NASAs H&NR rule

...Several posters here are in the academic world - isn't it true that it's actually considered unacceptable to cite your own work as proof/justification in your own work ? Haven't tenured professors been dismissed for precisely that ? ...[/b]
Click to expand...
As one of those academic types, I don't think that's what Gregg is doing, John. He's simply pointing us at the only published comparison of available data that's been made public, so far as I know (and I've actually looked). From the abstract:

<blockquote>Subsequent to the presentation of papers regarding head and neck restraints at the 2002 and 2004 SAE Motor Sports Engineering Conference and Expositions, additional testing of both then-existing and newer designs has been conducted at multiple test facilities. This paper consolidates the results of those tests with the results of previous tests, published and unpublished. (Baker, 2006)</blockquote>
I've never presented at SAE (have for national associations in my own field, though) so I don't know precisely what their review process is, but typically presented papers run through enough of a filter that crap doesn't get accepted. And SAE isn't a nickel-and-dime operation.

The problem that Gregg's paper is trying to overcome is the same that something like RSI would try to redress: Under the SFI regime, there's no incentive for any of the manufacturers - or for SFI - to provide any real data to the public. That some of the information shared here had to come from a manufacturer's advertising, and other from web news sources, is NOT a condemnation of Gregg's effort to pull together data: It's an indictment of the system that we're currently stuck with.

K
 
Kirk,

I would be very curious if you get any answer. I highly doubt it.

I wrote a letter last fall after the NASA Nationals because I was unhappy with the tires and contingencies. I wrote a letter to TOYO describing why I thought there should have been some type of contingency.

This was mostly because the Toyo Contingency offered for a Regional race with 3 competitors is more than that offered at the Nationals.

Regional Contingency:

5+ STARTERS: 1st = $150, 2nd = $100, 3rd = $75, 4th = $50, 5th = $25
4 STARTERS: 1st = $40, 2nd = $20, 3rd = $10, 4th = $5
3 STARTERS: 1st = $20, 2nd = $10, 3rd = $5

National Contingency: $0 (there is a minimum of 10 starters required to be eligible)

I waited over a month thinking I would at least get a "Thanks for your interest in Toyo Tires" letter and then forwarded a copy of the letter to several high level NASA folks.

I received one note back.

So I regret that I can not now say I will not be racing NASA in 2008 because of the H&NR because I already quit because of the tires. Although there was one race I was planning on due to the proximity to my house before the membership runs out.

I guess the H&NR is the icing on the cake.

Although I could remove the cage, netting, harness, etc. and run TT I suppose.

Tom


back on topic after a slight detour for tires above:

what is the percent of NASA on-track participants that are HPDE and TT vs. wheel to wheel?

because HPDE and TT are not required to use H&NR (or other gear other than stock), only wheel to wheel racers.

i think one reason that NASA is getting out the requirement on this is that it impacts a lower % of the membership right now. everyone knows that to go wheel to wheel, you need more gear and no one disputes that you need whatever is required for that class and thus is seen as more acceptable.

for example, i know that to take my IT car to Production requires a cell and fire system. that is known and it is my decision to make either way. it is a known requirement/cost to participate in that class.

my hypothesis is that the requirement of a H&NR is seen as less acceptable to the SCCA on-track membership since it will impact a much higher percentage, essentially all.

any thoughts?

tom

p.s., if i have misread the HPDE rules, I will edit/delete this post immediately.
 
Definitely not the case here.
"IT" being what, exactly ? Nobody is challenging any data in his presentation. Mr. Baker made this statement:
OK...where is the thorough documentation ? Just his own paper presented at a conference ? Really ? That's it ?[/b]
Click to expand...

It - his article. The data have been presented at a conference. The data have not been challenged. They devices have been tested. How many authors need to perform the same tests? Unless they think the cited author is in error, they won't reproduce his results. If subsequent studies find identical results, the authors won't publish or present because conferences/journals want original work.


