SCCA HELMET UPDATE and other news!!!!

LUCK? Exactly my point. I wrecked, and I walked away. My 1year old son falls 6 feet off of a garden wall, lands on his head, and gets up and walks away. By what everyone there saw, he should not be 24 years old now. Eric Medlin was wearing a hans device when he was killed in a racing wreck, Scott Kalitta was also wearing a devics. It didn't save them. So I have two positive that it didn't save versus ??? that it did.

I do not see a definate need for them in SCCA club racing. Tell me why there is a need besides it Might save my life. Not racing might save my life, but there are still no gaurentees.

Russ
 
I agree they work, but some work better than others and it has nothing to do with an SFI decal. Actually, my biggest complain is that I can't use a product that I genuinely feel does a better job protecting me. Yes, it pisses me off that I need to downgrade to a device. I know clubs are mandating the SFI green ($$$) badge due to litigation concerns.

Bob, no one is pissed off at you but this certainly is a subject (SFI cert) which reaks in political BS.

Okay, so that's another reason why not to mandate H&NR. If it's not mandated, we can use other non-SFI devices.
 
Just to throw a little more gas on the fire, I was told by a retailer of safety equipment not to believe the neck-load reduction numbers (you know, the numbers that show how well these H&N devices reduce neck loads in various angle impacts). ??????????????

And it was not Bob, or anyone in his organization.
 
Is everyone really that upset if SCCA mandates the use of a H&N system? I haven't read one single good argument in here to WHY they should not mandate it.

It's cheap insurance.

I could see some worried about it being harder to get out of the car and what not but I'm sure you can figure out a plan in case you're upside down and on fire and need to get out.

Also how does a racing suit affect your heart? :shrug:

Simon, here is MY reason why it's a bad idea.
I will be LESS safe as a result of the mandate.
"How can that be?", you ask...
Well, quite a few years ago, I did my research. Even though we race (and crash) at lower speeds than many other categories, I decided that getting some H&N protection was a good idea.. BUT, I think that safety is more than one item. How that item interfaces with all the other elements is key.
I decided that the HANS was a poor choice. It's performance numbers were poor compared to other devices, in certain modes. It had issues with the belts slipping off, rendering it useless, or worse, it could conceivably cause injury. The lack of protection in it's lateral modes could be minimized by the use of a halo seat. But, that too has a downside: reduced window real estate. Once crashed, and presumably upside down or in another position where the door is inoperable, getting out becomes significantly more difficult with a big halo seat in the way of the window. I'm 6'3, so it's much different than it is for somebody 5'9".

So, I chose a system that exceeded the performance of the HANS, and eliminated the need for the space robbing Halo style seat.

But, SFI, in it's collusion with the HANS folks, wrote very limiting language into the 38.1 spec, language that makes it very difficult to achieve superior performance. The language limits the architecture of the design. It's as though the UL existed way back when the light bulb was invented, and asked Mr Edison to write a spec on the matter of home lighting, and he specified that all home lighting that was to be approved by the UL was of a tungsten filament design. No Arc vapor, no HID, LED, etc etc.

Anyway, for years I've been driving with a device that has been tested by the top labs and shown to be of the highest performance.
Now, if this rule passes, I will throw that device away, and replace it with a poorer performing device. For around $700. Then to attempt to recover some of my lost performance, I will need to add a Halo seat. Proper FiA versions are easily $700, and proper mounts will add over $100.

But wait. I'm still not as safe, because getting out of the car is a much more difficult task due to the reduced window aperture*.
So....roughly $1500, and I'm less safe. That's just dumb.

That's my one good reason.

* I know, I should go buy a different car. :shrug:


I suspect the racing suit comment is based on the fact that people with weaker hearts, or who are in poorer physical condition, typically have heart attacks and other related trauma when they are pushed to extremes. Like heat. Obviously, operating a racing car causes some people to have a faster heart rate, elevated breathing rate and so on. Add the heat of summer, magnified by the extra heat in some racing car cockpits, and then add on top of that, a multi layer, poor breathing racing suit, and you have a recipe for sudden health issues.
Does the suit itself cause the heart attack or other trauma? No, years of neglect, hereditary issues and so forth do, but the conditions provide the straws that break the camels back. My casual observations show that many or most of the recent deaths in club racing have been health related, and not due entirely to crash trauma. Seems to me that's a major issue that we should examine more closely, but, it will be a highly controversial one.
 
