Modifications to the 2009 rules changes

[Sumner]

Before everyone see's it....scratch the comment I gave John...."Just prefer SFI Rating"....I know that Isaac's have been tested and I am sure they are SFI rated....my comment related to the new Isaac "Link" System only.....Thanks!

They aren't SFI rated and they tell here why.....

http://www.isaacdirect.com/SFI.html

It starts with.....

....., Isaac® systems are not "SFI certified". Why? Because SFI Specification 38.1 contains a section that excludes only the Isaac® system. Specifically, section 2.5 states......

I plan on being in KC next Monday (15th) and have to pick up aluminum in Liberty hopefully by noon.  We just decided on this this morning and I have yet to contact Geo and Chris to see if that will work with them.  Hopefully I could get done in time for lunch between 1 and 2 if that would work with you guys.  I will probably drive over from St. Louis early or part way the day before.  Geoff was going to coordinate this (Geo let me know if you read this).  I'll be able to call tomorrow afternoon or the next day.  Anyone else want to try and meet us??

c ya,

Sum

[Peter Jack]

What might cause SFI to review their ruling? The wording was obviously originally done with the safety of the users in mind but sometimes revisions might be required in the face of new developments.

Pete

[hitz]

I just looked at the D-cell setup and liked it better than anything else. I was also worried (like Sum) about it possibly not having the SFI 38.1 rating.  For what I can find out that rating is for NASCAR. Bonneville is not NASCAR ie: the fire trucks are usually a lot closer at the NASCAR tracks than they are at Bonneville so maybe the ease at which you can exit the car is more important at the salt flats-- just a thought. The D-cell doesn't hook to the lap belts and it has quick disconnects from the helmet. I'm not trying to sell anybody on the D-cell but for my use I think it's the best choice. Dan W just enlightened me on what the rules about the head/neck rules were saying. I had read it 10 times and still thought it said something else. Thanks again Dan. Now I like all the rule changes

  I just ordered one.

  Hitz

[Dean Los Angeles]

This is the correct link for the Issac video.
http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/Video/SFIBoth.mpg

The difficulty I find with statements like Isaac's is that they can't comply because of one tiny thing. That means they don't comply. That doesn't mean they aren't safe, but how do you know? What I really want to see is an independent test. Certainly not anything by the manufacturer.

SFI 38.1 Specification as of July 2007
http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1_Spec_7-19-07.pdf

List of SFI 38.1 manufacturers
http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1

[Sumner]

Beginning January 1, 2010 all new cars and motorcycle streamliners presented for inspection shall have an engineered and tested SFI spec 38.1 type head and neck restraint system.  The association intends that this requirement shall be inclusive of all cars and motorcycle streamliners as soon as applicable devices are available for these vehicles

I'm still trying to understand this. 

Let's say I have a streamliner/lakester where the seat angle is 20 degrees.  Right now I can't find a manufacture that says they have a SFI 38.1 rated head restraint for a seat with that shallow of an angle.  Thus if I now understand the above rule I could run a device like the Isaac or D-cel that has been tested as a head restraint and is not home-made even if it is not 38.1.  Ok let's say 3 years from now there is a device offered for the 20 degree seat that is 38.1.  Will I be require to replace the one I've been using with that one??

Now let's say I have a streamliner/lakester where the seat angle is 35 to 40 degrees where there are now head restrains made for that angle that are 38.1.  Will I have to buy one of those even if only one is available??

Just wondering,

Sum

[Rick Byrnes]

DONT BUY SOMETHING WITHOUT DATA.
Get specific test data, then compare to HANS.
If a company has a product that will do the job, they will be proud to publish data.
NO DATA NO SALE

The same thing as a 5 dollar helmet for a 5 dollar head.

I haven't researched others, because I purchased a HANS 4 years ago and I do fit in my car and I did fit the Fusion since both seats are at ~33 degrees.
After trying lots of seating positions when initiating the lakester, 33 deg was/is the most laydown I am comfortable at in a car with firesuit and harnesses etc on.

BUT
I'm hearing reasons for purchasing other devices that don't register with me.

Buy the best.  You deserve it.
If the manufacturer does not publish actual data, comparing to the best, (HANS) or all others, I don't think there is much thought necessary.   
ALL safety equipment should require SFI or NO SALE!
The standards are there for a reason, and they are to protect us, the drivers
I consider all you LSR guys and gals friends, and just can't afford to loose any more.

AS designers, car builders and owners it is our duty to provide the most protection possible for the driver even if it is "just" us.  What if it is your son or daughter, or wife.  We don't need to have to say IF ONLY.........

If the best doesn't fit inside your cage, then the cage is too small and/or too short etc etc.  Why make a decision to use something other than the best because of a design defficiency that the requirement points out.

