Time to write those letters - Head and Neck Restraints

[Knestis]

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 , i can get xy% reduction in neck strain. or i can spent 2 x even though it only reduces strain by another 0.1%.

gee, i think i'll buy the xxx model.

...which is consistent with the true purpose of SFI - it's a trade association interested in helping its members achieve competitive advantages vs. non-members, but disinclined to encourage competition AMONG those members. See my Halon example above.

K

 

[gsbaker]

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.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOXtWxhlsUg[/ame]

 

[gsbaker]

...which is consistent with the true purpose of SFI - it's a trade association interested in helping its members achieve competitive advantages vs. non-members, but disinclined to encourage competition AMONG those members. See my Halon example above.

K

Ironically, it's been know for about 1/2 a century that businesses in industries having pass-fail "standards" are less profitable than those in industries that are more open.

 

[Eric Parham]

Geeez, I take a short multi-year break, and all hell breaks loose. I'm sure glad I decided to try coming back this year reather than next

I love my Isaac, and wouldn't feel safe anymore without it. I've only had time to read halfway through this thread so far, but have the following questions:

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

Gregg, could you point us to a link for RSI spec 602?

Has SCCA (BOD rather than CRB?) been formally asked to list safety equipment meeting the above RSI spec as an official option to the SFI 38.1 (a.k.a. HANS) devices?

 

[dickita15]

Has SCCA (BOD rather than CRB?) been formally asked to list safety equipment meeting the above RSI spec as an official option to the SFI 38.1 (a.k.a. HANS) devices?

Actually no

 

[Knestis]

You're suggesting, Dick, that it would make a difference...? As though the SFI mandate resulted from a member's request to "please adopt SFI 38.1."

Again - the REAL problem is that we just haven't asked using the secret word...???

Sigh.

K

 

[tom91ita]

Actually no

in 2010, i did not specifically note RSI's spec (don't remember it being available) but i effectively asked the same thing. twice. excerpts below:

There are also non SFI compliant devices that perform just as well or better than the HANS, most notably the Isaac (Figure 1). Isaac is not SFI compliant in part because it transfers the loads directly to the belts. Various technical papers have been published within the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]The Use of Dashpots in the Prevention of Basilar Skull Fractures [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New,Courier New][FONT=Courier New,Courier New]o [/FONT][/FONT]This paper describes the development of a dashpot-based head and neck protection system. The primary objective of the project was to determine the feasibility of reducing head and neck loads by using dashpots, rather than restricting the position of the head by using tethers of the style typically employed in head restraint devices. http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2002-01-3306
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Comparative Performance of Racing Head and Neck Restraints [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New,Courier New][FONT=Courier New,Courier New]o [/FONT][/FONT]This paper consolidates the results of various tests with the results of previous tests, published and unpublished. http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2006-01-3631
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Figure 1 [/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri,Calibri]

[/FONT]

[/FONT]Adopting the rationale that SFI is the design experts is essentially taking SCCA down the path that more equipment will have to be SFI certified. Please consider the following: The SFI 38.1 H&NR relies on a SFI or FIA belt in order to be used. These SFI or FIA belts are then connected to what? The SCCA certified rollcage. SFI has design standards of rollcages for various forms of racing. To mandate SFI equipment to be attached to non-SFI approved equipment is inconsistent. Also consider that SCCA allows for rollcage designs outside SCCA’s own design criteria. From the 2010 GCR Exceptions for Formula and Sports Racing Cars: [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]"Any roll hoop design which does not comply with the specifications in 9.4.5, will only be considered if it is accompanied by engineering specifications signed by a registered engineer[/FONT][/FONT]."

There is no similar allowance with regards to H&NR. Alternate designs proven via sled tests to meet or exceed the SFI38.1 performance requirements are not allowed. This is not consistent.

and again in subsequent note:

I would like to reiterate my opposition to the SFI requirement as I do not believe that SFI Certification does anything to improve my survivability in the event of an accident when I am already wearing an H&NR design that outperforms anything that SFI certifies.

The recent debacle with Impact racing products should give us all cause for concern. I am very reluctant to spend ~$700 on a device that can have the certification revoked over where the certification labels were sourced.

I have previously requested that the H&NR requirements be performance based rather than whether or not the device has the official SFI label. The documentation requirements can be met by using a third party such as RSI. A sanctioning body such as SCCA would only need to define a performance requirement in terms of the force exerted on the neck (SCCA could select the same force as defined by SFI). H&NR manufacturers would then submit test sled results completed by an independent lab to RSI for publication. RSI could compile these test results. The following is an example of what a driver could review and decide which would best meet their needs.

This methodology could easily supplement the SFI certification rule. If a device is later decertified by SFI as a result of where labels were sourced but has been proven in actual test sled results, then the SCCA members’ investment would not be deemed null and void.

The nearly 1000 words in the beginning of the GCR under the topics of [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Assumption of Risk [/FONT][/FONT]and [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Release and Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk and Indemnity Agreement [/FONT][/FONT]ought to count for something.