I have previously been active in a large industry ANSI/ISO international standards organization, including serving several terms on it's international BOD. I'm a little familiar with how standards evolve. That would be a pretty grave violation of standards development protocol. Yeah...I know...SFI doesn't claim to conform to ANSI or ISO requirements. But...you're suggesting an intentional act where lives (and not just money) are at stake. Is your statement above factual, or just a guess ? When the spec process started, did they even care about lateral loads ? Do they now ? [/b]
Click to expand...

SFI publishes standards that its members can satisfy or at a level that its members want. It is a membership organization and does not set independent standards. In fact, by its own admission, it sets standards both at the request of its members and with member input. This particular specification was instigated at the request of NASCAR with the almost certain intent of having an existing device meet that standard. NASCAR was interested in basal skull fractures as a result of numerous deaths of high-profile drivers impacting concrete walls in near perpendicular crashes. The goal was to provide CYA for those types of accidents.

Regardless of whatever conspiracies we can imagine, I still have a fundamental problem (and apparently, SFI does too) with having your head & neck connected to the vehicle by a separate system that may not be as elastic as the rest of the "driver containment system".[/b]
Click to expand...

From where does this come? I believe the criticisms of the spec deal with the lack of lateral impact protection and the unneeded, counter-productive, and unwritten requirement that the driver must be free to exit the vehicle upon release of the belts.
 
Got my Happy New Year letter from NASA Mid Atlantic today. Here's my response to competition@, chris@, and [email protected]...

>> Racers, please remember that all NASA Competition Licenses expired on December 31st!!!

While I certainly don't expect that it will change anyone's mind about the policy, I'm disappointed that the SFI H&N system mandate is going to keep me from competing in NASA events for the foreseeable future.

It might be that I know too much about SFI from past experiences with them but at the end of the day I'm simply not comfortable under the circumstances, compromising the tested superior levels of performance afforded by my current system to "backdate" to an inferior product as demanded by the new rule. While my personal experience in the racing safety business tells me that it's not a critically considered decision, I do recognize the rationale behind the rule change and further understand that it's entirely my choice to not participate in NASA MA races. I'm choosing my personal safety over races - and racers - that I've enjoyed in the past, and I will miss them.

Under the circumstances, it really doesn't make sense to renew my membership and license either so I'll be letting both lapse. I remain hopeful that circumstances will change in the future and despite my deep doubts, sincerely wish that this situation works out for the best for all involved.

Regards,

Kirk Knestis
[/b]
Click to expand...

Kirk,

I wrote to Jerry Kunzman about SFI 38.1. At one point he offered to speak with me on the phone, as he stated he could not always put some things down in writing. (Liability reasons?) I did appreciate the fact that his responses were very quick and he seemed like he cared.

The general impression I'm getting at this point in time is that NASA will not change their SFI 38.1 requirement (no big surprise) and no amount of lobbying will change anything.

I'm going to begin focusing my precious time and energy beginning prepping for the 2008 race season (my first in ~2 years) and that means that I will be seeing some of y'all in ITR!

Now my only problem is that there are hardly any IT racers in the Central Division, according to the 2007 results. Anybody know why? (I just moved to this area from New England.)

Nobu
 
...snip...
The general impression I'm getting at this point in time is that NASA will not change their SFI 38.1 requirement (no big surprise) and no amount of lobbying will change anything. ...snip...
[/b]
Click to expand...

the only change i would expect is if and when they extend it to TT and HPDE.

if you remove your safety equipment back to stock, you can run your car most likely faster and not use the H&NR. but you will have the TT stickers on your car.

on the one hand, i think NASA is getting out front on this by adopting something. whether SFI is the best or not is really another debate. but to have TT on track in some cars going 140+ and not need a H&NR and have to have it for my 105 mph car, just seems wrong.

i think i will get some "Isaac Equipped" type stickers made that say "TT Equipped" and put some TT stickers on top of my car. they must generate some type of force field at speed to need such minimal safety gear.
 
...The general impression I'm getting at this point in time is that NASA will not change their SFI 38.1 requirement (no big surprise) and no amount of lobbying will change anything. ...[/b]
Click to expand...
He actually issued a written statement saying exactly that. Make no mistake - I'm not trying to change his mind: I'm just explaining why I'm choosing to not run with NASA at this point. They make their choices and take what comes, so do I.