PLEASE THINK THIS THROUGH CAREFULLY

AND don't let the lack of money keep you from buying the best.  Right now I'm not sure how I'm going racing next year because of money shortages, but still won't stick out my neck like that.  I have most of the stuff for the changeover to streamliner, but what I have yet to buy will be the appropriate stuff or I will be delayed another year to have the new car on the salt.  That is just the way it is.


Rick Byrnes
otherwise known as Captain overkill

[Stainless1]

Sum, this rule looks like encouragement to get your car done and presented for inspection in 2009.  Then when and if a device becomes available for a laydown, you can install it... 

[Ron Gibson]

 

  I agree that you shouldn't take any chances with your health. I don't necessarily agree that the HANS is the best money will buy, or that more money spent will buy better or SFI is the only answer. The SCTA needs a standard to judge by, but a blanket, one size fits all may not be it.
  Kind of like the guy that wrote one the car mags that he was ticketed by a state trooper for not having a "DOT approved" label on his seat belts. It was a "5 point" harness in his pro street car.
  I read, I think on here, that some motorcycle helmets that are not Snell rated, are proven, by independent test labs, better head protection than Snell rated helmets and are approved by most motorcycle racing sanctions though not legal for SCTA because not Snell.
  If Isaacs are not legal because of no SFI and no one makes a lower degree incline model Hans , does that mean that a bunch of liners and lakesters that lay down will have to be parked or completely rebuilt (probably not going to happen)? Hate to see that happen,
  I watched the Isaacs video, and it looked to me the Isaac worked better than HANS.
   Just my opinion and it's worth what you paid. LOL

Ron Gibson, Omaha,NE
 
 

[dwarner]

"The SCTA needs a standard to judge by..."

Ron,

The best standard to use right now is SFI. The SCTA is not in a position to create a testing lab on the level of SFI so the logic is to use their specs. The SCTA is a member of SFI and receives all reports, spec upgrades and meeting adgendas.

The rule change states engineered and tested SFI spec 38.1 TYPE. The Issacc falls into this category.

DW

[Sumner]

................The rule change states engineered and tested SFI spec 38.1 TYPE. The Issacc falls into this category.

DW

Dan I still don't understand this, sorry, but the Isaac site specifically says that it is not SFI 38.1 compliant and I can't find where Safety Solutions says that the D-cel is either.  I can't even see if they were tested to any SFI spec..  I'm not saying they are not good, but I would worry about buying either if the "tested SFI spec 38.1 Type" is written in the rule.

Is the wording set in stone at this point?

I would like to buy something this spring if at all possible to make sure my cage area doesn't have to be re-made that would also change the body.

Thanks,

Sum

[1212FBGS]

yeah.... i think I'm gonna have a problem in my liner..... i hope Roy or Lee can come up with a suggestion for a lay down application
Kent

[Sumner]

I sent the following to rulebookinfo@scta-bni.org.  When I get a reply I'll post it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

A number of us building cars and that have cars wonder about the head restraint addition to the rule book:

Beginning January 1, 2010 all new cars and motorcycle streamliners presented for inspection shall have an engineered and tested SFI spec 38.1 type head and neck restraint system.  The association intends that this requirement shall be inclusive of all cars and motorcycle streamliners as soon as applicable devices are available for these vehicles

Will a SFI spec 38.1 tag be required on the restraint?

Would widely used and accepted head restraints such as the Safety Solution D-cel and the Isaac head restraints be accepted if they don't have an SFI spec 38.1 rating?

If we have a car with a seat back inclination that does not meet the requirements of current makers of head restraints, for example streamliner or lakester, can we use one that isn't spec 38.1 or none at all?

If the answer to the last question is that it is in our hands and then later a device is made by at least one manufacture for extreme laydown cars like a streamliner or lakester will we then be required at that point to purchase and use that device.

Thank you,

Sumner Patterson

[836dstr]

Coming from a background in Contract Management I find the wording interesting. It says "Engineered and tested to SFI spec 38.1", but it doesen't say that it has to pass the test, although that is implied.

We don't need loopholes in Safety related matters, but it seems like the Issac might qualify. Not sure why it didn't get a SFI approval so I will need to do some homework.

Tom

[dwarner]

That is exactly the point I made in an earlier post. The wording in effect stresses the SFI spec but, does not eliminate a device such as Issac or D-cell that have been tested to SFI spec and not yet received the SFI tag.

The board is attempting to limit "home made" devices that have not undergone test lab conditions and related expenses involved with testing.

The PRI show is taking place now. Information will be available in the near future as to what is currently on the market.

DW

[Buickguy3]

Sumner:
If you go to www.cp-racing.com and search" head restraint", and go to page 2 you will see what they sell as the Hutchens I device. They are a dealer for Safety Solutions products. The Hutchens I device it says is 38.1 compliant. It also appears to be the exact double of the D-cel that I am using. They even picture the Safety Solutions logo on the helmet. Am I seeing this all right? Doug