Head and Neck Device Question

[Grandam08]

nice first post.

 

I see nothing wrong with it. I was pointing out the fact that he miss quoted Mr. Kunzman just as he(Kunzman) had requested his statement not to be taken out of context.

 

I'm sure we all wish that all sanctioning body's were an open democracy. Though most will listen to thier members suggestions. At some point they must make decsions that they think are best for thier organization. We may not all agree with them, but if we want to run with them we have to go by thier rules. After all NASA is a private company and they have to do what's best for them in long run.

 

Happy New Year, Damien

[Renntag]

Damien. Sorry. Dont take my comment the wrong way. I agree with you and Jerry for that matter. This is a hot topic and will continue to get hotter as the year goes on.

 

I thought it was funny that you take such a strong stance with your first post.

 

And fwiw, I thought your username was GrandMA08....The mind plays tricks on us.

 

Welcome to the forum.

[raffaelli]

nice first post.

 

I see nothing wrong with it. I was pointing out the fact that he miss quoted Mr. Kunzman just as he(Kunzman) had requested his statement not to be taken out of context.

 

I'm sure we all wish that all sanctioning body's were an open democracy. Though most will listen to thier members suggestions. At some point they must make decsions that they think are best for thier organization. We may not all agree with them, but if we want to run with them we have to go by thier rules. After all NASA is a private company and they have to do what's best for them in long run.

 

Happy New Year, Damien

 

 

Please point out the mis-quote.

[Renntag]

Please point out the mis-quote.

Read Jerry's message...his request is very clear.

[vpnwiz]

...I was pointing out the fact that he miss quoted Mr. Kunzman just as he(Kunzman) had requested his statement not to be taken out of context.

Please point out the mis-quote.

 

He was referring to the fact that Jerry Kunzman specifically requested that you NOT take any part of his statement out of context. You should have quoted his entire post. It's bad form.

 

Patrick

[Grandam08]

nice first post.

 

I see nothing wrong with it. I was pointing out the fact that he miss quoted Mr. Kunzman just as he(Kunzman) had requested his statement not to be taken out of context.

 

I'm sure we all wish that all sanctioning body's were an open democracy. Though most will listen to thier members suggestions. At some point they must make decsions that they think are best for thier organization. We may not all agree with them, but if we want to run with them we have to go by thier rules. After all NASA is a private company and they have to do what's best for them in long run.

 

Happy New Year, Damien

 

 

Please point out the mis-quote.

 

I meant out of context, sorry. Which was pointed out in my reprint of what Mr. Kunzman said. You just picked out the part that fit the comment you wanted to make. I'm sure you feel that your choice of HNR is better than what has/will be mandated. The problem is that it doesn't meet the requirements set forth by all the sanctioning bodies that require one.

 

There are things that I believe for safety reasons are better than what's allowed in some of the organizations I run with, but they don't fit in the rule set. We all must weigh our options and run where we feel the most comfortable.

 

Cheers, Damien

[tom91ita]

time out!

 

you guys crack me up.

 

one person quotes a section of jerry's post and is told he should not post just a section of the original message.

 

and the next person quotes a section, yes just a section, to say why you should not be posting just a section.

 

i love irony!

 

back to our regularly scheduled debate!

 

time in!

[Grandam08]

time out!

 

you guys crack me up.

 

one person quotes a section of jerry's post and is told he should not post just a section of the original message.

 

and the next person quotes a section, yes just a section, to say why you should not be posting just a section.

 

i love irony!

 

back to our regularly scheduled debate!

 

time in!

 

You are correct that I didn't post the entire message. I posted the statement that his comments not be taken out of context, as was done by the other poster. Much different in my opinion. He took one line out of the complete statement and used it to make a agrumentative post against NASA and their decisions about HNR's.

 

Damien

[raffaelli]

Since the setting has not changed and we are talking about head and neck restraint, I did not take anything out of context. Please stay away from keyboard symatics. They are boring.

 

Beyond the matter of the head and neck restraint is the 'poor form' (to quote someone else, will I be persecuted for that also?). That plan does not sound like a membership enhancing position.

 

Happy New Year.

