FHR (HANS) Devices becoming mandatory for CAMs events now....

Watch some members arc up about the Nanny state now.......

From July this year Frontal head restraint devices will be mandatory at all international and national circuit races, road events and off road events, except where specifically exempted due to the type of vehicle

and from 1st January 2015 all state circuit races, road events and off road events, except where specifically exempted due to the type of vehicle.

here is the link to the full article....http://www.cams.com.au/media/news/latest-news/cams-to-make-frontal-head-restraints-mandatory

At this stage it does not include speed events, sprints and  hill climbs , but if your car is fitted with the equipment to allow the proper use of a FHR then I would be looking at using one now.

I would say it is only a matter of a couple of years and they will be mandatory for all events where a vehicle is fitted with a cage, race seat and harness.

I would also like to see a ban on the use of open face helmets in motorsport, I have seen first hand what happens in a big crash where your face hits bits of car, that would have otherwise been protected by a helmet and visor.

This is a good move by CAMS. A bit late for Peter Hall though...

My only criticism is the cost of these FHS, but hopefully they will continue to drop in price.

Yep, I would agree. About time it was mandated.

Nanny state ? Possibly, but the rate of use of HANS devices (at least in the level of motorsport I compete in - sprints and regularity) is extremely low. Even with the spate of incidents / deaths reported recently that may have been avoided with a HANS. Yet the cars in these "lesser" events are going at near the same terminal velocity in sprints, and (arguably) the drivers are on average less experienced. Maybe regulation was needed if people won't buy in without it.

Cost ? yeah, but you can pick up a basic one (which from my research provides the same level of protection as more expensive ones, its just heavier / bulkier) for around $400. A helmet upgrade may add to this (my 10 year old motorbike helmet wouldn't take HANS posts, so I lashed out on a proper motorsport helmet). Is that really that much compared to the rest of the budget needed for motorsport ?

Unfortunately, the motorsport retailers in Australia will no doubt try to capitalize on pricing for these.

Check, for pricing and freight, some overseas suppliers.

Quite a few rally and circuit guys have bought from Murrays Motorsport in Ireland.

They use the Euro, and the exchange rate from our Aussie to the Euro is better than Aussie to the UK pound.

Bear in mind, the majority of USA suppliers of similar type items, will not have the FIA approvals.

And no, you cant fit posts to AS1698 helmets, no blardy idea why, the only difference in the testing is that motorcycle (AS1698) helmets do not need to be made of flammable resistant linings. The rest of the AS1698 helmet is made to same older Snell ratings.

Can fit posts in sa2005 and later helmets.

If your helmet is over 5 years old with a lot of use it maybe worth looking at upgrading anyhoo, just for safety sake.

I get no grief in updating the helmet, just why do I need the $400 paint job.... There are just some things the womenfolk don't understand......

Love how people get upset about the cost of safety......

But happy to spend thousands on weight reduction, when they're overrweight themselves!

Oh the irony

After experiencing Tom's Phillip Island inferno first hand on track, then Peter Hall's death. I went and got myself the right safety gear ASAP, without someone telling me to do so!

(and been too busy to use it since  :'()

Murrays Motorsport in Ireland.

Yep, I got my gear from Nicky Grist over there. A HANS, plus a balaclava, plus a new 6 point harness to suit the HANS, plus postage was only a hundred aussie dollars or so more than just buying the HANS here.

I did get my helmet here, wanted to be able to try it on.

Demon Tweeks are also very competitive on price.

I got my HANS club II with posts for my helmet to my door 3 days later for the same price as the earlier heavier club spec that was on special by the local suppliers in the first round of group buys last year.

I brought a new Stilo and a HAN's for Targa Wrest Point last month. Great thing, didn't even know I had it on. Looks like they will be needed for State Level rally's and open meetings soon as well.

We were told, re harnesses that you can use a normal Harness with a HAN's but you can't use a HAN's harness with out a HAN's...does that read right LOL.

Hodgo

If there is one thing in life I've learnt and that is not to rely on some 'authority' to look after your best interests, you do that yourself.

So from that philosophical viewpoint and without doing a lot of research I'll shoot from the hip and suggest that a device like the Simpson R3 may be better than a HANS, particularly in a closed road registered car doing sprints. The reason for that blasphemous comment is that the R3 provides side support as well which the HANS does not. My understanding is that with a HANS the side support is supposed to be provided elsewhere, my car does not have seat wings or anything else like that a eg V8 Supercar may have.

