NASAs H&NR rule

lateapex911

lateapex911

Super Moderator
If you didn't know, NASA just jumped in the SFI pool even deeper with their Head and Neck restraint rule requiring a 38.1 standard meeting device. (HANS, R3, etc,) which essentially takes what many believe is the best unit, the Issac off the shoulders of racers. Up fronty, I should point otu that I am biased, and feel the Issac delivers better protection for our type of racing and impacts.

It's interesting to me for several reasons.
1- NASA did it first. Often they follow SCCAs lead
2- Will we see other clubs (PCA, etc) folow NASAs lead?
3 - Will the SCCA decide that if NASA is doing it then they must, or they will be thought of as negligent?

Whats the IT.com take on this?

Is it a good thing to mandate a device like this?

My take is that the 38.1 approved devices are known for being good in straight on crashes, but poor performers is side and more complex hits, and to remedy that, special seats with lateral "halos" are suggested, along with specific belts, in some cases. So the requirement represents a large expenditure, roughly $1400 dollars.
The requirement also makes the use of other systems know for superior lateral performance and equal or better straight on performance illegal.
Net net is that to meet the 38.1 peformance specs, you'd need to spend $400 - $800 , but to comply with the fulll 38.1 spec, you're looking at $1400 or so,(to attain equivilent protection).

I was considering, at Dave grans urging, going to NASAs Hyperfest this year. Now, thats a definate "not going to happen". I wonder how many racers will be put in a huge financial bind by this rule?
 
Would anyone disagree any H&N is better than no H&N? That's probably opening a can of worms.

I was going to get an ISAAC last year, then because of the NASA proposed rule went HANS. This isn't about which is better though, that's another topic. NASA also implemented the right side head restraint which is accomplished with a right side net or seat bolster, this was done last summer to address side impact crashes.

I would disagree Jake that this will be a huge financial bind. First, everyone should already have some type of H&N, if you are driving around with your head ready to flop, well... not a good idea. Second, what's the cost, a set of tires? I read HANS has a new version coming out in early January for $695, haven't looked into it though. There are all also 5 other devices besides HANS that currently have SFI approval.

I would not be surprised at all to see other organizations follow this, if it actually happens, it's not officially set to take place until June 2, 2008. I think the frustration lies with some not that an H&N is going to be required, but that some good options like the ISAAC are not acceptable. Can ISAAC get FIA approval? Are there other H&N devices with FIA and not SFI? I think NASA would amend the rules to take an FIA device.

NASA is looking at making racing safer, some may disagree with the wording of the new rule (SFI) but they are taking steps in the right direction with this, and other things.
 
NASA is working to protect it's money. (IMO, but I bet that the discussion centered around "risk management" and they weren't talking about the racers risk...)

Isaac can not meet the Spec, as it fails to meet two requirements:
1- single point of release means the device must be free and unencumbered when teh harness is released, and..
2- the spec requires specific architecture, including a "yoke".

As for expense, in my case, it will be pricy to attain the same level of performance that I have now, as an Isaac wearer.... as i will need to buy a device that matches the Isaac bumbers, and if thats not possible, then I need to supplement that device in other ways. To wit, and HANS or and R3 with a new seat.
 
It doesn't surprise me it isn't a hot topic here. IT cars don't fit well into PT so NASA isn't a primary blip on the radar of an IT driver.

Now if the SCCA goes this route, this server will overheat.... :024:
 
I was all excited to run with NASA this spring when they finally made inroads into my area of the Midwest with an event at Gateway. Already have my membership and was in the process of filling out the license paperwork. Now, I doubt I'll do it. New halo seat... no thanks, RSN... maybe, new HNR... no can do.

I've had my Isaac for at least 3 or 4 years now. Shame on me for thinking ahead.
 
Would anyone disagree any H&N is better than no H&N? That's probably opening a can of worms.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I'll go on record as having doubts about the need in our type of racing for H&NR systems as currently designed. The loads these devices are designed for are pretty high. The testing is all done on head-on impacts and there is little data I've seen to show safety advantages for side loads.

