SFI Head & Neck mandatory for NASA in June 08

[Tom A]

From the 2008 CCR: http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/ccr.pdf

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. References and information can be found in “Appendix D,â€

[JCraven]

I'm warming up to the idea of buying a neck restraint and have been researching the options but the requirement of buying one only meeting SFI bothers me... There are many other options out there, and the SFI H&N restraints are not necessarily the best in all test catagories.

 

Joe Craven

[Driver]

Question: Are these required for HPDE and TT, or just door-to-door classes? These traditionally rely on OE safety systems.

 

I'm warming up to the idea of buying a neck restraint and have been researching the options but the requirement of buying one only meeting SFI bothers me... There are many other options out there, and the SFI H&N restraints are not necessarily the best in all test catagories.

 

Joe Craven

This conversation is going on everywhere, this lil rule has created ripples in the racing world.

I agree that the SFI requirement doesn't represent the best interests of the racer, to a degree. Keep in mind NASA HAS to have some sort of standard for safety equipment. NASA could try to pen their own, but they would be burdened with testing every device out there. SFI does that for them, thus it makes the most sense to use that.

But you are correct, the SFI units are not the only options out there, and some uncertified bits are arguably better..... but when you're running an organization that needs insurance, said insurance makes you do things. We use SFI rate helmets and suits, why not head restraints?

 

The only real problem here is the youth of the market. Only the more popular and expensive units can afford to get an SFI rating. If you want to use your favorite device, call them up and tell them to get tested. Open a paypal-donate account for them, god knows this isn’t cheap.

[944-Spec#94]

Question: Are these required for HPDE and TT, or just door-to-door classes? These traditionally rely on OE safety systems.

 

 

For Racing only. I assume for HPDE and TT you can use anything you would like or nothing at all.

[Driver]

Question: Are these required for HPDE and TT, or just door-to-door classes? These traditionally rely on OE safety systems.

 

 

For Racing only. I assume for HPDE and TT you can use anything you would like or nothing at all.

Personally, I've been thinking more and more about a system regardless. My concern was, if they were required, it would vastly increase the cost of NASA ameteur events, and supsequently devistate participation numbers. "Good news; $300 gets you a whole weekend!...bad news, you need a $900 head restraint."

Glad this isn't the case.

[944-Spec#94]

I personally don't believe we will ever see this kind of think in HPDE. TT maybe, but never HPDE. For a long time racers have needed roll cages and harnesses. Those are long established safety mods for racers. HPDE cars have always been ok with OE safety gear as it is a school where people are intented to take street cars out on the track and learn to drive them.

 

TT is a little different, but if there is not requirement for a harness there there would be no requiremet for a H&N resratint as they are either designed for use with a harness or designed to protect a occupant who's body is restrained by a harness. The risks involved when using 3pt belts is just different.

[FlyingDog]

Isn't it funny that a NASA National Executive locked a thread about the inferiority of SFI 38.1 H&N restraints the day before the rule change became official? Coincidentally the closure was right after Howard Bennett of HANS posted "Quite honestly, racers can choose whatever device is best for them."

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=18831&start=70

[granracing]

I'm not too thrilled with this one to say the least. For myself, I won't be purchasing a HANS anytime in the near future. In the past I've raced without a H&N restraint and have been quite comfortable in doing so. I just recently got a ISAAC unit after comparing it to the HANS for effectiveness. I'm not too happy with this ruling and I'll leave it at that for now.

[Izzy's Cages]

Well, NASA had a new racer in the works and just lost him.

 

Too bad, I was looking forward to racing with NASA.

 

All they had to do was write the rule with "meets or exceeds performance specifications of SFI 38.1" and all would have been fine.

[Driver]

Well, NASA had a new racer in the works and just lost him.

 

Too bad, I was looking forward to racing with NASA.

 

All they had to do was write the rule with "meets or exceeds performance specifications of SFI 38.1" and all would have been fine.

You cant have this without a mound of certified test data. SFI 38 isn't a design spec, its a result of bashing dummies around.

 

Secondly, I can see this rule spreading to other racing organizations. Many moons ago, people had the same complaints about mandatory helmets and fire suits.

[Izzy's Cages]

Seems to me that 38.1 is very much a design spec when they (NASA) need to have the HNR meet a performance spec.

[Driver]

Seems to me that 38.1 is very much a design spec.

You're kidding!?

I must admit, I posted that without looking it up because I had assumed that they would never bother releasing a spec that wasn't supported by quantifiable crash data. I myself am in QC and deal witht his stuff on occasion. I took it for granted that 38.1 wouldn't exsist without requiring the manufacturers to submit their equipment to testing.

 

Here's a good read I've just found:

http://www.trackpedia.com/wiki/Head_and_Neck_Restraints

SFI 38.1

The new standard is set very high by the SFI 38.1 Head and Neck restraint specification. In order to pass the specification, the restraint has to pass a 70 G, 30 degree angular frontal impact, followed by three straight frontal 70G impacts below 3200 N neck Tension. (The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for passenger cars allows 4170N.) To pass, a device has to show good results in limiting maximum upper neck tension, maximum upper neck compression and maximum NIJ. The latter seems to be a composite factor that takes into account not just loads but moments. I think the lowest possible NIJ is the goal not just a one-off good tension or compression number. There is also a section of the SFI Spec 38.1 (single point of release) that calls for a specific design criteria which requires the driver to drag the restraint out the window which means that some devices that meet the impact requirements cannot be certified.

