Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: Jonny Hotnuts on March 07, 2011, 08:40:30 PM
-
I am writing this with the stomach flu (good times) and am too lazy to go searching for a rule book.....
It looks like most of the SFI 38.1 devices are designed for the upright seating position. Are there any recommendations for a Hans type device that allows for multiple seating angles????
Also.....
(be nice I am sick)
With the approved device is it still necessary to use the lateral head restraint bars?
Its already hard as poop to get out of my side door car already. I have concerns about getting out of the vehicle using the Hans.
~JH
-
Indy cars and formula one cars are significantly laid back. There are also other manufacturers besides Hans. Go to the Snell site to see the list of approved devices.
Pete
-
JNuts, you're supposed to have your rulebook in the can.... how hard can it be to find it... :-D
Same question all of us lay down folks have been asking since inception.
DJ safety is the way we went and yes you still must meet the lateral rules.
Sorry I forgot, if a large grey mass starts coming out shove it back in.... you've shit your brains out :roll:
-
JHN,
Hope you feel better,,, but yes there are several other manufacturers,,,
Try Safety Solutions,,, they have at least 5 models that meet SFI 38.1
Several will work in a reclined position.
Good Luck
Charles
-
Thanks for the suggestions guys....
I looked at the DJ and their unit was "sfi pending" but in the description it mentioned SCTA legal....at least they had the nuts to clarify!
Sorry I forgot, if a large grey mass starts coming out shove it back in.... you've Subaru your brains out
Well said.
And on that note yesterday I puked so hard I tore the toilet seat off, and thats no joke. Mind you we are not talking some cheap lid, I fully destroyed a Bemis Ultra Supreme the Cadillac of sh1tterlids.
Just thought I'd share.
~JH
-
So I take it the Bemis doesn't meet certification, either. :roll:
Get well, chief!
-
JH,
you will survive, I had it last weekend, I wished that I had drunk enough to feel that bad.
Check the SFI website for approved models and manufacturers.
Word is that DJ should be done soon, keeping fingers crossed.
John
-
I fully destroyed a Bemis Ultra Supreme the Cadillac of sh1tterlids.
Just thought I'd share.
~JH
Can't stop laughing...I think we all share your pain, or have in the past.
-
Sorry! It's SFI that does the certification. Their website is http://www.sfifoundation.com/ and look under Manufacturers.
Pete
-
According to the DefNder website and pictures, it appears to be adjustable from 20 to 40 degrees. It is included in DJ safety and looks to be a fairly compact unit especially if you do not have much room behind you helmet..........So far I like it's looks.........................JD
-
JHN,
I, like you and many others, was concerned about getting into some of the very small and tight cars with a Hans device until I saw the driver of the Costella/Cunha car, J, gas and fuel streamliner, T. Cunha, fit into what has to be one of Jack's smaller cars with a Hans device on. It can be done.
Rex
-
Rex (or anyone) do you know what brand was the device the Tim Cunha used?
-
JHN,
I, like you and many others, was concerned about getting into some of the very small and tight cars with a Hans device until I saw the driver of the Costella/Cunha car, J, gas and fuel streamliner, T. Cunha, fit into what has to be one of Jack's smaller cars with a Hans device on. It can be done.
Rex
Tim told me a while back, but I frogot, got a call into him. I like the NEW DJ system , that IS NOT on the SFI crappy 1999 looking website
-
I am writing this with the stomach flu (good times) and am too lazy to go searching for a rule book.....
It looks like most of the SFI 38.1 devices are designed for the upright seating position. Are there any recommendations for a Hans type device that allows for multiple seating angles????
Also.....
(be nice I am sick)
With the approved device is it still necessary to use the lateral head restraint bars?
Its already hard as poop to get out of my side door car already. I have concerns about getting out of the vehicle using the Hans.
~JH
Take good care of that illness,jh....
JD Safety is offering a unit that their windburn say will cover anywhere from 20 to 40 degree seat angle. Priced in the mid $500s..... it is pretty much what my choice is narrowed down to....
There is a unit sold by a company called ISAAC that connects to the shoulder straps and is claimed to work effectively with ANY seat angle ..... it is NOT SFI approved though - due to the fact that is does NOT release with the release of your safety harness- it requires extra pins to be pulled. I sent an email to Lee Kennedy and Kiwi Steve asking as to the SCTA-BNIs interest or inclination to allowing its use. I have, to date, received no answer so I assume that it will NOT be acceptable. But see links below anyway. There is an interesting video clip embedded in the first link showing side by side testing with a HANS device. It appears that the shoulder belts slip off the HANS device during the crash simulation:
http://www.isaacdirect.com/
http://www.isaacdirect.com/SFI.html
-
That is why I prefer the Safety Solutions Hybrid over the Hans...It also secures to the seat belts.. not just retained only by the shoulder belts.
just my 2 cents...
