Time to write those letters - Head and Neck Restraints

[dickita15]

Honestly, its worrisome that a CRB member will be guiding the decision based on his feelings, when empirical data exists.

For the record the CRB never voted or recommended that the H&N devices be mandatory. That was a 100% BOD decision.

 

[jdrago1]

So, when is the CRB/BoD banning club racing altogether? I mean, "if one life is saved" is the de facto standard for safety, then it's certainly "worth it", right...?

That's a very...well, "silly" is the nicest thing I can think of...thing to say, Jim, given the significant number of people that have died in auto racing accidents throughout history due to fire.

You say there is "no doubt" these devices save lives. How many people are you aware of, Jim, that have lost their lives in club racing due to lack of a head and neck restraint?

Because people are intelligent enough to recognize that many racers have lost their lives due to being flung around inside a vehicle upon impact, and due to burning to death in a fire.

What's the stats for lack of H&NR?

GA

So, when is the CRB/BoD banning club racing altogether? I mean, "if one life is saved" is the de facto standard for safety, then it's certainly "worth it", right...?

That's a very...well, "silly" is the nicest thing I can think of...thing to say, Jim, given the significant number of people that have died in auto racing accidents throughout history due to fire.

You say there is "no doubt" these devices save lives. How many people are you aware of, Jim, that have lost their lives in club racing due to lack of a head and neck restraint?

Because people are intelligent enough to recognize that many racers have lost their lives due to being flung around inside a vehicle upon impact, and due to burning to death in a fire.

What's the stats for lack of H&NR?

GA

Greg
Come on.. racing will always have its dangers and will always be dangerous unfortunately some will die doing it. You can draw your lines anywhere you like, I draw mine after the h&n, you somewhere before the H&N.

As far as my example, obviously I would wear a suit if given the choice, but if in an either or scenario. It is an easy decision for me. I have never seen a SM burn to the ground or even burn significantly since I have started racing, but I have seen a basal skull fracture of an SM driver. I personally have hit a wall head on at Topeka T2 at 60-70 MPH plus at turn 2, walked away with no injuries. Would I have been injured with out a H&N? Who knows. But glad I had it on...
In my class, regardless of your "opinion" my life is far more at risk due to collision than fire. And no SM jokes please


As to this...
You say there is "no doubt" these devices save lives. How many people are you aware of, Jim, that have lost their lives in club racing due to lack of a head and neck restraint?

Not sure it is really appropriate to comment, but it is widely held opinion that a fatality that occurred last year "most likely" have been prevented with a H&N, Any H&N, not just a HANS.


The SFI standard and Isaac is an entirely different subject. I sympathize and understand your frustration. I am not Anti Isaac. If you want to petition the club to accept another testing company that is certainly your right and I encourage it. But understand, like it our not, the club must protect itself, not sure why that seems like such an "evil" thing? Whether we agree with SFI or not, it is the industry standard and not adhering to an industry standard puts the club at an unnecessary risk.



Jim

 

[jdrago1]

For the record the CRB never voted or recommended that the H&N devices be mandatory. That was a 100% BOD decision.

While it was not something the CRB voted on, I also don't hide behind it was a bod decision. I agree with the mandate.


As for this...

Originally Posted by lateapex911
Honestly, its worrisome that a CRB member will be guiding the decision based on his feelings, when empirical data exists.


Empirical data exists the other way as well, just doesn't fit in to your agenda of slamming my opinions or credibility.

 

[Terry Hanushek]

i wonder if the colonoscopy i am getting next month is with an SFI certified device or will just feel like it....

Quote of the Month

T

 

[CRallo]

Quote of the Month

T

if not the year! lol

 

[wlfpkrcn]

The way it was explained to me by NASA when I asked about the ISAACS-

"We need to use SFI 38.1 devices because there is no way to dictate if other devices are safe. Someone could duct tape a 2x4 to the seat and call it a H&N device. "

You can say look at the "testing data"... "The ISAACS is safer" but the bottom line is SCCA/NASA need to have safety equipment meet a "Safety Certification" and the ISAACS doesn't. It's unfortunate, but it is the reality.

