Can anyone clarify the pre-'77 rule for using HANS?

[Peter Mallett]

Then you can't say I'm taking this risk. It's "we are".

[Mike Harte]

Sorry Peter, I am possibly not explaining myself as I agree with you entirely. I can only speak from my personal experience, and that was that, pro-rata, I spent more on safety equipment and clothing than I did on any other area of my racing. As I have written previously, from the first time that I tested the car at Brands on a chilly Saturday afternoon, I wore the very latest Nomex playsuit with a full romper suit underneath, plus the newest Bell helmet, all from Les Leston if memory serves. This in the day when it was still acceptable to wear your Sunday best if that was took your fancy.

[Peter Mallett]

Apologies I misunderstood.

[medius]

I'd wager the same arguments were thrown around when helmets were introduced (''Its my responsibility, let me judge the risk to wear one or not'').

[Peter Mallett]

Absolutely. But most wore one. Likewise fireproof overalls. But in the early days motorsport was more exclusive and the working man who had a family to look after was nowhere to be seen.

These days we are all working in one capacity or another so we have to protect our investment.

[Mike Harte]

Not always; I was just a wuss

[midgetman]

I think one of my objections to the whole FHR thing is the way the market is dominated by one company. Because we have to adhere to the FIA standard, there is no chance of using some of the alternatives that are available in e.g. The US that aren't FIA homologated. SFI 38.1 refers I believe and some NSAs (e.g. New Zealand) recognise these standards, but not Western Europe.

I know a representative of HANS contributes here and I want to make it clear that I lay the "blame" at the feet of the FIA and the MSA not the approved manufacturer who has made so much investment. Let us hope that these competitors send their devices for FIA approval so we have genuine choice and competition.

Interestingly the SFI shares my concerns.

http://sfifoundation.com/sfi-respond...-announcement/

[Paul D]

Max - agree with your point above and also your previous point about the MSA being unlikely to change tack on all this stuff. You are, I'm sure, quite correct. It is, after all, the FIA & MSA between them who've foisted all this upon us in the first place!

I'm not arguing against safety as such, but more the over-zealous application of rules that are, perhaps, not quite so relevant to a club racer as they are to professional racers. I can't think of any other hobby - and that's exactly what it is to most of us on here - where the amateur taking part for a bit of fun is expected, forced even, to use the same level of equipment (and update it just as often) as a professional being paid to do the same thing.

However, having said all that, some good points have been made here. Dave Brand who marshals reckons that FHRs are saving people from these sorts of injuries, and as he marshals, I'm willing to concede that he sees more of this type of thing than I do, so I accept that it may be more common than I thought. Gotta take you to task on one point though Dave: you said that driver ability, level of competition and potential speed are irrelevant, as inertia doesn't discriminate. I'll grant you the first two, but speed is very relevant, as inertia is directly related to speed: your head will carry twice as much inertia if you crash at 100 mph than it would if you crashed at 50 mph. Having said that - point taken.

Peter - you also raised some good points, and having read through the coroner's report on Christian Devereaux's death, it certainly provides food for thought and makes for a sober read.

Now, if someone could just convince our club to do away with the barmy idea of having to jump out of the car and back in again as fast as possible during a pitstop, which is now going to be even trickier (and with more potential for errors being missed) wearing a HANS, I'd feel a bit happier about the whole thing! That, and a guarantee that HANS devices won't be lifed once we're all forced to buy them and I'll be a happy bunny. Won't hold my breath there though...

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Paul D

Gotta take you to task on one point though Dave: you said that driver ability, level of competition and potential speed are irrelevant, as inertia doesn't discriminate. I'll grant you the first two, but speed is very relevant, as inertia is directly related to speed: your head will carry twice as much inertia if you crash at 100 mph than it would if you crashed at 50 mph. Having said that - point taken.

In hindsight that could have been expanded on slightly. As well as inertia the rate of deceleration is an important factor. An angled impact into two layers of tyre wall protected by Recticell will incur much lower deceleration than a head-on crash into Armco!

[Jules Mini]

Speaking from experience I have had two very similar front on crashes in a mini,one with and one without a hans device,the crash without,my neck was uncomfortable for a couple of weeks and the one with a hans i suffered no discomfort whatsoever (apart from the bank balance) so for me its a thumbs up and I wouldnt want to race without one again

[Rudernst]

warning:

some maths to follow !

speed is in accidents only relevant to a certain extent

yes, energy stored on the moving vehicle is relative to speed, yes
in fact, energy stored rises with square of the speed

made simple
go quick and the accident will be big, bits flying very far

buuuuut:
head and brain damage is caused bei negative acceleration
also know as deceleration
value is in "g"
acceleration is a quotient, or a fraction
and time for decceleration is the denominator
now if the denominator reaches zero, than the fraction value becomes extremely large, regardless of how small the nominator is

translated into the real world
if the car is stopped very sudden, i mean even only from 30 mph to zero mph in the blink of an eye, even then g forces are beyond what humans can take, 300 to 500 g
that happens when you crash into a heavy concrete block or an immovable earth bank
into this case lots of potential for injury

crash into something soft, acceleration takes longer time, g forces are a LOOOT less

translated for humans
you can hurt youself a lot it you crash slowly into something very hard and very heavy
you can die walking if you trip over something and hit your head on the concrete path walking at 2mph !


you can crash at very high speed and walk away, if make sure that you dont hit anything hard
this is theory behing "crumple zones" in cars and tire walls at the track of course
theory works very well, ask Alonso

RE

[Simon Hadfield]

Without going into the arguments for and against again what is the position if your car is a replica? If you have a Lola T70 say, built this winter do you have to wear a HANs device because the car was built after 1977? If your T70 has had a new monocoque, new suspension, new bodywork but the title is still 1965 does that alter the requirement? The regulation is hardly evidence of joined up thinking.....

