Make Head and Neck Restraints Mandatory?

Really good point Greg!! Obviously, he had some fore and aft movement as well, since it was and end over end flip(Steve Saslow, I believe)but your point about the halo seats is well put. You must have experienced a similar side to side motion and it is scary to watch...much less experience!!

Thnaks again for all your relevant imput.

Bruce
 
Turff protection.................:shrug:

According to Jayski HANS alleges Innovative Safety makers of the defNder device have infringed on HANS patents for head and neck restraint devices.

“We and our licensees have invested significantly in the invention, innovation and continued development of proprietary head and neck restraint technologies,” said Mark Stiles, Chief Executive Officer of HANS Performance Products. “When others make use of our patented technology, we will always take aggressive action to protect our investment, including the enforcement of our legal rights.”
 
shouldn't of they taken a quicker action? Why wait untill they have a booth @ PRI? I believe this is why they have patent attourneys. Maybe they are worried about the possiblity of this H&N system becoming successfull.. especially with it's initial 500 dollar price tag. So with a possiblity draining the company in both time and money by holding it up in court? Just thinking..

However if there is a legit patent infrigment, then Defnder needs to take responsibility.. and either pay for the use of the patent.. or redesign there system.

I spoke with the rep @ defnder and tired the system on. If was quite comforable..

From what I heard at another vendor a system similiar to the Issac system was used years ago in drag boat racing and are no longer used, but that is just what I heard. I would take that just like I am.. with a grain of salt.
 
Last edited:
Hey guys, This is the first time on this forum for me. I only know those who were/are involved in SM. Since accepting the position on CRB, I will try and cruise a few other of the forrums. I know IT is near and dear to Peter's heart, so he will keep this covered more than likely.
Travis linked me to this thread this weekend, I have read 90% of it. This was brought up at the PRI show this weekend as well. Of the drivers attending, ALL wore a H&N of some sort less any mandate, except the CRB chairman :shrug:

Mostly just wanted to introduce myself here. If you guys have questions or concerns, send me an email as I will likley not check this forum all that often.
Thanks
Jim Drago

[email protected]
 
Jim will really try to see all sides of most issues so I would say he will be a friend to the IT world.
From what I heard at the meeting I feel progress on a mandatory rule will move forward, but with a lot of fact gathering. The one thing that kept coming up was "Industry Standard". And in our racing world the "Industry Standard" for safety items seems to be SFI rating. That kept coming up in conversations from several speakers from the floor. I brought up that a number of IT racers are huge fans / users of the Issac and don't want to be forced to change. (That didn't get a very positive response due to folks not having the info that is on here.)
Peter was there and probably has a better recall of what was said. I left feeling that at somepoint H&N will probably be required, but it may take time to get it all sorted out.

The so called Big T in the punch bowl seems to come from the SFI stuff, which due to most all organizations recognizing that as the "Industry Standard" sort of forces our organ ization to fall in line. (JMO)

As I said above, Jim is a very good guy and is grassroots racing to the core. I think with the addition of him to Peter & Chris we have some very IT friendly folks in a good position.
 
Jim,

Nice to see you here. Hope to see you at the track in CenDiv next year as well. Thanks for stepping up an volunteering your time.:happy204:
 
Jim,

thanks for jumping in. i am assuming you got my note since i believe it went to the CRB although i am unsure if it went to the newest members since i received a response from one member that did not run for re-election.

i appreciate anyone's involvement in these informal settings and want to apologize ahead of time for any thing that might not come across as intended. hard to capture humor or sarcasm sometimes when you don't know someone's sense of humor.

i was very encouraged that SCCA bid out the insurance and the news was posted elsewhere that it came back pretty well. but it was also my understanding that the insurance was not bid as with or without SFI H&NR, etc. it is also my understanding that it is based primarily on loss experience/history.

