FHR (HANS) Devices becoming mandatory for CAMs events now....
Posted 15 April 2014 - 02:12 PM
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!
Posted 15 April 2014 - 03:43 PM
Posted 15 April 2014 - 05:25 PM
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.
Posted 16 April 2014 - 08:01 AM
Posted 16 April 2014 - 10:47 AM
Posted 16 April 2014 - 10:59 AM
It's an optional thing, many at the top echelons of the sport do use them.
Why not further down,,,,,?
The FIA realise that the sheer numbers of competitors would simply dig heels in, and tell the Froggies to go jump.
Why Australia,? All to do with insurance premiums and reducing risk to insurance companies, thats simply it.
Old mate who runs Lakeside R/way in Qld, a teack CAMS refuses to be involved in, and is accredited as being a dangerous track, now due to zero upgrades in safety implementations, has reduced his expisure to risk, via insurance, by implementing a mandatory FHR requirement.
First old mate,,, then who jumps on the horsecart,,,, CAMS!
It's not an FIA mandate, they just offer testing, and other admin stuff.
Oh, and do we all know the difference between an AS1698 and a Snell rated helmet???
The AS1698 has flammable materials for the lining, Snell, does not allow that.
The rest of the helmet, is to the exact same minimum standards.
But CAMS wont allow a AS1698 to be used with FHR, as they are adopting the FIA testing, that have simply not tested AS1698 helmets,,,,,, ever!
Posted 17 April 2014 - 07:38 PM
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.
Don't understand the point seeing that we have to comply with CAMS rules as laid out by them and only them. What country/body the rules originate from is irrelevant to us for that purpose.
Posted 18 April 2014 - 12:05 PM
Posted 18 April 2014 - 04:46 PM
Posted 18 April 2014 - 05:14 PM
They often let a little badge, a yellow vest, or a blue shirt go to their heads far too often.
What would enamour a competitor far more, would be, a scrutineer who took you quietly off to one side, explained things, and give you some grace or allowance,,,,, if you are trying to do, or been seen trying to do,, the right thing.
Unfortunately, this does no longer happen.
It used to, and when i was a scrut, i did this, quite often.
The last thing anyone wants is either a argumentative competitor, as well as a little Hitler, it stuffs it up for everyone.
All this talk above,,, why dont you form your own motorsport authourity or body, and do things the way you want to, without all this restriction, brick walls, or red tape.
Could'nt that hard, surely.
Posted 19 April 2014 - 10:08 AM
Yes I agree we can't have a hotch potch of rules and regulations as that would be way too difficult to police. But what about a performance based regulation rather than a prescriptive one.
The Building Code of Australia allows you to pursue two options - the "deemed to comply" (prescribed) or the "alternative engineered solution" (performance based). The onus is on you to demonstrate to the powers that be, that your solution complies fully with the intent and meets or exceeds the prescribed solution. Let's take roll cages as an example. They are a finite structure. The CAMS manual is highly prescriptive about the design and installation. Application of finite element analysis can absolutely quantify structural integrity/strength of any prescribed cage in any vehicle within the confines of the class rules e.g.6 point not extending through the firewall etc.. A performance based approach could result in a stronger, safer, cheaper, lighter cage that does the same or better job. That's got to be good and if it's analysed by your engineer on a mandated analysis software to CAMS satisfaction what is the problem? This is becoming more pertinent with the introduction composites into production car manufacture. It seems ridiculous to bolt dirty black plumbing pipe into a McLaren MP12C, for example.
So if CAMS are serious about our safety they should be looking at ALL options, not just FIA mandated requirements.
Posted 19 April 2014 - 12:16 PM
There are clubs with CAMS affil, that have websites/forums, with decent member number bases, that CAMS does actually monitor, and they, amazingly, sometimes listen to their members, and act.
Hence the recent amendment to the FHR rules recently re-written, allowing the short term use of some, not all, but some of the alternate FHR units.
The drama with SFI standards, as far as FIA goes, is the testing procedures are not the "same" and the dating of life of items is not the same.
ROPS ( cages) are a different ballgame, i strongly feel that the RPS unit should tie into front towers via firewall, and there should be more triangulation, less thicker heavier barring, but not all ROPS builders are conversant with FEA modelling or construction.
That then gives rise to the "cant teach old dog new tricks, or even change his spots" as far as the heirarchy and the way CAMS operates, or lays down their laws.
The FIA as well as the USA bodies, and even MSNZ, ARE flexible, will listen, and do sometimes "get" what their members/competitors are on about.
The recent diatribe from the new CAMS CEO, in regards to the top levels of motorsport in Aus, has very much peeved many people off, those at the grassroots, ie us lot.
But we are stuck with them, its a private club, you cant vote them out, or call for replacements.
Posted 19 April 2014 - 12:21 PM
I can pay $200 to QRO ( note this isnt AASA anymore) and race, not sprints, but door to door, at three "historic" intent meetings in 2014.
Why bother with CAMS?
They know there is an issue re members leaving, but it is a "local" ie Queensland thing, and do not care about losing a hundred or so members.
Posted 19 April 2014 - 06:33 PM
So we have a bit more flexibility here in NZ but with much smaller population and therefore pool of motorsport members/competitors then I guess they might have to be or numbers could be much smaller and less financial. These factors might be why we are lucky and have more flexibility.
Posted 17 May 2014 - 04:43 PM
It would seem some on here adopt opinions, with no basis of fact.
Nothing new. Opinionated types are all knowing fonts.
FIA may be in the background, but it would seem most likely CAMS has adopted a recomendation, based on the above findings.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users