Head restraint seats/nets and seat back supports.

[MHISSTC]

I've submitted RCRs for stuff that I feel is important, and probably stuff that isn't as important, but felt needed to be clarified anyway. Most times I got back what I thought was a reasonable response, sometimes not. Bottom line is I'm burnt out on the process, and unless there is something I feel is fundamentally wrong with the CMC rules, I'm not going to put the effort into submitting any more CMC RCRs.

 

That brings me back to the topic of this thread that I feel warrants discussion because it goes deeper than just CMC RCRs to the level of the NASA CCRs. I got zero traction here and nationally when I brought this up previously, so I'm going to bring it up again.

 

Head restraint seats/nets and seat back supports.

 

Take an honest look at what you have in your car.

Is what you have the cheapest solution that meets the minimum requirement of the rule, or is it the best solution to keep you safe? Knowing what a lot of you run, I'd say it was the former and not the latter.

 

Questions you should ask yourself:

Is that "head support" mounted to your seat really a "restraint", and is it going to support and redirect your head in a crash?

If you don't have a head restraint seat and you run a right side restraint net, why are you not also running a left side head restraint net and why aren't they also required?

NO, a window net is not the same thing. A window net is designed to keep flying parts and debris out of the cockpit and your flailing arms inside. Window nets are NOT designed to restrict and redirect the motion of your head and torso.

Is the seat back brace attached to the seat?

Is the seat back brace designed to restrict the motion in only one direction, or all directions?

Was a seat back brace incorporated into the design of the seat?

 

If you need a visual aid, take a look at the video linked below while keeping the questions I posed above in mind. Racetech is not the only manufacturer out there making quality products, they just happened to have a good video that summed up the points I'm trying to make.

 

Anybody else feel as I do that these points in the rules need to be revised for the sake of safety for everyone?

 

[t500hps]

I started racing 2 years ago so still somewhat the "rookie" (at least I feel that way).

 

I'm glad you brought this up and completely agree that what meets the minimum isn't really adequate in a large scale crash. When first looking for a car (I wasn't considering building one) I didn't really know what I wanted/needed and only knew my car HAD been competitive by the previous owner. These safety discussions were my only source of information and for the rookies, they need to occur more frequently.

 

That said, I don't think the rules need to be made more stringent. While there needs to be a minimum, that will never be enough for some. Education needs to be easier to get but personal responsibility needs to take a role here as well.

 

In my case, I soon found the car barely met the minimum and I wanted more. I do have a full containment seat and it's well mounted to a back-brace and sub-frame connectors but the cage was near minimum. $800 and nearly 100lbs later I have something I feel much better about.....even though there is still room for improvement.

[MHISSTC]

...agree that what meets the minimum isn't really adequate in a large scale crash.

 

These safety discussions were my only source of information and for the rookies, they need to occur more frequently.

 

I don't think the rules need to be made more stringent. While there needs to be a minimum, that will never be enough for some. Education needs to be easier to get but personal responsibility needs to take a role here as well.

 

$800 and nearly 100lbs later I have something I feel much better about.....even though there is still room for improvement.

 

Agree with many points here.

 

If enough folks become uncomfortable with the minimum requirements in the rules, and they take the personal responsibility to make upgrades in safety as the technology develops and the accepted ways of doing things changes, I believe some rule changes are inevitable in order to meet what eventually becomes the accepted standard.

 

It is my opinion that we are no longer looking forward to the future of what the standard in safety gear may become, but are already needing to catch up to what the standard has already been for several years.

[Dustin M.]

Rules are black and white, you either meet them or you don't. Perhaps they could use some clarification to define what is and is not a containment setup? I don't think the CMC rules is where this belongs though, seems more of a CCR item to me.

[MHISSTC]

Rules are black and white, you either meet them or you don't. Perhaps they could use some clarification to define what is and is not a containment setup? I don't think the CMC rules is where this belongs though, seems more of a CCR item to me.

 

Dustin, you're contradicting yourself. If there is any clarification to be made, then they aren't black and white, are they? And if you can't find a gray area, you haven't been around long enough. There is plenty of gray area even if you only consider the variations in interpretation and intent.

 

This may or may not belong in the CMC rules. That's why I'm posting here to encourage exactly this kind of discussion without directly proposing any RCR.

 

The CCR contains the rules that every racing class starts with. Ideally, I agree that the CCR needs to take the lead on making certain safety gear requirements that will trickle-down to all racing classes. However, the individual racing classes are free to ADD their own requirements on top of those found in the CCR. If the individual classes take the initiative and start adding some of those basic safety gear clarifications, they have the opportunity to more directly shape the CCR. This would be much preferred over having a much smaller group make an executive decision to change the CCR without input from the individual classes and then being forced to conform.

[FBody383]

Anybody else feel as I do that these points in the rules need to be revised for the sake of safety for everyone?

Which ruleset - the CCR or CMC?

 

I think the rules themself are fine.

 

I also believe that some folks choose to implement the rules in a less robust fashion than I do. I keep debating whether to add 7/8 bars in my footwells.

 

There is a point at which each competitor makes a call about their own safety that, absent a single unified preparation, will always exist.

 

Ask yourself how your gear works in an impact like this:

[MHISSTC]

Which ruleset - the CCR or CMC?

 

Either or both. Posting to prompt discussion.

 

Yikes that was a hard hit, but it's good to see proper equipment, properly installed, and working as it should. It's comforting to know I have nearly identical equipment going into my car.

[Dustin M.]

Which ruleset - the CCR or CMC?

 

Either or both. Posting to prompt discussion.

 

Yikes that was a hard hit, but it's good to see proper equipment, properly installed, and working as it should. It's comforting to know I have nearly identical equipment going into my car.

 

When?

[MHISSTC]

When?

 

Patience, Grasshopper. Soon enough.