Forward Head Restraints

[CharlesElliott]

Roger's just drawn my attention to this thread. Yes, I have a drawing (in DXF format and others) of the adaptor that we had made up, which was originally based on a drawing kindly given to me by Simon at Meteor Motorsport. The one I drew has smaller overall dimensions and a number of holes to allow adjustments depending on where you sit in relation to the HANS (i.e. how close you need the belt mountings to be together). It is designed to be made in 4mm steel plate, preferably powder coated.

[Richard Price]

Clive,

If you read the linked document, you'll see that any adaptor plate can not be a "one size suits all" solution. The ideal positions for the harness fixings depend on a number of factors. Each application really needs to be assessed separately. 

http://www.fia.com/file/2059/download?token=JZgU_uNN

When I started using HANS I was having work done by Arch anyway, and I specified to Arch where I wanted my harness mounts, having used my own seating position, myself, and my chosen HANS device. Should any one of those factors change, then the harness mount positions will also change.

My shoulder straps are fixed under the seat back bulkhead top rail rather than the normal external over the top fixing, to improve the angle from horizontal.

The adaptor plate is a good solution, but I'd say that each needs to be of individual design. 

[RS2000]

Isn't that why Charles says that the plate has "....a number of holes to allow adjustments depending on where you sit in relation to the HANS...."?

[Richard Price]

RS2000 said:-

"Isn't that why Charles says that the plate has "....a number of holes to allow adjustments depending on where you sit in relation to the HANS...."?"

Yes, it is. If you look at the times of the posts, you'll that Charles posted whilst I was typing....

 

[RS2000]

Ah yes, well spotted!

 

[Mark Durrant]

Interesting 'open letter' to the MSA from Shenstone and District Car Club (Curborough):
"Dear Sir

MSA Potentially ‘Destroying’ Regulated Grassroots Motorsport

...

I refer to your recent announcement regarding the mandatory use of Frontal Head Restraints to certain classes (and recommended for all others) to all MSA regulated Hill Climb and Sprint events with effect from 1st January 2016 and on behalf of Shenstone & D.C.C. Ltd I would like to make the following representations.

You may be aware that Shenstone & DCC (SDCC) have been in existence for over 80 years and have operated the Curborough Sprint Course (near Lichfield) for 52 years. As a motorsport club we have gone out of our way to promote grassroots motorsport with the operation of Curborough Sprint Course which includes in excess of 20 MSA regulated sprints per annum, the promotion of the MSA registered Curborough Championship, an annual Introduction to Sprinting Day (free for allcomers to be inducted into sprinting), an AHASS registered Sprint School, the provision of a club vehicle available for first time competitors and a host of other events and initiatives designed to promote sprinting in the U.K.

The Club has always taken safety very seriously. We were one of the first clubs to hire licensed Rescue Units for Sprint meetings when they were not a requirement and we have organized training days for our Marshals not to mention invested substantially in the safety requirements of the venue itself.

In recent years the MSA have introduced a number of regulations that have made it difficult for first time competitors to become involved in the sport and established competitors to remain with the need for additional equipment to comply with MSA regulations. This has included revised helmet regulations, changing race suit requirements and now the introduction of Frontal Head Restraints (FHRs). Whilst accepting that there is a need for safety rules to be adequate, we believe the extent of the changes made in recent years has been unreasonable in the basic world of grass roots motorsport and is driving competitors away from MSA regulated events into unregulated competitions and track days that do not require such additional regulated equipment. We therefore believe that the MSA in recent years has embarked on a campaign in pursuit of safety which will inadvertently ‘destroy’ grass roots regulated motorsport.
Please consider the following facts.

The Curborough Championship regularly operates with 60/70 contenders each year. In 2015 there are 65 and an analysis of these competitors indicates that 30 will require FHR’s in 2016. Feedback “from the paddock” makes clear the exceptional cost of these FHRs together with potential changes to seat belts, seat configurations and roll bars in cars to accommodate FHR’s will drive these competitors away from regulated competition into the many track day competitions that do not require such a degree of equipment. This is the most commonly cited reason from newcomers at our taster and other events who do not want to enter formal competition. Some of these competitors allocate a budget for only 5 or 6 Sprint meetings per annum and the requirement for FHRs will drive them away from the sport. Some of them have only recently purchased helmets without adequate notice from the MSA that there would be additional costs involved for next year. They will not be replacing these and therefore will revert to competitions or other unregulated events where they can be used.

The ‘recommendation’ that Standard Road Going cars (where most cars these days have NCAP 4 or 5 crash test results) should also include the provision of FHRs is considered by various motorsport personnel to be potentially dangerous. Classes with unsuitable seat-belts, no race seats and with no roll cages required are not suitable for FHR’s and even if supplied could cause injury to individuals in certain situations. These ‘technical’ considerations do not appear to have been investigated by the MSA before making this announcement.

As the club running the most used sprint venue in the country, SDCC see this starting a domino effect which could close the venue. If around 25% of competitors decide not to invest in the updates due to the cost implications and stop competing, then many clubs, already running meetings on minimum entry levels, will cancel their events. There would not have to be many events being cancelled before the circuit lease cost would be too prohibitive to operate the venue any more. It could also see the end for some of those car clubs if they are not able to run meetings due to lack of entries. SDCC are already seeing events being booked for the circuit which are being run outside of the MSA banner, which are growing in numbers and the driving force for this is purely the number of competitors who can't afford the continuous increasing costs of safety equipment.
You must appreciate that grass roots competitors can budget to spend circa £600 per season including fuel, tyres, entry fees etc. which is a world away from circuit racers who spend £10K per season or significant hillclimbers whose vehicles cost £100K. We also have a number of double driven vehicles where the costs are obviously being shared but personal safety equipment will be specific to the individual - which again disproportionately increases budgets required. It is these grass-roots people that the MSA is driving away from regulated motorsport activities with the constant inclusion of additional equipment regulations.

