MSA ruling - Hans or similar to be mandatory in 2016

[morninggents]

The best thing I ever bought in 50 years of motorsport participation.

[Derwent Motorsp]

Originally Posted by midgetman

Grumpy git alert! Can we get the terminology right?

ROPS = ROLL Over Protection System = Roll cage

FHR = Frontal Head Restraint = HANS device or similar

Oops, my error, brain fade. I was busy with writing our club's response to the daft notion of the MSA to have all road cars on list 1A tyres on speed events and then rushing to Silverstone

[rbm]

Originally Posted by SJWBallistic

Richard
After witnessing your accident last year I made the decision to use FHR. Over the winter roll over bar was extended in the Cooper and I have purchased Simpson hybrid FHR. This will allow use in all of your cars.
Have a look at Cadwell this weekend if you want to. See you there
Stuart Wright

cheers Stuart - I'll take you up on that - as the Revis is still very poorly after this years Silverstone I'll have to do some pushing.

[Nial McCabe]

I've been using a HANS device since 2008 (when we were required in our "modern" cars).
The vintage group I race with does not require them but they are highly recommend and non-users are required to sign an extra liability form. I would say nearly everyone uses one anyway. My wife helps me fit it on but in a pinch I can do it myself. It's very second-nature to me these days.

One point: be very, very sure your shoulder harness mounting points are attached to the car properly. If you are using 3" wide belts, they should basically touch each other (or come pretty close to touching). On occasion our tech inspection team will issue a warning to drivers who have the shoulder harness mounted too far apart.

In some cases the shoulder belt attachment points might have been mounted a long time ago and were OK for use without a HANS device. But are not OK for use with a HANS.

[corporalsparrow]

I've just used a HANS for the first time in an Alfa Sprint GT and during the race I didn't even notice that I was wearing it.

The biggest imposition was that I had to adjust the door mirror slightly.

Given the possible price of NOT wearing one I think they're a no brainer.

[Normal Bloke]

Very pleased I bought one but worried that if made mandatory, MSA/FIA may start doing daft things like life-ing them.

That's when it all starts to become a bit silly

[PeterMorley]

Received a message from Merlin recently saying that the mounting on the helmet has changed, apparently Snell 2010 helmets can have the new ones fitted easily.
But it wasn't clear whether you need to have the new mounting or if the old one will work, if it doesn't that presumably rules out earlier helmets?

[Marcus Mussa]

In cars that do not have the belts set up suitably for Hans I have been using the Simpson Hybrid system. This works on any car with a harness. In fact I am advised by Simpson that it has also been proved effective in cars with 3 point harnesses. This is useful for instructors and people doing track days in their road cars.
The system is FIA approved so it is an alternative to Hans.
The Simpson bulletin goes as follows:
Simpson Performance Products, a name synonymous with driver safety in all types of racing, is pleased to announce that our newest partnership with auto manufacturers in Detroit has led to third party FMVSS208 testing of our Hybrid Frontal Head Restraints. The testing demonstrated the FIA Hybrid Head Restraint in conjunction with a Helmet and 3-point harness reduced Neck Tension significantly when compared to a test with only a helmet and 3-point harness. The Hybrid Head Restraint is now the only Frontal Head Restraint proven effective for 3-point harnesses that is also FIA approved. This discovery allows Driving Instructors, Auto Manufacturing Test Engineers, and other drivers with 3-point harnesses to have added protection.

Marcus

[bauble]

I do not race so whether a Hans device is a good thing or not is irrelevant, however, I would be concerned at their being made compulsory. I get the impression from many posts on this site that there is an increasing bureaucratic burden being placed on people who race entirely for pleasure, and at some considerable cost to themselves. It seems obvious to me as an outsider that there are too many people running the sport without personal experience of competing, and able to understand the ethos of historic racing.

I know from my own working life in the Insurance Industry that once you introduce 'regulators' there is a shift toward ever increasing regulation for regulations sake. I have no doubt that much of the legislation brought out is simply jobsworths trying to justify their, usually' too well paid jobs.

Personal safety should be left to the individual, with only the minimum requirement of not endangering others being governed.

Having said all that I will go back to minding my own business.

Bauble.

[Mike Harte]

Bob, in theory you are quite right. Unfortunately, the sad reality is that in practice you have to legislate for those who require extra help to protect themselves.

I think that I may have mentioned on the forum that in my early days of competing in the 60s, I witnessed the tragic crash and demise of a sport's or clubman's driver who was on his way to the grid at Brands, who, because he had been late getting to the assembly area, had gone out on the track without his seat-belts on.

