Officail answer required for legal roll bar padding!

[AllZWay]

This will also make SCCA racers more hesitant to run w/ us since they have a lesser (much more so) padding requirement.

 

 

Is this fact that SCCA requires less strict rules on padding than NASA is now wanting to require? That seems strange that NASA would require a stricter rule than SCCA.

[kbrew8991]

We're our own club over here Plus they don't require SFI38.1 Head & Neck restraints... I could dig and find a few more things too if you make me

[Glenn]

This will also make SCCA racers more hesitant to run w/ us since they have a lesser (much more so) padding requirement.

 

 

Is this fact that SCCA requires less strict rules on padding than NASA is now wanting to require? That seems strange that NASA would require a stricter rule than SCCA.

 

It is true. They only require padding in the head area. No other bars are required to be covered.

[liebbe]

Crud - I had a good response written and it got deleted before I sent it. Now I don't have time to re-write it but.....

 

I was in tech at MSR-H with Glenn, many were surprised and some mad about the new interpretation, I would have been if I brought a car. I do not like the fact that the rule has essentially been changed without a difference in the wording or without any notification to the customer.

 

Change the written rule to meet your requirements for incorporation into the 2012 CCR and give notice to the customer asap. The new written rule must have very specific wording that supports your specific intentions. For the time being, change the interpretation back to what we have been saying since 2005 and allow "high density" as determined by the manufacturer. This should also be communicated from the top to the customers asap.

 

I feel that if SFI padding is required, it need only be around the head contact areas. Other manufacturer determined high density padding would be required in other body contact areas.

 

As for all those SCCA cars that showed up in tech and stated "yeah, but it meets SCCA tech". My response was and will be that this is not SCCA and your car must comply with NASA rules - period.

 

Rob Liebbe

NASA Texas AI/CMC Regional Co-Director

[Alien]

I agree that you can't rely on the wording "high density" to convey the type of padding that is now being required.

 

http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productselection4.asp?Product=2390

http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Roll-Bar-Padding,896.html

http://www.jegs.com/i/JEGS+Performance+Products/555/70001/10002/-1

http://www.artmorrison.com/2006cat/54.pdf

http://www.rallynuts.com/motorsport-all-safety-products/longacre-roll-cage-padding.html

http://www.lightningmotorsports.com/moroso_/moroso_roll_bar_padding/80940/i-69824.aspx

 

All those list the padding as High Density. Perhaps a way to reword the rule would be to add that it be non-resilient (doesn't spring back). Or as Rob says, just go ahead and require the SFI stuff around your head.

 

Maybe reword as follows...

15.6.4 Padding

All roll cage surfaces that may come in contact with the driver's head should be padded with

high-density non-resilient padding. All other roll cage surfaces that may come in contact with the driver should be padded with high-density resilient or non-resilient padding such as Ethafoam or Ensolite. It is recommended that padding

meeting SFI specification 45.1 be used.

 

Yes, I do place greater value on my head than I do my foot.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Guest

[liebbe]

I don't know if Glenn said this originally, but I thought it was good....

 

Someone was complaining about needing padding at all contact points even for your legs, arms, hands. The response was "Try to unbuckle your harness with a broken hand." Or get out with a broken ankle, or leg, or ribs, or collar bone, etc from contact with a non-protected roll bar.

[mbuskuhl]

This will also make SCCA racers more hesitant to run w/ us since they have a lesser (much more so) padding requirement.

 

 

Is this fact that SCCA requires less strict rules on padding than NASA is now wanting to require? That seems strange that NASA would require a stricter rule than SCCA.

 

It is true. They only require padding in the head area. No other bars are required to be covered.

 

Since you want to bring SCCA into this, here are the ACTUAL rules:

 

9.4.G.1 ROLL CAGES FOR GT AND PRODUCTION BASED CARS - BASIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

All portions of the roll cage subject to contact by the driver must be padded with a minimum 1 inch of material. Padding that meets or exceeds SFI 45.1 or FIA 8857-2001 (curved padding), or SFI 45.2 or FIA sports car head rest material (flat padding) specification is recommended.

 

Appendix I. 2007 Cage Rules (Cars with logbooks from 2007 and earlier)

9.4.1.B

Forward braces and portions of the main hoop subject to contact by the driver’s helmet (as seated normally and restrained by seatbelt/ shoulder harness) shall be padded with non-resilient material such as Ethafoam® or Ensolite® with a minimum thickness of one‑half

(1/2) inch. Padding meeting SFI spec 45.1 or FIA 8857-2001 is strongly recommended.