K
 
It - his article. The data have been presented at a conference. The data have not been challenged. They devices have been tested. How many authors need to perform the same tests? Unless they think the cited author is in error, they won't reproduce his results. If subsequent studies find identical results, the authors won't publish or present because conferences/journals want original work.
[/b]
Click to expand...

This is perhaps getting to the root of the most aggravating thing here... I think the strategy Hubbard/Downing et al are employing is to try to ignore challenging the ISAAC directly (which is to say, on technical merit), and simply undermine the ISAAC business case commercially - by forcibly taking away the market. They're very active at the top level in ensuring that all H+N specs are written to allow their device and explicitly exclude the ISAAC.

That's marketing strategy like Microsoft and Oracle use, pretty underhanded IMO. Maybe it's the engineer in me, but want to employ the best device based on a cost-effective evaluation of the technical merits of all available options. That's why I do have a permanently installed fire system, yet use the stock fuel tank designed by some very good German engineers some 30 years ago.

Hubbard/Downing, instead, appear to prefer to market to the end user (in addition to the aforementioned strategy) by getting all the "big name" safety experts - existing or created - on board with their product. And I do mean, "on board."

I have met and talked with both John Melvin and Tom Gideon; John is actually the Safety Chair and one of the DE instructors for my PCA region, and Tom I've met through racing - NASA, specifically. I have the utmost respect for their experience, knowledge, and their efforts to improve racing safety (not to mention Dr. Melvin's efforts to teach my wife how to drive my racecar! ;) ).

Yet in asking both of them about the ISAAC, directly, I've gotten nothing concrete in why a HANS is better, or why an ISAAC system is bad. Just hand-waving, "bad mojo" you-don't-wanna-use-that kinda stuff. Very disappointing. You really think this is over my head? Prove it!?! I've even heard the same thing from someone else who just so happens to work in the crash sled at Wayne State - bad juju. WHY???

I'm no child; don't patronize me.

I'm mature enough to make the decision to get behind the wheel and put my life in danger with my hobby; respect me enough at least to allow me to decide on my own.

I guess that why, while he regularly oversteps the bounds between defending his design and marketing, I will continue to have appreciation for Gregg's contributions to this subject.

<\soapbox>
 
I got a nice note from Jerry K. @ NASA today. I won't quote it since I didn't ask for permission to do so but he was respectful of my decision to opt out of running their events.

K
 
I was thinking about this and wondered, does anyone truly feel the ISAAC to be unsafe? Is there any liable reason sanctioning bodies couldn't include Isaac? State something like SFI 38.1 or Isaac? How many doors does that really open?
 
Looking at the 38.1 definitions, how do the 'other' H/R devices meet this:

2.4 The Head and Neck Restraint System must be designed and manufactured to allow freedom of movement of head, torso, arms, etc., commensurate with operating a race vehicle under all race and associated conditions.
 
Matt, ask SFI to define "Free"...
I suspect you will get no answer, or a rather vague answer.

That's one of the issues with the spec...it's open to judgement, and the SFI is the judge, and the jury.
 
I was thinking about this and wondered, does anyone truly feel the ISAAC to be unsafe? Is there any liable reason sanctioning bodies couldn't include Isaac? State something like SFI 38.1 or Isaac? How many doors does that really open?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Viewed simplistically, I can understand how the sanctioning bodies want to be able to simply refer to "an industry standard." They are trying to avoid picking and choosing, or setting their own specifications, thinking that it puts them in a vulnerable liability position.

I personally think that they can get the butt-coverage that they need through more flexible - albeit more complicated - processes.

K
 
I personally think that they can get the butt-coverage that they need through more flexible - albeit more complicated - processes.

K
[/b]
Click to expand...


As some have stated (whether the logic is right or not is irrelevant) that maybe the 38.1 isn't as butt saving as they think. If that is remotely true maybe the more complicated process for true butt covering is needed.
 
As some have stated (whether the logic is right or not is irrelevant) that maybe the 38.1 isn't as butt saving as they think. If that is remotely true maybe the more complicated process for true butt covering is needed.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Good point. Like my Grandma used to say, "Make sure the light at the end of the tunnel is not the headlight of an oncoming train."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top