It is for people like him that these rules have to be brought in. There are far too many who believe that they are immortal, and ignore safety regulations. This is why the police are constantly having to prosecute drivers for failing to wear their seat-belts. And you might say, 'Well, that's their lookout', and yes it is. But you also have to take into consideration those that have to deal with the aftermath of a driver failing to follow directions. I can say that those of us drivers sitting in the competitors stand at Paddock that Sunday afternoon were all affected by that scene, and even now, some 50 years later, it is a memory that I wish I didn't have.

[Heightswitch]

Has someone got an answer to the question regarding the period exemptions?

Is there an age cut off for the car?

[bauble]

I would not argue with you Mike, however, taken to it's logical conclusion, in the interests of safety, all racing should be banned!
I saw my first motor race in 1951, witnessed the accident at Le Mans in 1955, and saw or read of the deaths of many a man I admired, motor racing is said to 'be dangerous', but still people do it. While I regret the death of any driver, I have always seen it as part of the sport, and while many think I am callous, to me it is something you learn to live with. No one is forced to race, anymore than I am forced to drive to Silverstone, and I think I am in greater danger than the racing driver when I do so.

But then again, there are so many aspects of modern life with which I just don't fit in.

I expect to be castigated for this post.

Bauble.

[Heightswitch]

Originally Posted by bauble

I would not argue with you Mike, however, taken to it's logical conclusion, in the interests of safety, all racing should be banned!
I saw my first motor race in 1951, witnessed the accident at Le Mans in 1955, and saw or read of the deaths of many a man I admired, motor racing is said to 'be dangerous', but still people do it. While I regret the death of any driver, I have always seen it as part of the sport, and while many think I am callous, to me it is something you learn to live with. No one is forced to race, anymore than I am forced to drive to Silverstone, and I think I am in greater danger than the racing driver when I do so.

But then again, there are so many aspects of modern life with which I just don't fit in.

I expect to be castigated for this post.

Bauble.

I just think you should be banned for using the word Castigate A lot of us race cars, you should know we don't have dictionaries
N.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Heightswitch

Has someone got an answer to the question regarding the period exemptions?

Is there an age cut off for the car?

Al we have in print is a suggestion of exemption for 'period defined vehicles'. Educated and uneducated (that's me) opinion is that the exemption will be for vehicles that already have it/them for other safety measures, such as ROPs, belts etc. So maybe period E and earlier in FIA language- but that is pure speculation.....

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by bauble

I do not race so whether a Hans device is a good thing or not is irrelevant, however, I would be concerned at their being made compulsory. I get the impression from many posts on this site that there is an increasing bureaucratic burden being placed on people who race entirely for pleasure, and at some considerable cost to themselves. It seems obvious to me as an outsider that there are too many people running the sport without personal experience of competing, and able to understand the ethos of historic racing.

I know from my own working life in the Insurance Industry that once you introduce 'regulators' there is a shift toward ever increasing regulation for regulations sake. I have no doubt that much of the legislation brought out is simply jobsworths trying to justify their, usually' too well paid jobs.

Personal safety should be left to the individual, with only the minimum requirement of not endangering others being governed.

Having said all that I will go back to minding my own business.

Bauble.

I get the impression that one of the problems with introducing regulation is that the people who introduce it then have to cover their backsides, so they have to start thinking about every possible scenario and then regulate for that. Hence a never ending spiral of regulation and plenty of work for the jobsworths.

As you say it is up to the individual and no one is forcing any of us to play with these dangerous old toys. Presumably the lawyers these days are so clever that signing the bit of paper that said I acknowledge the risks and absolve the organisers of any responsibility etc. is not enough.

The missus (who is a primary school teacher) went to a leaving party last night, one of the leavers recounted a story that went (roughly):
"On the school trip I found a short cut to the art centre but when I suggested to R*^%el that we took it was told it was not on the safety assessment so we couldn't use it, I assume that the dog **** we had to walk through had passed the assessment"!