[midgetman]

The MSA guilty of knee jerk regulations and not thinking things through? Surely some mistake!

[Mike Bell]

My argument if questioned over Simon's point, would be that if a car (replica or original) has HTP, the year declared on that should be the defining date for FHR. Same if title is 1967 or whatever... Not in a position to put theory to test, however!

As discussed earlier, diificult for cars like an old 924- no papers, V5 or equivalent, and in production from 1975 to mid '80s!

[Mike Harte]

Possibly the chap to answer Simon's question is Gary (gt917), having some experience with his GT40, 917 and now in the process of constructing a T70. It would be interesting to read his thoughts.

[JimW]

To carry on from my earlier post; I'd solve the debate by extending the requirement to use an FHR to any car which was technically capable of supporting the use of a homologated FHR.

I know that would remove the fun of arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but would have the merit of helping to remove unnecessary risk from our sport.

Regards

Jim

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Possibly the chap to answer Simon's question is Gary (gt917), having some experience with his GT40, 917 and now in the process of constructing a T70. It would be interesting to read his thoughts.

I think that I meant Graham; I put it down to old age!

[Heightswitch]

Originally Posted by Simon Hadfield

Without going into the arguments for and against again what is the position if your car is a replica? If you have a Lola T70 say, built this winter do you have to wear a HANs device because the car was built after 1977? If your T70 has had a new monocoque, new suspension, new bodywork but the title is still 1965 does that alter the requirement? The regulation is hardly evidence of joined up thinking.....

I think the Reg is expanded upon in the Blue Book Simon. Any car which is classed as a replica or continuation must comply with the current regs with respect to FHR. if the car is a repaired - re-bodied or what ever car with a period defined date / logbook etc then it for the purpose of the regs is an original car.. The requirement therefore regardless of car is to prove the build date of the car whether that be a registration doc or a chassis number?

N.

[midgetman]

What would be interesting to know is where on earth the 1976 date came from in the first place - it seems totally random! It would have made more sense if HANS devices were aligned with ROPS requirements.

[Lancsbreaker]

Having had my first race wearing the HANS this weekend I must admit it wasn't as restrictive as I expected, but it did slow down our pit-stop to a degree - although with practice that can probably be improved - and I can't get the hang of fastening HANS onto the helmet whilst I'm wearing them - have to don them together. Getting the tethers on and off the helmet is enough of a struggle when its sat in front of me

[Paul D]

Max - I can only assume the 1976 date was chosen specifically to p*ss me off, as my cars are, in all likelihood, just after the cut-off! That's certainly the effect it's had anyway, intentional or otherwise.

Originally Posted by JimW

To carry on from my earlier post; I'd solve the debate by extending the requirement to use an FHR to any car which was technically capable of supporting the use of a homologated FHR.

I know that would remove the fun of arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but would have the merit of helping to remove unnecessary risk from our sport.

Regards

Jim

It may well be a pointless argument Jim, due to the fact that the rule is in, and there's bugger all we can do about it now. But, your very own signature line kinda makes my point for me: we make our choices in life as to where we take our risks. But between them, the FIA & MSA are removing our ability to choose with this constant attitude of 'we know what's best for you'.

Motorsport is dangerous, to attempt to eliminate all risk from it is both folly and self-defeating. Folly because it simply can't be done and self-defeating because even if it could, it would kill the sport. Part of the attraction for many is the element of risk, without this it simply becomes mundane.

[john ruston]

Andy Newall not talking.
Must have been one hell of a Shunt!
We want you for LMC team!

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by midgetman

What would be interesting to know is where on earth the 1976 date came from in the first place - it seems totally random! It would have made more sense if HANS devices were aligned with ROPS requirements.

1976 is end of period H- guess they couldn't pick a year in the middle of a period. So question is- why up to the end of that period defines a Historic car?

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

Having had my first race wearing the HANS this weekend I must admit it wasn't as restrictive as I expected, but it did slow down our pit-stop to a degree - although with practice that can probably be improved - and I can't get the hang of fastening HANS onto the helmet whilst I'm wearing them - have to don them together. Getting the tethers on and off the helmet is enough of a struggle when its sat in front of me

I agree the tethers are a bit difficult which is why I put the helmet and HANs on together. Access and egress are compromised but not too badly. Wouldn't matter if I got rid of the 6 pack padding.

[GrahamH]

My race car is a 1978 car, so I have to wear a FHR device.

The anomaly is that I'll be sat on the grid alongside fellow competitors who are not wearing FHRs, as their cars are post 1970 but pre 1976.

My opinion is that the rules should mandate that we all have them, or we all don't. I'm tending towards "we all have them" based on the evidence of benefits put forward and the realtively low cost of the device.

In terms of cost, I need to buy a new helmet anyway this year, as my old helmet was one of the BSxxxx /FR types, so it's approval expired at the end of 2015.

Thus the incremental cost to me is £220 for the FHR. Putting that in context, I just realised that I spent more than that on my fancy Laminova oil cooler last year.