The other thing I don't understand. You guys say there is no proof that there has been a death that could have been prevented by a H&N device and that they are not needed at a club level. Then the next post says " My device is better than a 38.1" Which one is it? We don't need them or we need them just not a 38.1 device?

All that being said. I own a 38.1 device and I don't have to worry about not being allowed on track

 

[jjjanos]

The head and neck restraint has been around for years in various designs. If you have raced with NASA you have had to wear one for the last two years. If you have done any "pro" racing you have had to have one. So why the big push to stop it from being compulsory?

Since I don't race with NASA (and this is one of the reasons) or pro, does that mean I can ignore the mandate that makes me less safe?

1. You don't want to spend the money.

I already spent the money on a system I think is better.

2. You are too good of a driver so you won't crash and CERTAINLY won't get hurt.

The needs of a driver in a GT1 driver and the needs of someone in ab ITB Honda whose top speed is about the point where the GT1 car gets off idle are vastly different.

Using your logic, the HANS should be mandated for street driving...

3. You don't agree with the narrow choice of devices that are allowed.

I don't agree that the better option is not allowed.

As someone else in this thread has said the club (SCCA) is covering its ass as advised by its lawyers. Why is this a big issue? Do you want the club to be decimated by a lawsuit filed by a grieving family member and their shark lawyer that the club was negligent in its duty to compel its members to protect themselves against injury after?

I think people are greatly overestimating the likelihood of such a lawsuit winning. The standard for a participant who has signed the waiver requires gross negligence, I believe and this doesn't meet that for the club. The club allows and encourages the use of the device.

So, when is the CRB/BoD banning club racing altogether? I mean, "if one life is saved" is the de facto standard for safety, then it's certainly "worth it", right...?

That's a very...well, "silly" is the nicest thing I can think of...thing to say, Jim, given the significant number of people that have died in auto racing accidents throughout history due to fire.

Well no. How many of them have died recently? How many have died on track from heart attacks? The suit certainly contributed to those attacks... get hotter, heart pumps faster to try and dispel the heat, faster heart rate equals stress to the heart.

Fuel cell technology... even on a stock tank ... is light years beyond the death traps that killed Savage, Bandini, Williamson, etc. In fact, it's because of those deaths that we have the better fuel cells.

 

[lateapex911]

For the record the CRB never voted or recommended that the H&N devices be mandatory. That was a 100% BOD decision.

Understood. But I have been told in the past, by people in positions to know, that they make their recommendations to the BoD in regards to this subject. As such, I would think the BoD would consider their input, along with other inputs, in their vote.

I fully understand that that is different than an official 'recommendation" from the CRB, inasmuch as they are not charged with making one.

 

[lateapex911]

3) choice..Mostly the Isaac debate. That has been debated for a long time, I am pretty neutral on that device, meaningI don't think it is near as good as many of you say, nor as bad as many others say.

Originally Posted by lateapex911

Honestly, its worrisome that a CRB member will be guiding the decision based on his feelings, when empirical data exists

.


Empirical data exists the other way as well, just doesn't fit in to your agenda of slamming my opinions or credibility.

See, Jim, I responded to what you wrote. NOW you claim there is contrary data. That's QUITE a bit different than "I think" and "People say", isn't it.
MY agenda has nothing to do with slamming you...my agenda is to not have to spend vast sums of money to go backwards in my safety. Why is that hard to understand?

 

[lateapex911]

How many have died on track from heart attacks? The suit certainly contributed to those attacks... get hotter, heart pumps faster to try and dispel the heat, faster heart rate equals stress to the heart.
.

This is another point, and a disturbing one.
We all see the need to be properly suited, and accept the repercussions. I for one feel no debilitating effects from being suited up on a hot day, but then again, I train and workout more than most people in my demographic.

Regardless, we've seen a significant amount of deaths recently due to on track internal 'events'. Heart attacks and the like. If I'm remembering my stats correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), the vast majority of deaths have been because of personal health issues, NOT from mechanical causes that resulted in injuries that were fatal.