[Derwent Motorsp]

The MSA have this rather odd rule that new regulations can be introduced without consultation under "Safety".
At the same time the special committees, who meet three times a year, are in no way representative of the competitors and events they deal with and there is no transparent explanation of how people are appointed to these committees. I some feel these folk sit down and say "What new rule can we make today." Some years ago I suggested at a regional association meeting that every specialist committee should devote one meeting per year to increasing participation in their discipline. It seems as if almost the opposite takes place.
Thirty years ago my local club ran six stages rallies a year including one forest event, and we had around 70 rally crews in the club. Now we no longer run rallies and have two crews who do the odd rally for old times sake but with having to renew seats and buy HANS they are calling it a day.
We then started running speed events and had 70 plus drivers in our championship. All you needed was a helmet. Early 90s and you then needed Proban suits, OK, £40 to £50. We had a sponsor who backed our novice scheem and we bought six drivers helmets and suits each year. Then came Nomex suits and about 25% of our drivers dropped out and we got very few newcomers. Then came gloves. The cost of getting to the first start line on a sprint is now in excess of £600.
Someone came to a sprint recently with a rally Corsa and was asked where his gloves were - you don't need gloves in a stage rally car but you do on a sprint!
The MSA needs to realise that we are getting fewer and fewer new drivers into all types of motorsport and the average age of drivers is steadily rising, indeed at some events I think all the competitors and officials will be able to be members of SAGA!

[MartinSmith]

Originally Posted by midgetman

Yup HANS always has been a trademark of the company that makes them. Stand 21, Schroth et al make them under licence. So Frontal Head Restraint is the generic term coined but Hoovers and Biros come.to mind.

and Stoves Max (trying to think of others)...anyway

I shall be using mine for the first time this weekend coming at Rockingham...whilst they are another expense I agree and some may a waste of money but ....what price is your life worth nowadays...it really is that simple I think (people moaned about the seat belt law once)

[midgetman]

It's difficult isn't it? There have been very few instances of club racing drivers being killed by the sort of injuries that FHR prevents (Thankfully) But if it's your life that is the one in however many then you will be grateful for it. Plus where does the MSA stand in this litigious society if the best safety equipment isn't mandated? We all know there is no such thing as personal responsibility when there are ambulance chasers about.

On the other hand Graeme has a valid point. To drive my car around an airfield more slowly than I drove it to the meeting I currently need to spend £600 or more and that's without the FHR. Motor racing will soon go the way of flying or polo, only for the rich.

Karting is starting to break away from the MSA and go back to its roots. A small example. Helmets that are OK for Guy Martin to fling down the road at 170mph are deemed unsafe by the MSA to wear at 50mph on a go kart or in my road going MG, the new breed of "independent" kart racing (IKR) is saying "enough" and allows them.

A sliding scale of risk is needed. The MSA has realised this on speed events with no FHR needed for road cars but you still need FIA suits. But go figure, they still let people wear open faced helmets in open cars! Someone needs a dose of common sense and to carry out a proper and rigorous risk assessment or I will soon have no customers to sell safety equipment to!

It all promotes the feeling that the MSA is only interested in elite sport.

[Derwent Motorsp]

Yes, motorsport is fast moving out of the realm of the average person, other than perhaps autotests. Motor club generally are in sharp decline. My own local club is doing well but mainly due to heading down the historic events, classic runs route. We used to run stage events with full entries from our own members as I said but hardly any now. A friend tackled the new MSA Rally Safety Inspector about the HANS issue and he said, the competitors will pay, it's just the cost of a couple of tyres. Which shows how out of touch he is. There are two cost issues: a) the initial cost of getting to the first start line (as Max said at least £600 for a sprint - more if you need a seat) and b) the ongoing cost of replacing all these items due to lifing. A lot of folk like me do very few events a year so replacing helmets, belts, seats is a major cost. I have Snell 2000 helmet that is totally unmarked and used about 12 times but I recently had to buy a new one which I now doubt will attach to a HANS which I will need in 2017.
I think we will see clubs leaving the MSA. It's perfectly possible to have an event authorised by one of the other bodies as many of the "commercial" events and track days are. I am sure they are every bit as anxious about health and safety as the MSA but realise they need customers.

[Woolley]

Just to pick up on a couple of things:

Originally Posted by midgetman

It's difficult isn't it? There have been very few instances of club racing drivers being killed by the sort of injuries that FHR prevents.

It's not just being killed. Hyper extension of the neck is also reduced or prevented and that's something well worth avoiding.

To drive my car around an airfield more slowly than I drove it to the meeting I currently need to spend £600 or more and that's without the FHR.

But you won't have your helmet on while on the road and so your head isn't twice as heavy as your neck muscles are used to.

I'm not arguing for or against mandation of FHR equipment, but as a marshal who's attended rather more incidents than most drivers do, I can say that should I ever race, I wouldn't consider doing so without one.

[midgetman]

I actually said "and that's without the FHR " because it's not part of my point.