[Glenn]

Since you want to bring SCCA into this, here are the ACTUAL rules:

 

9.4.G.1 ROLL CAGES FOR GT AND PRODUCTION BASED CARS - BASIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

All portions of the roll cage subject to contact by the driver must be padded with a minimum 1 inch of material. Padding that meets or exceeds SFI 45.1 or FIA 8857-2001 (curved padding), or SFI 45.2 or FIA sports car head rest material (flat padding) specification is recommended.

 

Appendix I. 2007 Cage Rules (Cars with logbooks from 2007 and earlier)

9.4.1.B

Forward braces and portions of the main hoop subject to contact by the driver’s helmet (as seated normally and restrained by seatbelt/ shoulder harness) shall be padded with non-resilient material such as Ethafoam® or Ensolite® with a minimum thickness of one‑half

(1/2) inch. Padding meeting SFI spec 45.1 or FIA 8857-2001 is strongly recommended.

 

Having never raced SCCA, I was relying onthe word of those who had. Thanks for bringing the tech.

[Alien]

I don't know if Glenn said this originally, but I thought it was good....

 

Someone was complaining about needing padding at all contact points even for your legs, arms, hands. The response was "Try to unbuckle your harness with a broken hand." Or get out with a broken ankle, or leg, or ribs, or collar bone, etc from contact with a non-protected roll bar.

 

I don't disagree that every bar should have some sort of padding (and that NASA should differ from SCCA in that aspect), but EVERY documentation that I have see regarding the SFI spec type padding relates to head and helmet impacts, none address hand and feet. The spec itself was developed with an 11lb headform along the lines of preventing concussions.

 

Even tho it doesn't 100% help my argument, here's a link from the SFI.

http://www.duramaxdiesels.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6981

I registered there, downloaded it, and attached it here.

 

*edit* ok, apparently I'm dumb and can't upload it. I'll email it to anyone that wants it.

[Adam Ginsberg]

A week or so ago, Jerry Kunzman sent out an email regarding an update to the CCR's (now at version 2011.4). A new subsection was added (28.1.13), with clarification about the use of the word "shall" and "should".

 

2011.4 NASA CCR's

 

Section 28.1.13 Should vs. Shall:

 

The word “should” is used throughout this rulebook; and in order to fully grasp its meaning, the following explanations have been created. When the word “should” is used, it can be taken to mean that something should be done in accordance with this book, or the driver can expect the stewards to disallow track time, if they catch the issue. The reason that it’s stated as “should,” is to add emphasis that it’s really, and ultimately, the driver’s responsibility. Because Inspectors, Instructors, Flaggers, and Officials in general, tend to be human, it is an assumed risk of this activity that a mistake can be made. Therefore, the driver is ultimately held responsible for his or her own safety.

 

Furthermore, the word “should” also makes an implication of fallibility and/or corrects false expectations. For example, “the flagger should display a yellow flag,” the yellow flag in question may not show because of 1) it relies on the flagger’s judgment, and that can be subjective, and 2) the flagger is human and can make a mistake. Therefore, if one is not willing to risk their safety because they expect other people to be perfect, then they cannot participate in NASA.

 

To sum it up, the word “should” can be construed in the context of these examples:

a) “The driver should have roll cage padding (if they expect to be let on track).”

b) “The official should check for roll cage padding (implying that, even though they do their best, the Inspectors can miss something).

 

That explanation, coupled with.....

 

Section 15.6.4 Padding:

All roll cage surfaces that may come in contact with the driver should be padded with high-density padding such as Ethafoam or Ensolite. It is recommended that padding meeting SFI specification 45.1 be used.

 

Means the required padding in a car must be Ethafoam or Ensolite, or similar high-density padding, in any area the driver may come in contact with the cage. SFI 45.1 padding is recommended, but not required.

 

FWIW, all the padding on my car needs to be replaced, as it's looking pretty shabby. Based on these discussions, I'll be replacing ALL of it with SFI 45.1 rated stuff. Jegs carries various brands of SFI-approved 45.1 padding, the least expensive being $18 for a Kirkey 3' stick, vs $12 for the non-SFI rated Kirkey padding. Given it's only a $6 difference, the piece of mind (for both safety, and tech inspections) is well worth it.

[nape]

A week or so ago, Jerry Kunzman sent out an email regarding an update to the CCR's (now at version 2011.4). A new subsection was added (28.1.13), with clarification about the use of the word "shall" and "should".

 

2011.4 NASA CCR's

 

Section 28.1.13 Should vs. Shall:

 

The word “should” is used throughout this rulebook; and in order to fully grasp its meaning, the following explanations have been created. When the word “should” is used, it can be taken to mean that something should be done in accordance with this book, or the driver can expect the stewards to disallow track time, if they catch the issue. The reason that it’s stated as “should,” is to add emphasis that it’s really, and ultimately, the driver’s responsibility. Because Inspectors, Instructors, Flaggers, and Officials in general, tend to be human, it is an assumed risk of this activity that a mistake can be made. Therefore, the driver is ultimately held responsible for his or her own safety.

