SFI Head & Neck mandatory for NASA in June 08

[chris_venturini]

No change to the SFI 38.1 requirement in the new version of the rules (2008.11) that is dated 3/30/08.

 

there are many who are hopeful this will change before june

+1

[onralz]

Well I just wasted a half hour of my life reading this thread. I'm not any smarter reading, just more tired....

 

I've had a G-Force SRS-1 since 2003 and have used it since. Fortunately I have never had to test it in any kind of serious accident. It was inexpensive, it's easy to put on, it doesn't inhibit me while driving, and it allows me to get out of the car very easily. Unfortunately because they missed the SFI rating, it doesn't matter. Regardless I still used it because it was better than nothing and a better compromise than the Hans. I have a Sparco Circuit seat with side bolsters and have for years along with a side net which I've had for 4 years. My point is I firmly believe in making my car as safe as I can.

 

My complaint about the Hans. I put one on and got into the car years ago. When I tried to get out, about half the time, the hans hit the side bolster of the seat. I had to consciously think about leaning farther forward to avoid this. Now if I'm in a hurry to get out of a car that has rolled over, on fire, etc, I'm not going to be thinking about leaning forward. I'll be thinking Get the hail out.

 

So, by going to a device that is mandated, I achieve nothing more than having "potentially" more side impact protection "depending" on which angle and if the car is actually level when it hits. What I also get is the very good potential of being stuck in car longer that could cause me bodily harm than the impact itself.

 

I'm now leaving my soap box.

 

After reading this thread, I do believe that NASA needs to mandate something. I wish racers would take it upon themselves to educate themselves and focus on safety but not all do. (and not all don't) More importantly NASA needs to make a mandate on itself to check that all cars and drivers are adhering to these safety requirements and other requirements. In my many years of racing, I have seen racers cut corners and go against mandates. No one is watching because some sanctioning bodies believe that it is the racers responsibility. I agree to a point, but since NASA IS mandating certain safety devices, they need to also make sure they are on top of things verifying they are in use. I saw a very nasty roll over last year which left the driver a bit dazed because that particular car didn't have the correct roll bar padding as just one example. Another safety example. That show Setup. The annoying producer made an actual excellent point. Many of the racers on the show didn't take out there pins in their extinguishers. WTH? Everyone should be safety focused and have a basic checklist of things to check before each session. This could prove to be far more important to a drivers safety than a mandated head and neck restraint device.

 

With all this said, I just recently purchased a Han's device. I did this through Northstar Motorsports in Barrington Illinois. John Ruther is the owner and a very long time racer. Great little company. I would have purchased the quick release had I have done this without trying them on and talking with John. John got out his personal helmet with the quick release but not the new sliding tethers. It does in fact restrict me. He educated me though and let me know that it is useless to have the sliding tether and the quick release. There is just too little tether to move when the quick release is installed. I also caught the quick release on the net of the car and it popped off. Granted I was trying to do it, but it still happened. John is planning on going to the sliding tether and eliminating the quick release in his own car which is what I chose to do.

 

Moral of this sage? Don't complain about what NASA is doing particularly when it comes to their focus on your safety. Get involved, get educated, get ahead of the game. If you quit racing because they mandate a safety device on your car, you need to get your priorities straight in my humble opinion. If you quit racing because they don't put corner workers out there with the proper training, I'd call that justified and complain all you want. But that's just my opinion.

No I don't want to give up my G-Force device and spend the money on a different device but politics rule the world and sometimes you just have to do what you don't want to do.

 

Lastly FWIW, I've emailed and talked with the directors numerous times over my racing years and ALWAYS had a quick reply and a professional tone portrayed. My experience in dealing with sanctioning bodies is no different than dealing with people in the corporate world. It's how you portray yourself, feelings, and theories that will define how they react to you.

