Time to write those letters - Head and Neck Restraints

Eagle7 said:
Smart business strategy. Consumers getting ripped off. Lots of middlemen (including SCCA) that are part of the problem - some due to ignorance, some due to apathy, some protecting their share of the profits.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly right! I am not in favor for SFI 38.1 either, but my point is its not nearly as simple as this board is making it. We are only looking at one side of the coin. Insurance is one of many other points that come into this equation along with risk manageement, etc...
 
Jeremy Billiel said:
We are only looking at one side of the coin.
Click to expand...

Agreed but I think we have to think bigger picture than just the insurance risk that you seem to be focused on.

The recurring topic of concern over the past several years in the club has been participation, member retention and new members. These are the factors that are most likely to drive (and require) serious changes in how the club operates.

What do we really think is most likely to cancel events and put regions out of business, the threat of lawsuits or taking increasing losses at events because the casual racers leave and no new ones join? I can tell you in all of the discussions I hear, no one is worried about insurance costs, it's all about the members.

Yet despite this focus on retention and drawing in new people this policy is completely contrary to that priority. There is no argument I have seen made that suggest this will help bring new people in or keep current racers coming to the track. Put simply, it adds to the the biggest problem that we currently have, and all of this at a time when costs keep rising. It just doesn't make sense.
 
What about all the other clubs that already mandate the 38.1 spec, I know that BMW CCA, PCA, NASA require them. I agree that some sort on HNR mandate is needed.
 
at least NASA was consistent. they said you would need one and they implemented it.

SCCA, as i recall it, had the CRB say they were recommended but were not required. i then bought the entry level Isaac since i felt we were free to get what we thought would best suit us.

then the BOD threw in a trump card of the mandate. the fact that two levels of governing are going on is part of what has my dander up.
 
What about the other several hundred auto racing sanctioning bodies that don't (not just road racing)?

For most expensive marque racing, a HNR is pennies to them.
 
No, not HPDEs. I'm opening it up to other forms of auto racing (the 95% other). Looking a paved circle track, dirt circle track, and the like.

I understand the concern of insurance rates and trying to protect the club. It's the balance that I have a problem with. Heck, as someone else mentioned make me sign some waiver that I will take responsibility for going out on the track without a HNR is I so desire.

I don't think this is a dead issue. The talk about how NASA and some other Clubs do things...I'd like to think of SCCA as a leader and have other clubs that want to be as good as us be followers. I realize the other is the easy way out.
 
Jeremy Billiel said:
Like who? Are you talking about HPDE's?
Click to expand...

Jeremy,

why not require HANs for the HPDE's? HANs cites "anectodal" evidence that they work with standard 3 point OEM harnesses.

also, regarding the insurance issue, what is the "industry standard" for determining which minors can have licenses? there have been lawsuits that have determined that parents cannot sign away the rights of their minor children. basically, any parent that would sign away the rights of their child obviously do not have the best interests of the child in mind.

i will not argue that some of these kids with 10 years in karts are better on the track than me. what i would argue is that there are no clear "standards" to determine if they are ready or mature enough to race.

and allowing them to run has nothing to do with reducing insurance risks imo, it has to do with marketing because SCCA wants to be able to point to the next wunderkid as having rose up through the SCCA ladder to reach IRL or F1, etc.

and if you cite other sanctioning bodies are allowing it, i will cite that other sanctioning bodies are allowing Isaacs (or at least not requiring SFI 38.1).

honestly just trying to understand the "insurance" side of this when it does not seem to fit or be consistent. like using SCCA designs for the rollcage when SFI or FIA could be cited, etc. afterall, that is what the SFI belts and H&NR need to function properly.
 
jeremy, riddle me this, insurance guru...
In the past five years we've had at least three deaths in club racing, and I think they've all been the result of a major 'incident' (heart attack, seizure, etc) that occurred on track.
Hmmmmm...see, that says to me: HEY! Somethings happening here, and it's going to cost us...the club, sooner or later.

Yet, I have heard not one peep about re examining our rather loose medical standards or restricting based on stress tests etc.
Frankly, to me, the threat of some guy having a seizure entering the straight at Lime Rock and taking a right with his foot pegged to the floor, shooting down pit lane in a qualifying session scares me FAR more than some guy who spins and rams a bridge abutment and is killed because he suffered basilar scull fracture. His death is the result of an on track incident, ...whereas a medical event has the potential to CAUSE a major incident harming or killing spectators.

I'd opine it's because the medical issues are the 800 pound gorilla, and SCCA is scared silly to approach that, because it knows that requiring real stress tests and better screening will eliminate a large portion of it's driver base.*

But, tell me why actual past history and deaths has not caused our insurance to rise, but you claim lacking a hNR rule WILL cause the rates to rise, even if there are no related deaths??