Last edited:
I just spoke with DefNder and they will continue to wear the SFI badge. Every few years it's necessary to go though the SFI renewal process ($$$) and it'll be renewed.
 
Same as how we know for the Impact stuff: assumed valid unless otherwise specified. As a scrutineer, if I see a sticker and don't have any notification from Topeka that's it's invalid, it's assumed valid. And the Impact thing was not new: we had the same thing with FIA certs on some seats a few years ago.

So, as far as I've heard, the deNder is still SFI certified.

GA

But..... Tech only sees my equipment/car once a year to look at the safety stuff. Even if an event tech is done for equipment, I've got multiple suits, gloves, shoes/socks... No one is 'really' looking for the details on the grid (and they shouldn't be!). Grid checks for gloves, belts (on, not the date), helmet sticker, tech sticker - and they do a GREAT job at that!!! You are on top of the rules and what is going on with the SFI stuff. What about the tech inspector/racer who isn't plugged in and made aware of this stuff? As a driver, If I show up at a track with the proper sticker/patch on my gear and someone tells me it isn't valid - we've got a problem. If the rule requires the SFI sticker and my X has that sticker/patch, I should be good.

This whole conversation is funny to me because 'we' mandate new belts every 2 years. Going to require an SFI H&N device in 2012. All in the name of safety! But I can still wear an SFI suit from 1988 (or earlier) as long as the patch on the suit is 3.2/1-5 (or whatever it is). Then there is the "I used the belts, but they are still in the car" issue I mentioned earlier. I appreciate the legal issues with the H&N argument. I'm sure they work and have the potential to save a life. My issue with the HANS is that at 6'4" 225, I WILL have issues getting out of my car (wheels up or down). Again - Read Joey Hand's article about his crash at Mid-Ohio. He says speciffically that the HANS saved his life - THEN trapped him in the car. Yea - No thanks.

If I'm still racing in 2012 and this rule becomes law, then I'll do something. It will be the cheapest option that doesn't trap me in the car. And mobility shouldn't be an issue, because I can wear the teathers as loose as I want! :D
 
here was my last letter to the CRB & BOD:

To: BOD, CRB May 12, 2010

Re: SFI Head & Neck Restraint Requirements for 2012

I would like to reiterate my opposition to the SFI requirement as I do not believe that SFI Certification does anything to improve my survivability in the event of an accident when I am already wearing an H&NR design that outperforms anything that SFI certifies.

The recent debacle with Impact racing products should give us all cause for concern. I am very reluctant to spend ~$700 on a device that can have the certification revoked over where the certification labels were sourced.

I have previously requested that the H&NR requirements be performance based rather than whether or not the device has the official SFI label. The documentation requirements can be met by using a third party such as RSI. A sanctioning body such as SCCA would only need to define a performance requirement in terms of the force exerted on the neck (SCCA could select the same force as defined by SFI). H&NR manufacturers would then submit test sled results completed by an independent lab to RSI for publication. RSI could compile these test results. The following is an example of what a driver could review and decide which would best meet their needs.

Chart1.GIF


This methodology could easily supplement the SFI certification rule. If a device is later decertified by SFI as a result of where labels were sourced but has been proven in actual test sled results, then the SCCA members’ investment would not be deemed null and void.

The nearly 1000 words in the beginning of the GCR under the topics of [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Assumption of Risk [/FONT][/FONT]and [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Release and Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk and Indemnity Agreement [/FONT][/FONT]ought to count for something.

SCCA’s demands that I actually reduce my personal protection after I have literally signed away all rights to sue and litigate are unreasonable and have no place in a member driven organization.

Regards,

Tom

and Jake, I have a bone to pick with you!

your post regarding heat stress and heart attacks will cause SFI cool suits to be mandated in 2013! crap!

in a longer and boringly detailed letter, i pointed out to the BOD and CRB that the SFI mandated design is seriously flawed from a reliability viewpoint.

the basis of the design is to transfer the force to the helmut to the posts to the tethers to the SFI device to your chest and then the belts.

why not transfer the force to the belts and get rid of a couple of Links in the system?

and thanks to those that actually took the time to contact SFI and defNder to check on the status.
 
