Time to write those letters - Head and Neck Restraints
- Thread starter pitbull113
- Start date
Just that, John.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
John, if you read the 38.1 spec, it basically describes a HANS. Including the basic architecture. Hubbard et al state that the loads must be transferred to the body via the armature or yoke thing. (I'm going from memory so my wording isn't exact, but the point remains)
(On edit, it appears Gregg feels differently. I'll dig up the spec later when i get a minute and reread, but I swore that it was more complex that just the release)
The Isaac as you probably know, doesn't work that way, it utilizes the belts for it's 'anchor'.
Isaac could pay all the fees and such, but the device will get rejected every single time.
The spec is written in an overly narrow manner. It's a shame, as it's restrictive to innovation. It's as though the UL stepped in after the lightbulb was invented, and demanded that all future artificial lighting products have a filament, a glass bulb and a socket. We'd have never seen the wide plethora of lighting like LEDs, Sodium vapor, HID, etc etc.
Or, if you're HANS, the spec is written wonderfully, and their abilities to have their device mandated as the ONLY device acceptable by a number major series, and their ability to position themselves as the 38.1 "Kleenex" brand as resulted in major market share and sales.
(On edit, it appears Gregg feels differently. I'll dig up the spec later when i get a minute and reread, but I swore that it was more complex that just the release)
The Isaac as you probably know, doesn't work that way, it utilizes the belts for it's 'anchor'.
Isaac could pay all the fees and such, but the device will get rejected every single time.
The spec is written in an overly narrow manner. It's a shame, as it's restrictive to innovation. It's as though the UL stepped in after the lightbulb was invented, and demanded that all future artificial lighting products have a filament, a glass bulb and a socket. We'd have never seen the wide plethora of lighting like LEDs, Sodium vapor, HID, etc etc.
Or, if you're HANS, the spec is written wonderfully, and their abilities to have their device mandated as the ONLY device acceptable by a number major series, and their ability to position themselves as the 38.1 "Kleenex" brand as resulted in major market share and sales.
We recommended to SFI in 2002 that they adopt a % load reduction measure. Between then and the release of the initial spec in October 2004 they never got back to us, and the HANS device was the only one that qualified.
so what are the odds that we can get the SCCA to adopt another standard? They accept two for everything else? or is that the best route?
what does FIA have for H&N devices?
As far as I'm concerned they are opening themselves up for more liability! What happens when I get slammed from the side and was not allowed to use my ISAAC?!
what does FIA have for H&N devices?
As far as I'm concerned they are opening themselves up for more liability! What happens when I get slammed from the side and was not allowed to use my ISAAC?!
lateapex911
Super Moderator
1- I don't know.
2- FIA lists, I think, the HANS. Only.
3- I think the SCCA counsel feels the best position is to follow 'industry standards'. I think they feel this gives them their best defense in court, or in a settlement.
As far as I know there has been no case brought to trial or settled that is relevant, so it's educated opinions that will rule the decision.
pitbull113
New member
From the GCR :
As of 1/1/12 head and neck restraints meeting SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858 will be required.
From what i read the FIA 8858 has to do with the teathers for the HANS. Seems like it also was written by the people at HANS.
Gregg might be able to elaborate on this.
shwah
New member
About 1,000,000:1
Horses and barns and all that.
This thing is over IMO. I will nut up to replace my ISAAC, and I will complain about it, but I will be racing next year too.
DoubleXL240Z
New member
"So, your saying there's a chance??"
dickita15
New member
I believe that if an additional credible industry standard became available there is a good chance it could be added to the current permitted solutions.
I know all about "setting themselves up." I was there when they were establishing their base, remember? The quote to me was that "You have to get in on this. It will get to the point that if drivers won't be able to buy your suits unless you are."
So again - How will the BoD "know" that an alternative is an "industry standard?" When NASA adopts it? Obviously not because that didn't convince them that we should have a bailout test. When NASCAR does? Nope. They have lower expectations than we do at a lot of local tracks and seats in Cup cars that cost what a top-flight ITR build would.
My opinion is that it's crap. I can take a term like "best practice" and invoke it to support what I want, and discard anything I do *not* want by saying it doesn't measure up. Despite what someone might claim when it's convenient, getting out of a race car quickly under duress IS an industry standard. ZERO DOUBT.
What I'm afraid you're neglecting, Dick, is that SCCA has entered into a business agreement with SFI when it agreed to "Member" status. There are interests - so influences - from players on both sides of that to prevent anything from disrupting it.
What interest would shift anyone off of supporting the status quo? Actual driver safety?
K
So again - How will the BoD "know" that an alternative is an "industry standard?" When NASA adopts it? Obviously not because that didn't convince them that we should have a bailout test. When NASCAR does? Nope. They have lower expectations than we do at a lot of local tracks and seats in Cup cars that cost what a top-flight ITR build would.
My opinion is that it's crap. I can take a term like "best practice" and invoke it to support what I want, and discard anything I do *not* want by saying it doesn't measure up. Despite what someone might claim when it's convenient, getting out of a race car quickly under duress IS an industry standard. ZERO DOUBT.
What I'm afraid you're neglecting, Dick, is that SCCA has entered into a business agreement with SFI when it agreed to "Member" status. There are interests - so influences - from players on both sides of that to prevent anything from disrupting it.
What interest would shift anyone off of supporting the status quo? Actual driver safety?
K
so is it time to leave SCCA and return to NASA since NASA is apparently the race club/industry leaders when it comes to safety?
afterall, NASA did adopt H&NR first. NASA is also less likely to have a corner worker hurt since they typically only 50% of them at the track compared to SCCA (ymmv).
afterall, NASA did adopt H&NR first. NASA is also less likely to have a corner worker hurt since they typically only 50% of them at the track compared to SCCA (ymmv).