[Greg G.]

Since the setting has not changed and we are talking about head and neck restraint, I did not take anything out of context. Please stay away from keyboard symatics. They are boring.

 

Beyond the matter of the head and neck restraint is the 'poor form' (to quote someone else, will I be persecuted for that also?). That plan does not sound like a membership enhancing position.

 

Happy New Year.

 

Yes, you did take it out of context, and did exactly what Jerry Kunzman asked not be done to his statement. Everybody does not necessarily read every post on a given thread, especially after they get a few pages old. So, now that you have chosen to do it again, I have edited your post. If you chose to continue to ignore his request, my guess is that this thread will end up getting locked like just about all of the other ones have for various reasons. BTW, persecution requires that some right of yours is being curtailed, whereas forum posting is a privilege and a service that NASA offers to our members and officials. Jerry's (entire) statement (that was actually a quote from long ago, and not something that he posted himself after the release of this rule) seems to me to be a very reasonable explanation of both NASA's position, and the reasoning behind it. As well, he clearly states where a competitor needs to focus his energy if he wishes to try to enact change in this matter (and this is not the place, although feel free as long as you want to discuss the issues, and not quote the Executive Director out of context).

 

Obviously, this rule is not directly a "membership enhancing position" as you stated. Most safety rules aren't. This is not about membership enhancement. It is about safety. However, there will be many out there that whether they agree with the rule or not, will realize that NASA is looking out for the safety of their competitors, and following the standards that are being set by the industry (as in Jerry's statement). I just got an e-mail from another organization that I used to race with telling me that I must comply with a 38.1 certified HNR by February '08.

[raffaelli]

Since the setting has not changed and we are talking about head and neck restraint, I did not take anything out of context. Please stay away from keyboard symatics. They are boring.

 

Beyond the matter of the head and neck restraint is the 'poor form' (to quote someone else, will I be persecuted for that also?). That plan does not sound like a membership enhancing position.

 

Happy New Year.

 

Yes, you did take it out of context, and did exactly what Jerry Kunzman asked not be done to his statement. Everybody does not necessarily read every post on a given thread, especially after they get a few pages old. So, now that you have chosen to do it again, I have edited your post. If you chose to continue to ignore his request, my guess is that this thread will end up getting locked like just about all of the other ones have for various reasons. BTW, persecution requires that some right of yours is being curtailed, whereas forum posting is a privilege and a service that NASA offers to our members and officials. Jerry's (entire) statement (that was actually a quote from long ago, and not something that he posted himself after the release of this rule) seems to me to be a very reasonable explanation of both NASA's position, and the reasoning behind it. As well, he clearly states where a competitor needs to focus his energy if he wishes to try to enact change in this matter (and this is not the place, although feel free as long as you want to discuss the issues, and not quote the Executive Director out of context).

 

Obviously, this rule is not directly a "membership enhancing position" as you stated. Most safety rules aren't. This is not about membership enhancement. It is about safety. However, there will be many out there that whether they agree with the rule or not, will realize that NASA is looking out for the safety of their competitors, and following the standards that are being set by the industry (as in Jerry's statement). I just got an e-mail from another organization that I used to race with telling me that I must comply with a 38.1 certified HNR by February '08.

 

Yet another one missing the point. Right on.

[Knestis]

... I just got an e-mail from another organization that I used to race with telling me that I must comply with a 38.1 certified HNR by February '08.

 

Which sanctioning body is that, Greg? I'm trying to keep up with the bigger picture.

 

I'm another who's choosing to curtail my NASA racing this year, because of this decision. I'm not "Randy Pobst" enough to think that this is going to change Jerry's mind on NASA's policy - it's just my choice.

 

Thanks

 

K

 

EDIT - sorry, I didn't mean to take your earlier post out of context.

[tom91ita]

Greg,

 

it is my understanding that the H&NR is now required for all drivers including HPDE.

 

is this correct?

 

tia,

 

tom

[Knestis]

Because [sanctioning bodies] can't/won't take on the additional expense/liability of testing the devices themselves. It is easy and safe for them to specify an industry standard that has been accepted by major racing sanctions in the U.S.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

 

Howard is completely correct that it shouldn't be the sanctioning bodies' place to test safety equipment.