 

Furthermore, the word “should” also makes an implication of fallibility and/or corrects false expectations. For example, “the flagger should display a yellow flag,” the yellow flag in question may not show because of 1) it relies on the flagger’s judgment, and that can be subjective, and 2) the flagger is human and can make a mistake. Therefore, if one is not willing to risk their safety because they expect other people to be perfect, then they cannot participate in NASA.

 

To sum it up, the word “should” can be construed in the context of these examples:

a) “The driver should have roll cage padding (if they expect to be let on track).”

b) “The official should check for roll cage padding (implying that, even though they do their best, the Inspectors can miss something).

 

So... the flagger can rely on his own judgement that can be subjective, but I "should" run out and buy a bunch of roll bar padding to replace mine?

 

Someone want to tell me how you secure all the 45.1 so that it doesn't fall off all the time? I zip tie all mine to the cage tubes, but that won't last on the top door bar.

 

As far as trying to exit the car with a broken hand, punch a piece of roll cage tube with the older foam wrap then punch it with the new SFI 45.1 padding. I'll bet you break your hand doing both.

[gbrown8439]

As far as trying to exit the car with a broken hand, punch a piece of roll cage tube with the older foam wrap then punch it with the new SFI 45.1 padding. I'll bet you break your hand doing both.

 

Before anyone does this can you please contact me. This would make an excellent You Tube video.

[kbrew8991]

As far as trying to exit the car with a broken hand, punch a piece of roll cage tube with the older foam wrap then punch it with the new SFI 45.1 padding. I'll bet you break your hand doing both.

that stuff feels hard, but in high-g crashes it is juuuusssttt hard enough to slow you down before you make contact with the cage.

 

Unless you can punch hard enough to replicate that

[Glenn]

So have we gotten all the Official responces we are going to get on this?

[liebbe]

So John has made a commitment to the molded type. Is this going to be communicated to the racers, is there going to be a rule change wording, does it not require SFI, and when will it be effective? His answer gives a bit of direction but no real pathway to get there. I believe it is not right to enforce his new interpretation until the wording is changed to be clear and a reasonable effective date is stated. What is the status?

[JWL]

Rob-

 

I guess my final word is that nothing has really changed so the wording doesn't need to change either. The wording has required high density but not necessarily SFI stuff for quite a while and we just had some confusion in the field as to what high density is (myself included). We will work to make sure all the tech guys are on the same page here and try to give some leeway to give folks some time to get the right stuff in their cars. After looking this over, I don't think the wording needs to change but we do need to do a better job letting the tech guys know what to look for. They can then communicate this to the racers and we can make sure we are all getting the right goods in the cars as the year unfolds.

 

None of this is ever easy, is it?

 

-JWL

[Alien]

Nope, not easy, especially for anyone building a car to the letter of the rules.

 

http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productselection4.asp?Product=2390

http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Roll-Bar-Padding,896.html

http://www.jegs.com/i/JEGS+Performance+Products/555/70001/10002/-1

http://www.artmorrison.com/2006cat/54.pdf

http://www.rallynuts.com/motorsport-all-safety-products/longacre-roll-cage-padding.html

http://www.lightningmotorsports.com/moroso_/moroso_roll_bar_padding/80940/i-69824.aspx

 

All those list the padding as High Density.

If it were just one manufacture making the claim that their (what you call medium) stuff is high density, I'd be very much on your side. But it's the overwhelming majority. Until the industy changes their view of what is 'high density' as you did, there will be confusion. I guess I don't understand the mentality of not changing the rule to avoid this confusion eve after being given suggestions.

 

Never even touched on the comparison to Ethafoam and Ensolite.

 

Pool noodles = ensolite

http://store.poolcenter.com/texas-rec---white-kool-float-pool-float-with-kool-kan-p161003.aspx?Add2Cart=True&utm_medium=shoppingengine&utm_source=googlebase&cvsfa=2902&cvsfe=2&cvsfhu=38303232303034

Ensolite is also the popular stuff you see used in those blue roll out padding for camping.

 

Ethafoam, popular for using in packaging.

http://www.casesbymasco.com/Ethafoam

http://www.qualityfoam.com/ethafoam-faq.asp

 

Not changing the wording will only create backlash against the tech guys by those that followed the black and white letter of the rules. When asked, what part of the rule did my padding fail, what are the the tech guys going to respond with?

[Casey_SS]

Good points Gary. There's obviously quite a gap between the manufacturers' and NASA's definition of "high density". The confusion doesn't stop there though....there is padding available that is exactly the same as the SFI stuff just without the label. Is that legal? I've read this entire thread as well as the CCR and I'm still not sure...