That's an FIA specification overall. An FIA specification helmet. A pair of indeterminate quality gloves on my hands. A pair of plastic training shoes (anyone spot the inconsistencies there?). A "racing licence". To drive my MG around an airfield at lower speeds than on the motorway to get there, with fewer things to hit and no other traffic. I'm talking about speed events if I wasn't clear.

Woolley I *can't* wear an FHR in the MG because I don't wear a full harness which was why I excluded the cost from my calculations. FHR isn't mandatory in road going classes.

My point remains - very soon you will have fewer serious injuries thanks to the safety equipment. Not because it has made any difference in many accidents but because it has priced many newcomers out of the market.

"But you sell 'safety' equipment, " you all cry, "surely you must be pressing for the highest safety known to man?"

Well no, I'm pressing for the most appropriate PPE. I would agree that in racing cars and sports racing cars the risk is much higher both of fire and of impact. And in truth the cost of the PPE is a small percentage of your outlay both in terms of purchase and running costs. But in the entry - level road going classes? When you don't even need a roll cage and harness? Why is e.g. Proban safe enough to use in a rorty super-modified hot rod round an oval but not my ageing MGZS across an airfield on my own? Clearly it's not insurance led - if it is the MSA is failing in its due diligence and needs to change suppliers.

If we lose sense of proportion we will lose new blood and then we will lose the sport. I feel passionately for the sport and I feel even more passionately for my livelihood. MSA administered sport numbers are falling at all levels. I see more people doing track days and non-MSA karting where "safety" requirements are lower. It's having an impact on my business because there are fewer racers, and it will soon hit the MSA. What will help is a sliding scale on PPE related to the risk factor.

By the way, after the accident I witnessed at the weekend there is a case to be made for marshals to wear safety helmets. How would you guys feel about that?

[Derwent Motorsp]

Wise words from Max. Sadly the MSA seem to ignore the steady reduction in competitors and events. They do like to use statistics to make things look better. They use the "number of permits issued" to show the number of events run but for many events they use more than one permit. My own club ran 8 events last year but had 15 permits. Some rallies like the RAC run four "events" on the same day while most BHC events run a Nat A and Nat B permit.
Most events that run have healthy entries but that is because the number of events running is declining at a faster rate than the number of competitors.
Go to any event, other than karting, and look at the average age the competitors - how many under 50? But many well over 70 with a life long interest. Historic/nostalgia events do well but are catering to to the older competitors and enthusiasts.
Do the MSA have a long term plan - my crystal ball tells me UK motorsport in 2025 will be a very few events run commercially for the very rich. Club motorsport is dying fast.

[Heightswitch]

Well.
As a 44 year old lard arse who has scrimped and saved over the last 10 years to build my own car to get out on track and is doing so for the first time this weekend...I am now feeling thoroughly depressed!!

My Belts, Helmet, overalls and Harnesses are scrap at the end of this year despite having been used very very infrequently and all of them being in absolutely tip top condition.

Next year looks like a FHS is also on the cards.

It looks like a severe weight loss programme for me to be able to fit into the car with all the gubbins I need

I wonder if the MSA are risk assessing my probability of debilitating injuries when I tell the missus how much I will be spending at X-mas on new gear which she sees as still brand new!!

N.

[Terminator]

Originally Posted by Heightswitch

I have a few concerns about this new reg and the suitability for me in my car..

First off..The rules say that there are exemptions for certain period defined cars? What exactly is the exemption?

I have a TVR Griff, Made to all the correct widths (AHEM ) which means that my car is quite awkward to get into and do myself up in..I generally can just about get in with my hemet on outside the car and clamber about enough to get comfy in my narrow seat which fits in terms of the law of diminishing returns….

The above statement means they the seat is just narrow enough to fit in the car but just wide enough to suit my gargantuan arse…

Had I been racing a Big yank tank etc then I wouldn't be concerned about these issues but the griff is very small, the cage sits snugly against the roof and I just about fit into the car with an awareness of the cage proximity

I suppose I will have to try one one of these days to see how feasible it all is..

I do get concerned about just how workable attaching another bit of kit to my head shoulder area is though??

N.

Dont you mean V8 MK1 Vixen the real Griffith Owners may take exception to you calling it a Griffith
T

[Heightswitch]

Originally Posted by Terminator

Dont you mean V8 MK1 Vixen the real Griffith Owners may take exception to you calling it a Griffith
T

I generally say a Griffy
There is a very long thread on here somewhere and my car is well documented..I think about 70 odd pages of reading failed to get anyone else to disclose their chassis numbers..

Mine is all my own work and still has its original Brazed chassis and Body…Not many will claim that Colin..

It is genuinely Old and a bit heavy… like the driver

N.