Charles
-
I don't think SFI 38.1 Certified means the same thing as SFI 38.1 Pending. At least for my money.
-
I don't think SFI 38.1 Certified means the same thing as SFI 38.1 Pending. At least for my money.
Who's product is SFI pending? On http://djsasfety.com go farther down the page and look for the defender. The is a flash video embedded. That is the unit I was referring to.... also look at http://djsafety.com/sfi_381.html
-
and beore i bought the one that says SFI pending (and SCTA ACCEPTABLE) I would find out from scta-bni if it is really so....
-
DJs NEW unit, not the Defender says SFI Pending
-
And Lee Kennedy told us the new unit will be accepted by the SCTA. I think he understands the issues that some of the laydown cars face with the devices designed for sit up position. We spent a bit of time with him at speedweek looking at our issues and the DJ device. Corey is working with DJ on the device to possibly redesign the helmet front attaching loop that is at the seating angle.
-
From the SCTA/BNI Board and Rep's Meeting Minutes March 4, 2011
o Head restraints - Mandatory this year – from Jan 2011. FYI – DJ Safety’s head/neck restraint was reported to have
gotten approval.
-
And Lee Kennedy told us the new unit will be accepted by the SCTA. I think he understands the issues that some of the laydown cars face with the devices designed for sit up position. We spent a bit of time with him at speedweek looking at our issues and the DJ device. Corey is working with DJ on the device to possibly redesign the helmet front attaching loop that is at the seating angle.
I will be visiting you to look at it then this year. That unit makes sense on many different levels. :cheers:
-
From the SCTA/BNI Board and Rep's Meeting Minutes March 4, 2011
o Head restraints - Mandatory this year – from Jan 2011. FYI – DJ Safety’s head/neck restraint was reported to have
gotten approval.
I believe though, that the January approval was for the "defender"......
-
And Lee Kennedy told us the new unit will be accepted by the SCTA. I think he understands the issues that some of the laydown cars face with the devices designed for sit up position. We spent a bit of time with him at speedweek looking at our issues and the DJ device. Corey is working with DJ on the device to possibly redesign the helmet front attaching loop that is at the seating angle.
And I would like to see Lee's words in writing on the SCTA-BNI site and/or in the newsletter.... or something.
-
And I would like to see Lee's words in writing on the SCTA-BNI site and/or in the newsletter.... or something.
E mail him like I did and he will respond
-
We know what the SCTA would like but sometimes folks read more into the rules than are really there.......
-
My race team just went down to Simpson Safety (Harbor City, CA) , we bought the 2010 helmet (with skirt), 5 point harness; and "Sport Series" SFI 38.1 Hans Device (nice unit), so now we are finally legal for this years racing, oops!, I forgot, still need the darn inertial device for electric fuel pump!! Now we are broke; but we will work for racing fuel (117 octane), can I mow anyones lawn or do dishes???? :-P Dave
-
(http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/197233_1842599420782_1114496579_32195643_1855074_n.jpg)
New Bemis lid. This one features a damper in the hinge so it closes really slow without slamming. I highly recommend it.
(Oh, and new oil cooler as well).
~JH
-
The lid is SFI 38.1 compliant ???
MIke
-
The lid is SFI 38.1 compliant ???
MIke
The damper keeps your head from going forward too fast!
-
The lid is SFI 38.1 compliant ???
MIke
Stiil requires belts.................. and paper
-
Okay...... NOW I GET IT!...... if the driver doesn't go fast enough, you put it over his head and with a lot of speed and force, raise and lower the top lid..... he will be wishing that he had experienced a HANS device in action rather than go through that again!
-
There is a unit sold by a company called ISAAC that connects to the shoulder straps and is claimed to work effectively with ANY seat angle ..... it is NOT SFI approved though - due to the fact that is does NOT release with the release of your safety harness- it requires extra pins to be pulled. I sent an email to Lee Kennedy and Kiwi Steve asking as to the SCTA-BNIs interest or inclination to allowing its use. I have, to date, received no answer so I assume that it will NOT be acceptable. But see links below anyway. There is an interesting video clip embedded in the first link showing side by side testing with a HANS device. It appears that the shoulder belts slip off the HANS device during the crash simulation:
Had a discussion about this with a few folks and it sounds like there are enough SFI rated head and neck restraint systems that fit a multitude of applications available now that there is really no reason to accept a non-rated device except in the most extreme situation.