Help me see the logic.

* See also Mine and Kirks separate requests for SCCA to set bail out standards and institute testing. In my case, they replied that they feared a reprisal from the ADA folk, and in Kirks case they responded that they saw no need to have exits be timed or, presumably...quick.
 
Jeremy Billiel said:
I would also remind everyone that regions pay an amount of money for insurance to rent the track. This insurance is for liability and damage to the track.

While you may not like it, mandatory hans devices and pro-active safety systems reduces the insurance costs which means you race more. if the club does not do these things then you pay more in entry fees to run.
Click to expand...

Road apples. Insurance costs are chicken feed compared to the cost of renting the track. Insurance was roughly 5% of the weekend expenses and a large chunk of that was the per/car fee. If a region loses 2 entries because of this asinine rule, the loss in entry fees will be greater than the insurance savings.

Which woudl you prefer? It one takes one lawsuit (see Rally for example) to shut this down or make it so cost prohibitive the club can no longer afford the insurance to put on races.
Click to expand...

Logic fallacy. Should all cars be restricted so as to not exceed safe speeds? Afterall, all it takes is one lawsuit....
 
Bob, I previously listed a book from HPD ( I believe that was the source) which listed a large number of sanctioning bodies. I never would have guessed just how many existed, but again I'm talking beyond our little road racing niche. I'm sure if you are really curious, Gregg from ISAAC can provide a healthy list.
 
Rob,

beyond the local nascar paved 3/8" oval tracks that Dave had cited, the Midwest Council of Sports Car Clubs currently has no intentions beyond recommendations:

http://www.mcscc.org/files/GCR2011.pdf

[FONT=Arial,Bold]
[FONT=Arial,Bold]1.3 [/FONT][/FONT]Head and neck supports are strongly recommended for all competitors, e.g. Hans Device
Click to expand...

i was contacted specifically by MCSCC members and told this.

i don't think my 26 year old CRX meets vintage requirements although i do intend to get a "historic" plate for one of my other CRX's for minimal summer driving....

Waterford Hills ( http://www.waterfordhills.com/ ) does not require them as far as I know (members there have also contacted me about racing with them next year as an alternate but their site also references SCCA's GCR for car rules and classing). I have started contact with them to try and confirm but also to suggest that any H&NR standard be performance based. i intend to contact the MCSCC as well for some informational opportunities in case they are thinking about just playing follow the others like SCCA.

i have personally to decided to go all in on this issue as in i am letting my SCCA membership expire this June after 25 years.

instead of two major events this year being something like the ITSPECtacular and the ARRC, i plan to run with MCSCC at Grattan and Road America.

they race on many tracks in the midwest that SCCA uses:

http://www.mcscc.org/events.php

more discussion here with regards to MCSCC as an alternate to SCCA and NASA

http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=34381&highlight=mcscc

in my best summers, i would race 4-5 weekends per summer. two at Grattan on Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends because it was ~25 miles from my folks and 2-3 at Mid-Ohio (Brat Bash & WOR Games, etc.) because it was ~100 mile from where i lived in Ohio.

i now live near Grand Rapids, MI and the MCSCC schedule with races at Grattan, Autobahn near Chicago and Road America meets my criteria considering challenging tracks and close enough for tow fuel considerations.

i now consider 2-3 weekends per year to be good and for a couple of years that meant the ITSPECtacular and the ARRC.

i am very much the "casual" twice per year racer that was discussed previously.

performance based is the only thing that makes sense to me. meet objective criteria or we headed towards SFI or FIA cage rules, etc.

afterall the cage is what the belts and HNR require to work.
 
Last edited:
There are approximately 200 formal racing organizations in the U.S. and another 200 informal clubs. Since U.S. racers make up about 2/3 of all racers, it is safe to assume there are probably another 200 foreign clubs. Let's say, to be conservative, 500 world wide.

It is doubtful that anyone can list, say, 20 clubs that mandate H&N restraints, meaning there are 480 (96%) that do not.
 
ok. so i see the midwest council of sportscar clubs and thats it? there's one regional group then?

gregg, i race at vir, roebling road, cmp, road atlanta and some others. what racing club or pro racing body races at those facilities and does not mandate the device?
 
Last edited:
I race at Grays Harbor, Castle Rock, Deming, and sometimes at Evergreen Speedway (all dirt tracks in Washington State). What racing club or pro racing body races at those facilities and DOES mandate the device?

See what I did there?

K
 
lateapex911 said:
jeremy, riddle me this, insurance guru...
In the past five years we've had at least three deaths in club racing, and I think they've all been the result of a major 'incident' (heart attack, seizure, etc) that occurred on track.
Hmmmmm...see, that says to me: HEY! Somethings happening here, and it's going to cost us...the club, sooner or later.

