is certainly different context for both head and restraint. Perhaps that's a new market for SFI. I mean, since they seem to enjoy screwing people...
the five stages of grief are as follows:
- Denial
- Anger
- Bargaining
- Depression
- Acceptance
i raced without a H&NR waiting for the CRB to make a decision. they decided they were not mandatory. i bought an entry level Isaac. BOD votes and my device is not accepted. i was likely naive and short-sighted to not go SFI or FIA.
now the rules are SFI or FIA are required and must be periodically inspected (maybe). to me the next step past "inspection" will be replacement of webbing/belt material like seat-belts.
and who has the least amount of webbing? HANS.
"The GCR does not specify this requirement."
Is incorrect. The GCR specifies that your device must be certified in accordance with the listed standards. One of those standards requires recertification every 5 years, therefore, to be certified in accordance with that standard, you must get it recertified at that point. If your device only carries the SFI 38.1 label, then according to the last known rule on this, the device must be "certified in accordance with SFI 38.1" If your sticker says your device was certified more than 5 years ago, then your device no longer is certified in accordance with SFI 38.1. Period, end of story. The approved wording did not invalidate the expiration date like it implicitly does on window nets.
As for the legality of the CRB interpretation of the rule -- technically it is meaningless. The CRB does not adjudicate the meaning of the GCR. However, SOMs and the CoA likely will accept this intorturation of the GCR wording since, in theory, the CRB would have asked the BoD what was intended by requiring these devices.
Is incorrect. The GCR specifies that your device must be certified in accordance with the listed standards. One of those standards requires recertification every 5 years, therefore, to be certified in accordance with that standard, you must get it recertified at that point. If your device only carries the SFI 38.1 label, then according to the last known rule on this, the device must be "certified in accordance with SFI 38.1" If your sticker says your device was certified more than 5 years ago, then your device no longer is certified in accordance with SFI 38.1. Period, end of story. The approved wording did not invalidate the expiration date like it implicitly does on window nets.
As for the legality of the CRB interpretation of the rule -- technically it is meaningless. The CRB does not adjudicate the meaning of the GCR. However, SOMs and the CoA likely will accept this intorturation of the GCR wording since, in theory, the CRB would have asked the BoD what was intended by requiring these devices.
It won't be a drive who makes the stink. It will be a tech inspector or a steward who has drunk the H&N kool-aid.
Y'all see the difference in the wording?
John Nesbitt
New member
No matter how hard I rub my eyes, I can't make the image go away.
The horror! The horror!
Trust me, they won't care. All they care about is the sticker.
Yes. The NASA wording simply means it has to have a sticker stuck on it, not that it actually has to be certified. So to the letter of NASA's rules, I can legitimately put a sticker on the ISAAC and be compliant, as far as they're concerned.
See how that works?
GA
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Sure it makes sense! If you are a retailer of the device and stand to make some money off the recerts, or gain some other benefit. And tossing a little extra scare tactic in there for good measure is always a nice touch, something the HANS folks are probably fine with....
Are you doubting the need for drivers to be as safe as possible Dick?? Will more drivers be killed because they got their HANS units recertified needlessly?
Just another brick in the wall........
Tom, Disappointed that you've decided that the minor reason you cite trumps the principal of the whole mess. If it weren't for HANS and their wording of the 38.1 Specification, we'd have the freedom of choice, and we wouldn't be in this disgusting mess.
I certainly won't be putting a dime in the devils pocket.
Maybe I'll go and be a tech inspector next year....
Well... according to the SCCA technical memo, I can do that for SCCA too. I.e. my device doesn't need to meet the technical specification, it only needs a sticker.
See how that works?
Logic "fale".
"Certified in accordance with SFI 38.1" (SCCA) logically differs significantly from "...a head and neck restraint system or device, carrying an SFI 38.1 certification label..." (NASA)
You would truly suck as a scrutineer. And probably piss off a lot of people in the process...
GA
Ahhh, but the memo says that a device does not need to be certified in accordance with SFI 38.1 -- what does SFI 38.1 require? Oh... that pesky 5 year thing.
The GCR language - The use of a head and neck restraint system certified in accordance with SFI 38.1, FIA 8858-2002 or 8858-2010 is required; an SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858-2002 or 8858-2010 label must be properly affixed to the device.
What the memo effectively turns this rule into:
The use of a head and neck restraint system with an SFI 38.1 label properly affixed to the device or a head and neck system certified in accordance with FIA 8858-2002 or 8858-2010 with a FIA 8858-2002 or 8858-2010 label properly affixed to the device is required.
Bump. I'm feeling a bit of being a heel here.
Look, dude, you're right; your logic is unassailable. It makes no sense that the Club is choosing to select only the easier parts of a "standard" against which to judge. And to take a "stance" and yet cherry-pick which part of that stance to support make absolutely no logical sense.
But, you know what? So what.