[ker]

My point is I firmly believe in making my car as safe as I can. I absolutely agree and my responses are below in red

 

My complaint about the Hans. I put one on and got into the car years ago. When I tried to get out, about half the time, the hans hit the side bolster of the seat. I had to consciously think about leaning farther forward to avoid this. Now if I'm in a hurry to get out of a car that has rolled over, on fire, etc, I'm not going to be thinking about leaning forward. I'll be thinking Get the hail out. There have been numerous incidents documented at the professional level (the guys who practice getting in and out) of the HANS device "hanging up" in most every condition other than parked with 4 wheels on the ground (and no crushed roof) including fire with the driver "trapped" in the cars because of the HANS device

 

So, by going to a device that is mandated, I achieve nothing more than having "potentially" more side impact protection "depending" on which angle and if the car is actually level when it hits. What I also get is the very good potential of being stuck in car longer that could cause me bodily harm than the impact itself. Part of my point exactly, the HANS device meets a certain "design" criteria while (IMO) the Isaacs device meets a higher standard of "performance" - essentially supporting my neck and head in all directions rather than basic forward and backward movement (hence the need for head and rib bolsters and right side nets when using something other than the Isaacs)

 

I do believe that NASA needs to mandate something. I wish racers would take it upon themselves to educate themselves and focus on safety but not all do. it is the racers responsibility. Whole heartedly agree that racers should take more responsibility for their and others safety. There are options in mandating a H/N device without necessarily eliminating one of the most effective devices available for H/N protection (based on performance)

 

Moral of this sage? Don't complain about what NASA is doing particularly when it comes to their focus on your safety. Get involved, get educated, get ahead of the gameI have and I've tried (and I'm not the only one), but to no avail . If you quit racing because they mandate a safety device on your car, you need to get your priorities straightI believe I have. I have been wearing the Isaacs device since they first came out 2002/2003. I was well ahead of the "mandating" of a H/N device. This is not about forcing me to use a safety device at all, it's about the "choice" of which protects me best versus the ones that meet the "design" criteria of those involved in writing SFI 38.1 to meet "their" design to the exclusion of a superior performing product. Please understand - I have been concerned about my safety far longer than NASA or SCCA regarding my H/N protection and I applaud NASA for doing something to improve the safety of their racers. However, IMO the exclusion of the use of Isaacs for "design" over "performance" puts my safety at risk. I do have another option for me to race - it's SCCA as they do not, nor as I have been told, that they will exclude my Isaacs. In fact they are taking the exact approach you suggest - drivers responsibility. Currently they recommend the use of a H/N device but I have been told that in the future they will mandate one but not put a limiting factor (such as SFI 38.1) on it. Their view is that it IS the drivers responsibility AND liability. Their view is that if you the driver choose which device to use, then it stands to reason that you the driver accept the liability that goes with that decision. in my humble opinion. and IMHO too

 

 

I love the NASA family and have been a member for many years, I will continue my association with NASA on the HPDE side (I am the Rocky Mountain Region HPDE Director and Chief Instructor) because I strongly believe in the HPDE program as a way to improve peoples driving skills that can be transfered to the street and I am committed to that effort. I also have many friendships within the NASA family that I have enjoyed for many years and expect to continue to do so. I will miss racing with NASA - I just choose my racing safety over just racing.

[speedracer33]

2) I spoke with Jerry Kunzman, NASA's Executive Director, who told me, in no uncertain terms, that no driver would be denied the use of an ISAAC system. This was after the below e-mail exchange:

 

Gregg,

 

This is incorrect. Please call me if you have any questions.

 

Jerry Kunzman

 

 

From: Gregg Baker [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:40 AM

To: [email protected]

Subject: SFI

 

Jerry,

 

It has come to our attention that NASA intends to mandate head and neck restraints next season and that it has excluded the best performing product available, the Isaac® system. Is this true?

 

Gregg, are you sure he wasn't saying that your (not-so-subtle) description of your product is what is incorrect?

 

Sorry man, I just had to.