I suggest that CAMS have simply got on the FIA bandwagon, as they usually do, without thinking all requirements through and what may be safest for drivers in all situations. And yes I do understand that a HANS is not mandatory for sprints, yet.

I like the results that the Isaac device gives however it does not meet the HANS written SFI 38.1 and FIA 8858/2002-2010 standard as it does not release with the belts in a single action which both these standards state.

This is a good move by CAMS. A bit late for Peter Hall though...

Hi Locky,

I saw this when you posted it but have been a bit preoccupied with rebuilding the zed to respond until now.

I agree with you that this is a very good move by Cams, Whittie and I have been talking about it for some time but with the car out of action for the past four years there has been no urgency although when the end of the rebuild was within sight we both bought new helmets that are FHS complaint and Whitties research at the time clearly showed that importation of a compliant FHS device was the most economical option.

I do struggle a little with your association of the introduction of compulsory FHS to Peter Hall's tragic start line collision at Phillip Island.

We met Peter once at the 2007 PI Historic Meet when he helped us out with a lower control arm ball joint to get us back on the track when we were convinced our weekend was over so we were not surprised to later discover that he was the recipient of a OAM for services to Motor Sport.

It was some months after Peter's tragic accident that I first heard about it and thinking my leg was being seriously pulled was in total disbelief so went home and googled it only to find put that sadly it was true, the reports I read said that his car has traveling at almost race speed when it collided with the rear of a stationary vehicle on the start line and that Peter immediately went into cardiac arrest from which combined with other injury, he didn't recover.

I'm moved by Peter's passing and I expect you knew him far better than we but I do think that associating his passing with the compulsory introduction of FHS is drawing rather a long bow.

Cheers

Dad

Peter Hall suffered many injuries as a result of his accident including neck injuries. Considering he was revived at the track after his cardiac arrest a HANS device could potentially have saved his life.

A HANS gives only selective and partial protection against neck injuries, it's disappointing to see that it seems to be gaining some sort of mystical prevent all reputation. We need to be careful not to forget that safety is first and foremost to do with the driver's and car builder's ability. Primarily that's about not creating a situation which results in contact, no contact, no injury. Perhaps that aspect should be more vigorously supervised by CAMS but of course it's easier for them to require more driver's personal safety equipment.

A HANS gives only selective and partial protection against neck injuries, it's disappointing to see that it seems to be gaining some sort of mystical prevent all reputation. RUBBISH  We need to be careful not to forget that safety is first and foremost to do with the driver's and car builder's ability.YOU STILL HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT OTHER GUYS DO ON THE TRACK Primarily that's about not creating a situation which results in contact, no contact, no injury.WE ARE TALKING ABOUT STATE LEVEL RACING HERE Perhaps that aspect should be more vigorously supervised by CAMS but of course it's easier for them to require more driver's personal safety equipment.MORE RUBBISH

A great many of us will take umbrage at being legislated to do what we feel we dont need or want.

Fact

There are not very many on this forum that race, but many that participate in one car at a time/lap, or side by side lapdash against a clock, or the string of 10-15 cars proceeding out and around for 5 laps of a circuit.

You get both types of incident, one where another vehicle is involved, and one where one vehicle is involved, the end result of either type can vary greatly, from the barest minimum, to the destructive, and fatal.

In a race situation, there is so much more going on, and those that actually do it, as opposed to the armchair/keyboard types, will have a greater understanding of why CAMS are bringing this requirement into effect.

Some sprints/lapdash/hillclimbers, will "get" it, some wont.

I have a HANS, i dont like it, the discipline in which I race, i feel it is not needed, we know our fellow competitors, our cars, it is a small group ( some events there are up to 50 on track in the one grid! ).

In 2013, approx 1 in 15 wore a HANS.

The majority are grumbling negatively about "being told what to do"

That will happen.

Well said

Being at PI that day but thankfully down at turn 4 at the time as when i'm not racing still go and watch, certainly makes you have second thoughts as i didn't enter Island magic a month or so later as i didn't have a HANS yet. Have recently purchased one and this weekend will be first time back there so just hoping for a safe and fun day for all.

Rolling starts remove the real danger of standing starts, particularly where amateur drivers are involved, it is that simple. But I guess there are those with influence who don't want rolling starts for selfish reasons, this is where the human behaviour part of safety comes in but apparently the subject is verboten. Why, I wonder.

Where does rolling starts come into the fact that the FHR device will protect you in an impact? There are other things that are hit besides a car stuck on the line.

