RickK wrote:kary wrote:Just a mandate to have a H&N device, which is after all, the point, use one and you will increase your chance of survival significantly if an incident occurs.
Mandate what though? What is a H&N device? I would think that from a liability point of view the club will need to mandate some specific body's certification as required on a device just as we currently do on helmets, harness belts, driving suits, gloves, etc. We provide a minimum specification for the geometries of roll bars and roll cages.....but any H&N device is ok. How does that make any sense? At the very least se need to mandate a maximum head loading for a some specific magnitude and angle of crash and all devices will need to have published results for that crash. So whether it is the SFI 38.1 spec or something else there needs to be a minimum standard to ensure some sufficient level of safety.
Absolutely let everyone choose which device fits them, physically and financially, and works with their in-car environment but make them choose from devices on the market that meet some standard.
Just my $0.02 fwiw.
Rick, I think you might be right and make a good point. The only issue I have at this point for H&N devices is the test they are using is extreme. 70G angle impacts are not the norm. Also note the sled seats in the tests. They all have head protection wings as part of the tests, do all of you have these in your cars? I think not. So what does that mean to the test results when you use them in real life? And how many of you are going to hit a wall at 150+ MPH at an angle? Better yet how many of you can actual get to 150+ MPH on a track with your cars.
You get my drift here. The tests are for the pro's, not for us weekend folk. It sems reasonable to define a minimum standard for our club use but these current tests are just unreasonable and do not translate into non-pro racing either by costs or by the driver environments.