 

I used this:

http://www.ioportracing.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=RBPPro&Category_Code=RBCA

 

Do I have to replace it with this?

http://www.ioportracing.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=RBP-SFI&Category_Code=RBCA

 

It's the exact same stuff, they just charge an extra $7 per stick for the SFI label.

 

Best I can tell, the high density padding in the last link is what's recommended; I'll pass tech with the high density padding in the first link but none of the high density padding in Gary's post. Did I get that right?

[Adam Ginsberg]

From my perspective as a racer, I don't think the cost difference is significant enough to make me consider non-SFI over SFI padding. Especially with regard to the tech folks inspecting my car.

 

The cost difference between the two to redo my car was, IMO, negligible. $11.60 per 3' stick for non-SFI rated padding vs $18.50 per 3' stick for SFI 45.1 rated and embossed padding.

 

$81.20 vs $129.50 ($48.30 difference) for 21' to re-cover the cage in my car. And that is a generous measurement, meaning, there will be plenty left over.

 

Granted, in my case, the car needed to be redone, as the existing padding is at least 7 years old (likely 8 years), and looks pretty damn tired.

 

I won't disagree the tech guys should all be on the same page regarding this safety item, but using the "SFI is so much more expensive than non-SFI padding" argument doesn't hold any water in my book.

[dstevenslv]

From my perspective as a racer, I don't think the cost difference is significant enough to make me consider non-SFI over SFI padding. Especially with regard to the tech folks inspecting my car.

 

It's the same stuff, just costs more because the Foundation gets a taste for the cert. For example the Kirkey is the same weight, consistency and density. I haven't set any on fire yet but may just for grins. I'm getting ready to pad a cage pretty soon but as it will be a cross over car for SCCA as well I'll get the 45.1.

 

As it sets the rule is pretty ambiguous and when it comes to safety I'm going to go with the word of the vendors who's products I've been using for years rather than the weekend tech guy. No disrespect to those that do that gig but unless one is a qualified professional with the ability to explain and document in an engineering manner, terms like "high density" and "molded" aren't specific enough. It's a bit more money but to make it cut and dry call out 45.1. If you want to be fair grandfather cars with books in right now and all new books from this point on must comply with 45.1. While it's a safety issue I don't see this contributing to injuries at the present time in and of itself and no need to make a bunch of guys rip perfectly good padding out of the car. The sanction isn't in a position to provide a detailed analysis of each of the types of padding. That's what SFI is for.

 

Dave

[Alien]

Adam, you are comparing the non resilient SFI to the non resilient non SFI. There are actually basically 3 types of padding we're talking about here.

 

$18.50 non resilient SFI http://www.hrpworld.com/index.cfm?tpc=SFI_Embossed_Roll_Bar_Padding&form_prod_id=6765&action=product

$11.60 non resilient non SFI http://www.hrpworld.com/index.cfm?tpc=Roll_Bar_Padding_-_BSI_High_Energy_Impact&form_prod_id=106&action=product

$2.99 resilient non SFI http://www.hrpworld.com/index.cfm?form_prod_id=105&action=product

 

You used 21', 7 sticks.

Lets say you use two non resilient sticks for the bars around your head and 5 of the resilient stuff for all other bars.

 

$51.95 doing this way with SFI vs $129.50 all SFI ($77.55 difference)

$38.15 if you use the non SFI vs $129.50 all SFI ($91.35 difference)

 

All that said, I don't think many will argue that it's the cost difference that they are opposed to, especially after spending so much on other safety gear.

 

Requiring the non resilient stuff around the head really may make the difference between life or death. Requiring it everywhere else will not.

[Casey_SS]

Let me be clear - mine was never intended to be a cost argument. It's a clarity argument. All three types of padding I referenced meet the letter of the rule which makes it confusing to figure out what (if anything) I need to do to ensure compliance.

[DAL_MOBILE]

FYI: If you compete or plan to compete in the SCCA, below is their GCR. (Not all pads meet the 1 inch minimum requirement, just ask a friend of mine who just replaced his new SFI padding with SFI that was 1 inch thick )

 

SCCA GCR p108

All portions of the roll cage subject to contact by the driver must be padded with a minimum 1 inch of material. Padding

that meets or exceeds SFI 45.1 or FIA 8857-2001 (curved padding), or SFI 45.2 or FIA sports car head rest material (flat

padding) specification is recommended.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Guest

[liebbe]

John,

 

Then the wording needs to be specific and a definite enforcement date implemented. If this is not done, we will go round and round forever.

[dstevenslv]

Where are you finding 1"? The thickest BSCI (the guys that make most all of it in the US, Kirkey, Longacre, Speedway, etc) is 7/8". In what plane is the measurement?

 

 

 

 

Dave