NASAs H&NR rule

[DavidM]

Let's see:

Option 1 - Leave the rule the way it is. H&N are recommended and a SFI labeled (I refuse to say certified) device is recommended. We'd like you to wear a H&N, but you don't have to and, if you do, it be nice if it was SFI, but doesn't have to be.

Option 2 - H&N are required and SFI is recommended. You have to wear a H&N device and SFI is nice, but not required.

Option 3 - H&N are required and here is the list of allowed devices. You have to wear a H&N device and here are the devices we allow you to use.

Option 4 - H&N are required and the device has to be "certified" (whatever that means) by the SFI, FIA, or RSI.

Option 5 - H&N restraints are required and the device has to meet the SFI performance specification (and here are a list of devices that meet this spec). You have to wear a H&N device and that device has to meet a certain level of performance. [ Note: This does not require the device to have a SFI label, just that it has been proven to meet the performance requirements of SFI.]


Any of these would allow the Issac and other non-SFI devices. Option 4 seems shaky to me as RSI doesn't appear to be much of an organization at this point and it would probably be hard to show the "power" of their certification. Options 1 and 2 essentially allows you to use whatever device you want. Option 3 would give SCCA control over what devices are allowed, but means SCCA has to come up with some criteria for allowing said devices. Option 5 is similar to 3, but implies the use of the SFI performance criteria to be on the approved list.

I personally don't think H&N restraints should be mandated. I don't think it's smart to not use one, but I don't think it should be mandated. I could see changing the wording to "highly recommended", but stop short of requiring, and leave the recommended for SFI. If SCCA wants to require H&N restraints then I think there are several methods to allowing devices other than just SFI ones.

David

 

[JoshS]

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!!!
[/b]

Actually, I just looked up the actual wording. It doesnt' say that there must be a single point of release. All it says is that the H&N restraint must not ADD any additional points of release.

"Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations."

 

[Quickshoe]

Okay, I've been accused of not being able to think outside of the box before---so here it goes:

If not using anything at all or a HANS requires ONE point of release, how do you satisfy the wording of 38.1 WITHOUT having a "single point of release" ?

 

[mbuskuhl]

IT is an SCCA class which doesn't have a direct slot over in NASA.
[/b]

Correct, and they shouldn't. They have a place for all IT cars to run as is (+ safety requirements). NASA does not need to cater to SCCA rules and the opposite is just as true. With a NASA car, your only choice is really ITE (called ITO or ITU IIRC in some parts of the country) or SP (regional class some may have). With an SCCA car, there are numerous PT classes allowing you a better chance to run with similar cars and be competitive as is. I don't think you would propose any of the NASA classes to translate to SCCA classes so it is not right for the opposite.

 

[Knestis]

...as RSI doesn't appear to be much of an organization at this point and it would probably be hard to show the "power" of their certification.[/b]

Sorry but that's REALLY interesting to me. Tell me where the "power" of SFI's certification comes from?

I'll give you a clue - it's spelled out PRECISELY how much SFI certifies H&N systems, in another thread right near here...

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Correct, and they shouldn't. They have a place for all IT cars to run as is (+ safety requirements). NASA does not need to cater to SCCA rules and the opposite is just as true. With a NASA car, your only choice is really ITE (called ITO or ITU IIRC in some parts of the country) or SP (regional class some may have). With an SCCA car, there are numerous PT classes allowing you a better chance to run with similar cars and be competitive as is. I don't think you would propose any of the NASA classes to translate to SCCA classes so it is not right for the opposite. [/b]

Except that the IT rules are stable. Each class has a defined performance envelope. It would be easy to slot the cars in as I have suggested. The 'problem' with PT is that each class has an infinate amount of performance possibilities. I believe it will have a 'popularity ceiling' because every time you get to a big event, somebody will have created another 'combination' that wasn't previously thought of.