I would be grateful if you could address the following questions and provide a response which we can share with our membership and other clubs with whom we are in correspondence over this matter.

Questions:
1. What consultation has taken place with the motorsport world on the mandatory introduction of FHR’s in Hillclimbing and Sprinting ?
2. What evidence has been produced to substantiate the need for the introduction of FHRs in a discipline of motorsport where cars run singly?
3. Has the MSA Hillclimb and Sprint Sub Committee recommended this introduction of FHRs ?
4. Why is it becoming immediately mandatory from 1st January 2016 without the usual lead-in time of a ‘recommendation’ with further consultation and analysis of practical considerations ?
5. Have MSA licensed Scrutineers been consulted or approved this rule change ?
6. Motorsport carries a degree of risk which competitors choose to accept when participating. What is the justification for mandating this very expensive safety requirement, rather than advising , sharing the facts and allowing competitors to make their own judgement about the risks they wish to take.

Recommendation
SDCC would recommend that the MSA General Council should amend the decision for mandatory introduction from 1st January 2016 to that of a ‘recommendation’ with a meaningful consultation and analysis of the practical effect on grassroots motorsport particularly National B Permit events.

Without this change SDCC considers that we will be forced, in the interests of our members and the sustainability of the Curborough Sprint Course to move away from promoting MSA regulated events as its primary focus to supporting the increase of unregulated activity which after running MSA regulated events at Curborough for over 50 years would be a retrograde step.

The Club wishes to continue to support MSA regulated events and we can be available to discuss these issues at your convenience. However this decision to mandate the use of FHRs in Sprints and Hillclimbs from 1st January 2016 gives no adequate notice of implementation and does not appear to address various technical considerations regarding its practical implementation.

[Roger Ford]

Totally agree with that.

[david nelson]

Great letter. What is the MSA upto? Tyres and FHR what next? 

As a side note I have no issues with by HANS and it just takes abit longer to get sorted in the car. I realise for some compeditors this may mean they never get to the start as the are always late.

on a more serious note I think the change could be dangerous I as dual drive are as may need separate set up.

 

David

[GrahamV]

 

The letter makes some very good points .....

I also think that a badly fitting HANS device could be more dangerous than not having one:  can you imagine the twist on your neck if a safety belt slips off one side of the device?   

I have a HANS device but stopped using it until I get the belts positioned closer together to stop the straps slipping off the shoulder pads.  (Many thanks to Rob M and David N for the drawing - plate ordered - £10 at the local engineering shop - but unpainted).  

G

[Simon.Rogers]

The Plate is actually something Chris Gibbs did first whilst at the same time I had been looking at a similar solution.

Chris and I looked at producing a batch but from a business point of view it was not really worth it.

So its Chris you need to thank in the first place and someone else who revised the drawing and distributed it to many. 

Where do you think those to lads got theirs from :-)

[GrahamV]

I stand corrected ..... my thanks also to Chris Gibbs and Simon Rogers for such a simple but effective idea     

G

[cskip]

Can someone send me a copy of the template ?  I feel a winter project brewing :-)

[andysteele]

I just spotted this thread and read with interest. I did a few sprints with the club 2008 to 2010, then sold my car. I've recently come back, and bought an ex-Academy car with cage, to come back into class 1. As a 2009 car it wasn't fitted for FHR/Hans. Do I assume we fall into specialist production category and therefore it's recommended rather than mandatory?

 

 

[Shaun_E]

Depends which class you enter. Classes 1-6 fall into roadgoing specialist production so FHR recommended only. Class 7 which is non-roadgoing would be modified specialist production and FHR would be mandatory. Your Academy car, if on 1A tyres and unmodified would be class 1.

[andysteele]

Shaun, thats what i thought, thanks for confirming. Guess its just time before recommended turns into a requirement

[Simon.Rogers]

Wasn't meaning to generate thanks for me.  It was Chris G.   I just redrew the original and did some calculations for all the varrious seat driver positions.  The pick up points were varried but not by as much as you would think.  

Thats why I didn't go for it.

[sjmmarsh]

I compete in the Curborough Sprint in a CSR. At the moment it looks like next year I will need:

• Hans device
• new helmet (even if Hans not required)
• new wheels and tyres as the CR500 replacement , the ZZS will not be a list 1A tyre and there are no other rear tyres available in 245/40R15.
• revised setup for the change in ride height front and rear

As I am struggling to make the minimum 5 events for the championship sadly it looks like I will rethink my sprinting in 2016.

Steve

 

[Nigel Fox]

As I understand it Steve, you won't be compelled to use a Hans type device if you are in a road going class.

[sjmmarsh]

Nigel

Thanks, but it will come eventually. That means I either need a HANS device and use List 1B in the non-road going class (4B) or get new tyre sizes and wheels but avoid the need for HANS. 

I appreciate the tyre regs were triggered by the EU, but the MSA haven't helped by giving us guidance on what will be permitted next year. 

I'm holding out on buying new tyres for as long as I can in the hope that ZZS tyres will make it as the new List 1B. 

Steve

[Nigel Fox]

Duplicate post deleted