I'm sure Mr. Baker will be along shortly :114:
 
i think it is important to discuss here since there will be likely be more pressure on SCCA to adopt something.

i have starting drafting a letter and will be getting it out tonight or tomorrow. i am assuming that this should go to the BOD but will also send it directly to my local director. if any ITAC members want a copy, PM me here.

i have a good horse collar (SFI approved, just not the right one) and have specifically delayed getting a H&NR since i don't know what will be approved by both or if i will have to chose one outfit or the other.

so although i do not really care from a financial aspect, i feel strongly that the general wording as outlined by several at the "sandbox" should let the Isaac be used even if ultimately i do not buy one.
 
I'll go on record as having doubts about the need in our type of racing for H&NR systems as currently designed. The loads these devices are designed for are pretty high. The testing is all done on head-on impacts and there is little data I've seen to show safety advantages for side loads.

I'm sure Mr. Baker will be along shortly :114:
[/b]
Click to expand...

Really? Next time Mr. Baker does a crash test, go see it. For the 50g pulse at Wayne State University, the sled is only moving 35 mph.

Additionally, most of the testing is done in offset conditions, not head on. I'll let Gregg fill in more.
 
IT cars don't fit well into PT so NASA isn't a primary blip on the radar of an IT driver.

[/b]
Click to expand...

Common misconception. IT cars fit just fine in PT, in fact requiring nothing more than additional safety requirements. Crazy Joe who took 3rd this year? Andy, you even said "Joe's ITA car fits fairly well in PTE". IT cars won't be front runners unless changes are made to them, that I agree with. Changes can be simple as tire size/brand, ballast +/-, removing an OEM spoiler, and more. It may not be a blip on the radar in IT strong parts of the country (NE), but other parts NASA is attracting IT cars. Just take a look at where the posting happens in the regional forum section on this site. A little skewed? It's not all like the NE.

Number of Posts
NorthEast Division IT - 13,164
SouthEast Division IT - 4,926
MidWest, Central & Great Lakes Div - 3,211
RockyMtn & SouthWest Div IT - 265
North & South Pacific Div IT - 404
 
I think it should be discussed more here and not because we have a lot of cross overs. I think the sport itself has obviously started the movement and it is only a matter of time before every organization will require something.

Now I will come right out and say that I am an Isaac owner. I have been trying to be non biased about this. It is not quite working, but I'm close.

What I propose is we discuss the ramifications and the solutions to the H&N debate FOR SCCA. Forget what NASA is doing EXCEPT that they have stepped up and mandated something. That means SCCA will not be far behind. Not because SCCA follows, but for the lawyer (what is driving this everywhere) reason.

How would you right a rule for SCCA. It's coming, we all know it, how can we make the lawyers, the organization, AND the drivers happy?

Here I will start. I think there is a small list of acceptable H&N devices out there right now. Forget the SFI requirement. I think the list of acceptable H&N devices needs to be listed BY NAME in the GCR. As new devices come onto the market, drivers/members need to work with the manufacturer to PROVE their device is worthy and "they" (drivers/manufacturer) needs to apply for acceptance the same way you would classify a car. This acceptance is based on third party sled tests. Can it perform, could it save a life? Those should be teh only questions that need to be "proven".

When it comes to enforcement, enforce it the same way you enforce the suit/gloves/underwear/shoes/socks/helmet. At your annual you have to have it with your gear and checked off. Enforce it by doing random checks like NASA will do with socks on occasion.

I may be over simplifying it. Please blow my idea apart, but I believe "we" (racers) should not sit back and let the organization create the rule without our input. Let's help them.
 
Common misconception. IT cars fit just fine in PT, in fact requiring nothing more than additional safety requirements. ....[/b]
Click to expand...

well they fit fine in that you have a place to run.

but my ITB/H5 1st gen crx si ends up in PTD since it starts with two ** to start vs. the 2nd gen crx si ITA/H4 starts with one *.

some fit better than others and some prep things add points that are not justified.

but at least my tires fit fine and you don't need the toyos.
 
Common misconception. IT cars fit just fine in PT, in fact requiring nothing more than additional safety requirements. Crazy Joe who took 3rd this year? Andy, you even said "Joe's ITA car fits fairly well in PTE". IT cars won't be front runners unless changes are made to them, that I agree with. Changes can be simple as tire size/brand, ballast +/-, removing an OEM spoiler, and more. It may not be a blip on the radar in IT strong parts of the country (NE), but other parts NASA is attracting IT cars. Just take a look at where the posting happens in the regional forum section on this site. A little skewed? It's not all like the NE.

