SCCA considering H&N mandate...

[kbrew8991]

from an ITAC member:
http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=20694

For those of you who race SCCA, and want the right to choose whether you wear a HNR, and which one, it appears they are considering mandating one.

Whenever they request input, it's because somebody is rolling on something, so if you have an opinion, write:

crb@scca.com

and let them know.

Here's what I wrote:

Sirs-

I write in response to your request for input regarding the possible mandating of head and neck restraints.

I implore you to continue your strong stance in allowing the drivers the freedom to choose the best protection for their needs, and to not mandate any device or standard.

I have used the Isaac device for over 5 years now. I had it on when contact forced me into the guardrail, sideways, at Watkins Glen, breaking my ribs. I had no issues of any kind with regards to my head or neck. Of course, thats a single case, but I mention it because the Isaac has been proven superior in lab testing in lateral impacts to every device made.

If you mandate a device, and it is SFI certified, you will force me to actually reduce my level of safety, and I will be facing a very difficult decision, whether to continue my racing with the club. Because of the other devices inferiority in lateral impacts, (which, by the way, are far more common), I will be forced to prurchase a "winged" seat, in an attempt to acheive the same lateral protection. However, my already smallish window (I'm 6'3, 200 pounds) in my coupe has now become effectively smaller, as the seat creates an additional obstacle to climb around in the event of a crash that renders my door inoperable. To me, reducing my ease of egress is a huge step backwards. Not to mention rendering a superior $700 device useless, and the need to purchase another $800 device AND a seat costing in the $700 range, for a total of $1500, That is, of course, over four race entries.

In short, please do not force me to reduce the level of safety I already have, by mandating a policy that benefits consortiums of companies, who sell equipment that havn't been proven to be the best on the market.

I strongly suggest you continue with no requirement.

Jake Gulick

ITAC member, club racer.


even if you aren't on the Issac - I would make sure you write in and make sure they don't do something REALLY stupid like force everyone into only 1 product (like the FIA does).

[billy]

I just wrote in, this pisses me off. You gotta figure this is money driven, someone is offering a sponsorship deal. I noticed last week that the VW TDI Cup is using the Defnder H&N only now, is this whats going on?

[JimLill]

more info here http://improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25096

[JimLill]

I just wrote in, this pisses me off. You gotta figure this is money driven, someone is offering a sponsorship deal. I noticed last week that the VW TDI Cup is using the Defnder H&N only now, is this whats going on?

That Cup is SCCA ProRacing which already has a SFI38.1 rule I believe

[billy]

I think if SCCA mandates an SFI device thats only a good thing. I just still want a choice. I bought an R3 before because it tested better than Hans and didn't require the whole belt fiasco. My next H&N will probably be a Defnder as things stand test wise BUT I'm sure there will be newer competing models that will improve on this and so on. Competition is a good thing.

[JimLill]

If they do HNR like they do Belts for example, SFI or FIA, that overlaps the HANS on both lists. But even still, I think that leaves 5 manufacturers as offering compliant product as of right now.

[jstecher]

I think overall its a good thing they mandate them but I think it would be an even better thought if they are going to require them to give all members a deep discount with all suppliers. You have to image the manufactures would be in to cut people deals given the volume the SCCA would push towards them. Also allow people to rent them from the region holding the event just like you could a transponder.

There are multiple business models here to make this damn near no cost to the individual racer from the SCCA perspective. At the end of the day personally lets see 700 bucks versus me dead...i'll give up running new rubber for a weekend for that trade off.

[JimLill]

This chart ( http://www.am-rennsport.com/HNR.html ) doesn't suggest that the only safe solution is the non-SFI one from my POV. People on other forums make claims but I wonder how many have viewed all the data (that is available).

[Doug Carter]

Maybe I don't have all of the original wording for the proposal in front of me, but I don't see what all the fuss is about. You are forced to wear a Snell-approved helmet, aren't you? Did you petition to be able to wear a leather cap with goggles instead?

This is about a private organization (SCCA) trying to make their sport safer and reduce the potential for serious injury or even death to it's members. Period.

When an international standard is developed, companies that make products within that industry can choose to certify with those standards or not. If a sanctioning body—any racing organization—wants to make one of those certification standards their ruel of thumb, it's pretty cut and dry which H&N devices you can and can't use. And it doesn't matter which one you use now, or the fact that you aren't comfortable with any of them in your car.

When it comes right down to it, you are either approved to race under the SCCA insurance package, or you aren't How bad do you want to race?

[billy]

Noone disagrees that racing without a HN is nuts. A standard test is also a good thing. SFI seems only choice here given FIAs stance. The only potential issue would be if the SCCA mandated a specific device. I think thats the discussion.

[Doug Carter]

I don't see anywhere where they have suggested ONE device, but only ones certified to their standards.

It seems as though the IT guys in the links previously posted are all fighting against mandatory H&N devices period.

Seems kind of like the various seatbelt/motorcycle helmet laws that people protest because they don't want their "personal freedoms" taken away.

[JimLill]

How about this....

starting in 2009 any HNR that has made the WSU or Delphi grade is OK

whatever HNR you have and register for 2009 racing is good for 2 more years.

