View Single Post
  #18  
Old 10-28-2017, 11:44 AM
Slowpoke's Avatar
Slowpoke Slowpoke is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,629
Re: Proposed Rule Changes for 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carguy View Post
The rest of the proposals look very reasonable to me.

Concerning head and neck restraints without roll-over protection some 4-point belt systems, notably the Schroth Profi with ASM, can be installed using the rear seat belt anchors (provided the strap angles are within the manufacturer's limits) and are compatible with the HANS device. The way #9 is worded doesn't include 4 point belts. Maybe another proposed rule?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time Attack Rules
1.1.3.3. Four Point belts must meet FMVSS209 or ECER16.04 standards, be approved by the manufacturer for the vehicle, and have an integrated Anti-Submarining Mechanism from the manufacturer. Note that some “Tuner” belts do not meet these standards. Burden of proof for validity and correct installation is on the driver of the car.
Our rules already allow the use of FMVSS 209 compliant four points, but those belts are not approved by the belt manufacturer for use in all vehicles. You will specifically notice the absence of Corvettes and BRZ/FRS vehicles from Schroth's approved list which are two very popular vehicles in our series.

From the Schroth Profi ASM documentation:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schroth
"WARNING: This product is not designed and tested to be used with HANSŪ or other head and neck restraints e.g. Hutchens device. Shoulder belts may slip off the HANSŪ and crotch straps e.g. of a Hutchens device cannot be properly attached to the lap belt. Malfunction can result in serious personal injuries or death."
https://www.schrothracing.com/docs/F...List-Print.pdf

This rule is definitely a different philosophy in use by other established organisations. Philosophically I suppose that my views rank somewhat as a libertarian; give the individual the right to make their own choices. I believe that if there is a safety device out there that can provide greater reduction in injury in the most frequent type of collision we see in OTA, our ruleset should be open to including it. The fact that James Mewett (aerospace engineer, former CCC chair, and long time competitor and instructor) and Dave Barker, (medical doctor familiar with sports injury and the risks of motorsport, current CCC chair, long time competitor) are two of the proponents of this change have helped sway me to the side of having this discussion.

I compete in a car with a six+ point cage, I have six point belts and seats with wings, I have a Simpson Rage Pro FHR, so this rule decision is to help and/or affect others, not for me. Would a special waiver and counselling from a scrutineer cover our obligation in this regard?

In the end, we are a division of CASC-OR which has a safety committee that advises on these matters. I'll invite George McCullough to attend our meeting so that he can hear both sides of the story rather than my re-iterated versions.
__________________


Stephen, SPDA VP, OTA Director, CCC Member
OTA: MOD? -=- CSCS: SSA #842

Last edited by Slowpoke; 10-28-2017 at 06:04 PM.
Reply With Quote