From http://www.scca.org/_FileLibra...k.pdf

How about this logic from the March FasTrack:

The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by the SFI Foundation and bear the SFI 38.1 label.

If you have a non-SFI H&N system, it seems that they would prefer that you use nothing, effective this November. If you don't understand how the SFI system works, you'd be wise to find out but here's a hint: It's not going to do your estate any good if the worst happens. There's NOTHING wrong with minimum performance standards - I'm all over that - but the approach that essentially conspires to force racers to support what is essentially a trade organization is a charade.

Pending BoD approval. There's apparently ongoing discussion and SCCA has got an actual Safety Committee re-examining these issues but we should be paying attention.

K

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by the SFI Foundation and bear the SFI 38.1 label.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

This has "Lawyer" written all over it.
And its a big steamy pile of poo.

In the end, it looks like the impending H/N restraint rule will be more about liability and legalese than about whats best for the actual racers. Unfortunately this really doesn't surprise me.
Hopefully the BOD will come around, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> but the approach that essentially conspires to force racers to support what is essentially a trade organization is a charade.

K</TD></TR></TABLE>

I see that they are doing this, but aren't they just trying to cover there a$$?


I could see it now, and luckly never happened befor.


Some one has a goffy H&N system it work, but the driver gets in a crash and it ends up hurting him. He then sues the SCCA (or who ever). Because they allowed him to have something unsafe in his car.

Now by saying that a H&N restraint system must be SFI approved, gets the weight of there back.

Isn't the only reason the ISAAC isn't approved because of a the way or mannor in which is disconects?


Im all for people wearing what ever H&N restraint they want to or like, becuase after all its their neck on the line.

 

i'm guessing this essentially forces us to use the HANS?

will the SFI on these wear out every 2 years like the belts?

 

There are a few other SFI approved H&N restraints. ISAAC should be working on getting one going if they aren't already testing one.

I welcome any competitor who wishes to protest me for using safety gear that isn't in the GCR but can still do a lot of good because I think that would be the height of dickheadedness. Aside from that, if I have to wait till I'm on my out lap to fasten it (which I can do with my ISAAC) to get past the pit marshal and tech inspectors, so be it.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by the SFI Foundation and bear the SFI 38.1 label.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Ok, so lets break this down and find a loophole. Sentence #2 applies only if the subject of discussion is a "head and neck restraint device". My question is how do you clearly define this? If you are wearing something that is not SFI 38.1 legal, all you'd need to do is make a case that whatever accessory you are wearing is part of your suit/helmet/fashion style, etc. but not a head and neck restraint system, since one after all isn't required, as per the first sentence. Due to the word "must" in the second sentence, it can be implied that if a device does not pass SFI 38.1, then it is not a h&n device. If you can go off this premise and conclude that you are not wearing a h&n device as defined by this rule, then sentence #2 no longer applies and you can wear whatever alternate device you choose. However, although this would allow the ISAAC to be used, it would also open the door to potentially unsafe devices. Are certain accessories prohibited?

 

This is definitely a pile of poo.

Kirk, do you think this is something we should write letters about, or should we wait to see what happens in the BoD?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Hracer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ok, so lets break this down and find a loophole. Sentence #2 applies only if the subject of discussion is a "head and neck restraint device". My question is how do you clearly define this? If you are wearing something that is not SFI 38.1 legal, all you'd need to do is make a case that whatever accessory you are wearing is part of your suit/helmet/fashion style, etc. but not a head and neck restraint system, since one after all isn't required, as per the first sentence. Due to the word "must" in the second sentence, it can be implied that if a device does not pass SFI 38.1, then it is not a h&n device. If you can go off this premise and conclude that you are not wearing a h&n device as defined by this rule, then sentence #2 no longer applies and you can wear whatever alternate device you choose. However, although this would allow the ISAAC to be used, it would also open the door to potentially unsafe devices. Are certain accessories prohibited?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Ahh... very well deciphered like a TSD trap road rallyist. They are very good at finding, creating or hiding special meanings in standard wording. I hated them.

 

Well this kind of sucks... My next BIG purchase was going to be an Issac H/N Restraint and if I understand correctly, it does not have SFI approval.?

So is this an inference, or is it more plainly explained, that IF I use an Issac and die, then SCCA insurance payouts to my beneficiaries will be null/void, but if I don't use an Issac and die, then they will payout? I can certainly understand the SCCA trying to cover their a$$, especially in considering poorly designed and tested head and neck restraints could cause more harm then good.
Kirk, or anyone, who in the SCCA do we write to to get clarification on this?