-
There is a unit sold by a company called ISAAC that connects to the shoulder straps and is claimed to work effectively with ANY seat angle ..... it is NOT SFI approved though - due to the fact that is does NOT release with the release of your safety harness- it requires extra pins to be pulled. I sent an email to Lee Kennedy and Kiwi Steve asking as to the SCTA-BNIs interest or inclination to allowing its use. I have, to date, received no answer so I assume that it will NOT be acceptable. But see links below anyway. There is an interesting video clip embedded in the first link showing side by side testing with a HANS device. It appears that the shoulder belts slip off the HANS device during the crash simulation:
Had a discussion about this with a few folks and it sounds like there are enough SFI rated head and neck restraint systems that fit a multitude of applications available now that there is really no reason to accept a non-rated device except in the most extreme situation.
I have to agree with you on that point Nathan.... since I posted that, the "Defender" has been certified and the DJ Safety device shown on thier home page is, apparently, also accepted by SCTA with SFI certification pending. The DJ device looks like it will cover applications which are more "laydown" .... I am at present waiting on parachute info and an answer to some questions about their new head and neck restraint. If it looks like info I should post, I will do so.
-
I'm looking at the ISP website and they boast 39.1 certified. :?
What exactly do 38.1 and 39.1 say? I dnt see anything on the web about it... and are these required ?
Fred
-
The problem I have is that many of these units are different by design and wish there was a way I could try a few to see what works best for my car before setting down the coin.
I get that some say they are for different seat angles and whatnot but that doesnt always mean they are better for getting out of the vehicle.
I would rather be able to exit the vehicle and sacrifice comfort if need be.
Looks like I am going to have to roll the dice and hope.
-stupid safety stuff anyway......
~JH
-
I'm looking at the ISP website and they boast 39.1 certified. :?
What exactly do 38.1 and 39.1 say? I dnt see anything on the web about it... and are these required ?
Fred
38.1 SFI is the current spec for HNR's ISP is a seat manufacturer, not HNR's... they may however sell HNR's and I think the partner with Safety Solutions,,, makers of several models of 38.1 HNR's and some darn good seat belts too.
Here is link to ISP
http://www.ispseats.com/
Charles
-
Gentlemen,
38.1 spec is for head & neck restraint systems. 39.1 spec is for stock car seats.
Joe
-
One question--- if a certified head & neck restraint system protects the helmet from sideways motion in a crash, why is the same thing required on the chassis (lateral helmet restraint tabs)? Is this a case of "belt & suspenders?
Regards, Neil Tucson, AZ
-
One question--- if a certified head & neck restraint system protects the helmet from sideways motion in a crash, why is the same thing required on the chassis (lateral helmet restraint tabs)? Is this a case of "belt & suspenders?
Regards, Neil Tucson, AZ
The real purpose for the H&N is forward motion, not side to side. Although the 38.1 specifies some side to side restraint, it is forward motion arrested or absorbed by the H&N that stops the seperation of the base of the skull.
The seat or chassis is to have the side motion limit padding.
John
-
Thanks, John. It seemed like some H&N restraint systems were claiming that they also prevented side-to-side motion so it looked like duplication.
Regards, Neil Tucson, AZ
-
Redundancy ain't so bad sometimes. :wink:
-
Nathan,
I have heard rumors that the ISSAC will be accepted even though not 38.1 certified.
Care to comment?
John
-
John, let me ask you this: do you think the SCTA will start accepting SFI type seat belts or SFI type fire suits?
-
Nathan, no, and I hope it stays that way.
John
-
Before you say NO to anything worded as SFI type.... we already do with scattershields and a few other things....
Also, according to DJ Safety, their unit, which says SFI 38.1 pending .... according to the wording on their website.... IS SCTA accepted
-
Correct me if wrong, the non SFI scattershield has minimum specs that are very stout.
Simular to the cage tubing requirments and mounting plates.
As this was explained to me, the SFI has the last word on certification of just about everything.
The last time I looked for the approved list on the SFI site, the defender was not listed as a approved unit.
