pitbull113
New member
i started the same thread on the mazdaracers (new specmiata) and they pretty much called me stupid. everyone was for the mandate. I asked Jim D. to come over here and see another side of the issue.
Time to write those letters - Head and Neck Restraints
- Thread starter pitbull113
- Start date
How is this?
BOD members,
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...
- 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.
Thanks very much for taking the time to read my letter and hopefully for considering this important issue.
Sincerely,
Christopher Rallo
SCCA member 396934
BOD members,
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...
- 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.
Thanks very much for taking the time to read my letter and hopefully for considering this important issue.
Sincerely,
Christopher Rallo
SCCA member 396934
Last edited:
Evidence of only one thing: They don't know the most basic facts about the actual sled testing protocols, the processes involved, how SFI works, or where 38.1 came from to be allowed to make a decision about our safety.
Which BOD/CRB members shared these ignorant opinions, please...?
K
EDIT - "ignorant" is a better word than "misinformed."
i am actually encouraged by this.
this at least implies that data was part of the original decision.
thanks for sending the letter.
Recommended language assuming the Club feels, wisely or unwisely, that it is forced by circumstances to adopt a mandate: "...shall use a head and neck restraint certified to meet industry performance standards." That's all it takes.
The Club already recognizes Snell, FIA and SFI. It is difficult to believe it would knowingly and willingly expose its drivers to additional risk by not also recognizing an organization which provides completely transparent performance data.
At the end of the day it may well require a body count.
The Club already recognizes Snell, FIA and SFI. It is difficult to believe it would knowingly and willingly expose its drivers to additional risk by not also recognizing an organization which provides completely transparent performance data.
At the end of the day it may well require a body count.
Last edited:
The issue is not a lack of "new data." The issue is that the BoD voted to support a system that they don't understand. Arguments 1 and 2 are evidence of that.
Re: Point 1. The sled testing protocols that result in the numbers have not changed. SFI 38.1.5.1.2-3 describe what the labs do. The physical test result standards were raised before 2004 but unless I'm mistaken they are:
Maximum Upper Neck Tension 4,000 N (899 lbs.)
Maximum Upper Neck Compression 4,000 N (899 lbs.)
Maximum Value of NIJ 1.0 (SFI 38.1.6.1.1)
If the Club wanted to get the good out of 38.1, it would simply stipulate that approved systems be subject to the same test (by the same labs) and result in the same maximum values (or minimum performance standard).
Re: Point 2. The Club seems to be completely OK with the fact that SFI member manufacturers wrote 38.1 - most notably, the HANS folks.
I have the dubious honor of actually having been invited to a meeting at SEMA years ago, when SFI was trying to write a spec for Halon fire systems. I know how the process works. When I pointed out that a spec might write out one of the reagents used at the time (1211 or 1301) - or not actually BE a spec that discriminated in any way on that feature - it became pretty clear that there was no chance for consensus on an answer to that question, since the manufacturers/importers at the time were split as to which they used.
But to the (flawed) point - the fact that Isaac and Isaac users pushed for an alternative is a problem ONLY TO THE DEGREE that one agrees that SFI is fundamentally flawed because it was promulgated by manufacturers and SFI; entities that anticipate competitive advantage from the existence of 38.1.
K
Exactly the same thing as it means under SFI 6.0. What folks fail to grasp is that the manufacturers SELF CERTIFY under 38.1 that all of the parts they put stickers on are the same as what the lab tested, results of which test are provided to SFI.
38.1.7.3 requires that the professional running the test authentic the results. Standard practice for any commercial testing lab, whether it's head restraints, radon tests, or urine samples.
But if you REALLY want to get to the core of the issue, that NOBODY among Club management seems to grasp, take a look at 38.1.1.2:
The procedures, test evaluations and standards contained herein, are intended only as minimum guidelines for construction and evaluation of products. Certification that products meet such minimum standards is made by the product manufacturer and products are not certified, endorsed or approved by SFI under this program. (Emphasis mine)
SFI CERTIFIES NOTHING. And they make the point twice:
Testing procedures and/or standards contained in this specification are intended for use only as a guide in determining compliance with the minimum performance requirements as defined herein. The granting and assignment of the "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1" logo/designation is in no way an endorsement or certification of product performance or reliability by SFI. SFI, its officers, directors and/or members assume no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for failure or malfunctions of a product under this program. (38.1.14.0 - Statement of Limitations)
Limitations. Ya think? REALLY...? I don't think it can be any clearer.
Arnie's not confident enough to put his neck on the line but the Club is hoping that mandating 38.1 will indemnify them when someone dies. As Scott Giles would say, "Good luck with that."
BOD and CRB members - The Club does not get out of this rule what you think we get out of the rule. Apply some critical thinking skills and do your damned jobs looking out for the TRUE interests of the membership.
K
Great question. The short answer is that the device carry a certification sticker from any entity. Racing organizations could list everything from ASTM to ISO and beyond (just to avoid some yahoo scribbling his own certification label on a piece of duct tape), but that's all that's needed to ensure safety.
Presently, it is a mix of entities that do (or don't) certify performance, depending on the label.
SFI: SFI does not certify anything, it just sells the sticker which reads that the manufacturer certifies conformance to a spec:
FIA: With respect to H&N restraints, FIA has no performance requirements. They approve certain products which are authorized to carry the label. (Caveat: They may test on their 30g sled, but performance is not part of the spec.)
Snell: Snell (bless them) actually certifies the product:
Snell: Snell (bless them) actually certifies the product:
RSI: RSI allows the use of its label, at no charge, only to those manufacturers whose products are listed on its performance page.
