Time to write those letters - Head and Neck Restraints

stupid question time.....

can a SFI 38.1 Safety Solutions device be worn at the SAME time as the classic Isaac?

i do not intend to do this but for the concern of poor side impact with the HANS, GCR rule says you need a SFI 38.1 but does not say you can't wear anything else, right? this might address the concern about needing better seats with more side bolsters, etc.

with regards to the MCSCC being only regional, etc., NASA started because of people being unhappy with SCCA and wanting to go another direction. just because NASA was not nationwide at first should not be a reason to dismiss other organizations.

and as i recall, the SCCA VW TDI Cup mandated defNder's correct? and they appear to no longer be a player with regards to 2011 certifications. the conspiracy theorist in me would like to know how much money SCCA received in equipment and sponsorship $$ and the timeline prior to SCCA mandating the 2012 implementation of H&NR. :shrug: this seems to be an odd coincidence.
 
tom91ita said:
The conspiracy theorist in me would like to know how much money SCCA received in equipment and sponsorship $$ and the timeline prior to SCCA mandating the 2012 implementation of H&NR. :shrug: this seems to be an odd coincidence.
Click to expand...

Isn't there a full page hans ad in the last several year's GCR??? :rolleyes:
 
CRallo said:
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
Click to expand...

Chris - This statement "The mandate should be amended to allow for devices that perform as well or better than the SFI spec requires AND have other advantages." is the crux of the ISSUE. It's unreasonable to assume that SCCA has any desire, bandwidth or money to know when a device is equal to or exceeds the SFI spec.

The ONLY way to do that is with unbiased independant monitoring of devices as they become available. How would you recommned SCCA to test and know when a new device hits the market?
 
Jeremy Billiel said:
Chris - This statement "The mandate should be amended to allow for devices that perform as well or better than the SFI spec requires AND have other advantages." is the crux of the ISSUE. It's unreasonable to assume that SCCA has any desire, bandwidth or money to know when a device is equal to or exceeds the SFI spec.

The ONLY way to do that is with unbiased independant monitoring of devices as they become available. How would you recommned SCCA to test and know when a new device hits the market?
Click to expand...

Wow, that's just about as wrong as wrong can be. The way they would know that new devices meet the performance spec would be the same way they know the old devices meet the spec; the manufacturer (NOT SFI) tests the device and certifies that it meets the spec. Do you think the SCCA tested all of the currently available (and certified) devices?
 
erlrich said:
Wow, that's just about as wrong as wrong can be. The way they would know that new devices meet the performance spec would be the same way they know the old devices meet the spec; the manufacturer (NOT SFI) tests the device and certifies that it meets the spec. Do you think the SCCA tested all of the currently available (and certified) devices?
Click to expand...

I think you misread what I said. I am saying that SCCA has no business in the testing business, but its also not good legal practice to assume that becasue the manufactor said its better, its better, thus the need for industry groups like SFI.
 
tom91ita said:
stupid question time.....
i do not intend to do this but for the concern of poor side impact with the HANS, GCR rule says you need a SFI 38.1 but does not say you can't wear anything else, right? this might address the concern about needing better seats with more side bolsters, etc.
Click to expand...

This ^ is one good reason the SFI (HANS written rule) rated HANS should be stuck up the SCCA's legal council's a$$.

Screw this one release rule, how about the right side net? Does the recomended right side net release when one releases the driver restraint system? Does the mandatory window net release when one releases the driver restraint system? Shall I go on with the other devices that must be released?

The SCCA is covering their own a$$ (their legal council is showing the value of themselves) just like we cover our own a$$ on a daily basis with all the insurance we have. Medical, life, car/truck, home & the bigest joke of all, pet medical insurance.
 
tom91ita said:
the conspiracy theorist in me would like to know how much money SCCA received in equipment and sponsorship $$ and the timeline prior to SCCA mandating the 2012 implementation of H&NR. :shrug: this seems to be an odd coincidence.
Click to expand...

Tom, don’t start that crap.
 
I honestly feel that not mandating HNRs is the way to go, but since we have been told that's a foregone conclusion this is my letter:

Dear BOD,

I can appreciate SCCA’s desire to mandate a head & neck restraint device, but ask that we do not limit it to only devices that carry an SFI badge. This request is two part fold.

1. I propose that SCCA include head and neck restraint systems approved by SFI and allow additional systems at the Club’s discretion. This would be defined to include a maximum load and require approved lab test results to be submitted, but it allow additional designs that do not meet all of the current SFI criteria.

