To whom it may concern:
I want to inform you that I am greatly concerned about Head & Neck Restraints (H&NR) and the ability of members to choose what is best for their vehicles and class of racing. I do not want to see our club make decisions based on speculation of what lawyers may or may not do.
I am particularly concerned that the December 2008 Fastrack states that there were two requests requiring a specific Manufacturer's device.
"
11. Support for mandating the HANS device (2 letters). Thank you for your input."
Some clubs have recently made uninformed decisions and declared that SFI 38.1 H&NR are required. I know because I recently let my membership in NASA expire because of this. This was after two podium finishes at the NASA National Championships in 2006 & 2007. I decided to no longer race with NASA and focus on my roots in Improved Touring in part because I wanted to be free to select what I believe to be superior technology in H&NR. Well, to be honest, also because I wanted to be free to select superior technology in tires but that was a smaller issue by far.
It is my sincere belief that NASA's decision was uninformed because it was not based on performance. And for a club that claims to be a home for performance enthusiasts to base decisions on speculation of what may transpire in a courtroom instead of the performance that
will transpire in a cockpit strikes me as ridiculous.
Please refer to the link below that shows the resultant forces in a direct and lateral impact and the performance of various devices;
http://www.isaacdirect.com/
Please pay particular attention to the Lateral forces that are listed;
Please note that some devices actually
increased the Lateral load. Has anyone that has suggested that H&NR be required actually divulged the fact that you may be placing the membership at a higher risk? And if the HANS is mandatory as requested by two unnamed members per Fastrack, you are placing me at more risk. If you are making this decision based on courtroom speculation, you might want to speculate on that for a minute.
I would not presume that there might not be pressure, either real or imagined, on SCCA to pass some sort of H&NR requirement. But, honestly, this must be a performance based decision and not some knee-jerk reaction because someone read that another club did something.
It is my understanding that
SCCA’s Legal Counsel is also its Risk Manager. It is also my understanding that 20% of the SCCA budget is insurance but that this has not been competitively bid for some time. This appears to be a conflict of interest in my opinion. If this is not correct, please advise.
If you feel compelled to do something then please consider the following:
Should this be based on the class of the vehicle? For example, Formula Atlantic has more potential for high energy impacts than Showroom Stock C. And if we are not going to consider this type of distinction, then why stop at wheel to wheel road racing. We should also extend it to H Stock Solo II. A racetrack that is specifically designed with run-off areas, guardrails, tire-walls and gravel traps cannot be compared with the immovable objects such as concrete light-pole supports in a parking lot, can they?
No doubt some of you are thinking that my comparison of H Stock to road racing Formula Atlantics is absurd. And justifiably so. Is it because of the difference in performance potential? Did we just use
Performance to decide if something should be used or not be used? Then we are effectively on the same page in that the Performance of the device or vehicle should be considered.
I know that the primary sticking point with SFI 38.1 is that it requires a single release point. However, I believe that I am most at risk to a neck injury and not due to fire.
I was a trained member of an Emergency Response team at a chemical plant. We were always drilled that head and neck immobilization was crucial. I have never seen the emergency response team at a track rush to an incident and immediatley drag out the driver as quickly as possible due to a concern for fire. It has always been a measured response to assess the situation and determine if the patient needs to be stabilized while others stand by with extinguishers.
If you feel compelled to implement something, please asses the true risks and base the decision based on performance as outlined at the Racing Safety Institute (
http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/ ) rather than at SFI where specific H&NR producers were involved with writing the requirements that improved their position in the market.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tom
That way the SCCA will be protected & we won't be forced to buy some $1000.00 pos that may or may not work.