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The manufacturer certifies that this product meets or exceeds RSI Specification XXX-XXXX listed at
http//www.racingsafetyinstitute.org[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The manufacturer certifies that this product meets or exceeds RSI Specification XXX-XXXX listed at
http//www.racingsafetyinstitute.org[/FONT]
Last edited:
Matt Rowe
New member
All good points and ones that should be sent to the SCCA. Enough letters may cause another discussion but if we don't submit actual data and facts, at least to the latest group, I suspect the outcome will be the same. For example although I am sure Gregg has shown this before, can we provide a copy of the most recent test report with a clear comparison to the current SFI spec?
wally2
New member
IT drivers, as a class, are probably the most negatively impacted by this mandate. They are poorer than GT/Prod/Formula racers (so less able to absorb the cost of HANS), the cars are slower than GT/Prod/Formula (so deceleration force is less severe/lethal), and the IT cars as raced still have some good frontal crush zone protection remaining. HANS is needlessly expensive and unnecessary for IT in my opinion.
IT cars are allowed a handheld fire bottle while GT/Prod/Formula require a more expensive fire system. So there is one example of a safety rule where IT is held to a lower standard, presumably in recognition of costs involved and remembering that IT is our entry-level race car prep.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
One issue that I will investigate when I return home is the potential that I see for manufacturers to do a quick switch of componentry of the product. I think Safety Solutions recently advertised or announced the "upgrade" of some tethers to allow 90 degrees of head rotation, well above that of their previous tethers.
now, I'll admit right away that I can't draw definitive conclusions, BUT, I can ask the question. The tethers obviously control head position, does the change in them impact performance of the whole during a crash? Or a crash test?
Because common sense would suggest that yes, it will affect performance. But, as sled tests are expensive, I have to wonder if SS can actually answer part two definitively.
And if I understand the spec requirements, changing parts requires retesting. The system is an honor one. Nobodys reaaaalllly checking and keeping tabs on who's doing what.
I know SFI actually certifies nothing. But, we as a club are pointing to them as our legal umbrella should a lawsuit come a-flying. It's always seemed to me that they'll merely say, "Read the spec, we certify nothing, go away". So what DO we GET...as a legal protection, from our 'partnership" (We are a PAYING SFI member).?????
now, I'll admit right away that I can't draw definitive conclusions, BUT, I can ask the question. The tethers obviously control head position, does the change in them impact performance of the whole during a crash? Or a crash test?
Because common sense would suggest that yes, it will affect performance. But, as sled tests are expensive, I have to wonder if SS can actually answer part two definitively.
And if I understand the spec requirements, changing parts requires retesting. The system is an honor one. Nobodys reaaaalllly checking and keeping tabs on who's doing what.
I know SFI actually certifies nothing. But, we as a club are pointing to them as our legal umbrella should a lawsuit come a-flying. It's always seemed to me that they'll merely say, "Read the spec, we certify nothing, go away". So what DO we GET...as a legal protection, from our 'partnership" (We are a PAYING SFI member).?????
There is a ton of data available so, yes, that could be done for many products. It has already been reviewed and verified on the RSI site, which is the purpose of the organization, but anything non-proprietary could be presented.
If the CRB/BOD were sufficiently open-minded we would be happy to be part of a group that would go to Topeka and present the information.
The tethers should have little effect on the measures SFI uses (Fz and My), but they play a role in how the head decelerates, which is not measured. If that were measured against a reasonable limit, several devices would lose their stickers.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Yea? I'd rather KNOW..as in see actual test results...
..isn't that the point of the certification!? That THIS unit in THIS configuration meets this minimum (or has XYZ results) ???
You and many other people.
The SFI-RSI comparison is, at a very basic level, rather simple. I can't give an example of the classic "visitor from another planet," but we get inquiries from foreign countries where the concept of a certification label is new, if not unheard of. People have done enough basic research that this conversation has occurred more than once:
Caller: "Just so I understand, the SFI label involves money changing hands, but a product's performance data are hidden."
Us: "Correct."
Caller: "And with RSI, there is no charge to anyone, and the test data is transparent, on the Web site."
Us: "Correct."
Caller: "So, why does anyone use the SFI label?"
Us: "Correct."
Caller: "And with RSI, there is no charge to anyone, and the test data is transparent, on the Web site."
Us: "Correct."
Caller: "So, why does anyone use the SFI label?"
so they don't have to list their data. in other words, if someone has a superior design or better price point, it will be very obvious.
for $xyz, i can get xy% reduction in neck strain. or i can spent 2 x $xyz even though it only reduces strain by another 0.1%.
gee, i think i'll buy the xxx model.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
So, I made a phone call, and the short story is, according to the gentleman I spoke with at Safety Solutions, yes, all changes to their products result in new sled tests.
Their two new updates, the 'Easy slide" tethers, and the streamlined chest strap system that doesn't use the seatbelts as part of the system for the Hybrid Pro have been tested. The easy slide tethers result in "virtually no change" in performance. The non use of the seatbelts with the new chest strap system resulted in a reduction of performance in both the 0 and 30 degree tests of 10 and 15% respectively.
I'm glad to know that they are doing their testing.
Finally, the 30 degree offset chart on their site lists the test results in pounds of neck tension, with the HANS numbers being pulled from an SAE paper. Hans:494, Hybrid pro: 105, and Hybrid: 22.
I questioned those numbers as being too good to be true but he assured me that they were accurate and comparable.