 

What they can do differently than they currently are however, is to simply stipulate that safety equipment meet minimum performance benchmarks under specified testing protocols in labs that make it their business to do those tests. I've pointedly avoided using the term "standard" because it's been appropriated to mean different things in this discussion.

 

Egress - the root of the "single point of release" issue - is quite correctly a concern, but it's not being addressed directly by sanctioning bodies. It should be, by the definition (again) of minimum performance benchmarks, established and enforced for the entire driver's space "system," and tested and enforced at the track.

 

It's a little outside of the way SFI typically works, since it applies standards to individual products, but it might be a worthy pursuit for that organization to develop a performance benchmark re: how quickly we SHOULD be able to get out of our cars, depending on the discipline and type. Don't stipulate HOW, since every car is different - just stipulate HOW QUICKLY...

 

Two simple requirements would make us all safer, although it would be a little less "easy and safe" (Howard's very accurate term) for NASA et al. to do so. Instead, we get confounded policies that we can't work out without bumping into some conflict of interest - real or apparent - and which shift the emphasis off of safety and onto distracting issues like whether it's OK to snip someone's post when quoting.

 

K

[tom91ita]

Greg,

 

it is my understanding that the H&NR is now required for all drivers including HPDE.

 

is this correct?

 

tia,

 

tom

 

rather than edit the above, my comment is based on the CCR

 

15.17.8 Head and Neck Restraint

Use of a head and neck restraint system or device, carrying an SFI 38.1 certification, is mandatory for all drivers as of June 2, 2008.

 

my emphasis on ALL.

[vpnwiz]

...it is my understanding that the H&NR is now required for all drivers including HPDE. is this correct?

rather than edit the above, my comment is based on the CCR

15.17.8 Head and Neck Restraint

Use of a head and neck restraint system or device, carrying an SFI 38.1 certification, is mandatory for all drivers as of June 2, 2008.

my emphasis on ALL.

 

Section 15 is the racing safety section of the CCR. HPDE rules and requirements are from sections 3 to 11. There is no HNR required for HPDE.

 

Patrick

[JWL]

Tom-

 

As Patrick points out, 38.1 devices are required only for the racers as the requirement is listed in Section 15, which only applies to racing programs. Section 11 covers equipment for HPDE and TT programs-sorry if that was unclear.

 

As for all the other discussions, the only point I can address here in the current climate of an aggressive plaintiff's bar (and the tendency of said bar to scour Internet forums for new and interesting expert witnesses to call on when lawsuits arrive) is the comment that we won't listen to racer's opinions on this matter. The case is, in fact, just the opposite and Jerry has offered time and time again to speak to anyone on the phone who has concerns or questions they would like addressed. You can reach him nearly any day at the main NASA office and he's happy to talk to you in order to explain where we're coming from with this mandate. We hope that folks will stick with us through this transition period and take Jerry up on his offer to discuss and explain our thoughts on the matter. I wish I could indulge in some further written debate and discussion to explain and justify this mandate, but the fact remains that the legal profession now dictates a great deal of what you can and can't do in certain industries and smart business practice doesn't allow me the luxury of offering up opinions or statements that would be sure to show up as part of the subject matter of a deposition at a later date. To close, if the path we've chosen here after much thought on our end does not work for you, we wish you well wherever you end up competing and we hope that you chose the solutions for your safety and venues for competition that work best for you.

 

Take care and best wishes to all of you in the coming year.

 

-JWL

 

John Lindsey

Chief Divisional Director

NASA

[tom91ita]

John,

 

Thanks for the clarification of the types of programs. Since I do not participate in HPDE, I have a tendency to go right past it.

 

But I thought that the TT's were part of the competition side of things since:

 

1. they are timed

2. they are part of the National Championships

3. they can be used to count towards the minimum races required to qualify for Nationals.

 

When I tried to search the 2008 CCR to learn more, I could only get one "hit" on "trial"

 

Thanks,

 

Tom

[Bruce L.]

