Zone 8 Rules proposal deadline July 31st!

[Steve Grosekemper]

Just letting you all know that you have until July 31st to submit rule change proposals.

There are some truly brilliantly written proposals this year especially targeted at evening out the David and Goliath issue in AM.

http://www.pca.org/zone8/rules/2006/AX- ... posals.pdf

Got an opinion?

Send it to the Zone-8 webmaster and he will post them on the site.

webmaster@zone8.org

Steve Grosekemper
PCASDR Rules Chair

[Curt]

I have a surprisingly unwordy fix for the David vs. Goliath mess in AM.

Reinstate the HM class.

There. Four words. Fixed!

By the way, I wouldn't call it a David vs. Goliath situation in the AM class. David WON that confrontation. Or are you saying we can sling rocks at the Kinninger car if he shows up?

Sweet!

[Steve Grosekemper]

I have a surprisingly unwordy fix for the David vs. Goliath mess in AM.

Reinstate the HM class.

There, 4 words. Fixed!

How is that going to fix having a 3.6 914 OR 911T in AM curt.

If you read all the rules you will see that this goes along way to correct this problem. The HM issue would keep a few cars out of your class but only a small percentage. This fixes the problem for all, not just you.

I know, I know... It's all abut you!!

[Curt]

OK, Steve.... you're the man!

Are the rules proposals voted on with each region having an equal voice? I'll bet San Diego Region holds as many performance driving events as all the other regions in Zone 8 combined and has a substantially larger pool of competing cars to gain information from. Plus we send a mechanic who BUILDS these competition cars to the rules committee. I wonder if Steve has any PEERS on the rules committee?

PS. Don't take any crap from anyone in my home region of Orange Coast! The only rule some of these other regions in Zone 8 should provide input on is whether french toast or pancakes are the better breakfast choice at their big monthly PCA events.

PPS. Does this mean we can't throw rocks at Kinningers car?

[Steve Grosekemper]

Curt,
Read the proposals!
Your voting issue is addressed for 2007.

And yes the zone realizes we run a lot of events and they are listening to what we have to say. But alot of the rules committe members are SDR members and even some time trial & AX drivers!

I have high hopes for the coming year... I might even have my car done by then...

[JamesWilson]

HANS-type devices may only be used with a racing seat (per and mounted per other PCA rules) and appropriately mounted harnesses that are compatible with such. You can pretty much use any seat with an R3, HutchensII, D-Cell, or other strappy contraptions, but the height and distance of shoulder harness placement is key with the use of the Hubbard-Downing (HANS) device specifically, and allowing such a device in an otherwise stock car with stock seats is just unsafe, even if you do have the appropriate harness and roll bar/cage.

Just my $0.02

[JamesWilson]

Harnesses (any non-DOT-approved restraint system) may only be installed in cars with racing seats AND roll bars/cages.

Even though you can purchase parts and devices that can semi-adequately hold a harness in place on a stock Porsche seat, it doesn't make it ideal. Even the "harness loops" that our company sells is just a band-aid to meet the rule requirements and offer a "better" solution to having the shoulder harnesses hanging off the side of the head rest. Most stock and aftermarked reclinable seats WILL fail and break in an impact (or even heavy use!) if a driver is completely held in by a 5/6pt harness, as they are not designed and tested to withstand such loads. Also, the position of the anti-submarine straps up and around the front of the seats is not a safe method, though it is allowed in the current ruleset. The seat must be designed with such a reinforced slot to properly retain such an antisubarine strap....so cutting holes or slots in fabric won't cut it. On a side note, some aftermarket reclinable seats CAN be ordered with such a reinforcement, such as most Recaro reclinable seats....they just need to be ordered correctly.

Schroth makes their Rally 3 and Rally 4 and AntiSub 4-pt DOT-approved belts, which may be used with the stock seats as long as they meet strict guidelines set forth as tested by the DOT and FMVSS209. Unfortunately, most Porsche stock seats (with integrated head rest) do not meet this rule, other than the factory GT2/GT3 seats built by Recaro with harness holes in the headrest. BTW-- these belts are 2" in width. Schroth has another DOT/FMVSS209 belt that is ALSO FIA-approved is the Profi-II, and has an extra slot below for the addition of a 5th/6th-pt harness, and is the only competition belt that is also FIA-approved and DOT approved.