This does not mean anything other than it may NOT be currently approved, do we remember the fiasco with Impact over the last couple of years?
From what I understand, Joe Hanson (DJ Safety) is in the process of having his new H&N restraint approved. With any luck this will be done soon, and will work very well with the lakesters and liners that cannot fit a conventional H&N.
John
-
Nathan, no, and I hope it stays that way.
John
I know that Nathan specifically stated seat belts and fire suits... I, though, was referring to items other than those two that are NOT SFI approved ... and usually due to reasons of lack of availabilty or something....
Yes, I do recollect the fiasco with Impact fire suits.... and, other than the story about why it happened (from Impacts end), the facts spoke pretty loudly as to what the story really was.... subcontracting to the lowest bidder.... and having it "made" outside of an area where real quality control could be imposed.... about the same reason that a few jet aircraft fell out of the sky about 20 or so years ago....
It seems to be what often happens when an acquirer of a venerable and successful company starts looking for ways to "unlock" hidden profits and "create economies of scale".... all MBA and accountant driven!.... people who know and care NOTHING about the reputation of the company that they are unwittingly setting up to fail... because the "flawed" business model is more like what gets applied to convenience stores (and, as a side point, here is an interesting quip made to me some time ago by an accountant-"You cannot quantify a value for intangibles like a well trained work-force or the company's reputation; therefore the values placed upon those and other intangibles is usually ZERO!") ...so, in an instant, the reputation for quality safety products "goes up in smoke", so to speak, and NOBODY will trust that company with anything after that.... the bean counters and MBAs then attempt to invoke "damage control" and usually fail when the choice of a roasted or unroasted racer's butt is the possible outcome of doing business with them or doing business with someone else.... then.... the bean counters and MBAs have a series of "blame-storming" sessions with the final session being inclusive of the person who will be informed of the open minded efforts of "all concerned" to come to the "pre-determined outcome" and who has been set up to take the fall... they will then "move forward" and often write off/sell off the bad investment for pennies on the dollar-often to the original owner of the company and whose great reputation they destroyed in the process.... and, presto.... Bill simpson is now a rich man and he owns the company again????? (Sounds almost the same as winning the lotto) But I do understand that Bill Simpson is back there.
Anyway... yes, the rules spell out pretty clearly the alternatives on scattershields and other items that are, in other sanctioning organizations, required to be SFI approved and usually, any items that are in that category are also dicsussed at length.
DJ Safety's website states that the Defender IS NOW approved... it was reputed to have occurred in (possibly late) February.... SFI may not update their lists on a day by day basis....
I am waiting for a bit more information about DJ's new HANR system.... for our lakester and our new car, it looks like a possible answer to the "getting out quickly" issue.
It is probably a good thing that the SCTA-BNI is NOT as beholden to the SEMA as NHRA is (SFI is the successor certification agency to the old SEMA rating agency-which was wholly owned by the Specialty Equipment Manufacturers- I cannot say who actually owns or controls SFI, though...) .... otherwise we WOULD be required to have a lot more SFI approved stuff.... and replace it A LOT more often!... (for instance, seat belts-every 2 years in NHRA)
-
Before you say NO to anything worded as SFI type.... we already do with scattershields and a few other things....
Also, according to DJ Safety, their unit, which says SFI 38.1 pending .... according to the wording on their website.... IS SCTA accepted
I think the certification on the DJ unit was imminent thus the acceptance from the SCTA. From what I understand, it is actually approved now. $400 is a good deal IMO and another plus is that there isn't anything sticking up behind your head.
The ISSAC will never meet 38.1 specs because of the way it's designed.
-
Nathan, no, and I hope it stays that way.
John
DJ Safety's website states that the Defender IS NOW approved... it was reputed to have occurred in (possibly late) February.... SFI may not update their lists on a day by day basis....
I am waiting for a bit more information about DJ's new HANR system.... for our lakester and our new car, it looks like a possible answer to the "getting out quickly" issue.
It is probably a good thing that the SCTA-BNI is NOT as beholden to the SEMA as NHRA is (SFI is the successor certification agency to the old SEMA rating agency-which was wholly owned by the Specialty Equipment Manufacturers- I cannot say who actually owns or controls SFI, though...) .... otherwise we WOULD be required to have a lot more SFI approved stuff.... and replace it A LOT more often!... (for instance, seat belts-every 2 years in NHRA)
DJ's web page does not state the defender is now currently sfi certified, there is a pop up page that stated the defender has passed the "stringent requirements" it does not state it is sfi certified. the copyright on the page is 2006, just details. Even the defender website does not state it is certified.