Is everyone really that upset if SCCA mandates the use of a H&N system? I haven't read one single good argument in here to WHY they should not mandate it.

It's the 38.1 requirement.
Also how does a racing suit affect your heart? :shrug:

The suit makes you HOT. Your heart beats faster to try and push more blood to the skin surface, but that won't work because there's no evaporative cooling, so it beats faster still. You breath faster in an attempt to dispel heat through your breath. That causes your heart to beat faster.
 
Can someone please explain why my existing belts have to be redesigned for my HANS!? NTM some of the special HANS belts make it damn near impossible to get out! :/
 
Huh? Your belts don't need to be redesigned, although you should be certain that they are mounted properly (which you should be doing anyway.) Certainly nothing should make it harder to get out.

Although I'm not thrilled with the industry actions and activity of HANS or SFI, I have been using a HANS since 2005. I think I'm safer with it than without it. I have properly-mounted HANS-specific belts from Schroth in the current car (they are 3" towards the buckle but 2" where they go over the shoulders) but other than that there's nothing different about them than any other belts, and in hindsight I don't think they are really any better.
 
...This whole conversation is funny to me because 'we' mandate new belts every 2 years. Going to require an SFI H&N device in 2012. All in the name of safety! But I can still wear an SFI suit from 1988 (or earlier) as long as the patch on the suit is 3.2/1-5 (or whatever it is). Then there is the "I used the belts, but they are still in the car" issue I mentioned earlier. I appreciate the legal issues with the H&N argument. ...

Why do you suppose SCCA adopted the life-out rule for belts...?

And for the record, the SCCA has explicitly stated that escape time is not an issue to them. I requested that the Club adopt a rule the mirror's NASA's requirement that drivers demonstrate that they can get out of their cars in a particular time. The response (May 2010 Fastrack) was "There has been no proven need for this requirement in Club Racing."

Given that, neither the "trapped by the net with my Hans" argument NOR the purported "you can't get out fast with an Isaac" arguments matter even one iota.

K

PS - I passed NASA's bailout test with all of my gear, including Isaac, excluding only my drink bottle (used only in enduros). Their requirement was 10 sec out the door (15 out the window). I did it (door) in 8 seconds.

PPS - It scares the crap out of me, wondering what would have to happen to "prove" that there's a "need" for a bailout rule.
 
Last edited:
Do we really want to become NASA? They spout they are a grassroots organization yet the url for their website is nasaproracing.com. Having worked their races (made me a corner captain the first time I showed up) I choose not to run their events.

Make your case but "we should do it cause NASA does it" don't fly with me.
 
Another issue with using a HANS is that the teathers have an expiration date(2 years). So if the SFI 2 year belt/window-net date burns your derryair, be warned. The flip side is that some organizations expect all the other types (Defender/R3/ect) to have expiration dates on their teathers like the HANS, which they don't. Dates on the teather isn't even part of the certification for 38.1, but HANS decided to put it on all the same.
 
Another issue with using a HANS is that the teathers have an expiration date(2 years). So if the SFI 2 year belt/window-net date burns your derryair, be warned. The flip side is that some organizations expect all the other types (Defender/R3/ect) to have expiration dates on their teathers like the HANS, which they don't. Dates on the teather isn't even part of the certification for 38.1, but HANS decided to put it on all the same.


Window nets expire?
 
Simon, here is MY reason why it's a bad idea.
I will be LESS safe as a result of the mandate.
"How can that be?", you ask...
Well, quite a few years ago, I did my research. Even though we race (and crash) at lower speeds than many other categories, I decided that getting some H&N protection was a good idea.. BUT, I think that safety is more than one item. How that item interfaces with all the other elements is key.
I decided that the HANS was a poor choice. It's performance numbers were poor compared to other devices, in certain modes. It had issues with the belts slipping off, rendering it useless, or worse, it could conceivably cause injury. The lack of protection in it's lateral modes could be minimized by the use of a halo seat. But, that too has a downside: reduced window real estate. Once crashed, and presumably upside down or in another position where the door is inoperable, getting out becomes significantly more difficult with a big halo seat in the way of the window. I'm 6'3, so it's much different than it is for somebody 5'9".