But I haven't heard one PEEP about how these guys are getting on track, and whether it would be prudent to look at the screening process the club employs to weed the potential candidates from the population of racers.

It's of course, in a graying club, hugely politically incorrect to utter the concept that maybe some of the elders shouldn't race.
People say, "Listen if he wants to go out that way, who are we to stop him? He's doing what he loves". That's been a response when I've brought this subject up privately.

Well, other than the fact that he might take out other cars, or spectators, or his family could sue SCCA ...just as they could over the head and neck restraint thing....that's a nice position and sentiment.

But, the fact remains that more people have died in that manner than any other, and the club is EQUALLY exposed to lawsuits from it, yet, as far as I know, nobody has batted an eye or thinks we should review our policies.
Why is that?

 

[Knestis]

... the club must protect itself, not sure why that seems like such an "evil" thing? Whether we agree with SFI or not, it is the industry standard and not adhering to an industry standard puts the club at an unnecessary risk.

SCCA pointedly elected to NOT adhere to the industry standard of requiring a bail-out test when requested to do so through the member rule-change request process. I'll flat out say what Jake suggests: That was a non-starter because too many fat, out-of-shape, entry-fee-paying, friends-of-the-PTBs would fail it.

And I'd be thrilled if we could use "empirical data," Jim. But we can't because the business agreement between SCCA and SFI prevents it.

Disingenuous arguments are incredibly tiresome, particularly from the people who are charged with guiding the organization.

Kirk (who is trying like hell to NOT CARE but is continually appalled at the pitiful lack of leadership demonstrated by so many of our "leaders")

 

[tom91ita]

.....the vast majority of deaths have been because of personal health issues, NOT from mechanical causes that resulted in injuries that were fatal. ..

..........I'll flat out say what Jake suggests: That was a non-starter because too many fat, out-of-shape, entry-fee-paying, friends-of-the-PTBs would fail it..........

will you two drop this line of arguments?

next SCCA will no longer be able to serve beer, burgers and brats at the Saturday night dinners!

we'll end up having to be served SFI certified veggie burgers and tofu fries.

 

[DoubleXL240Z]

For the record I believe the brats are FIA, and are good for 5 years!!
I know the hotdogs are!!

 

[Aanselm]

The debate about which is better using a 38.1 device or the Isaac really has nothing to do with the actual device, it is more about the fact that people who make Isaac refuse to pay SFI to get the certification. IMO

 

[Knestis]

...because the people who wrote 38.1 included not only performance standards but also specific design restrictions that effectively rule out the Isaac. In essence, the SFI standard describes a Hans. When Defender came out with a product that had the 38.1-mandated features, Hans filed suit.

K

 

[tom91ita]

this is part of what bothers me so much. that club members and "managing" members apparently have not bothered to read SFI 38.1 if they had, they would not refer to SFI as a "testing company" nor suggest that Isaac does not have a sticker because they refuse to buy them.

please read the standard.

http://www.racesafetydata.info/SFI381_09.pdf

or at least this excerpt (all bold/underlined are my emphasis):

2.1 Head and Neck Restraint: An active Head and Neck Restraint System is a
protection ensemble providing an alternative load path which decreases both
neck stress and head excursion during a vehicle impact without reliance on
helmet impact into structures or nets.​

2.2 Separate Restraining Devices:​

A. Linkages attached to the helmet which transfer restraining loads directly
to the helmet from the main device which is secured to the driver's
shoulders, torso, etc. Methods for attachment of these linkages to the
helmet and main device shall be prescribed by the manufacturer.​

B. The main device shall be a mechanism held tightly to the driver's torso by
seat belts or other strap systems such that the reactive load carrying
components move directly with the torso and controls head, neck, and
torso relative positions during forward or off-center impact situations.​

2.3 Reaction Linkage: The means by which the head force necessary to limit
displacement of the head with respect to the torso is reacted. Acceptable
reaction linkages could include load paths to the torso or to the restraint
webbing. Direct attachment to react loads to a fixed point or points on a
vehicle structure or restraint webbing will not be acceptable because of the
potential for torso displacements with respect to these points. Imposed
loading by the reaction linkage to other areas of the body should be applied
using approaches demonstrated to be practical without imposing risk of​

serious injury.