 

Jerry's response does bring up one interesting thing though. It is one thing to not disallow a certain product, but that isn't the same as saying that it meets the standard as set forth in the rules. All that I saw from Jerry's response is that drivers with the Isaac won't have to throw them away.... that they are allowed to use them. At the same time, they could still require the HANS (or some other SFI approved H&N device) in addition to it. You need to get a lot more clarity on this.

[gbaker]

2) I spoke with Jerry Kunzman, NASA's Executive Director, who told me, in no uncertain terms, that no driver would be denied the use of an ISAAC system. This was after the below e-mail exchange:

 

Gregg,

 

This is incorrect. Please call me if you have any questions.

 

Jerry Kunzman

 

 

From: Gregg Baker [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:40 AM

To: [email protected]

Subject: SFI

 

Jerry,

 

It has come to our attention that NASA intends to mandate head and neck restraints next season and that it has excluded the best performing product available, the Isaac® system. Is this true?

 

Gregg, are you sure he wasn't saying that your (not-so-subtle) description of your product is what is incorrect?

 

Sorry man, I just had to.

LOL!

 

Jerry's response does bring up one interesting thing though. It is one thing to not disallow a certain product, but that isn't the same as saying that it meets the standard as set forth in the rules.

Sure. That's the reason a jet engine does not meet the propeller standard, but which one makes the plane go faster? We don't care about the standard; that's not the objective.

 

SFI admits it sets minimum performance levels. If you were designing the next generation F1 car, would you be concerned about meeting the Yugo standard?

 

All that I saw from Jerry's response is that drivers with the Isaac won't have to throw them away.... that they are allowed to use them. At the same time, they could still require the HANS (or some other SFI approved H&N device) in addition to it. You need to get a lot more clarity on this.

I suppose they could buy a HANS and keep it in the trunk.

 

Look, sanctioning bodies don't die in racing crashes. Drivers die in racing crashes. Therefore, we are more concerned about drivers than sanctioning bodies. It is one thing if this were a new subject, but after 5+ years of field experience with HANS users getting stuck in windows, and multiple comparative scientific papers proving the superior performance of the ISAAC system there is no way NASA can claim ignorance. Jerry knows it's a safer product, and he also knows that if he takes one away from a driver and that guy gets killed he will have to explain his decision to a jury.

 

The obvious no-risk solution is for NASA to require SFI or RSI labels. What part of that is difficult to understand?

[speedracer33]

What part of that is difficult to understand?

 

Apparently it was my message that was difficult to understand.

 

Jerry's quote was "no driver would be denied the use of an ISAAC system." That is NOT the same as saying that the ISAAC will meet the requirements as described in the rule book under 29.1.1

 

The combination of his quote, and what is says in the rule book, which is "If the device is not on this list it will not fulfill the use mandate" says to me that if you want to use your ISAAC you can, but you need a HANS too. I'm not saying this is a good idea. I'm not saying it makes sense. I'm not saying I endorse it. I'm saying that is all that has been verified in this forum, including the very quote that you shared with us.

 

You might call it semantics, but it sounds to me like nobody here has heard the magic words that the ISAAC fulfills the requirement for a Head and Neck Restraint, and that no other restraint will be required in addition to the ISAAC per the rule book. Until those words are in writing, you haven't won yet.

 

To this point, can both a HANS and ISAAC even be worn at the same time?

 

Matt

[gbaker]

What part of that is difficult to understand?

 

Apparently it was my message that was difficult to understand.

 

Jerry's quote was "no driver would be denied the use of an ISAAC system." That is NOT the same as saying that the ISAAC will meet the requirements as described in the rule book under 29.1.1

 

The combination of his quote, and what is says in the rule book, which is "If the device is not on this list it will not fulfill the use mandate" says to me that if you want to use your ISAAC you can, but you need a HANS too. I'm not saying this is a good idea. I'm not saying it makes sense. I'm not saying I endorse it. I'm saying that is all that has been verified in this forum, including the very quote that you shared with us.