Like I said, correct me if wrong.
A note on the 2 years replacement of SFI belts. SFI has tested the nylon 666 webbing material and found its strength drops to about 20% at 24 months sun exposure. At the low cost of rewebbing a set, 2 years is not excessive. In fact, it probably does us some good to remove the belts and verify all the hardware every 2 years. The SCCA didn't like the idea of putting a uv tracer thread in the belting or having a uv label. But then again, SCCA expects to keep 50 year old cars running against the new technology cars by adding weight to them.
Last comment, at the last club meeting we were informed on the issac being approved.
John
BTW, I just cleared the cache on this machine to load all new pages.
-
Their web site says it is SFI approved
http://www.defnderneckbrace.com/testing.html
-
John-copied from your post
A note on the 2 years replacement of SFI belts. SFI has tested the nylon 666 webbing material and found its strength drops to about 20% at 24 months sun exposure. At the low cost of rewebbing a set, 2 years is not excessive. In fact, it probably does us some good to remove the belts and verify all the hardware every 2 years.
I have had this explained several times over the years.... it is the sun exposure that tends to biodegrade the synthetic material (and pretty well all other material as well to a greater or lesser degree). Think about everything from your lawn chairs to your auto upholstery to vinyl siding on a house etc.... I do know that all of our racecars are stored inside during the off months. If they see two weeks of outside exposure a year, I would be surprised.... drag racing and other race cars tend to get used a little more often than Bonneville cars... and of course, with 6 months of darkness up north of the 49th, we would only get 1/2 a year of exposure a year anyway! :-D
-
Their web site says it is SFI approved
http://www.defnderneckbrace.com/testing.html
Yes, it certainly does!
-
It shows the SFI stickers on the units in the pictures.
So why doesn't the SFI site show as approved manufacturer and model???
The DefNder has been around for 5 or 6 years and the SFI list has been updated in the last year.
I know that I have seen at least 1 unit without a SFI sticker, this about 2-3 years ago.
When I bought my Son a Hans, it didn't have the sticker. Shipped off and returned certified. Getting him to wear it was another battle.
Oh, and on the belts, SCTA has taken a reasonable stand on requiring replacement at 6 years with recommended 2 year interval.
-
It shows the SFI stickers on the units in the pictures.
So why doesn't the SFI site show as approved manufacturer and model???
Maybe because the SFI site SUCKS!? :roll: Horrible site, 3rd graders these days can write better code! :-D
-
Last comment, at the last club meeting we were informed on the issac being approved.
I could obviously be wrong but I think most of the "information" that is disseminated down through the clubs and to the SCTA members comes directly from the SCTA board itself and this information is typically broadcast at the monthly board meetings. I've been to the last few meetings and I don't recall hearing anything about the Issac system. The only thing that I remember hearing regarding H&NRS was that the certification on the DJ Safety unit was imminent.
Nonetheless, the recommendation given to me (and the recommendation that I'm giving to anyone reading this) is to expect that the use of a 38.1 rated device be the standard and only in rare cases will there be an exception.
-
I sure wouldn't buy anything without a SFI 38.1 tag.
-
I like my crow with Tabasco...
So the Issac is currently accepted (not approved) by the SCTA for 2011. The possibility of the SCTA requiring that H&NRS be SFI 38.1 certified in the future (near?) is very real. So, if you're going to spend money, why not spend it on the piece that's certified now?
BTW, heard from Joe Hanson of DJ Safety that he will update any of the H&NR pieces that are purchased now with the SFI tag once his device is certified.
-
To expand on Nathan's post a little.
At the board meeting last night it was clarified that the key words in the rulebook on this subject are "SFI 38.1 type" and "tested."
If your device, like the new DJ(not DeFender) has been SFI tested, but not yet certified, it is approved for use by the SCTA. I did not do the research this morning on the Issac device to see if it claims to have been tested. I am sure others can chime in here.
A word of caution, Steve Davies spoke to the issue of the SCTA moving to SFI 38.1 certified devices in the near future. If I were in the market I would be certain that my dollars went to a properly certified unit.
DW
-
The ISAAC device, will, in all likelihood, never be SFI certified, because, as far as I know, part of the SFI requirements is for a HANR to disconnect from the harness or the car when the harness gets unbuckled. The ISAAC device requires pins to be pulled to disconnect it.