[Steve Grosekemper]

James,
As I said at the begining of this thread and I restate...

Got an opinion?

Send it to the Zone-8 webmaster and he will post them on the site.

webmaster@zone8.org

The zone staff is not going to look here for input.

Thanks for your input BTW- easily worth twice your stated value!

[tb911]

The Rule Change proposal period is now over.
However, the comment period runs until August 31. If you have any comments on the proposed Zone 8 rule changes, please send them to webmaster@zone8.org

thanks

[kary]

I lost track of the comments that were proposed from Steve around H&N devices. I just read them as posted and cannot believe we are entertaining the first proposal. Here are my thoughts which I will also send in.

Proposal 1:
Requiring these H&N devices without other requirements such as roll cage, race seats, harnesses, etc is outrageous and opening up the club to serious lawsuits when soemthing happens as a result of mandating devices without the proper environment.

Secondly, following the SFI 38.1 standard excludes one particular device that is far superior to other SFI 38.1 rated devices. If I were to be forced to use a HANS for example, which does not fit my build or driving position it would be more unsafe than the unrated Isaac device which has superior impact test numbers both forntal and angular over the competition.

This proposal #1 as written will kill the San Diego time trial series if everyone are required to purchase some sort of device. I for one will just run with POC where this requirement is not mandated either in use or product type.

Proposal 2:
This proposal is ill thought out because it is targetting the HANS device around belts, etc. I agree that the device should be used in the proper environment but this will also kill the San Diego time trial series since many folks do not have the proper environment to take on the addition of a H&N device. Shouldn't we be recommending roll cages, race seats, and harnesses that are properly mounted before mandating H&N devices? The answer is yes.

Proposal 3:
This proposal suffers the same issue a Proposal 2 in that it talks about the HANS. Requiring that people cannot use them unless they have the other environmental devices is also an issue legally. If someone is denied use of a H&N device at one of our events and has a frontal crash that causes injury and they can prove, which most lawyers will do, that having used the device would have eliminated the injury, we (the club) will be liable.


Frankly I find all of these proposals to be different than what was proposed in discussion with Steve. We should be recommending the use of H&N devices with the proper environment where they will work effectively. To mandate the environment, the H&N device or standard SFI will reduce participation in our events and will expose the club needlessly to risk. Other clubs are not mandating but recommending. Until PCA race groups require these devices I cannot see why time trail would.

[Steve Grosekemper]

Kary,
You are looking at the zone proposals, not the proposed region rules. Those first two are not ours...

Don't make the mistake of assuming because it is a proposal on the zone 8 site that SDR had anything to do with it.

You have valid points and they need to be made to the Z-8 rules committee. This is great for getting the word out but it MUST be sent to:

webmaster@zone8.org

For those looking for some simple H&N info here is a quick taste
http://www.trackpedia.com/wiki/Head_and ... s#SFI_38.1

Kary,
While it is true that non rated SFI devices like the Isaac are excellent units it leaves a huge whole open to defining what a H&N device is. By definition a collar is a H&N device...

I reiterate... Your points are all excellent and should be submitted to
webmaster@zone8.org

[kary]

As I said above I would submit to the zone 8 which I also did after posting here.

As a result I have had some direct e-mails to me regarding these proposal which I will also post here and forward to the zone 8 at their request.

[kary]

Here is an e-mail from someone asking to be posted. I will also forward to the Zone.


I object to Proposal 1. My rationale is as follows:

There is substantial unresolved controversy surrounding SFI 38.1 standard. The rationale offered in support of Proposal 1 does not address the controversy that can be understood through a quick scan of online performance driving forums. Being somewhat new to performance driving I decided that if a HANS type device was deemed a good idea for the '07 season, then it was also a good idea for '06 when first proposed for '07. Therefore in December '05 I added a roll bar and purchased the ISAAC system after considerable research and consultation with various drivers, mechanics, etc. I made this decision based on available crash performance data and available anecdotal information, and in spite of the fact that the HANS and similar devices are SFI 38.1 certified while ISAAC is not.