Personally, for the benefit as part of a safety system the FHR is a good thing, I have one, I have also bought a more suitable seat to make best use of it in the new car, why, well look at the photo below.....

Thanks, I think, to Shifting Focus who was in the right place at the right time, pity I wasn't.

And this was the result.....

Also the reason why I spent near 5 times on the cage for the S14 than I spent buying the shell, and why I don't get in trouble for spending on this area of my racing.

I was lucky in that impact, 140km/h into the tyres and all I got was a sore shoulder and some stiffness on the Sunday and for the next couple of days.

I have also written off a car at Amaroo, a Turner Sports 1300 (square rigger like a Lotus 7) where suspension broke and I hit a concrete wall at around 180km/h. In that crash my head went back and the back of my helmet hit the panel enclosing the rear of the car.

I have also fire marshalled for over 10 years in the 90's and early 2000's at all levels from club meetings to F1 and any improvement in driver safety I am all for.

"Those in ivory towers" as some put it, do have a clue about driver safety and are bringing in measures to make our hobby as safe as possible. I bet Jackie Stewart would have loved to have been inconvenienced with all this safety gear back in his prime where he was losing good friends every weekend.....

If the FIA and F1 bosees had listened to their drivers, the likes of Senna, and many others may well still be with us.

It is advancements, in safety, construction, etc of cars,

As well as safety being buot into the tracks.

Some tracks are pretty good, other tracks, not so, and especially with the greater ability for armchair warriors to physically get access to tracks, there are more incidents occuring.

Plenty of incidents in rolling start events all over the world, these have been conducted for many years, nothing new there.

There are some categories that run Rolling at quite a few CAMS events, around Australia, have been for some time, all at the massed drivers requests, and yes, CAMS listen and agree to them.

Good points being discussed here and we all seem to be in violent agreement about the need and benefit of FHR devices.  Taking a risk management perspective, as is my bent, personal protective equipment (read FHR) comes in pretty low on the hierarchy of risk controls. With motor sport, an adverse event  involving a high speed collision with an unmovable object, regardless whether you are racing or sprinting or from a rolling or standing start, would have to consider the likelihood as possible and on the consequence, as catastrophic.  That makes it an extreme risk.  Protective risk control strategies such as FHR, harnesses and roll cages, reduce the consequences of the risk.  Preventive risk controls, such as driver training/behavior and policing of poor diving standards, as Richard is alluding to, reduces the likelihood of the event; thus a combination of all reduces the overall risk....here, endeth the lesson!

What gets up my nose is our (CAMS's) constant acquiescence to the bloody frogs (FIA).  Why does Schedule A only authorise the use of FHR systems approved to either the FIA Standards 8858-2002/2010 or the SFI 38.1 specification (up until 2015)and that all devices must be labelled accordingly? There are many other systems available (particularly in the USA) but not all are certified to these standards and only the HANS and Hybrid systems appear have received FIA approval. I understand testing through the FIA Institute (if you wish to bow down to them) aims to standardise other products for acceptability. The U.S. Hutchens device, which anchors back to a “body vest”, seems to provide better angular impact protection (multiple load paths to dissipate head loads) and more stability because it is not reliant on the seat harness to hold the device in position.  It also doesn't have a high back to hook on the roll cage bars on exit, which I think Jason was complaining about. This system is accepted by USA motor sport sanctioning bodies, but alas, not the lords in France. So hopeful sense will prevail over politics and our choice of device may expand; but I'm not holding my breath! Viva la revolution!

Dale Earnhardt was opposed to FHR and was he's reputed to say "I'm not wearing that dang noose around my neck". Sadly it was his very crash and death that made Hans and alike manditory in Nascar.

Ya wanna read all the opposing discussion over on the various dirt rally forums.

These guys are getting rammed down their throughts, " comply or dont compete"

That will filter through to other CAMS sport diciplines.

As it has already done so.

Already the specific regulation has had one rather confusing amendment by CAMS.

What Mike said ^ particularly with CAMS slavishly following the FIA when it should be obvious that the FIA is not the be all and end all of motorsport safety. We in Australia can pick and choose from the best in the world yet CAMS puts it's blinkers on and subjects us all to the whims of the FIA. Where is the sense in that? Please explain.

As FIA standards are used globally (with the exception of North America), following FIA makes it easier for race organisers, stewards and racers to just follow one particular set of safety standards... Imagine how long and complex scruitineering would take if CAMS picked and chose the safety standards that suit them best at one particular point in time.