73 replies to this topic

[dstevens]

NASCAR requires it.

The sanction only requires it at the touring series level. Of those it's not all 38.1 devices that are allowed. For example the Defender is not allowed. The local series (Whelen All American) where the majority of NASCAR licenees race does not require a head and neck. That is more of an apt comparison as it's basically the equivalent of club racing though it's for profit. Some of the individual tracks require it but it's not a sanction mandate. It's the same in with IMCA. Though most of the racers in the faster classes wear them.

It's a good idea though I'm not particularly pleased with the HANs Sport Model. If the sanction is mandating it stop with the insurance/lawyers/burden to society because those can't backed up as fact. Only opinion. The sanction is well within it's rights to say "look, that's how it is, your wearing one". At least the choice is any 38.1 device.

[pitbull113]

If this rule was pushed forward by risk management, I am sure they are afraid of eventually getting sued. Insurance rates may not change because SCCA institued this rule. But the lawyers/bean counters look at it differently. If a driver ever gets severly injured when NOT wearing a restraint, his family will get a lawyer and go after SCCA for not requiring a restraint. F1 requires it, NASCAR requires it. So does every other race they watch on TV. Even NASA requires it. Therfore SCCA is negligent in requiring the best safety equipment. SCCA looses, and our insurance company pays out a boat load of money. SCCA goes on, the region goes on, until next year. When the insurance company raises our rates to a point where entry fees go through the roof.

I think people are greatly overestimating the likelihood of such a lawsuit winning. The standard for a participant who has signed the waiver requires gross negligence, I believe and this doesn't meet that for the club. The club allows and encourages the use of the device.

[pitbull113]

I don't buy the whole burden to society argument. If you bite-it when you're young-ish then you've just saved the tax payers a bunch of Medicare. But if limiting the club's liability lets me continue squandering income chasing a plastic trophy then I'm all for mandating HANS.

Mr. Sae 113, You say the majority of SCCA members are against this rule? I assume you have data.

Smoke'em if ya got'em.

-Denny

the data wasn't published for obvious reasons,the BOD ignored the members input. but i think davew's response answered your question. and you can call me steve,no need for the formality.

[Keith Novak]

I think people are greatly overestimating the likelihood of such a lawsuit winning. The standard for a participant who has signed the waiver requires gross negligence, I believe and this doesn't meet that for the club. The club allows and encourages the use of the device.

Not taking sides, but even if you win the defense of a lawsuit, after the cost incurred, you still lose. You also don't have a right to sign away other peoples rights so that part in the waiver about your family can't sue isn't worth much. There's a reason you might find a label on a can of fix-a-flat that reads, Warning: Do not weld can to rim.

[pitbull113]

let me get this straight. since there is an outside chance the SCCA gets sued out of existence, even though it hasn't happened yet with all the deaths that have occurred on track. in it's infinite wisdom the SCCA requires head and neck systems to be mandatory and meet sfi requirements. which now makes some of the members existing head and neck systems illegal. now they have to go out buy a new head and neck system,seat with side restraints (because there isaac had such good lateral protection they don't need a halo seat)and a right side net. even though the new system is inferior and now egress from car is harder this all seems like a great idea. lol

[fishguyaz]

steve,
I believe the ISAAC is not allowed in SCCA because it does not meet the rule of "one release point for a driver to be able to exit his harness/seat".

[pitbull113]

steve,
I believe the ISAAC is not allowed in SCCA because it does not meet the rule of "one release point for a driver to be able to exit his harness/seat".

hey josh, it is legal until the new rule in 2012. a bunch of guys are using it now and don't want to part with it.

[KentCarter]

steve,
I believe the ISAAC is not allowed in SCCA because it does not meet the rule of "one release point for a driver to be able to exit his harness/seat".

No need to rehash the ISAAC as it is irrelevant, but it suffices to say that it fails the SFI standards in more than one way. The ISAAC is dangerous and should not be allowed, even if the SCCA decides not to require a cervical injury prevention device.

I have never raced without a CIPD (except in Karts) and never will, but I'm not sure it should be required.

[pitbull113]

No need to rehash the ISAAC as it is irrelevant, but it suffices to say that it fails the SFI standards in more than one way. The ISAAC is dangerous and should not be allowed, even if the SCCA decides not to require a cervical injury prevention device.

I have never raced without a CIPD (except in Karts) and never will, but I'm not sure it should be required.

how exactly is the isaac dangerous?

[KentCarter]

how exactly is the isaac dangerous?

You can search the archives on the old specmiata.com site. This was hashed out in excruciating detail by people who are thoughtful and well-educated on the topic.

[KentCarter]

You can search the archives on the old specmiata.com site. This was hashed out in excruciating detail by people who are thoughtful and well-educated on the topic.

On the other hand, I wouldn't waste your time. It won't change your mind. Race on!

[dstevens]

This is a section of 38.1 where Issac fails.

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.

[Muda]

Now that we've limited front to back motion who do we write to to mandate halo seats?

[Bruce Wilson]

Now that we've limited front to back motion who do we write to to mandate halo seats?

It would make more sense to mandate center nets before halo seats. Yes, both halo and center net are optimal but halo without a center net appears to be ineffective from the videos being shared recently.

-bw

[dstevens]

It would make more sense to mandate center nets before halo seats. Yes, both halo and center net are optimal but halo without a center net appears to be ineffective from the videos being shared recently.

In a good full containment seat like a Butler or Lajoie you don't need a center net. It wouldn't do anything. Any the cost is a few grand. You can get the low cost halo type seats but like you say, it may do nothing without a net too. Before mandating we need to be sure that what is implemented actually works if used properly. We know that with a head and neck so before we go mandating low cost halo seats let's make sure it's something that is going work most of the time. Not just because some think it's a good idea.

[NV Racer]

I would wear a HANS now if I could with my current seat. The clearance required between the seat and helmet force my head forward 1 1/2". If HANS is mandated in 2012 I will need a seat that I can fit in with a HANS device. Not sure if there is a seat that will sit low enough and give me the head and leg room I need.

Dennis

[Cnj]

I would wear a HANS now if I could with my current seat. The clearance required between the seat and helmet force my head forward 1 1/2". If HANS is mandated in 2012 I will need a seat that I can fit in with a HANS device. Not sure if there is a seat that will sit low enough and give me the head and leg room I need.

Dennis

How tall are you Dennis? I ask cause we have a racer in our area who is 6ft5in and uses a Hans comfortably. His seat is a Sparco. I understand it was not straight forward to make it work but he fits in with room to spare.

Cnj

[fishguyaz]

I would wear a HANS now if I could with my current seat. The clearance required between the seat and helmet force my head forward 1 1/2". If HANS is mandated in 2012 I will need a seat that I can fit in with a HANS device. Not sure if there is a seat that will sit low enough and give me the head and leg room I need.

Dennis

dennis, i had the same issue in my spec 944 when i first installed the new seat.
it was a sparco seat that had multitple adjustment holes on the mounts. i needed to tilt the seat back a to make it work with the HANS so that it did not contact the device or push it forward.
remember that as you tilt the seat back, your feet will move forward.

what kind of seat do you have?

[Juan Pineda]

Another voice in favor of the HANS rule. It's about time. HANS is worn universally in my racing circles. -Juan

[Tom Sager]

Yes, risk management will likely drive this to a mandate. I wear a HANS and I'm glad to have it (especially since I have such a scrawny neck) but I'm surprised we haven't seen some better engineered products. The HANS is uncomfortable, really limits your side to side mobility/visibility and it's a pain (in the neck) to get on and off.