Yet, I have heard not one peep about re examining our rather loose medical standards or restricting based on stress tests etc.
Frankly, to me, the threat of some guy having a seizure entering the straight at Lime Rock and taking a right with his foot pegged to the floor, shooting down pit lane in a qualifying session scares me FAR more than some guy who spins and rams a bridge abutment and is killed because he suffered basilar scull fracture. His death is the result of an on track incident, ...whereas a medical event has the potential to CAUSE a major incident harming or killing spectators.

I'd opine it's because the medical issues are the 800 pound gorilla, and SCCA is scared silly to approach that, because it knows that requiring real stress tests and better screening will eliminate a large portion of it's driver base.*

But, tell me why actual past history and deaths has not caused our insurance to rise, but you claim lacking a hNR rule WILL cause the rates to rise, even if there are no related deaths??

Help me see the logic.

* See also Mine and Kirks separate requests for SCCA to set bail out standards and institute testing. In my case, they replied that they feared a reprisal from the ADA folk, and in Kirks case they responded that they saw no need to have exits be timed or, presumably...quick.
Click to expand...

Guys - I can turn this thread into insurance philospophy and how a company prices a given risk, but I will not bore you with the details. My point is insurance is one of many "other" items that the club as a whole worries about and needs to understand the impact to when making decisions like this. I do not have any insider information on insurance costs other than historical costs to run races. I realize they are small, but its one piece of a large inter connected puzzle. Just as a FYI, Insurance costs are NEVER just a historical view on past loss costs. Insurance carriers ALWAYS have prospective "bets" in their pricing based on what they believe is going to happen in the future.

What lawyer in SCCA or one that works for SCCA would not recommend using an industry standard? I hear the arguments and I agree that the SFI thing is bogus, but I think everyones anger is directed at the wrong people.

if Hans are so bad than why does every single major serious organizer require them? (F1, NASCAR, etc)
 
Jeremy Billiel said:
if Hans are so bad than why does every single major serious organizer require them? (F1, NASCAR, etc)
Click to expand...
They don't. Many organization that get TV time require them, but most organizations do not.

The underlying question, at least as far as this thread is concerned, is whether the SCCA, assuming a mandate is in place, will limit itself to only one sticker -- and why.
 
Got a reply, letter #4693 has been reviewed and a response will be in the next Fasttrack...


This was my letter:

CRB and BOD,

I am writing regarding the looming H&N support mandate. As it is currently written, I am firmly against this mandate and it's language.


While I understand the need for the mandate and agree 100 percent with its intent, I believe the mandate can be much improved. The mandate should be amended to allow for devices that perform as well or better than the SFI spec requires AND have other advantages. Ratings or certs exist that are not so restrictive as the cleverly written SFI spec and these should be included in the mandate. There are a variety of reasons to support such an amendment.

- The equipment required by the SFI spec is very expensive. Obviously racing is not cheap, but that is all the more reason to avoid unneeded expense.
- Some of the SFI spec H&N restraints under perform in important categories, namely side impact scenarios. This opens a whole 'nother can of worms...
- To reach the same level of protection that other devices offer, a HANS user must purchase and install additional equipment that is not only expensive, but impedes escape from the vehicle thereby negating any advantage (on paper) the HANS has in that department. Just ask Joey Hand about his wreck at MidO...
- The SFI spec was intentionally written in a very restrictive manner, other specs/certs exist that allow for more innovation, lesser costs and ultimately more safety. These need to be considered.
- Many members have already done their homework and selected a device, like the Isaac, that they believe (and testing agrees) gives them a higher level of protection. What would you say to these people? And what would you say if, next year, they get involved in an accident on track involving a high lateral G load and are injured or killed?
- This mandate, as currently written, actually opens the SCCA to liability by restricting the use of higher performing devices.
- The SCCA will loose participation numbers($$) if this mandate goes through as written. The typical club racer cannot simply absorb the kind of cost we are talking about here. I know this because I am in that boat! If I had to spring for a HANS and a seat with wings, I would be out for half a season next year!! I could give up one extra race during a given weekend and buy a device such as the Isaac. During a time when regions are struggling to put on events that make money and the economy is on thin ice, this is simply not a good business decision. While this effect is, in theory, only short term, such effects on a business can be permanent.

For the above reasons, and more, I believe a change needs to be made to the H&N restraint mandate. Such a change would benefit and be in the best interest of the SCCA organization and it's members. It could be as simple as adding one certification to the mandate. The Club would not incur more liability, in fact It would be better protected and so would it's members.

Thanks very much for taking the time to read my letter and hopefully for considering this important issue.


Sincerely,
Christopher Rallo
SCCA member 396934
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top