But this isn't, nor has it ever been an SCCA vs. NASA thing. Each has it's own niche and that is fine. Just commented on why the H&N wasn't getting much play here. It's simple, most IT racers don't race with NASA as their primary organization because of the competitivness of the classings. Now on the Honda board...different story.

 

[DavidM]

Sorry but that's REALLY interesting to me. Tell me where the "power" of SFI's certification comes from?

I'll give you a clue - it's spelled out PRECISELY how much SFI certifies H&N systems, in another thread right near here...

K
[/b]

If you say something is SFI certified most people will know who that is and go "Okay. This piece of equipment must be alright to use." If you say something is RSI certified, they're going to go "I've never heard of them. What other organizations recognize their certification?" and so on.

Do I like it? No. I think it sucks that there's essentially a monopoly on racing safety specs. We've seen how that works. But I can understand someone's concern over using what is pretty much an unknown organization for specifying safety equipment.

You'll get no argument from me on the SFI "certification". You'll notice in my previous post I didn't use the word certify when it came to the SFI.

I think there are many ways to write a rule to allow non-SFI H&N devices. Unfortunately, up this point, it seems that SCCA leadership is more interested in trying to explain why non-SFI devices shouldn't be allowed instead of figuring out how to allow them. That is my biggest concern and I hope it changes.

David

 

[pgipson]

I think there are many ways to write a rule to allow non-SFI H&N devices. [/b]

SCCA doesn't need a rule to allow a non-SFI labeled H&NR device. Since the use of such a device is voluntary and SCCA has not mandated that any device used must meet any specific labeling requirement, the use of non-SFI recognized devices is perfectly acceptable.

Unfortunately, up this point, it seems that SCCA leadership is more interested in trying to explain why non-SFI devices shouldn't be allowed instead of figuring out how to allow them. That is my biggest concern and I hope it changes.[/b]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand that comment. The 2008 GCR says

9.3.19. DRIVER’S SAFETY EQUIPMENT
The following required equipment shall be in good condition and free of defects, holes, cracks, frays, etc.
A. Driving suits ...Certification Patch.
B. Crash helmets ...The use of a head and neck support system is highly recommended. ...Freon based total loss helmet cooling systems are not allowed.[/b]

How does that imply resistance to non-SFI labeled devices?

In my opinion, when this issue came up last time, the club heard from individuals that wanted alternatives to an SFI device and they listened.

 

[lateapex911]

Because there was a rule change on the books that was going to mandate that IF a H&NR was used, that it must be SFI. That was voted down by the BoD, presumabley because of member pressure, but it left a mark on many who remember it.

The fear is that with NASA mandating SFI devices, SCCA will return to that position, or go further and require an SFI device.

 

[pgipson]

The fear is that with NASA mandating SFI devices, SCCA will return to that position, or go further and require an SFI device.[/b]

Clearly most of us don't know what sort of pressure SCCA may come under to require an SFI labeled device, and what their response to that pressure may be. But maybe the best action is to proactively remind the BoD and the CRB that SCCA members want a choice that includes devices that do not carry the SFI label.

After all, SCCA drivers are smarter than NASA drivers and don't need a nanny to hold their hand

 

[gsbaker]

Clearly most of us don't know what sort of pressure SCCA may come under to require an SFI labeled device, and what their response to that pressure may be. But maybe the best action is to proactively remind the BoD and the CRB that SCCA members want a choice that includes devices that do not carry the SFI label.

After all, SCCA drivers are smarter than NASA drivers and don't need a nanny to hold their hand
[/b]

I'm glad someone said that.

While it's easy to bitch and moan, we need to appreciate that sanctioning bodies are caught between a rock and a hard place. The may feel pressured to meet an industry standard to cover their butts, but if they publicly admit they are adopting a "standard" to cover their butts it could come back to haunt them--especially a substandard standard.