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.​

2.5 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.

.....The SFI standard and Isaac is an entirely different subject. I sympathize and understand your frustration. I am not Anti Isaac. If you want to petition the club to accept another testing company that is certainly your right and I encourage it. But understand, like it our not, the club must protect itself, not sure why that seems like such an "evil" thing? Whether we agree with SFI or not, it is the industry standard and not adhering to an industry standard puts the club at an unnecessary risk.......

Jim, SFI mandates a design. it is not a testing company. SFI requires the device manufacturer to provide the test results, the name of the testing company, etc.

also, please tell me what "industry standard" allows parents to sign waivers for minors and allows them to race? don't say other clubs "allow" it. there are racing organizations that do not require 38.1 (which then allows Isaacs....)

please do some reading on Kirton v. Fields where the Florida State Supreme Court ruled that minors have rights that parents cannot rescind.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2008/12/18/96427.htm

The court said there is “injustice” when a parent agrees to waive the tort claims of a minor child and deprive the child of the right to legal relief when the child is injured as a result of another party’s negligence.

...Honestly, its worrisome that a CRB member will be guiding the decision based on his feelings, when empirical data exists.

....Lets face it, EVERYone knows that HANS wrote the SFI 38.1 standard, and did it in a restrictive manner with aspects that don't do anything but dampen innovation, regardless of performance potential. ....

The debate about which is better using a 38.1 device or the Isaac really has nothing to do with the actual device, it is more about the fact that people who make Isaac refuse to pay SFI to get the certification. IMO

i believe that my version of the Isaac meets the single point of release since one can slide the tethers off the belt after the belt is released. but there is no "main device" between the tethers and the belts and thus it cannot meet SFI 38.1. sidebar: as an engineer, i prefer the simplest design that meets the performance requirements.

...because the people who wrote 38.1 included not only performance standards but also specific design restrictions that effectively rule out the Isaac. In essence, the SFI standard describes a Hans. When Defender came out with a product that had the 38.1-mandated features, Hans filed suit.

K

not sure what has happened but Defender is not listed as certified on the SFI website. i think that has been discussed here or elsewhere but i have not kept up on this. anyone have further info? (EDIT: currently approved per Dave Gran's follow-up)

http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1

 

[gran racing]

It's still accepted. Something about a delay in getting information on the site updated. (I was curious and called Defender.

 

[tom91ita]

It's still accepted. Something about a delay in getting information on the site updated. (I was curious and called Defender.

Dave,

thanks for the info. good to hear.

i think it is an interesting price point and i like the fact that they are fighting HANS on this. if i get something, it will not be a HANS.

there is some "chatter" on a land speed forum that there may be a $400 version ...

http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,9476.0/prev_next,prev.html#new


not sure if it is a misunderstanding of the current pricing or new model, etc.

From what I understand, Joe Hanson (DJ Safety) is in the process of having his new H&N restraint approved. With any luck this will be done soon, and will work very well with the lakesters and liners that cannot fit a conventional H&N.

I think the certification on the DJ unit was imminent thus the acceptance from the SCTA. From what I understand, it is actually approved now. $400 is a good deal IMO and another plus is that there isn't anything sticking up behind your head.

i tried a bit of googling and did not see anything.

 

[gsbaker]

The way it was explained to me by NASA when I asked about the ISAACS-

"We need to use SFI 38.1 devices because there is no way to dictate if other devices are safe. Someone could duct tape a 2x4 to the seat and call it a H&N device. "

You can say look at the "testing data"... "The ISAACS is safer" but the bottom line is SCCA/NASA need to have safety equipment meet a "Safety Certification" and the ISAACS doesn't. It's unfortunate, but it is the reality.

When did that happen? Isaac systems meet RSI spec 602, and are labeled as such.

 

[gsbaker]

For the record, SFI may accept input from anyone, but only the members vote on the spec. If enough members decide to write a competitor out of the spec, it will happen.