if the loss experience is what drives this, then i think the Isaac with its better performance should be allowed (some might say mandated). i am not in favor of any brand or any style being mandated. i can understand if one is required. i would not have an issue with a requirement of must protect against XY g impact with a maximum force of YX Newtons, etc.

if based on performance, it should be easy to justify to the membership. and if a $99 version of protection comes on the market soon, it will likely cause a large increase in the membership that has one and further improve the safety of the drivers and help control the insurance costs.

in case you had not seen the buzz on the potential $99 version:

http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=20133

anyways, welcome!

tom
 
tom91ita said:
i was very encouraged that SCCA bid out the insurance and the news was posted elsewhere that it came back pretty well. but it was also my understanding that the insurance was not bid as with or without SFI H&NR, etc. it is also my understanding that it is based primarily on loss experience/history.
Click to expand...
We have spoken directly to the insurance carriers about this and been told in no uncertain terms that their only concern is injuries. They don't care about stickers.

in case you had not seen the buzz on the potential $99 version
Click to expand...
For the record, that is an introductory price and the product is very real. It will ultimately be priced under $200, though.

(Welcome, Jim. I've enjoyed your postings at SM.)
 
copy of response on Prod forum

Hi All, I post here a copy of a segment of this same discussion that is going on over at the Prod forum. Phil Creighton is a member of the (BOD or CRB?, not sure which) and his response to this whole discussion seemed not very well thought-through to me, hence my response which I provide here as some of the more masochistic amongst you (Greg? Kirk?) might be interested.


philip creighton
Joined: 17 Dec 2002
Posts: 105
Location: Georgia
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:42 am Post subject: Insurance and Hans At this point the reason for the insurance reduction for the Club can be summed up principally in that its a soft insurance market compared to last year plus our history of claims over the last few years had improved.

While I can't see the immediate mandating of head and neck restraint devices (yes there are other than HANS out there) I also can't see mandating something in the future that does not comply with an "industry standard". Why? Because it takes away one more avenue in a lawsuit - you don't have to defend the specification of the device that you have mandated. We have done it with Snell for helmets, SFI for belts and arm restraints and FIA for various items. I understand that the only specification for HANS is SFI at the moment but I believe 12-13 devices have met that spec at the moment. One can argue the relevance of the tests that SFI or others conduct all day long but at present it is the only recognized standard in the USA. Pretty soon we will be the only sanctioning body that does not mandate it - which will not be a comfortable position to be in.


evanwebb
Joined: 29 May 2003
Posts: 133
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:18 am
Phil, the only way I can characterize that type of logic about the assumption that a H&N mandate must also involve SFI 38.1 is "lazy". If the SCCA mandates H&N restraints, and if the hypothetical situation you refer to comes about then you will be defending in court one of two positions depending on whether you decide to mandate an SFI device or leave the choice of H&N restraints open to other devices that may perform better: 1) Why did the SCCA mandate a restraint and not mandate the standard?, or 2) Why did the SCCA mandate the standard and disallow the competitors the freedom to choose the best performing device available?

I would say that (2) is more easily defensible. The defense of (1) involves proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, a negative. That is, if the competitor that was (presumably) killed leading to the lawsuit & trial had been wearing a 38.1-compliant device then he would have lived. Can you prove this? Doubtful. Defense of (2) only involves raising enough doubt that the competitor might have lived if he had been wearing a hypothetical device which has so much better performance that it would have saved his life. Why only a hypothetical device? Because there will be a reasonable argument to be made that the existence of the 38.1 standard would have stifled innovation into better technologies because there was no market for it. And yes the decision of the SCCA is big enough in the US market to have that be a very real business issue. The fact that there are devices that already exist that have better performance than various 38.1-compliant devices only strengthens this argument because it will be a piece of cake to gather thousands of affidavits of racers who will say that they have not bought any H&N restraint because it is a substantial investment and they did not have confidence that their sanctioning body (the SCCA) would continue to allow it. Myself included.