I have continued to monitor discussions of these devices and have seen no incontrovertible evidence that the HANS or any other SFI 38.1 device outperforms the ISAAC. I believe it will be several years before the standards are ironed out. During this time it's likely that we'll see substantial improvements and/or new products on the market before this safety area is understood to the degree that standards can be reasonably solidified. To argue that SFI 38.1 should be applied now is analogous to taking one side or the other in the global warming debate - nobody knows for sure, and either argument can be supported depending on the data brought to the discussion.

Joey Hand's recent post-crash experience at Mid-Ohio covers both sides of this discussion:

"The corner workers were yelling to get out of the car because it was going to catch fire, and I couldn't get out because my HANS device was stuck in the window net, and the window was smaller than normal." (A well-known HANS weakness)

"That's the second time the HANS Device saved me. They said there's no way I could have survived the impacts without the HANS Device."

On one hand Joey was nearly trapped in his car in the midst of a fuel leak. On the other hand he might not have been conscious to attempt escape if not for the HANS device. An ISAAC system in this situation would probably have been marginally better due to its being left in the vehicle during an emergency exit. This incident demonstrates that the SFI 38.1 standard does not adequately address all of the known issues.

The identification of the sponsor of this proposed change should also be taken into account. There are several active club members who are in the business of promoting, marketing, and/or selling certain solutions and would benefit from the imposition of SFI 38.1.

For brevity and because the full arguments for and against the various devices are available online I have not included them here. Please contact me if you feel that additional supporting information is needed.

[kary]

Here are the comments from an expert in the H&N field:



Thank you for passing this on, and for being so supportive of Isaac designs.
We are aware that sanctioning bodies are considering adopting some sort of
position on these products, but it helps to stay current with the details.

Most organizations like the idea of the minimum performance standards called
for in SFI 38.1, but are reluctant to adopt it for the reasons you mention.
Consequently, they are doing one of two things: either delaying any decision
until the dust settles, or requiring the performance standard--with or
without the SFI sticker. Since Section 2.5, which excludes only Isaac
systems, is not a performance measure and has nothing to do with head and
neck injuries--and is clearly dangerous in a tin top--they are simply
ignoring it.

It is a matter of wording. SFI doesn't certify the product, the
manufacturer certifies the product. Therefore, Isaac systems can be used if
the sanctioning body simply requires that the manufacturer certify that the
product meets the *performance* standards of SFI 38.1. (Technically, we
would have to rerun the test series to include the frontal impacts, but that
is a trivial matter.)

Ironically, the rationale for Proposal 1 does exactly that: "This proposal
will create a standard for H&N devices allowed and only allow devices that
meet the safety standards developed for the SFI specification." Clearly,
Section 2.5 of the Spec is not a safety standard--and UNsafety standard
maybe.

You may wish to include a reference to our Web page which addresses this
subject: http://www.isaacdirect.com/SFI.html.

Also, it sounds like Zone 8 is not aware of Chad McQueen's injuries in a
Porsche at the Rolex in Daytona. He had a lateral impact with a HANS and
broke his neck in two places. The injuries are consistent with the HANS
impacting the side of the dummy's neck during the SFI tests at Delphi. You
have probably seen the video on our home page: http://www.isaacdirect.com/.
More to the subject of lateral protection, here is a graph of how well
products work on the SFI test with respect to lateral head torque:
http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/SFIMx.GIF.

It will not surprise you to learn that one of McQueen's doctors, himself a P
car racer, is an Isaac user--who has crashed, BTW.


>>The identification of the sponsor of this proposed change should also be

taken into account. There are several active club members who are in the
business of promoting, marketing, and/or selling certain solutions and would
benefit from the imposition of SFI 38.1.

Our attorneys are making a list. Names would be helpful at some point.

Bottom line: If PCA wants only devices that pass the crash tests, the Isaac
is in. If it insists on an SFI sticker, it's out.

Thanks again, and please stay in touch and let us know what we can do to
help.

Regards,
Gregg S. Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
301 East Pine Street, Suite 150
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: 321/206-8177
Toll Free: 877/739-9927
Fax: 321/206-3145
http://www.isaacdirect.com