From what I've read previously the Issac system seems to offer just as good if not better safety then the Hans, but it's less expensive and seems a bit more versitle and convenient. I hope this motivates the folks selling the Issac system to get a label, but I'm sure this will also mean the cost of the system will increase.
... it's the only viable solution.


I'm realatively new to this whole racing thing so pardon my ignorance, but are there always this many changes in IT, or racing in general, from year to year? I also read in that FasTrack that window nets must now be situated in such a way that the net top unhooks rather then from the bottom... one more then to take care of before my next outting.

Added to the list of stuff to do:
Weigh car, Add weight, recorner balance... etc.
Was going to buy an Issac, now not sure what to do
change window net mounting (probably a good idea anyway)

plus all the other little things I was planning on doing...
replace fire bottle with a fire system
re-mount seat lower with more lean-back and on sliders
- possibly add shoulder harness guide bar with guides to prevent sliding etc.
rewire master cut-off switch
replace mirror
proper steering wheel adapter
update driver's side belts with pull up lap belts
move newer pull down belts to passenger side

Once again, Konis and Hoosiers fall off the priority list and it's looking more and more like this might mean track days / autocross for me then.

There is no guarantee that life, or for that matter racing, will be safe even if there is a sticker attached to the equipment we use, but this could be the thing that causes me to leave racing totally.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by emwavey &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I'm realatively new to this whole racing thing so pardon my ignorance, but are there always this many changes in IT, or racing in general, from year to year? I also read in that FasTrack that window nets must now be situated in such a way that the net top unhooks rather then from the bottom... one more then to take care of before my next outting.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I am going to leave the rest of your post separate, but I will address this one part.

This has been a period of unprecidented upheaval for IT. All communication from the ITAC indicates that the upheaval is over, by and large.

The ruleset for IT specific stuff SHOULD settle down now, other than the standard errors and omissions, and the BMW restrictor plate crap that is still going on.

This head and neck restraint junk is in all of the clubs right now. Hopefully, that too will get ironed out, and hopefully clear heads will prevail, allowing those of us who use systems other than those that are "blessed" by the SFI gods to continue to be protected.

 

I don't see the Isaac getting an SFI certification because of the single point release rule (another pile of poo). Anyone that has an Isaac will tell you that it slows them down not ONE bit in exiting the car, and when it comes to crawling out a window its EASIER to get out of the car with an Isaac than with a HANS...
BUT, the SFI rule requires a single point release to exit the car, which the Isaac, by design, can't have.
Of course, requiring a single point release to get out of a car now means window nets are not legal, but I digress...

Maybe cooler heads will prevail and the BoD will decide to go with an "Approved list" instead of just falling back on SFI.
Or maybe Gregg can figure out how to get an SFI tag on the Isaac.
Or maybe the Isaac can get an exemption.
Or maybe pigs will fly.

In the end, I hope the smart thing happens. But its more likely that the "cover your ***" thing will happen. As usual.
And since SCCA generally sets the tone in Amatuer racing, expect most everyone else to do whatever SCCA does.

 

i'll back what racerbowie stated......


i'm pretty close with the BOD member for this region. we have a meeting in two weeks, and if someone reminds me, i'll bring it up and see what i can find out.

 

I'm unclear...does that mean we're not allowed to run a non-SFI head and neck restraint?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I don't see the Isaac getting an SFI certification because of the single point release rule (another pile of poo).</TD></TR></TABLE>

That one's a serious pile of poo. I'm not aware of any sedan-based race car that qualifies as "single point of release" to exit the car. Window nets don't count? How about door latches? Radios? Cool suits?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">In the end, I hope the smart thing happens. But its more likely that the "cover your ***" thing will happen. As usual.
And since SCCA generally sets the tone in Amatuer racing, expect most everyone else to do whatever SCCA does.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The cover your *** thing is why SCCA sets the tone. Legally a group like NASA or EMRA would have to show that their rules for safety are in line with the generally accepted levels in the sport, which is of course set by the largest group in the sport. If NASA was more relaxed on safety than SCCA, they become legally liable.

The SFA rule allows *any* group to defer the judgement to another party, and get themselves off the hook. If they came up with their own list of acceptable H&N restraints, and then somebody died wearing the Isaac, the first thing that would happen is the family would sue saying that it didn't pass the SFA regulations so why was it allowed on the track? What facts would they have to explain why their judgement of what is or is not safe was better than an independent body?

Don't blame the sanctioning body, blame the US legal system. SCCA, NASA, etc are doing what they have to do to survive in the US in this day and age.