 

SFI is funded by the manufacturers and some granting bodies. Manufacturers pay the SFI for each unit they sell. One failing of the SFI is that they don't publish the actual test results - they claim they can't do that because the test results are the property of the manufacturers (manufacturers have the tests done by certified labs and then submit them to SFI for certification). If, for whatever reason, you believe that certain test results are more important for your type of racing, you have to rely on the manufacturers to release that data instead of having SFI provide it. Some of the data is gathered and published at http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org

So, they set forth a set of tests and perform them... then hide the results.

 

The point of release is something that I had also considered when shopping. After you survive your impact, you want to be able to flee your burning car quickly. I can deffinately agree that a device which attaches you to a fixed point on the car should not be certified unless it is easily disengaged.

That's a question you should ask about any restraint device, window net, or manual fire supresion: "Can I do this while on fire?" Looking at the ISAAC, I'm not sure that I could, so I'll be favoring systems that mount to my body.

[FlyingDog]

Seems to me that 38.1 is very much a design spec.

You're kidding!?

The only SFI requirement that the Isaac fails is the single release point. It is a design spec NOT a performance spec that the Isaac fails.

 

HANS is excited about their budget ($695) model being released soon... which costs as much as a standard Isaac and more than double the price of the budget Isaac. It must be nice to have ruling bodies block the major competition while you're making several hundred percent profit on all your overpriced products.

 

edit = corrected error

Edited January 4, 2008 by Guest

[Driver]

HANS is excited about their budget ($695) model being released soon... which costs as much as a standard Isaac and more than double the price of the budget Isaac. It must be nice to have ruling bodies block the major competition while you're making several hundred percent profit on all your overpriced products.

You make a good point that I (and maybe others) have been avoiding. In this case, I thinkt he pitch forks and torches should be waved at SFI 38.1 and not NASA for requiring it. They need something, and 38.1 is all there is...apart from the overseas FIA standard.

 

 

Going by your screen name, you also make good beer.

[JSirota]

Seems to me that 38.1 is very much a design spec.

You're kidding!?

The only SFI requirement that the Isaac fails is the single release point. Oddly, you can have as many release points as you want on SFI seatbelts, but you can only have 1 release for your head. It is a design spec NOT a performance spec that the Isaac fails.

 

Actually, the requirement isn't for a single point of release. Here's what it says:

 

"Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations."

 

In other words, you have to do nothing more than release the seat belt to release the H&N restraint. It doesn't say that this activity has to be a singular action. Only that the H&N restraint release is not separate from the belts.

[944-Spec#94]

... just recently got a ISAAC unit after comparing it to the HANS for effectiveness. I'm not too happy with this ruling and I'll leave it at that for now.

 

I can't really understand how this can come as a shock to anyone. Back in 2005 I started look at H&N restraints. Back then I saw the SFI spec and knew it would be trouble for the Isaac. I reviewed alot of what Gregg Baker said at that time and it was pretty clear than getting the Isaac to meet SFI specs was a long shot.

 

It was also clear to me that since a spec existed it would be pretty much be used if H&N were made mandiatory. I believe in 2006 NASA CCR's and I know it was in 2007 CCR's it clearly state that SFI38.1 legal devices might be be required. Now as for the idea of meetin SFI performance spec, but not the entire spec... well that is just silly. No club based organiztion is going to stick their neck out like that. This new rule entirely consistant with what I have been seeing for the past 2 years. There is nothing new here that could not be easily forseen.

[944-Spec#94]

You make a good point that I (and maybe others) have been avoiding. In this case, I thinkt he pitch forks and torches should be waved at SFI 38.1 and not NASA for requiring it. They need something, and 38.1 is all there is...

 

That is 100% Correct.

 

The SFI38.1 is the only thing out there. On the good side SFI38.1 devices WILL reduce neck tension AND do not require additional release points. I can envision many type of neck restraints that can provide very good neck load reduction numbers, but have no simple way to release you from the car. The SFI standard effectivly rules things out of existance.

 

Now the issue with Isaac is that we know it performs very well in load reduction tests and also provides for rapid egress if you unlatch it first. Clearly the SFI spec does not allow for that addtional "step". Seems to me Isaac needs to work on the SFI and both explain and demonstrate how their design does not hinder rapid egress inspite of it additional step.

 

The problem is Isaac seems unwilling to take the steps needed to gain SFI approval. Not SFI may not be willing to help out Isaac at all, but the issue needs to be Isaac and SFI. NASA is not party to these details and arguments nor should be.

[FlyingDog]

You make a good point that I (and maybe others) have been avoiding. In this case, I thinkt he pitch forks and torches should be waved at SFI 38.1 and not NASA for requiring it. They need something, and 38.1 is all there is...apart from the overseas FIA standard.