Number of Posts
NorthEast Division IT - 13,164
SouthEast Division IT - 4,926
MidWest, Central & Great Lakes Div - 3,211
RockyMtn & SouthWest Div IT - 265
North & South Pacific Div IT - 404 [/b]
Click to expand...

I disagree. I have run the numbers for a variety of ITA cars. The SE-R/NX2000 happen to have a favorable base class that slots them into PTE where they should be. They are the anomoly.

When you max out IT prep, it puts you at a competive disadvantage in PT - and that is OK! If you max out your PT car to whatever class you want to run, you are at a competitive disadvantage within the SCCA's structure. Two different animals.

The point was simple, IT is an SCCA class which doesn't have a direct slot over in NASA. I bet the vast majorty running dedicated IT cars don't frequent NASA races. It's not a shot at anyone - just why you don't see the kind of activity here on the subject as you do over in the Sandbox.

And to the post counts - they mirror membership numbers - at least for the SCCA.

I would run a NASA event or two if they just had a direct classing like I proposed on their site:

ITR ---> PTC

ITS ---> PTD

ITA ---> PTE

ITB and ITC ---> PTF
 
I bet the vast majorty running dedicated IT cars don't frequent NASA races. It's not a shot at anyone - just why you don't see the kind of activity here on the subject as you do over in the Sandbox.

And to the post counts - they mirror membership numbers - at least for the SCCA.[/b]
Click to expand...

Having spent some time recently in the sandbox I would have to agree. Not to hijack the topic but it appears there may be a different demographic there as well.

Also, the post counts reflect to a large extend population density.
 
I was considering, at Dave grans urging, going to NASAs Hyperfest this year.[/b]
Click to expand...

Waaaaaait! Jake, I am urging you to attend the SCCA Labor Day double at Summit Point this year, not Hyperfest. Awesome, awesome, awesome event! Put it on your calendar. Maybe we can get someone here to save us a paddock spot?

Just take a look at where the posting happens in the regional forum section on this site. A little skewed?[/b]
Click to expand...

That really doesn’t mean much. Remove Jake G., Andy and myself and those stats go way down.

well they fit fine in that you have a place to run.[/b]
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. Some IT cars would do well, some are poorly classed such as Tom and mine. Then again, I’ve never sent in a letter requesting NASA to look at my car closer and re-evaluate it. I distinctly remember my car being originally classed in ITA where it was way out of wack too.

Should an H&N system be a requirement?

My opinion is it should not.
 
Waaaaaait! Jake, I am urging you to attend the SCCA Labor Day double at Summit Point this year, not Hyperfest. Awesome, awesome, awesome event! Put it on your calendar. Maybe we can get someone here to save us a paddock spot?[/b]
Click to expand...
Dave, you let us know who and how many, and we'll make sure you have space. It may be back in the woods, with the trolls, but heck they even have electricity now so it shouldn't be too bad :D You would just have to remember to not wander around after dark.

As to the H&N issue, I had never really considered NASA an alternative (since I don't drive an H car), but I still think this sets a bad precedent, and I can assure you we'll (SCCA) see this issue pop up again in the very near future.
 
Sorry, what was this thread about? :blink:

I'm so freakin' tired of the SFI issue right now, I'm not even going to start here but Andy's right about the maxed-out IT-to-PT crossover issue. I had to run on 205s rather than 225s with my ITB Golf, to even stay in PTE.

You CAN RUN anything. You can't always run competitively but that's fine, if that's the way NASA wants it.

And in terms of crossover, there are a few of us who regularly do NASA events. I won't be, once the new H&N rule goes into effect.

K
 
I had considered running a NASA event if it was held at Road Atlanta at a convenient time financially and I could convince some of my friends to race too but since they all run formula I doubt that would ever happen.

With the HNR requirement I will stick to SCCA and so will a portion of my entry fee.

The requirement of an HNR is inevitable but after listening to some in the sandbox I think I want the option to choose from all available to the public.
 
I see this as 99.999% positive. The one and only blip is that there are safety devices out there that are perfectly safe and are better than the SFI certified ones and those are now illegal. If it wasn't for Greg being a smart guy and inventing such a useful device I don't really think anyone would have any valid complaints. If only the SFI would take off their blinders and remove the "single-point-of-release" nonsense we'd be golden. Since when does "unbuckle your belts, unclp your radio, unplug cool suit, remove window net, open door" constitute a single point!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top