There is a ton of information out there; probably the best, most in depth discussion anywhere has taken place on the IT forum. If a bunch of IT guys sitting around blabbing on the computer can develop a substantial pile of reasons why the SFI is a joke in many ways, and the 38.1 standard does not cover a lot of ground that should be covered in a so-called "standard" on that subject, and whatever lawyers you might hire in a lawsuit can't, well then you have hired yourselves some half-assed lawyers...

Look, in the end, it is the moral responsibility of the SCCA to "do the right thing". If that means take every effort to inform the membership of the issue and how they can voluntarily protect themselves then you guys could certainly do a helluva lot more in terms of discussion and education. Maybe even mandatory education but voluntary compliance. That is a defensible position. If the decision is made to put forth a mandate, then a substantial education effort plus a mandate that DOESN'T involve SFI 38.1 would satisfy that criterion as well because it would allow the competitors to review all the data and make the best choice considering all the factors that are relevant to them.

This is an extremely important issue, please don't just do what others do. That is the path to the Enron collapse, the mortgage underwriting crisis, and the Bernie Madoff fraud scandal.

PS just because something is an industry standard doesn't mean it is worth something. Standards evolve and are replaced in a way that trails the technology. Devices developed to a standard trail the leading edge of performance. Standards exist in order to make profitable development of products easier, not to enable innovation. The responsibility of the SCCA is not to advance the interests of the safety industry, it is to advance the interests of its members.
_________________
Evan Webb
MARRS HP #86 VW Scirocco
Tres Tortugas Motorsports
Bildon Motorsport
 
That's just grand. So all of us who wrote to Phil Creighton about this apparently didn't make our case nearly well enough to help him get properly educated.
 
Phil needs to call the insurance carriers and ask what would happen if SCCA adopted a spec that excluded safer products--and then listen to the "gulp" coming over the phone.

Seriously. Don't listen to anyone (including me) other than the carriers.
 
Evan - you make out some good points. First off, the responsibility of SCCA to educate its members. Seems like that has been lacking, given that past safety equipment reviews in SportsCar, our official publication, have omitted the ISAAC device (in the list of H+N devices - article predating 38.1). I wonder if they still do? Or maybe ISAAC isn't paying enough advertising bucks??

Other point - industry standards. Very good point. Compare to other auto-related standards: so many FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) - the meat I get to deal with at the day job all the time. Roof crush standards on trucks comes to mind, but it's one of the lesser-known ones.

In this case, we're talking about not even so much as an industry standard, but a Federally-mandated standard!

That didn't save Ford from some serious hell in court over the Firestone tire debacle; somehow arguing that the Exploders met all applicable Federal vehicle safety standards etc. didn't save them from being held liable. Lack of tire pressure monitors, standard stability control, etc - hey, the technology's out there, why don't you have it?

So, perhaps the arguments coming from the CRB/BOD may be a little lazier than prudent...
 
wow, now there is a prod guy calling me, an IT driver, a blabbler on a computer. i love it!:happy204:

great note. but it is dissappointing that our previous notes did so little.

vaughn, good analogy for the ford explorer & tires.

i wonder if jet aircraft would have been developed if airplanes had been held to an SFI propeller design...

p.s., if NASA is the leader in this, why aren't we all flocking there? or should we?
 
SportsCar very specifically favors advertisers in its "guides." I've had personal experience with that. Beyond that, it's all been said in this forum a thousand times, and we've made our case to the club - at least I hope we all have. If they decide to restrict options - current, that is - with demonstrated advantages in performance AND put in place huge disincentives to innovate, it's a very bad move. It will not of course be the first bad move made by management in the name of expediency and/or butt covering.

K
 
Let's not let NASA drive this..

Seems to me that while SCCA has been debating the need for mandatory H&N devices for a while, the current urgency derives from NASA's decision to require them.
It may be that NASA regrets that decision, but this is not the year for SCCA to follow it.