Cobrar05
New member
wow...wild reading. am i wrong that bmwcca, pboc, pca, nascar, indycar, grand am, scca pro racing in addition to the hated low life nasa group require the sfi head and neck restraint?
how many racing sanctioning bodies join scca in not mandating this safety equipment?
i dont understand the kicking and screaming nature of this, but you all seem very determined.
i race with nasa and have a world challenge legal race car. ive considered doing a pca event on occasion. i have a hutchens hybrid. i have a halo racetech seat. i have a right side net. i have a coolshirt too(though its not required).
i wear my hh and use my right side net when i race at scca events and this debate has no effect on me unless rejecting the requirement then increases my fees for insurance reasons.
i am curious. how many of you would quit racing over this?
how many racing sanctioning bodies join scca in not mandating this safety equipment?
i dont understand the kicking and screaming nature of this, but you all seem very determined.
i race with nasa and have a world challenge legal race car. ive considered doing a pca event on occasion. i have a hutchens hybrid. i have a halo racetech seat. i have a right side net. i have a coolshirt too(though its not required).
i wear my hh and use my right side net when i race at scca events and this debate has no effect on me unless rejecting the requirement then increases my fees for insurance reasons.
i am curious. how many of you would quit racing over this?
A large portion of the kickers and screamers are PO'd because they proactively elected to make themselves safer than the Club required, did their research, and purchased an Isaac - some of them before NASA et al. required any H&N protection, let alone SFI.
For the record, I have little sympathy for someone who at this point is simply stomping around about being required to have ANY H&N protection. It was hyperbolic but if anything, I see the logic in Mr Drago's assertion about fire protection vs. impact protection on our noggins. I'm personally, based on what I know, more concerned about the latter. But that said, I have a fire system rather than a minimum-standard hand-held extinguisher. And I wear a closed helmet with a full Nomex skirt and the visor closed so I might be skewing the curve.
K
For the record, I have little sympathy for someone who at this point is simply stomping around about being required to have ANY H&N protection. It was hyperbolic but if anything, I see the logic in Mr Drago's assertion about fire protection vs. impact protection on our noggins. I'm personally, based on what I know, more concerned about the latter. But that said, I have a fire system rather than a minimum-standard hand-held extinguisher. And I wear a closed helmet with a full Nomex skirt and the visor closed so I might be skewing the curve.
K
erlrich
Super Moderator
I wouldn't quit, at least not while there are still alternatives. I am, however, very much on the fence about continuing with SCCA after my license expires this year. I know of at least one organization (EMRA) that still does not mandate H&N restraints; I may just go play in their sandbox for a while.
Even if I do continue with SCCA, I will say this whole deal has seriously changed my attitude toward the club. I sincerely feel at this point that the folks in charge could give a shit what we the members think or want; consequently I've adopted a similar attitude about the club. I will continue to work events, but only because I work with people who I consider friends and enjoy working with, not because I feel any loyalty or obligation to the club.
i am considering taking 2012 off and then see about 2013. the $$ has to come from somewhere. note that $4 gas/diesel does not help.
i was not an early adopter like some. i came by my Isaac later but it was AFTER the BOD said they were only going to recommend and NOT require H&NR.
i agree that H&NR is more of a concern than fire. which is why i consider the single point of release in 38.1 as bogus. first let me survive the impact, then worry about if there was a fire.
i have the minimum required for the fire ext. but if i was K and had a 25 gallon enduro cell in my car, i might feel different.
one of my pet peeves is that the most crucial safety devices in the car (the roll cage) upon which all the other SFI/FIA devices are dependent (cage failure can make the belts and H&NR useless) is only certified by SCCA. and we are limited on how well we can make it or attach to our cars (at least in Showroom or IT land.....)
eventually the cage will have to be SFI or FIA compliant. there really is no other logical conclusion. if you accept one premise, you cannot avoid this. how can SCCA possibly accept this liability?
i was not an early adopter like some. i came by my Isaac later but it was AFTER the BOD said they were only going to recommend and NOT require H&NR.
i agree that H&NR is more of a concern than fire. which is why i consider the single point of release in 38.1 as bogus. first let me survive the impact, then worry about if there was a fire.
i have the minimum required for the fire ext. but if i was K and had a 25 gallon enduro cell in my car, i might feel different.
one of my pet peeves is that the most crucial safety devices in the car (the roll cage) upon which all the other SFI/FIA devices are dependent (cage failure can make the belts and H&NR useless) is only certified by SCCA. and we are limited on how well we can make it or attach to our cars (at least in Showroom or IT land.....)
eventually the cage will have to be SFI or FIA compliant. there really is no other logical conclusion. if you accept one premise, you cannot avoid this. how can SCCA possibly accept this liability?
gran racing
Super Moderator
What are the other major H&NR systems which are not SFI that people might have interest in using?
SFI just reviews the information and collects a check. Why couldn't SCCA have some of it's own critera? Fine, use SFI. But then include a list of other makes / models that are approved. It wouldn't be that difficult to require test results from a lab and define minimum loads.
For the Isaac limitation due to release points, we know that's crap considering other products requiring additional window nets to get out of the car.
SFI just reviews the information and collects a check. Why couldn't SCCA have some of it's own critera? Fine, use SFI. But then include a list of other makes / models that are approved. It wouldn't be that difficult to require test results from a lab and define minimum loads.
For the Isaac limitation due to release points, we know that's crap considering other products requiring additional window nets to get out of the car.