January Fastrack

lateapex911

lateapex911

Super Moderator
Major headline, for racers:

SFI or FIA Head and neck restraints WILL be required 1.1.2012

To me, this is a major point of disillusionment. To wit: One year ago, the mebers were asked for input on the subject. Overwhelmingly, racers form all points ov view were against such a mandate.

A month ago, we were asked AGAIN for input.

This time, the BoD didn't bother to wait for response. Nor did they respect the members wishes of just a year ago. Why ask for input at all?
here's an outtake from this very Fastrack, regarding the BoDs wishes when it comes to input:

The following subjects will be referred to the Board of Directors for approval. Address all comments, both for and against, to the Club Racing Board. It is the BoD’s policy to withhold voting on a rules change until there has been input from the membership on the presented rules. Member input is suggested and encouraged.
Click to expand...
Well, that paragraph flies in the face of this recent action. And it's an action that will cost racers a LOT of money. Really, if you are a BoD member reading this and voted for the mandate, it doesn't look professional, and that's being nice. While I fully recognize that leaders of an organization must at times make moves that are against the wishes of that organization for the good of the whole, I have yet to see how this is anything but "sky is falling" paranoia. Tell us about the anayisis that was performed to reach this conclusion. What are the injury and fatality statistics in club racing? What input does the insurance carrier have?*

The only good thing...is that the BoD, famous for it's constant "Ok, new rule" penchant, will flip on this one as they have on so many others.

:shrug:

* Let me go on record with wild guesses as to those questions. At the time of the vote, I bet more drivers die of individual health issues (heart attacks) while on course than any other reason. And, I bet we've seen as many fatalities due to injury to those who were wearing some form of protection as those without. I'd also bet that of those deaths, non were basilar skull fracture. (In the past 5 years, lets say, but if records go back further, I'd love to know). I'll also bet that the insurance carrier had no input in the decision, positive or negative. I get the feeling the members consulted Pete Lyons our staff member who negotiates insurance contracts, who probably said it was "a good idea".
 
Last edited:
I would LOVE to have someone explain to me, as an early adopter of a non-SFI H&N system chosen based on his own review of available test performance data, how this mandate makes me SAFER.

I admit that I might have a more personal problem with SFI, having had the "every driver in the US will have to buy SFI suits - it'll be GREAT!" pitch from two Bell Racestar guys at SEMA, back in 1987 or so. I was there with a suit manufacturer I was working with at the time. We'd just left a how-do-you-do meeting with Arnie Kuhns and they were trying to convince us over drinks that it was the wave of the future. Problem is, every benefit that they described had to do with the potential to force racers to buy from SFI member manufacturers. Not a word about making them safer.

K
 
According to Fastrack, the CRB recommended to the Board that IF H&N restraints were mandated, only SFI/FIA approved H&N restraints be allowed. The CRB recommended that H&N restraints be strongly recommended, not mandated. At least that's what I read.
 
I agree with Jake...wait till the first time a driver sues because they had to wear a H&N(didn't wear one before) and was injured! I use a Hans(my choice) and I think that guys in states that don't have a helmet law for motorcycles and chose not to wear one are probably missing an essential truth...but so be it. I don't know how much more or less Ken Payson would have been injured at LRP last summer without a H&N...but make it a driver choice.

Why not have a disclaimer at registration that if you chose not to wear one, you do so at your own peril. Enough big brother.

Perhaps. next the BOd should mandate astronaut type diapers for drivers so that when you piss yourself in an accident, you don't contaminate corner workers....LOL.
 
Last edited:
RacerBill said:
According to Fastrack, the CRB recommended to the Board that IF H&N restraints were mandated, only SFI/FIA approved H&N restraints be allowed. The CRB recommended that H&N restraints be strongly recommended, not mandated. At least that's what I read.
Click to expand...

You're right Bill - apparently it was the Board that decided to adopt the mandate, and by a very narrow margin - 7 to 5 IIRC, with one abstention.
 
I am disturbed by this as well. I thought that the member input was that this should be recommended and not required. It does not give me a good impression of SCCA if they ask for member input and then do the opposite of what the members want. I plan on using the new CRB form to express my point of view.
 
I'm less worried about whether the BoD is doing exactly what "the members" want, and more worried that they aren't really looking at the complex and important questions at hand.

How may of the 7 that voted to support it really knows how SFI works, and what "approval" gets us...?

K
 
I don't know guys. I give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I don't think this has much if anything to do with the Board kowtowing to SFI of their own volition.

It seems to me they are faced with a situation where nearly every major motorsports sanctioning body is requiring a H&N device, and most are requiring it to comply with SFI 38.1 or the FIA standards.

If they failed to follow suit, they would be putting themselves at extreme risk.

Frankly, I think the fact they held out as along as they did shows that they do listen to membership as much as the can.

P.S. Liability issues aside as a former ISAAC owner, I think we should all have the ability to review the options on H&N restraints and make an informed choice -- and live with it. Unfortuantely, that is not the way the world works.
 