TT is run during HPDE4 with various differences from the race sessions, so it is not subject to section 15.

bruce

 

John,

 

Thanks for the clarification of the types of programs. Since I do not participate in HPDE, I have a tendency to go right past it.

 

But I thought that the TT's were part of the competition side of things since:

 

1. they are timed

2. they are part of the National Championships

3. they can be used to count towards the minimum races required to qualify for Nationals.

 

When I tried to search the 2008 CCR to learn more, I could only get one "hit" on "trial"

 

Thanks,

 

Tom

[JWL]

Tom-

 

TT is broken out with its own set of rules which you can find on the National website. While it is a competition series, the controls on passing, driver conduct, and other restrictions place it within the HPDE safety rules. You're correct that this is a tad unclear in the CCR and will be a good project for Jerry and Jim to work on for 2009.

 

Thanks.

 

-JWL

[Greg G.]

... I just got an e-mail from another organization that I used to race with telling me that I must comply with a 38.1 certified HNR by February '08.

 

Which sanctioning body is that, Greg? I'm trying to keep up with the bigger picture.

 

It is the Porsche Owner's Club out here in California.

[Knestis]

Thanks, Greg. That's good to know.

 

K

[tom91ita]

Tom-

 

TT is broken out with its own set of rules which you can find on the National website. While it is a competition series, the controls on passing, driver conduct, and other restrictions place it within the HPDE safety rules. You're correct that this is a tad unclear in the CCR and will be a good project for Jerry and Jim to work on for 2009.

 

Thanks.

 

-JWL

 

JWL,

 

Okay, I looked at the TT rules and saw where they referenced back to the HPDE section of the CCR. However, now I am actually more confused.

 

Some of the HPDE and TT cars are very fast and yet they do not require any significant safety requirements. I know that HPDE cars are not timed but that does not mean they are slow.

 

After reading the TT rules, I realized that I could remove my roll cage, my 6 point FIA harness, my SFI window net, my SFI right side net, likely run faster times (less weight) and not need a H&NR. This seems inconsistent.

 

I do not understand why a TT car that can run 1:31's at mid-ohio does not need equipment such as a window net, H&NR, side net, etc. whereas an H5 Honda Challenge car running 1:45's does.

 

All of the really bad incidents I have personally witnessed on track that have required anything from helicopter evacuations and up to death investigations, have been the result of single car incidents that involved loss of brakes, late braking or oil on the track. The TT's and many HPDE's have just as much risk in this regard, possibly more so because of the higher speeds, as the lowly H5.

 

And in other sections of these forums it is noted that the TT's are running faster than the racecars:

 

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=19555 (referenced so one can see the complete context)

 

Be warned. TT level is as close to full race and sometimes even faster without hardcore wheel-to-wheel dicing. We have TT cars regularly beating racecar times but they do it for a lap not 25 minutes.

 

This is one reason that the blanket SFI requirement for "racing" as opposed to a requirement that Class "X" or a car capable of speeds in excess of xyz requires a H&NR that protects against some maximum acceptable force of "Y" on the neck using an SFI defined test protocol "Z" seems peculiar.

 

Thanks,

 

Tom

[ekim952522000]

I agree that TT should require all the same safety gear as W2W, I am of the opinion that once somthing is timed it is no longer a HPDE and is racing and should have all of the same safety gear that racing requires.

[kbrew8991]

then we're back to Tom's idea of why should the slower classes be forced into all this stuff when it is unnecessary

 

second off: You should run in TT before you start talking as if you're an expert We're no better nor no worse than DE3/4

 

- Ken, who maybe hits 110 and runs whopping 1:48s at Mid-O

 

let me clarify so I don't come across as too much of a butthole here (as thats not what I intend):

 

observing TT from the fence or by reading the ruleset or by thinking about what it is won't give you an accurate observation of how it actually works as a competitor/driver

 

if we're concerned about safety, we need to decide how we want to draw the line (well, unless we want to require full stuff for everyone... which isn't the best decision imho)

 

do we want to draw the line by type of event (as it is currently), or do we want to draw the line by how fast someone is going (ala NHRA)?

 

we can debate where that line needs to be once we pick which way we're drawing the line