In 2011, you must comply with whatever revised rules may exist then even if it means your then current HNR becomes non-compliant

[Mad Mike]

I had a ring-side seat for SCCA's expulsion of performance (stage) rally in 2004 when I was the MiDiv ClubRally Steward. While that was a better vantage than most I still don't know all of what went on behind closed doors but I did come away with some tidbits that may shed some light on what might be happening in the SCCA and, for that matter, every US autosport sanctioning organization now.

Understand that the SCCA buys a wad (for lack of a better term) of insurance to cover everything in which the club is involved. The SCCA's Risk Manager (dictator?) decides how each facet of the club covers their share of that expense and recommends (dictates?) what's necessary to make sure the SCCA can continue to secure insurance going forward.

I heard that ClubRally's loss ratio was out of whack with the rest of the club but on the heels of a couple "non-competitor" fatalities and the deaths of Mark Lovell and Roger Freeman at Oregon Trail 2003 the decision was reached to drop real rallying some months prior to the 2005 season. As I understood it, the majority of ClubRally's insurance loss was not a result of the most dramatic incidents but the myriad smaller claims that came after they had instructed organizers and stewards to fill out green cards for any and all injuries suffered by anyone at the event. Never the less, there came a point where the Risk Manager deemed that SCCA's ability to buy that wad of necessary insurance would be threatened if rally remained part of the family, so POOF - enter Rally America.

So what I'm saying is that if SCCA chooses to NOT mandate HNRs like FIA and/or just about every other sports car sanctioning organization in the world has they leave themselves open to both higher medical/care expenses due to head & neck injuries suffered by non-HNR wearers -and- the possibility of defending themselves against a lawsuit that accuses them of failing to do what all those other sanctioning orgs did (which really boils down to saving us from ourselves even though we CHOOSE to risk life & limb racing and wear/not wear recommended but optional safety equipment, but that's a whole other thread ...). My guess is that the decision has already been made (as much for the second reason as any) and the plea for input is more political than having any real chance to change the impending directive.

Of course, the probable decision for SCCA to adopt 38.1 leaves some racer's equipment unacceptable but that's the game we play. Show up with all that is required, find some place to race where non-certified/no equipment is accepted, or just don't race.

Hope this helps ...

[billy]

I think this will suck for Greg Baker but Defnder is showing you can make a pretty amazing test proven device and still pass SFI and maybe FIA also.

I'm behind making these mandatory, I just don't want one vendor picked.

[Skeen]

I still don't understand why the Isaac-style shocks haven't been put on a HANS or R3 style device. Seems pretty obvious way to make it 38.1 approved to me. Hell, you could probably use the same parts and allow existing users to send their stuff in and have it installed on the new device.

[leggwork]

and the ongoing debate about whether the SFI 38.1 standard was developed with too many design directives (vs. performance) baked in that arbitrarily exclude devices that do the job.

Anybody notice in the latest fastrak that there was a suggestion by Jake Gullick that SCCA adopt a minimum egress time standard (a performance standard). The response from SCCA is that they wouldn't because it might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

I'm dumbfounded.
bruce

Noone disagrees that racing without a HN is nuts. A standard test is also a good thing. SFI seems only choice here given FIAs stance. The only potential issue would be if the SCCA mandated a specific device. I think thats the discussion.

[leggwork]

some manufacturer would still have to take it through the SFI38.1 cert process. HD and Safety Solutions already have 38.1 products, so why would they bother?
bruce

I still don't understand why the Isaac-style shocks haven't been put on a HANS or R3 style device. Seems pretty obvious way to make it 38.1 approved to me. Hell, you could probably use the same parts and allow existing users to send their stuff in and have it installed on the new device.

[kbrew8991]

Noone disagrees that racing without a HN is nuts. A standard test is also a good thing. SFI seems only choice here given FIAs stance. The only potential issue would be if the SCCA mandated a specific device. I think thats the discussion.
bonus points for Billy - the whole point was to urge the SCCA members here to write in if they wanted to be sure they'd have some choice in their H&N restraints.

[kbrew8991]

I still don't understand why the Isaac-style shocks haven't been put on a HANS or R3 style device. Seems pretty obvious way to make it 38.1 approved to me. Hell, you could probably use the same parts and allow existing users to send their stuff in and have it installed on the new device.
Baker claims it can't be done without reducing performance - I'm no engineer so I'm kinda baffled as to why/how...

[billy]

Look at the numbers for the Defnder, I have an R3 but as the test numbers stand now, a Defnder will be my next device.

[kbrew8991]

Look at the numbers for the Defnder, I have an R3 but as the test numbers stand now, a Defnder will be my next device.
I will not buy something that depends on an interference fit between the belts & device... the "hooks" go the wrong way on that device imo

[billy]

Well,
I guess we wait and see, we can compare Hans, R3 and Defnder in a couple of months.

[JimLill]

Well,
I guess we wait and see, we can compare Hans, R3 and Defnder in a couple of months.

and the other stuff that gets announced at PRI

[jamesb]

Not sure what people keep making some big to do with belts and the HANS. I rolled a freaking car, piroetted on the nose and my belts amazingly enough NEVER slipped. Now if the cage footing had not failed brining the cage into my old helmet I am sure I would have avoided the mild concussion, but that had zero to do with the HANS. And yes the hans was checked out, and the tethers are now replaced.