SCCA’s demands that I actually reduce my personal protection after I have literally signed away all rights to sue and litigate are unreasonable and have no place in a member driven organization.

and although i think that deFNder looks like a fine product, given the SFI/Impact/HANS counterfeit labels, attachment studs, etc., i would write SFI and get a message from them that DefeNDer meets their criteria and their continued non-listing on their website is a sloppy oversight before i would buy one.

 

[Chip42]

and although i think that deFNder looks like a fine product, given the SFI/Impact/HANS counterfeit labels, attachment studs, etc., i would write SFI and get a message from them that DefeNDer meets their criteria and their continued non-listing on their website is a sloppy oversight before i would buy one.

The story I hear is that defNder overproduced in 2010, and is still selling their stock of 2010 SFI certified products. they have not registered a for 2011 SFI certification and SFI doens't list them as a result. the devices still meet the spec, and the stickered devices are still acceptable. could be misinformation, so if anyone can say otherwise...

 

[RacerBill]

Actually no

In my letter to the CRB I did suggest including the RSI standard as well as SFI.

 

[tom91ita]

Letter # 4674 submitted:

Dear BOD & CRB, April 20, 2011
RE: H&NR Requirements
First of all, I currently have a Head and Neck Restraint that meets the Racing Safety Institute RSI-602 standard. Please note that this standard actually results in less neck strain that SFI 38.1.
So although I am a H&NR user, I feel that SCCA limiting me to devices that only meet SFI 38.1 does not go far enough for my personal protection. Because of next year’s implementation of SFI 38.1, 2011 is my last planned year of SCCA participation.
I was a NASA member for a couple of years and left that organization because I did not believe that they had the attention to safety that SCCA afforded. Now that SCCA also no longer has the attention to safety that I desire, I intend to race elsewhere.
Tom Lamb
Member 115807_1
Former 25 year member

 

[dickita15]

You're suggesting, Dick, that it would make a difference...? As though the SFI mandate resulted from a member's request to "please adopt SFI 38.1."

Again - the REAL problem is that we just haven't asked using the secret word...???

Sigh.

K

I am sorry I do not want to misrepresent. When this was first voted in December 2009 the there was a small amount of discussion of RSI. The few people in the room who had heard of it felt it had no credibility as Gregg was behind establishing it. Certainly hard to argue it as impartial.

 

[Greg Amy]

The few people in the room who had heard of it felt it had no credibility as Gregg was behind establishing it. Certainly hard to argue it as impartial.

Did anyone point out the glaring conflict of interest with manufacturer-run SFI....?

 

[tom91ita]

I am sorry I do not want to misrepresent. When this was first voted in December 2009 the there was a small amount of discussion of RSI. The few people in the room who had heard of it felt it had no credibility as Gregg was behind establishing it. Certainly hard to argue it as impartial.

there is a saying we have at work:

"DDD: We need to make Data Driven Decisions"

and there is a corollary: "there is nothing malicious about math."

the numbers are what they are. to that extent i would argue they are impartial. he compared published or advertised data from various sled tests.

do i think that Gregg felt compelled to look after his market share/interests? yes. i might consider that "self-serving" but it could still be impartial.

but this type of distinction is like trying to distinguish the differences between legal, ethical and moral.

just because something is "legal" does not mean it is ethical or moral. i think Gregg's behavior was perfectly acceptable on all three counts.


and i certainly appreciate your involvement and feedback here Dick. not trying to shoot the messenger on this. please do not take anything from me personally.

 

[dickita15]

there is a saying we have at work:

"DDD: We need to make Data Driven Decisions"

and there is a corollary: "there is nothing malicious about math."

the numbers are what they are. to that extent i would argue they are impartial. he compared published or advertised data from various sled tests.

do i think that Gregg felt compelled to look after his market share/interests? yes. i might consider that "self-serving" but it could still be impartial.

but this type of distinction is like trying to distinguish the differences between legal, ethical and moral.

just because something is "legal" does not mean it is ethical or moral. i think Gregg's behavior was perfectly acceptable on all three counts.

what the BOD did was not.

and i certainly appreciate your involvement and feedback here Dick. not trying to shoot the messenger on this. please do not take anything from me personally.

Tom you are out of line. I agree that Gregg did nothing wrong. All I said was that RSI not being an independent organization makes it harder to sell as objective.
For you to say that the actions of the BOD are anything other than legal, ethical and moral is out of line.
While I disagree with the decision, every one of those 13 people on the BOD who voted on this did so because they firmly believe they were doing the best for the club.
I have no time for anyone who claims different. I am taking it personal. It is a pile of crap.

 

[JeffYoung]

I will say that my six years racing with the SCCA has been an odd time in a lot of ways.

I love the Club and remain amazed that volunteers go out on Saturdays and Sundays and stand around so that I can race. I remain amazed that people donate large chunks of precious free time to participate in committees and leadership so that others can race.

At the same time, from the member standpoint, the SCCA can be a frustrating, sometimes backwards, sometimes irrational animal. Much like any club or large group of people.

But in all my interactions with the SCCA and the people who run it, even those I disagreed with vehemently, I've yet to meet anyone who appeared to be doing anything other than acting out of what they thought was in the best interest of the Club.