I suspect the SCCA is more supportive of the members' side of this than most members appreciate.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

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?
[/b]

I like to say too late. BMW Club Racing already requires a SFI approved H&N restraint and as of last year right side nets too. So if I race with BMW club at a SCCA sanctioned event such as the Spring Vintage Festival at Laguna Seca, then I need to bring my R3 with me, and also install right side nets now. I find it silly to argue that we as roadracers don't need this type of protection as several BMW club racers have died from basial skull fractures over this organizations short history. One occured at Buttonwillow during a test and tune day, when safety checking is at a minimum. I find it rather unfortunate that the Issacs system isn't on the approved list, but I am sure that the device that I purchased will protect me as well and actually has some pluses over a standard HANS type set up, such as working with my 3" harness and also not comming loose from stretched belts. As for the deal with the SFI, it's all a legal shell game designed to shift blame and minimize risk by a de-facto risk transfer strategy. I don't like it, but if it keeps our organization and safety equiptment manufactures in bussiness, I accept it as it is.

James

 

[gran racing]

I find it silly to argue that we as roadracers don't need this type of protection [/b]

Where is the line drawn? Why not mandiate this for PDXs / HPDEs? Need belts for that to happen? So what, make them get that type of protection and a H&N. Many people are using hand held fire bottles in their cars. Why not require a full fire system? As part of tech, why aren't we timing how long it takes for people to actually get out of the car with their eyes closed? There are numerous things that could be done to make racing safer; does that mean they should all be required? I think a H&N should be encouraged but not mandated. I for one normally find that my tow to & from the track to be the scariest part of my race weekend.

It'll be interesting to see what happens as we get closer to the summer effective date of this rule (will it actually happen?) and how it could impact the entries of NASA racers.

 

[pgipson]

Just in case anyone is wondering, I AM on vacation and ALL my Christmas shopping is finished. And it's to cold to work on the race car (hell, it's hardly 60 out there ). Therefore I have time to play on here today

It'll be interesting to see what happens as we get closer to the summer effective date of this rule (will it actually happen?) and how it could impact the entries of NASA racers.[/b]

Observing the level and tone of discussion on the corporate nasa forum, it seems that everyone that comments is pretty much already committed to a HANS. Of course, comments negative toward nasa don't last long, but given their rules treatment the last few years (2 yrs on belts and window nets, mandatory right side nets, spec tires in most classes, elimination of classes, now SFI 38.1) I think the stragglers have been beaten into submission.

Unlike SCCA where lively debate is the expected norm.

 

[snk328is]

I just wanted to chime in and say that I recently looked into joining NASA because they are in the process of creating a spec series very similar to Spec E30, but for an E36 instead. I own a 325 so I was very excited, but then I heard about the SFI 38.1 requirement. That pretty much killed it for me. Unless they allow the ISAAC as an exception, I won't be partaking.

I don't own an HNR at the moment (been on hiatus the last two years) but I plan on buying one next year when I finally start racing again and I refuse to buy a HANS. I'm planning on buying an ISAAC.

Nobu

 

[lateapex911]

If I were you I would forward that message to NASA...

 

[snk328is]

If I were you I would forward that message to NASA...
[/b]

I emailed the guy who is writing the rules for the new Spec3 series, but haven't written to anybody else in particular. I posted on their forum in the appropriate threads as well.

Any suggestions as to who else might be interested to know?

 

[gsbaker]

Contact information is here.

Thanks for letting your feelings be known.

 

[snk328is]

Contact information is here.

Thanks for letting your feelings be known.
[/b]

So Greg, is there any way you guys can join SFI and get the stupid design requirement to be changed? Sorry if the answer is somewhere out there on the Internet but I don't have the time to go searching at the moment. How about getting approved for the FIA standard?

 

[gsbaker]

FIA told us in 2002 that they would not consider new designs (they have a ton invested in the old one), and they have not.

SFI specs are voted on by the manufacturers only. How do you think that would work out? I don't want to insult people's intelligence, but it is naive in the extreme to think we would be welcomed in that camp. Besides, our lawyers don't like the idea.

Sanctioning bodies being sued will change it.