At the time I chose to buy mine I saw the SFI cert on the wall with BMWCCA and PCA going that direction, so I stuck with 38.1 devices on the market at the time. For me the HANS won over the R3 because of fit and comfort. The R3 does not work well for someone who is short and stocky, it pinched me in all sorts of places when strapped into MY seat...and no I was not going to buy a new seat over a HNR device.

So I am happy with my current setup, this spring I will likely add the inside net on my current seat as because of my short heigh (read closer to the steering colum and A pillar) I found a full containment seat actually hampered my egress from the car.

[kbrew8991]

I can bring up 2 videos where HANS have slipped off of sholders without even trying, 1 of them happened to a friend actually. The R3 fits me well, tests as good or better than the HANS, and can't slip. thats the choice I'm making, though I don't really fault anyone for making thier own choice in a different direction.

There are a metric buttload of factors to consider, thus why I'm REALLY big on having as much choice as possible

[jamesb]

I have yet to hear any actual drivers posted up their belts slipped, only friends. Sorry but that just doesnt fly with me, before I bought one or even now. Yes, I have seen the test vids posted by ISAAC in which no seat is used which personally I think skews all results tested that way (including ISAAC). The devices are meant to be used with a race seat, not on a steel backed test sled without any harness guides behind the drivers shoulders.

[JimLill]

Check with Greg Amy on the belt slip at WGI.

[kbrew8991]

I have yet to hear any actual drivers posted up their belts slipped, only friends. Sorry but that just doesnt fly with me, before I bought one or even now. Yes, I have seen the test vids posted by ISAAC in which no seat is used which personally I think skews all results tested that way (including ISAAC). The devices are meant to be used with a race seat, not on a steel backed test sled without any harness guides behind the drivers shoulders.
I'm not talking about any of the marketing stuff that Baker spouts endlessly, but real life instances of this happening... Jim Lill lists one right below your post :)

[billy]

James,
The R3 comments are interesting, I forget I'm wearing mine in the car, where is it uncomfortable for you? Pressing in to the back , behind the helmet, your chest?

[jamesb]

Ill have to look up the actual facts of WGI, not hearsay. But eventually its to each his own. I feel the HANS was the perfect choice for me. Others swear by only the products they sell or use. That's fine with me, but don't tell someone whos been into a wall once so far with a little help, and through a rollover (albeit intentional) and tell me it doesnt work.

[kbrew8991]

uhh, no reason to get so defensive. I said/implied earlier in post #25 that I don't fault anyone for having different priorities when making this decision. As long as they're carefully considering everything and pick whats best for them and their system, thats fantastic :)

for you thats the HANS
for me thats the R3
for someone else that could be something completely different

:cheers: so long as we have sufficent choices to meet our needs.

[leggwork]

you realize that bench seat is part of the SFI 38.1 test setup, right?

I think the early HANS models had more issues with belt slippage, then they updated the friction surface and added a small lip. But, they didn't make much of an announcement about it because they didn't want to imply that the early ones were deficient - this is just my belief.
bruce


I have yet to hear any actual drivers posted up their belts slipped, only friends. Sorry but that just doesnt fly with me, before I bought one or even now. Yes, I have seen the test vids posted by ISAAC in which no seat is used which personally I think skews all results tested that way (including ISAAC). The devices are meant to be used with a race seat, not on a steel backed test sled without any harness guides behind the drivers shoulders.

[Safe Drives]

(snip) My next H&N will probably be a Defnder as things stand test wise BUT I'm sure there will be newer competing models that will improve on this and so on. Competition is a good thing.

Don't give up your R3 too quick Billy. The R3 still has two load paths for energy and does not depend entirely on the harness to save your neck. ;)

With HANS and with the Defnder they both rely 100% on the shoulder belt to restrain your head and neck. If your shoulder belt fails or if the cage / harness bar is deformed on the first impact then the ability of the device to work at all could be compromised.

With Hybrid Devices you actually have three load paths for energy. This is why I chose a Hybrid Rage for my 2008 rally season.

:rockon:



and the other stuff that gets announced at PRI

Indeed Jim, full details of the Defnder will be out as well as information on the newest SFI 38.1 certified device, the Hutchins Hybrid Pro will be released.

:clap:

[jamesb]

Sorry Ken. I didnt mean to come off defensive. But I am so tired of being told about belts slipping time and time again without any first account of those that it was supposed to have happen to.

It really comes down to finding what you are most comfortable with. And other then getting the HANS and my belts properly configured I feel absolutely safe with my choice. I was actually more worried about using my helmet right after hyperfest given the impact it took and no time to find another one that fit properly. For 2009 I have a brand new helmet ready to go after Bell found one minor fracture but not from roll, instead from a time I accidentally dropped it.

[JimLill]

James and Ken..........

Something that is not common knowledge is that the HANS design morphed over the years to add something at the shoulder area to prevent belt slippage. I don't know when it got cut in..........