 

You might call it semantics, but it sounds to me like nobody here has heard the magic words that the ISAAC fulfills the requirement for a Head and Neck Restraint, and that no other restraint will be required in addition to the ISAAC per the rule book. Until those words are in writing, you haven't won yet.

 

To this point, can both a HANS and ISAAC even be worn at the same time?

 

Matt

Matt,

 

No, they cannot be worn at the same time.

 

My comments have little to do with the semantics of the rule book, and I appreciate the inconsistency. It's not an argument to be won or lost, I'm simply offering up a zero-risk solution to a foolish problem. I mean, really; 18+ pages of discussing why someone wants to exclude what is the safest device of it's type because of a sticker? In the interest of safety?

 

A jury doesn't know the difference between the SFI and the FBI. When it concludes that NASA was more interested in covering its butt than covering its drivers the lights will go out. And when the insurance carrier calls it gross negligence its bye-bye coverage. (Insurers do not care about stickers. We have discussed this with them. They care about bodies.)

 

That's what is so looney about these types of rules: Everyone loses.

 

There are over 400 racing organizations in North America. We can't tend to them all.

[IkeF]

A report from another board just stated that as of yesterday, SCCA will recognize competition licenses for other amateur series effective immediately (including NASA). This, combined with the fact that SCCA has no 38.1 mandate, and NASA has been hinting at it has lead folks to believe SCCA is getting ready for NASA to follow through with the 38.1 mandate. Any thoughts on this Gregg?

[ker]

A report from another board just stated that as of yesterday, SCCA will recognize competition licenses for other amateur series effective immediately (including NASA). This, combined with the fact that SCCA has no 38.1 mandate, and NASA has been hinting at it has lead folks to believe SCCA is getting ready for NASA to follow through with the 38.1 mandate. Any thoughts on this Gregg?

 

not that i'm in the "know" on what will happen in the future, but my conversations with scca is that they may require a head/neck restraint system in the future but currently have no plans to mandate a specific requirement (i.e. 38.1) as they believe it is the drivers responsibility to make that determination and it is one step closer to protecting the organization from liability.

[xr4racer1]

SCCA has recognized other licenses for many years, just not NASA until a couple of days ago.

 

matt

[FlyingDog]

Can a NASA official please comment publicly on Gregg's posts above? Yes or no, is an Isaac allowed to be worn in a race after June 1?

[FlyingDog]

Now that the date is July 2... any official comment?

[speedracer33]

I'm not an official, but be careful.... You are asking the wrong question. The question you need to ask is whether or not the Isaac satisfies NASA's H&N restraint rule.

[Tom A]

I'm not an official, but be careful.... You are asking the wrong question. The question you need to ask is whether or not the Isaac satisfies NASA's H&N restraint rule.

Of course not.

 

CR 2008.13 EDITION

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 July 2, 2008. References and information can be found in

“Appendix D,” section #29.0 of the CCR.

 

29.1 Head and Neck Restraint Systems

29.1.1 General

There is an up to date list of devices that are SFI 38.1 certified located here: http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the device is not on this list it will not fulfill the use mandate.

 

Edit:remove screwy formatting again

Edited May 31, 2008 by Guest

[gbaker]

Yes or no, is an Isaac allowed to be worn in a race after June 1?

Yes. Jerry said so. See e-mail posted earlier.

[Tom A]

Yes or no, is an Isaac allowed to be worn in a race after June 1?

Yes. Jerry said so. See e-mail posted earlier.

 

Sorry Gregg, but unless the CCRs change, what Jerry said doesn't matter. The rules say "If the device is not on this list it will not fulfill the use mandate."