So, I chose a system that exceeded the performance of the HANS, and eliminated the need for the space robbing Halo style seat.

But, SFI, in it's collusion with the HANS folks, wrote very limiting language into the 38.1 spec, language that makes it very difficult to achieve superior performance. The language limits the architecture of the design. It's as though the UL existed way back when the light bulb was invented, and asked Mr Edison to write a spec on the matter of home lighting, and he specified that all home lighting that was to be approved by the UL was of a tungsten filament design. No Arc vapor, no HID, LED, etc etc.

Anyway, for years I've been driving with a device that has been tested by the top labs and shown to be of the highest performance.
Now, if this rule passes, I will throw that device away, and replace it with a poorer performing device. For around $700. Then to attempt to recover some of my lost performance, I will need to add a Halo seat. Proper FiA versions are easily $700, and proper mounts will add over $100.

But wait. I'm still not as safe, because getting out of the car is a much more difficult task due to the reduced window aperture*.
So....roughly $1500, and I'm less safe. That's just dumb.

That's my one good reason.

* I know, I should go buy a different car. :shrug:


I suspect the racing suit comment is based on the fact that people with weaker hearts, or who are in poorer physical condition, typically have heart attacks and other related trauma when they are pushed to extremes. Like heat. Obviously, operating a racing car causes some people to have a faster heart rate, elevated breathing rate and so on. Add the heat of summer, magnified by the extra heat in some racing car cockpits, and then add on top of that, a multi layer, poor breathing racing suit, and you have a recipe for sudden health issues.
Does the suit itself cause the heart attack or other trauma? No, years of neglect, hereditary issues and so forth do, but the conditions provide the straws that break the camels back. My casual observations show that many or most of the recent deaths in club racing have been health related, and not due entirely to crash trauma. Seems to me that's a major issue that we should examine more closely, but, it will be a highly controversial one.

Very good info. :023: Thanks for sharing. I see some of the concerns now, especially with the SFI stuff.
 
Quote from Joey Hand after his crash at Mid-Ohio:
"When it was all said and done, I came to a stop upside down. I was still in the seat, and the first thing I noticed was my right shoe was off. I blew my right shoe off and my right glove somehow. I unbuckled myself and fell down out of the car onto the roof. There was fuel running down my back and into the roof of the car, and oil and stuff. The corner workers were yelling to get out of the car because it was going to catch fire, and I couldn�t get out because my HANS device was stuck in the window net, and the window was smaller than normal."
(Bold added by me)

Source:
http://paddocktalk.com/news/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=35920
 
Quote from Joey Hand after his crash at Mid-Ohio:
"When it was all said and done, I came to a stop upside down. I was still in the seat, and the first thing I noticed was my right shoe was off. I blew my right shoe off and my right glove somehow. I unbuckled myself and fell down out of the car onto the roof. There was fuel running down my back and into the roof of the car, and oil and stuff. The corner workers were yelling to get out of the car because it was going to catch fire, and I couldn�t get out because my HANS device was stuck in the window net, and the window was smaller than normal."
(Bold added by me)

Source:
http://paddocktalk.com/news/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=35920

That sounds horrifying...

Is there not a in between type of head and neck system that could be made? Something smaller?
 
That sounds horrifying...

Is there not a in between type of head and neck system that could be made? Something smaller?

oh there are... and some of them even out perform the HANS during an impact in every way, they just don't meet the SFI cert that was written specifically for the HANS.

And here in lies the issue...
 
Last edited:
oh there are... and some of them even out perform the HANS during an impact in every way, they just don't meet the SFI cert that was written specifically for the HANS, in cooperation with the makers and designers of the HANS..

And here in lies the issue...

And that's the 'nice' way of putting it......
(just sayin'....)
 
oh there are... and some of them even out perform the HANS during an impact in every way, they just don't meet the SFI cert that was written specifically for the HANS.

And here in lies the issue...

Oh how it all becomes clear! :023:
 
Back
Top