I echo Dick's comments on that 100%.

Is it right for Kirk and Greg and Gregg and others to call out what they see as bad decisions on the part of SCCA leadership on safety? Of course. Critical.

But the times when it's gotten personal about individual motives is when it has, for me anyway, crossed the line. We are all passionate about racing, and about the SCCA, and I think the least we can do is show each other some respect in our areas of disagreement.

The Club is facing extraordinary challenges right now with declining membership, the bad economy, and (in my view) a fractured classification system. And the Internet has served as an invaluable forum for addressing those and other issues. It resulted in the creation of ITR, and now Greg and other's efforts to get STL and U up and running (classes that at least to me, in theory, may be the future of non-spec Club Racing).

But at the same time -- and I am guilty of this -- I've seen the internet, and this forum, bring the level of discourse down, and make it too easy to engage in personal attacks, etc.

This forum used to be, in my opinion, one of the models for honest, sometimes heated, but always respectful discussion of Club Racing and IT issues. I wish we could go back to 04 or 05 and look at the postings then and see how we all used to treat each other and try to get back to that point.

It certainly seemed more productive to me back then. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is how it felt.

 

[Knestis]

It is NOT a personal attack on anyone to suggest that a decision - even a well-intentioned one - by the BoD is unjust, if it is founded on fundamental misunderstandings that those involved don't seem inclined to address.

A "few people in the room" voiced the opinion that RSI is not credible because Gregg (and Isaac users) were involved in its creation. On the other hand, they voted to mandate SFI 38.1 DESPITE the fact that it was developed by the manufacturer members who profit from its existence. Did they not get that or did they choose to ignore it...?

That they did it means, AT BEST, that they simply, honestly don't understand how SFI works. In that instance, they are obligated by their position to educate themselves about the issue, particularly if they are going to make a decision about the members' safety. I'm obligated to try to help them understand, if they don't. I don't get invited to Board meetings so I use the channels available.

On the other hand, the Board's inconsistency might suggest that members are letting other interests influence their decision - I'm a jerk and they're tired of my noise, Gregg's got a bent sense of humor, F1 drivers use a HANS, little shock absorbers just aren't trustworthy, or whatever... By saying that, I am NOT suggesting that they are personally lining their pockets with blood money (for example); only that their decision is being influenced by factors other than the one ("who developed the standard") they are citing. It's SELF EVIDENT that this is the case. I'm not saying - or shouting - something that shouldn't be clear to anyone who looks at the situation, but they have to LOOK at the situation.

Is it unreasonable for emotions to run high when we're talking about - quite literally - our necks...?? Emotionally charged does not a personal attack make. What has changed in the past 5 years in this instance, Jeff, is the gravity of the decisions being made. Go back and look at the hollering about suggestions that the CRX should get tweaked so it wouldn't dominate ITA. Or that a bunch of ITS orphan 2-liter cars should get moved. Or that a "process" should be used to determine IT cars' weights... None of that mattered one bit by comparison to this issue.

I don't think it really matters if Board members are willfully or naively ignorant of key facts in this matter, but it matters that they are wrong. In the era of the Internet they don't really have any excuse for that.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

I agree with a lot of that. I also think most of what you post is just factual disagreement -- and understandable frustration -- with this decision (and others).

I do think calling the Board of Directors or any other volunteer in SCCA "immoral" or "unethical" like Tom did is off the mark. By a lot.

My larger point, perhaps not expressed as well as I would like, is that is seems just 3-4-5 years ago, Internet discussions on race issues were much more productive. Now, in my view, they are contributing to member loss and leadership burnout.

I am by no means saying we stop discussing things on the Internet. I am saying we should all talk a hard look at the tone and manner in which we post. Greg A. is a pretty good example to follow -- he has become something to aspire to (in my opinion) in being factual and trying to keep a lid on his emotions. Better than me.

Tom's posted here a long time and seems like a great guy to me. But when the good guys start with the unethical and immoral stuff, well, Kirk, I think you know this pretty well. It really starts to turn off new members and burn out the leaders in volunteer positions.

 

[Knestis]

The substance of this issue is infuriating at least two members with a half century of dues-paying participation between them, Jeff. Tone ain't crap compared to that.

K

 

[tom91ita]

i removed the comment that Dick and Jeff called inappropriate. i respect their opinion on this board too much to not think they may be right.

i still feel that was happened was not acceptable but did not mean to infer that the folks involved were immoral or unethical.

i have no doubt that the people doing what they are doing are sincere and have the best interests of the club in mind. which is one reason it is so hard to use numbers to convince them.

basically, you cannot use objective criteria to convince folks that are using subjective criteria to decide. again, i am not trying to insult but am falling back on some long ago supervisory training. you can't use one mode to influence if someone is not influenced by that mode. if i took a few minutes i might find a website that could say this better than i.

sorry to offend.

tom

 

[CRallo]

So I wrote my first letter and sent it off with loving care to [email protected] a week and a half ago, but have not gotten a response... Did I do something wrong? Did they get it? where is my letter number? thanks!