 

There have been at least two revisions to the CCR published since your conversation with Jerry, and the wording of the H&N requirements did not change in either. We have to make the assumption at some point that they are not going to. Based on the reasons given several times, on this and other forums, I can't see any reason why they would change. Your device is not SFI Certified, therefore it is not listed on SFI's site, therefore it does NOT fulfill the use mandate. SFI 38.1 is the only spec there is, NASA is not in the business of writing safety specifications, so they are using what is available. Unfortunately what is available is flawed.

 

I think it blows, and I made my reasons why clear earlier in this thread here. SFI has the best interests of SFI Members in mind, racers are secondary.

 

Cynical prediction: Within 2 years, SFI will mandate an expiration date into the spec for SFI 38.1 to make us all buy a new HANS (or HANS-Like) device every 5 years.

[pgipson]

Cynical prediction: Within 2 years, SFI will mandate an expiration date into the spec for SFI 38.1 to make us all buy a new HANS (or HANS-Like) device every 5 years.

 

That's an easy call. HANS already recommends changing the straps every 2 years. And they recommend no re-use after an accident.

[HBennett]

That's an easy call. HANS already recommends changing the straps every 2 years. And they recommend no re-use after an accident.

 

No. We recommend you inspect your device after an accident to determine if it is still useable.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

[pgipson]

That's an easy call. HANS already recommends changing the straps every 2 years. And they recommend no re-use after an accident.

 

No. We recommend you inspect your device after an accident to determine if it is still useable.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

 

Well, that's not exactly what your users manual says. It does say that a user should inspect the device after an accident and offers some basic criteria to look for such as delamination. There is certainly no "hard and fast" criteria to determine whether a device is suitable for continued use. And your manual goes on to state that "even the most through visual inspection and strength testing can fail to detect damage". And that you do not resell used devices and that you do not recommend that used devices be bought. You close the paragraph by stating that "if in doubt about the integrity of a HANS device, it should be replaced.".

 

Since there is not a way for an owner to determine if a "once used" device still meets all the required limits of your original design and, since an adequate re-test (even by you) can not be performed, I think a reasonable person would interpret your manual to caution against the continued use of a device that has been in an accident.

[HBennett]

Depending on the severity of the crash, you are correct. There are a couple of areas that can be inspected for cracking or delamination and if you see any of these conditions, you can bet there is probably internal damage. One of the reasons for taking a cautious attitude towards used devices is we don't know the history of the device or the severity of the crash. We actually had someone admit they ran over the device with their trailer. It did not show any external signs of failure but you never know about internal stresses. I usually tell people to treat their device like a helmet. It is made of comparable materials and maufactured using similar processes. If you are in any doubt of the condition of your device (this goes for just about any piece of safety equipment) because of an impact it has suffered, it has probably done its job and is now a candidate for your trophy cabinet.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

[gbaker]

SFI 38.1 is the only spec there is...

Nope.

 

http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/Head%20and%20Neck%20Restraints.html

[Mike Hurst]

http://www.sunbiz.org/COR/2008/0430/60773776.tif

[Izzy's Cages]

Mike... IIRC, they've been through that over on rr-ax.org

 

edit... sorry www.rr-ax.com

 

also http://rsicommunity.org/

Edited June 11, 2008 by Guest

[vpnwiz]

Since that forum is down at the moment...

 

Wow. Before I saw that link I was going to say that any certification "lab" asking for donations is questionable at best. But to hide the fact that RSI is wholly owned by a manufacturer with an interest in the product being "certified" is just wrong. That makes it very hard to trust anything else written, declared, or "published" by that person.

[Izzy's Cages]

Since that forum is down at the moment...

 

Wow. Before I saw that link I was going to say that any certification "lab" asking for donations is questionable at best.

But to take money from the very businesses that your certifying products for ?????? At least RSI is seeking monetary help from US RACERS...

 

But to hide the fact that RSI is wholly owned by a manufacturer with an interest in the product being "certified" is just wrong. That makes it very hard to trust anything else written, declared, or "published" by that person.

 

Again, I seem to recall several topics on this at rr-ax.com w/o any of the black helicopters.