I imagine that this has come about because of pro-racings use of SFI H&N restraints for years now. The only real sticking point with SFI, other than their philosopy as mostly a marketing tool, is that the ISSACS will never be included. Then why not petition to have it added, as in " SFI, FIA, and the ISSACS"?
 
Z3_GoCar said:
I imagine that this has come about because of pro-racings use of SFI H&N restraints for years now. The only real sticking point with SFI, other than their philosopy as mostly a marketing tool, is that the ISSACS will never be included. Then why not petition to have it added, as in " SFI, FIA, and the ISSACS"?
Click to expand...

Because, if the SCCA were to that, then THEY would be making the value judgment, and their lawyers are saying that they need to use somebody elses value judgment, or they will be held liable should the grieved widow choose to sue after an unfortunate incident.
 
JeffYoung said:
I don't know guys. I give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I don't think this has much if anything to do with the Board kowtowing to SFI of their own volition.

It seems to me they are faced with a situation where nearly every major motorsports sanctioning body is requiring a H&N device, and most are requiring it to comply with SFI 38.1 or the FIA standards.

If they failed to follow suit, they would be putting themselves at extreme risk.

Frankly, I think the fact they held out as along as they did shows that they do listen to membership as much as the can.

P.S. Liability issues aside as a former ISAAC owner, I think we should all have the ability to review the options on H&N restraints and make an informed choice -- and live with it. Unfortuantely, that is not the way the world works.
Click to expand...

Have you read the SFI 38.1 "standard," Jeff? It can be distilled down to five pieces:

1. The actual performance standard - max noggin connection compression and tension, and NIJ.

2. The test protocol - which is a rehash of the DELPHI test method applied to all H&N systems.

3. A bunch of language about licensing that is more about marketing than anything else.

4. A description of the architecture (see also, HANS blueprints)

5. A disclaimer that covers their butts while providing SCCA with no cover that I can identify, saying among other things that, The granting and assignment of the "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1" logo/designation is in no way an endorsement or certification of product performance or reliability by SFI.

We use "standard" as though the mere EXISTENCE of the standard is enough - that its substance doesn't matter. What if 38.1 said., "H&N restraint systems must be blue." Would SCCA gain any protection even if every other sanctioning body in the world adopted it? As a good lawyer, wouldn't you dig into the SFI architecture requirement if someone were burned because she couldn't get out of the window of their Spec Miata because of her HANS?

K
 
That's a good point. However, and this is just my opinion, I think in today's legal climate it is "safer" for the SCCA to follow the herd than to actually do its own research and study and look into whether SFI 38.1 actually gives any value.

Right now, they can say, the "industry leader in setting safety standards" came up with it, and F1, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc. use it, and we joined them.

That "looks" a lot less risky than saying, we did our own work and despite what SFI says, and what the other sanctioning bodies have done, we are blazing our own path.

Stinks all around for everyone, and totally a product of lawyers/the legal system/insurance and "risk management.
 
So, if we can stipulate that for the purposes of this discussion, the substance of the standard matters, on to Part B of my line of questioning:

If another "certification" process applied exactly the same performance standard (Item 1 in my list above) - arguably the most important substance of the "standard" - but wrapped it in a different management structure and leaving out the architecture requirement, where would that leave us?

Completely theoretical of course...

K
 
Based on the post over on RRAX, where a BoD guy is quoted as saying that the two year implementation delay is partly to allow time for standards to be modified, or for other standard bodies to be created (paraphrasing), I'd say that would be a very very good direction.
 
Another good thought.

Kirk, unfortunately, I think what that would result in is SCCA in court having to prove that one certification is better than another.

The fact that SFI is a de facto "industry standard" causes SCCA a lot of problems that are very difficult for them to get around.

Knestis said:
So, if we can stipulate that for the purposes of this discussion, the substance of the standard matters, on to Part B of my line of questioning:

If another "certification" process applied exactly the same performance standard (Item 1 in my list above) - arguably the most important substance of the "standard" - but wrapped it in a different management structure and leaving out the architecture requirement, where would that leave us?

Completely theoretical of course...

K
Click to expand...
 
Just get the HANS and put this to bed.

We are stuck with it. I also understand that HANS is the only FIA approved system.

If FIA has another choice that would be a consideration.
 
JeffYoung said:
Another good thought.

Kirk, unfortunately, I think what that would result in is SCCA in court having to prove that one certification is better than another.

The fact that SFI is a de facto "industry standard" causes SCCA a lot of problems that are very difficult for them to get around.
Click to expand...

So, Part C - What if the most important aspect of the "standard" - those performance measures - were substantially HIGHER than 38.1, for some alternate option...???

What say ye?

K
 
joeg said:
Just get the HANS and put this to bed.

We are stuck with it. I also understand that HANS is the only FIA approved system.

If FIA has another choice that would be a consideration.
Click to expand...

HANS isn't the only option, R3 and DeFender come to mind, although I'm not sure what the status of the DeFender legal issues are. Speaking of other options, has anyone heard from Greg?
 
In a perfect world? I say, SCCA wins!

In a practical world, I don't want to be the guy having to prove it in court to a jury of 12. That's risky, and costly. So it becomes (right or wrong) cheaper and perceived to be safer to follow the herd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top