 

the whole window net thing i think is a sham.

if it's there to keep your arms inside the car, you should be able to use arm restraints instead.

if it's there to keep debris from getting inside the car, then there should be one on both sides.

imo all it does it create a situation where it's harder for drivers to get out of cars, and harder for workers to help them do so.

 

Window nettiing can also prevent intrusion by big chunks of stuff.

I don't know the strength specs but I saw a vid of a dude who had the front corner of annother race car intrude into his drivers window and when the other car came off the window net was still there. Of course the window net won't stop anything really heavy but it might keep the chunks outside or at least keep them from getting too close to your arms.

 

Do we see anyone in europe with window nets? Nope.. They all have safety glass windows

 

then they should be required on both sides no?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">From http://www.scca.org/_FileLibra...k.pdf

How about this logic from the March FasTrack:

The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by the SFI Foundation and bear the SFI 38.1 label.


K</TD></TR></TABLE>

If you follow that rule to the word, all H&N restraint systems are not allowed. Why you ask? Because the SFI foundation does NOT certify anything. They set a standard and a manufacturer will comply with the standard and then put that they are SFI compliant.

I got this from someone over on IT.com. This is the SFI specification.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
14.0 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS
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.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Just to give a clarification of what the standard is vs. the rule. Man, SCCA really botched this one. I just can't believe how badly some of these things are written. It's just ridiculous that they would write a rule and have obviously never even looked at the standard that they mention. Just stupid.

steve

 

No. This is what you get when "Lawyer Speak" comes into play.

The sentence Kirk referenced above serves no intended purpose other than covering one's own ***. Its not even meant to make sense to someone trying to buy a H/N restraint and stay safe.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by emwavey &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So is this an inference, or is it more plainly explained, that IF I use an Issac and die, then SCCA insurance payouts to my beneficiaries will be null/void, but if I don't use an Issac and die, then they will payout?</TD></TR></TABLE>

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by krshultz &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm unclear...does that mean we're not allowed to run a non-SFI head and neck restraint?</TD></TR></TABLE>

So really, what's the verdict on this? Or is the true intent of the rule not to make this clear?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">No. This is what you get when "Lawyer Speak" comes into play.

The sentence Kirk referenced above serves no intended purpose other than covering one's own ***. Its not even meant to make sense to someone trying to buy a H/N restraint and stay safe.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I think this explains it all.

If I have time I'll try and contact someone on the BoD to further explain.

 

I cant find where I read it, but It also has to do with training workers to pull people from cars. Remember, you may not always be conscious after the incident to get yourself out of the car!
training people how to use 1 type of device is much easier that training people to use different types of systems. I think that is one reason for this course of action.

I would really like to see issac's figure out some way to get their device SFI'ed as well.
I was seriously thinking about buying one until the whole SFI thing!

 

I hear from people who I actually trust that conversations are ongoing - that approval of this proposal is not necessarily a given.

It's just me but - as PO'd as I am about the direction we continue to go with SFI defining the standard - I don't think that threats, defiance, lawyers, and acrimony are the most useful respones.

Consider doing a few things...

1. Read, think about, and understand 38.1 - http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/d...n.pdf

2. Think critically about how the system works, who benefits, and how. Manufacturers pay for SFI testing and (literally) for every SFI tag that goes on safety equipment. That cost is then passed on to you when you are required to buy equipment, patronizing specific manufacturers and SFI, after they have entered into a mutually beneficial agreement.

3. Recognize that, because SFI doesn't test every unit sold, you are trusting the manufacturer to build every part like the one tested.

4. Further recognize that the only thing that has been certified by an SFI tag is that a sample has met a specific standard, for a specific test, at a specific lab. An example of how this can become tweaked was made clear to me when an ex-employee described at SEMA a long time ago, how Simpson designed their helmets to be lighter than the competition but strong enough to pass the Snell impact test by reinforcing precisely the spot where the test stipulated you should plan on smacking the rollcage with your head...

5. Explain to the SCCA (or anyone else who will listen) that you support the idea of a system that encourages manufacturers to test their systems in multiple crash modalities, to communicate their results to you in a form that is readily comparable with other offerings on the market, and to innovate in ways that consider safety issues other than simply reducing loads on your noggin.

The dynamics of head and neck injuries are so complex, and the science is so new, that it is completely insane to suggest that distilling the real world down to a couple of tests on one rig effectively protects your safety. For this to work however, we need to not be idiots. We need to get involved in decisions about this important stuff, rather than passively waiting for someone to tell us what rule to follow.

K

 

I understand all of that Kirk.

I also understand SCCA's desire to cover their asses, which the whole SFI thing does.

What do you suggest we actually do?