First, there seems to be a lot of disagreement on just which devices will be acceptable.
There are quite a few out there but evidently only one acceptable to SFI.
If SCCA determines that SFI is the standard to follow, then that should be made known along with an encouragement to all H&N device providers to get their products in compliance.
But don't shut out all but HANS, because the others haven't done it yet.
This just stifles development. Given some time, the serious providers will deal with SFI. Then there will more and better devices to choose among.

Second, for very real economic reasons, this is just not the time to do it. We are all in favour of safe racing. No one is AGAINST the concept of preventing injuries.
But a many of us are FOR a lot of things, and safe racing is just one of them; also included are the availability of $$ to spend on racing in the immediate months to come.

Fact is, while racing may drive some of us to irrational economic behaviour, there is a finite amount of money that each of us can spend in a year.
The 2009 season looks to be one that is short on $$.
So the idea of a mandatory expenditure of $600-800 on a bunch of questionably needed neck hardware just means that for some drivers there will be a couple of events for which there is no entry money. Not the year to mandate new expensive gear.
Let's wait a bit and take a look at what is really needed and what might become available to meet the needs.
Bill Miskoe
 
irondragon said:
Seems to me that while SCCA has been debating the need for mandatory H&N devices for a while, the current urgency derives from NASA's decision to require them.
It may be that NASA regrets that decision, but this is not the year for SCCA to follow it.
Click to expand...
That is an excellent summary of the current situation. NASA had absolutely nothing to gain by their decision, and should have followed SCCA's lead.

]First, there seems to be a lot of disagreement on just which devices will be acceptable.
There are quite a few out there but evidently only one acceptable to SFI.
If SCCA determines that SFI is the standard to follow, then that should be made known along with an encouragement to all H&N device providers to get their products in compliance.
But don't shut out all but HANS, because the others haven't done it yet.
This just stifles development. Given some time, the serious providers will deal with SFI. Then there will more and better devices to choose among.

Second, for very real economic reasons, this is just not the time to do it. We are all in favour of safe racing. No one is AGAINST the concept of preventing injuries.
But a many of us are FOR a lot of things, and safe racing is just one of them; also included are the availability of $$ to spend on racing in the immediate months to come.

Fact is, while racing may drive some of us to irrational economic behaviour, there is a finite amount of money that each of us can spend in a year.
The 2009 season looks to be one that is short on $$.
So the idea of a mandatory expenditure of $600-800 on a bunch of questionably needed neck hardware just means that for some drivers there will be a couple of events for which there is no entry money. Not the year to mandate new expensive gear.
Let's wait a bit and take a look at what is really needed and what might become available to meet the needs.
Bill Miskoe
Click to expand...
Bill,

Agreed. This is the same logic that drove the establishment of RSI, and it came in large part from sanctioning bodies--including SCCA. Since RSI acts as an umbrella organization with certification based on performance only, it covers all the test criteria while leaving drivers with a complete choice of all products that meet industry standards.

With an RSI mandate there are no tradeoffs; no sacrifice of safety, no limitation of choice, no conflict of interest and no money changing hands. It's almost too easy.

(http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/Head%20and%20Neck%20Restraints.html)
 
Re. NASA and HANS.

How come HPDE entrants don't have to use one? Same car (sometimes), same track, same day, same insurance policy, but no H&N required?
 
gsbaker said:
.... NASA had absolutely nothing to gain by their decision,
Click to expand...

i disagree a bit. i think NASA's "business" model of a racing organization vs. the "Volunteer / Club" model of SCCA means that NASA wants the cost of more protection to always rest with the driver rather than NASA. e.g., hire more corner workers is a cost to them, etc..

tderonne said:
Re. NASA and HANS.

How come HPDE entrants don't have to use one? Same car (sometimes), same track, same day, same insurance policy, but no H&N required?
Click to expand...

the better question is why Time Trial cars, that are competing for best time, do not require cages, window nets, etc.

actually, see "business" model above because it would mean fewer entrants and less $$. this is a very fundamental difference in how the organizations behave, imho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top