While I do feel there is some merit to SFI’s practices, the fact that the specification was essentially built around the HANS device is worrisome to say the least. Then to consider that only manufacturers are voting on the specification leads to further concerns.

The current practice is for SFI to review information supplied by the HNR manufacturer, and base their certification approval upon that. SCCA could require that any manufacturer that does not meet SFI’s design constraints to submit test lab results and additional information about how the device works for the Club to consider acceptance. SCCA would primarily review the load test results to ensure it meets the predefined maximum head load results (we could use the load criteria SFI uses for this). The Club would then be able to review how the overall general product is designed and attached to eliminate the concerns some have voiced. To the extreme, I’ve been told that “members could duck tape their helmet to the seat” and this review process would eliminate that issue. As part of the allowed design, include units that have two release points as explained in part 2 of this request.

2. Allow the use of the ISAAC HNR devices, including the ISAAC Link. One of the biggest problems with the current SFI certification process is the design limitations it has which includes the number of attachment point. The ISAAC devices meet the other SFI criteria but requires the individual to pull two pins versus the SFI mandated one attachment.

While SFI devices themselves can be released from one attachment point, they also require additional window nets in order to be effective and defeats the purpose of that requirement. If SCCA is concerned with how many attachments the driver can have in order to exit the car, it should take into consideration all devices (radio connection, window nets, cool suit connections, helmet blower tube). We could also look at overall egress out of the car to include that SFI systems require a full containment seat whereas the ISAAC does not due to superior side impact performance.

Thank you for taking the time to review this information.
Click to expand...
 
Isn't there a full page hans ad in the last several year's GCR???
Click to expand...

So what. Space is available in the GCR for advertising, and I have to imagine another company would be accepted if interested.

Gregg, I agree that another entity to certify HNRs is needed. I'm just not sure that RSI is the current solution. Who is behind RSI now? It seems like it's all well intended, but never got too far. Have other manufacturers besides ISAAC submitted their test data including HANS or was that gathered by other means?
 
I think this issue exposes a larger problem within Club Racing. It isn't the issue of the rule itself so much as it's just one more thing SCCA heaps on potential participants that makes it more expensive and complicated to go racing with them.

This is supposed to be grassroots level racing, so it's akin to other local and regional level motorsports such as short track racing and bracket racing. As others here have pointed out, compared to other forms of amateur motorsports, Club Racing is much more complicated to get involved in and stay in. I came from short track racing, I only had to hold any kind of sanctioning body license once, and that wasn't a comp license, it was just an insurance license that NASCAR required all member tracks to issue to all competitors and crew. That lasted exactly one year as NASCAR started losing member tracks because of it. All I needed to compete was a valid driver's license, a car and safety equipment that would pass tech, and my entry fee which was usually nothing more than the cost of the pit pass. Same thing when we went bracket racing. If we wanted to run for division points, we would have to become NHRA members and purchase a comp. number. You only needed a competition license if your car went into the 9's in the quarter or faster.

Club Racing on the other hand, there's the required $80-$100 SCCA membership, the required additional $80 competition license fee, a physical every other year at a cost in my case of $150 office visit. Add to that you must complete 2 races every year just to keep that license. The last point is mute for most as what's the point of all of it if you don't go racing? But it is still a fixed cost to play. And that's after you spent anywhere from hundreds to several thousand dollars to take a comp licensing school. Safety equipment costs are greater because SCCA times out belts and nets quicker, and now is requiring me to purchace an HNR, one that meets SFI 38.1 which only offer me a couple of choices.

I'm another one of those occasional Club Racers. I can only afford to do a couple of weekends a year. With all the associated costs, it's making less sense as time goes on no matter how much I love doing it. I can continue to Solo it for a lot less and run it at the odd track day or time attack. I could put it back on stock springs and struts, remove some of the glass, weld the doors shut and run it as a short track car. SCCA would at that point lose another member and Club Racer it so desparately needs. I wanted to race more, not less. Some of it was the economy, some of it was circumstances changed within the Club Racing community where I live. When I decided to go this route, I could race up to 5 weekends a year within an hour drive of the house and that was a big attraction to me. That has dwindled to one weekend with another sanctioning body (NASA which I would need a 38.1 HNR to compete). Now the closest SCCA track is 3.5 hours away.