 

 

Going by your screen name, you also make good beer.

I think the pitch forks should be waved at both SFI and NASA. NASA knowingly alienated many drivers with investments in more than acceptable safety systems. NASA knowingly banned the use of a safety system which exceeds the performance of those allowed. NASA could have recommended H&N restraints while waiting to see how PCA, BMWCCA, SCCA and other club racing organizations handled the issue. NASA could have based their rule on certified performance requirements and not the complete SFI spec.

 

PS: FlyingDog is great beer but I don't make it. The screen name came from elsewhere and I just haven't changed it.

[Driver]

 

The problem is Isaac seems unwilling to take the steps needed to gain SFI approval. Not SFI may not be willing to help out Isaac at all, but the issue needs to be Isaac and SFI. NASA is not party to these details and arguments nor should be.

As more racing organizations adopt 38.1, ISAAC (and others) will be motivated to adapt. If they don't, they'll be put out of the market.

[FlyingDog]

Actually, the requirement isn't for a single point of release. Here's what it says:

 

"Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations."

So you can have a HANS that requires 2 releases to get free and you still have to climb out with a fiber reinforced plastic anchor on your neck vs 3 releases to get you out of a seatbelt and Isaac without anything to prevent your escape. Brilliant.

 

edit = corrected SFI spec error

Edited January 4, 2008 by Guest

[944-Spec#94]

I think the pitch forks should be waved at both SFI and NASA. NASA knowingly alienated many drivers with investments in more than acceptable safety systems. NASA knowingly banned the use of a safety system which exceeds the performance of those allowed. NASA could have recommended H&N restraints while waiting to see how PCA, BMWCCA, SCCA and other club racing organizations handled the issue.

 

NASA already recommended SFI38.1 devices in 2007 and may be even 2006 (I forget). Again it was time to move on to the next step.

 

PCA Club racing Rules Changes for 2008 include the following.

 

4. After June 1, 2008, a head and neck restraint meeting either the standards of either SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858 will be required.

 

That is document is located here.

http://www.pca.org/clubrace/docs/2008%20Rules%20Adopted.pdf

 

 

I THINK BMWCCA did so as well, but I can't remember. SCCA has been talking about it, but I do not know if they have realease their 2008 GCR's.

 

NASA could have based their rule on certified performance requirements and not the complete SFI spec.

Ok then how does NASA ensure the device is safe for rapid egress. Plus how does NASA validate that such a device passeds the SFI loadings for a test to SFI standards. Are they expected to rely on the "word" of the Manufacture. I don't feel Isaac has altered any data, but who is to say some shady operator might not do something like that with $250 cheap unit that does not work. Yet he "claims" it passes the test and even has the "data" to prove it. Too much room for liablility and much better to just use the SFI standard.

[ianacole]

SCCA has been talking about it, but I do not know if they have realease their 2008 GCR's.

 

The SCCA GCR is out, and there is no mention of SFI 38.1.

 

http://scca.org/documents/Club%20Rules/GCR2008.pdf

[FlyingDog]

NASA already recommended SFI38.1 devices in 2007 and may be even 2006 (I forget). Again it was time to move on to the next step.

Are you a politician? What have you done (not) for me lately?

PCA Club racing Rules Changes for 2008 include the following.

 

4. After June 1' date=' 2008, a head and neck restraint meeting either the standards of either SFI 38.1 [b']or FIA 8858[/b] will be required.

 

That is document is located here.

http://www.pca.org/clubrace/docs/2008%20Rules%20Adopted.pdf

Wow, PCA did something right.

[JSirota]

I THINK BMWCCA did so as well, but I can't remember. SCCA has been talking about it, but I do not know if they have realease their 2008 GCR's.

 

BMWCCA requires SFI 38.1 for 2008. SCCA doesn't.

[Bruce L.]

 

HANS is excited about their budget ($695) model being released soon... which costs as much as a standard Isaac and more than double the price of the budget Isaac. It must be nice to have ruling bodies block the major competition while you're making several hundred percent profit on all your overpriced products.

 

As long as we're talking conspiracy theories, how's this for a timeline of events...

- in 2006, Leatt Brace gets SFI 38.1 certification and announce a $395 "club model" HNR - (wow, I thought, that should help spur adoption and some price competition...)

- at PRI 2006 meeting, the SFI 38.1 committee (which, IINM, includes manufacturer reps) discuss lowering the allowable neck tension to 2500N from 4000N (Leatt is about 2600N, NHTSA mandates 4170N for passenger vehicles )

- mid 2007, Leatt announces that they won't be offering the club model for road racers but only the Sport at $695 (but they still offer the $395 club model in their motorcycle neck brace line)

- at PRI 2007 meeting, SFI 38.1 committee lowers the allowable neck tension to 3200N (I haven't heard the scientific justification for that yet)

- also at PRI 2007, Hubbard-Downing and Safety Solutions both announce $695 versions of their HNRs (well, at least we got some price competition)

 

(I have no internal knowledge of what really transpired, and these could just be coincidences)

 

On the other hand, I guess SFI has never hidden the fact that they are manufacturer funded ...

bruce