Seriously...so what?
Do you think the Club is going to lay its Johnson out there, play the "Occupy Topeka" card, and actually try take a moral stand on this SFI stuff? Seriously...? C'mon! You know as well as I that the Club has to toe the line here and pretend that SFI is the Standard Against Which All Safety Devices Are To Be Judged. And when backed against the wall, the hard stuff falls.
My very close friend and compadre Prof Knestis is frustrated because the Club wants to PRETEND that it has standing on this stuff, but doesn't want to take the hard line on it and instead relents on the "easy" parts and waffles on the hard parts, thus can't take the moral high ground. Because if they did take the hard stance we all know the membership would revolt and they'd have to take the even-harder stance of actually having to develop a true standard.
Well, you know what? Shocked. Absolutely shocked, I am.
Everyone likes to thing that this is a moral, ethical, political organization, but when it comes down to it and the veneer is pulled back, the Sports Car Club of America is nothing more than us, a bunch of frustrated Club racers that want to pretend they are something more than an amateur organization running club races on select weekends. In the end, we're all the same, and we have the same goals, with the same fears. To enjoy racing and not get our asses handed to us.
So let's enjoy.
GA
Look, dude, you're right; your logic is unassailable. It makes no sense that the Club is choosing to select only the easier parts of a "standard" against which to judge. And to take a "stance" and yet cherry-pick which part of that stance to support make absolutely no logical sense.
But, you know what? So what.
Seriously...so what?
Do you think the Club is going to lay its Johnson out there, play the "Occupy Topeka" card, and actually try take a moral stand on this SFI stuff? Seriously...? C'mon! You know as well as I that the Club has to toe the line here and pretend that SFI is the Standard Against Which All Safety Devices Are To Be Judged. And when backed against the wall, the hard stuff falls.
My very close friend and compadre Prof Knestis is frustrated because the Club wants to PRETEND that it has standing on this stuff, but doesn't want to take the hard line on it and instead relents on the "easy" parts and waffles on the hard parts, thus can't take the moral high ground. Because if they did take the hard stance we all know the membership would revolt and they'd have to take the even-harder stance of actually having to develop a true standard.
Well, you know what? Shocked. Absolutely shocked, I am.
Everyone likes to thing that this is a moral, ethical, political organization, but when it comes down to it and the veneer is pulled back, the Sports Car Club of America is nothing more than us, a bunch of frustrated Club racers that want to pretend they are something more than an amateur organization running club races on select weekends. In the end, we're all the same, and we have the same goals, with the same fears. To enjoy racing and not get our asses handed to us.
So let's enjoy.
GA
JeffYoung
New member
2 weeks ago I tried on a safety solutions -> simpson hybrid pro. was very comfortable in the car and I generally liked the design. but the chest belts didn't fit me well at all, and had very little in the way of adjustments. tried a large and a medium. (I'm 6'4", 200# with wide shoulders and chest)
wound up settling (and it took a long night and a LOT of bitching) on a hans sport, 20° medium. current sale and a friendly dealer meant the price was fantastic, and the thing fit - can't argue that. It came with the sliding tethers and new, optional quick release helmet latches like DefNder and SS already used so I can get out of the thing in a hurry if needed.
I know I'm less safe than I could have been, and I can't afford a winged seat right now so I'm pretty unhappy about it. I will be trying on the full range of Hybrid sizes at PRI to see if there is an option that works and meets the silly SFI regs. I'm still looking for something that takes the good work started by hubbard downing and expands upon it as the defender, safety solutions, and non SFI (like the Isaac) products have done.
it really upset me to buy what is, long and short, a generally good product from a company that refuses to 1: acknowledge that it could be better, 2: improve upon it in ways that address that acknowledgement, and 3: practices suffocating marketing techniques. I'm now demonstrably safer than I was, and less safe than I could be. it's a weird feeling.
wound up settling (and it took a long night and a LOT of bitching) on a hans sport, 20° medium. current sale and a friendly dealer meant the price was fantastic, and the thing fit - can't argue that. It came with the sliding tethers and new, optional quick release helmet latches like DefNder and SS already used so I can get out of the thing in a hurry if needed.
I know I'm less safe than I could have been, and I can't afford a winged seat right now so I'm pretty unhappy about it. I will be trying on the full range of Hybrid sizes at PRI to see if there is an option that works and meets the silly SFI regs. I'm still looking for something that takes the good work started by hubbard downing and expands upon it as the defender, safety solutions, and non SFI (like the Isaac) products have done.
it really upset me to buy what is, long and short, a generally good product from a company that refuses to 1: acknowledge that it could be better, 2: improve upon it in ways that address that acknowledgement, and 3: practices suffocating marketing techniques. I'm now demonstrably safer than I was, and less safe than I could be. it's a weird feeling.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Now, assuming you're coming from a position of not wearing anything, think how you'd feel if you were making this move after owning something better....