Point I'm trying to make isn't really about my plight, but using an my plight as an example of someone looking in from the outside. Someone who just wants to go racing looking at their options, why in the hell would they want to go the Club Race route? Even those who do decide that road racing is the way to go have emerging options that appear to be more affordable and entertaining. Both ChumpCar and Lemons have made huge gains in a short period of time. While the cheap car angle is jut a gimmick, they make it easier to participate. Tracks don't need the Club Racers as much any longer with growth of track days and time attacks. SCCA (as well as other "clubs") need work on making it easier to participate, not chase boogey man issues that stifle growth.

Finally, the SCCA needs to rememberit is a club, not a sanctioning body. We pay dues to have a voice in how the club operates. I don't feel as though the folks in Topeka see it that way. That's fine, change the organization's structure and make it a sanctioning body and stop charging me a membership fee. In Club Racing it seems most racers behave as though that's the way it is now.
 
This weekend I went down to Pocono. The track wouldn't open until 7:00 on the nose so everyone had to line up on a side road. As I drove down the road to get to the end of the line, I drove past hauler after hauler after hauler (like $200K+). I probably could have counted the open trailers like mine on one hand.......... And I'm thinking to myself, "these guys couldn't give a shit if they spent $1,000 every five years.........".

I don't think most of the club are shelps like us and wouldn't understand our concerns....

.
 
JLawton said:
This weekend I went down to Pocono. The track wouldn't open until 7:00 on the nose so everyone had to line up on a side road. As I drove down the road to get to the end of the line, I drove past hauler after hauler after hauler (like $200K+). I probably could have counted the open trailers like mine on one hand.......... And I'm thinking to myself, "these guys couldn't give a shit if they spent $1,000 every five years.........".

I don't think most of the club are shelps like us and wouldn't understand our concerns....

.
Click to expand...

Jeff, you hit the nail on the head!!!!! We need to require all race cars to be transported on open trailers! :rolleyes:

Just kidding, of course. But, you are right. There are a lot of members who are not as disadvantaged as a lot us us here in Improved Touring.
 
I sent my letter straight to [email protected]. Should I also send it through the website?

I've given up on the SFI H&N rule being rescinded. What I asked for was for them to allow the Issac. I still think the rule is crap, but if they allow the Issac then that will be something.

David
 
Jeremy Billiel said:
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.
Click to expand...

So in otherwords... there ain't gonna be no lower entry fees cuz insurance costs fall.
 
jjjanos said:
So in otherwords... there ain't gonna be no lower entry fees cuz insurance costs fall.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that.... If personal injuries that SCCA pays out on are reduced due to the effect of having a mandated HNR then the insurance costs go down. Now, whether or not SCCA passes that reduction on to the regions and thus lower entry fees or membership fees is a whole nother ball of wax! :D
 
Jeremy Billiel said:
I think you misread what I said. I am saying that SCCA has no business in the testing business, but its also not good legal practice to assume that becasue the manufactor said its better, its better, thus the need for industry groups like SFI.
Click to expand...

I think the part you're missing, and I probably didn't spell it out very well, is that SFI doesn't test anything, they don't certify anything, they don't monitor anything. SFI publishes a standard - as I understand it they really more or less compile information for the standards (as opposed to performing their own research) from outside sources, mainly the manufacturers of the equipment - and then it's up to the manufacturers to test and certify that the equipment meets that standard. The mere fact that a product has a SFI sticker does not mean that an independent outside agency has tested the product. In other words, we're taking HANS', or Safety Solution's, or Defnder's word for it that their product meets the standard. Just like we're taking Sparco's, and Simpson's, and Momo's word that their suits meet the SFI standard for driver's suits.
 
erlrich said:
I think the part you're missing, and I probably didn't spell it out very well, is that SFI doesn't test anything, they don't certify anything, they don't monitor anything. SFI publishes a standard - as I understand it they really more or less compile information for the standards (as opposed to performing their own research) from outside sources, mainly the manufacturers of the equipment - and then it's up to the manufacturers to test and certify that the equipment meets that standard. The mere fact that a product has a SFI sticker does not mean that an independent outside agency has tested the product. In other words, we're taking HANS', or Safety Solution's, or Defnder's word for it that their product meets the standard. Just like we're taking Sparco's, and Simpson's, and Momo's word that their suits meet the SFI standard for driver's suits.
Click to expand...

Earl - You are right. Thanks for that insight. I forgot about that detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top