Printable View
And after proving the helmets were compromised, I'm 100% sure the buck will be passed in such a way as to place blame squarely on the user's installation anyway. Not sure that battle can be won without an outright "strike" of sorts. Could/Would/Will that really happen? Maybe a poll is in order as a feeler...going to go inspect my hemet as we speak...
I had been watching this and other similar threads because I will be racing next year for the first time.
When it comes down to it, even with proper installation this system compromises a helmet. The series will end up paying out big time, if not having to shut down, if/when a lawsuit comes up that shows a person became seriously injured or died BECAUSE of this device. With proper installation, then passing tech, and then person becomes injured=liability. And the helmet manufacturer will be completely in the clear.
And it makes no sense to require these things. Most of the better helmets like my Shoei have removable pads that come out to make it easier to remove the helmet to begin with.
Also, they may want to look at the requirement again before the beginning of the next season. It already looks like a good amount of people are leaving the series. New people coming in may think twice if it means having to buy another helmet or ruining a perfectly good helmet.
I for one, if it is kept as a requirement, will be buying another helmet. But it regretfully won't be a high end Shoei or Arai.
A few responses come to mind...Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke387
There aren't any certified installers anywhere on the planet (and honestly who in their right mind would sign their business up for something like that?).
Eject does not name a recommended certified installer for any race organization listed on their website.
This item simply is not made for this application since modification in some form is necessary for some helmets and therefore will never work with those road-based helmets without causing damage no matter who installs it. Further proof of the risks involved with compromising helmet safety is the simple fact that the only place on Earth (that I know of) in motorcycle road racing where this item is required is within LRRS. Take a minute to ponder that.....the ONLY place on this entire planet where motorcycle racers are required to install this device is in.........NH??
It would be outstanding to have our resident top-ranking Experts support this effort if they are of a similar opinion but I will say it again, if we learn to work this issue as a group the requirement for this item will go away. We work on this as group and LRRS will have no choice but to make it go away as they are the ones who clearly did not do their homework on this device and $tand to $uffer in $ome way $uch a$ reduced attendance or perhap$ a racer$ $trike.
**What everyone must understand and accept is that there is a very real risk of many of you not racing at Loudon for some (or all) of the 2013 season if a racers strike is a consideration. This is a very real consideration that everyone within the paddock should take the time to weigh out. A time for pure honesty within yourselves.**
That said, and going off topic here and speaking as an individual racer, I have put a lot of time into understanding the application and function of this device over the last 2+ years and was considering installing one in my 2nd year of racing. I did not install one since I did not find any supporting evidence of its merits in a motorcycle road race setting. The result of what I discovered about this device during my research caused me to eventually obtain a WERA license once the mandate for the Eject system was made official at LRRS. LRRS has never once voiced a reason as to why this item ever became a requirement and with that, I do not plan on participating at LRRS ever again as I feel we all have been disrespected on a level I simply and personally can not accept. If I had AMA-type support and had the kind of race program where no cost were spared (free tires, helmets, leathers, etc) I imagine I would have a much different view of the racing world....but I don't. I have a 13yr old MW bike because it's what I can afford. Part of my race program includes a mortgage, fixing the broken cars and going to and from work M-F. Like many others, I am a little guy and I completely realize it. I skrimp where I am able just to race slow as fast as I am able to. As many of you know how strongly I am opposed to this device, regardless of how I am conducting my race program, I am driven to see this through however the concern I have is the part where people openly set aside their differences and work this as a team.
I have no problem compiling and organizing the information so long as the racers here on this forum as well as on BoRN are open to it and participate in gathering the information required to build a proper arguement. I stand to gain nothing from this other than the satisfaction of knowing I have put forth my best effort to remove this safety hazard from the rulebook. Yeah, it really is that simple. I gain nothing other than a good night's sleep because at the end of the day many of my friends' safety has been disrupted as a result of this item.
We need to start obtaining data and creating a case for the LRRS racers. Your collective participation in this effort is the only thing that will build a solid case. If you sit on the fence because you don't want to hurt the feelings of LRRS that is entirely your choice however, please realize you are only hurting yourself albeit figuratively as it does not enhance this effort or literally if your helmet fails to protect you during a crash after this device was installed.
Step one is to take hi-res pictures of any concerns of damage and post it up.
Step two is sending your helmets to your respective mfg's for inspection and documentation. Do not look at it yourself and assume things appear okay. Spend the ~$15 and send it out for a professional opinion as well as certified documentation from the mfg.
Once the helmets are returned the effort will be on discovering the number of failures resulting from the Eject device.
If you feel this is not worth it, please say so and I won't waste my time posting. I'd say the pic Gino posted and the instance where there was a failure to inflate is a pretty good indication of the value of seeing this effort come to fruition.
I'm on board. Just a little pissed about having a potentially useless $550 helmet after a month of use.
Yeah, as was mentioned, they attempted to use my eject system (which was installed as instructions required) but the bladder would not build sufficient pressure for removal, so they had to revert to the traditional method.
Are there any NH lawyers around? After some thought, my question of liability seems more and more valid (talked to a lawyer in CT). If NH state law would side with the rider or his/her family in a liability lawsuit based on the requirement of an untested safety device without studies to show its effectiveness, AND the installation requires rendering the rest of the helmet unsafe or at least compromised, that may be enough for LRRS to rescind the requirement. The fact that they tech the helmets and deem them safe means they have accepted responsibility in its entirety.
I don't think that could really be argued. That same theory would then apply to all aspects of the tech procedure, which would then open up all kinds of lawsuits regarding responsibility and safety. For example, if the safety wire that was used was compromised or weakened and failed, or a tailsection passed tech but wasn't secured correctly and flew off, causing a crash behind...but because it all passed tech and was mandatory...kinda falls into that arguement I would think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazy Again
I know ur point is that a required safety item actually could potentially be detrimental, but so could an infinite number of other required safety measures theoretically. Bottom line is they are not really accepting responsibility for the helmets' safety, or any other prep we have done for that matter. I think what they are responsible for is requiring us, as the riders, to address it.
You sign away all rights at the gate, and participate under your own free will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazy Again
That's what they make you think anyways... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesome
As mentioned when this thread was first started, if/when something happens, it's going to be a lawyers wet dream!
For those that hate it (racer strike is the only way IMHO to make it go away..but unlikely that enough racers will do that) the good news is there are 2 new tracks starting up in the area, so NH will no longer be "the only game in town"
So lrrs is now the worst series ever according to a few racers and a lot of people who don't race.
Guys this is 1 issue compared to the 3 million good things that they have done for thebtrack and series.
You really miss the point Smutty, dont you? Its not people hate the series, in fact, I miss it more than you would ever imagine. Its more they're mandating a device that apparently does not work, AND compromises safety. All the good in the world doesnt mean much if they make you use a device that makes things less safe. Itd be like building a wall to replaces the tires in 3. "well itll keep people from crashing into 10 which could potentially create an accident."Quote:
Originally Posted by csmutty
They should build a ramp instead, so they'll just jump over the people in 10.
The should also require that everyone remove their head and keep it safely in their helmet in the garage, while their headless body completes the race. This will cut down on brain injuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by OreoGaborio
I've not once read that waiver, nor am I familiar with NH liability waiver law. I do know in other states, as a matter of public policy, that a party cannot have you waive liability based on their gross or willful negligence or intentional misconduct. Plus, although (again) I have not read the waiver, I'd be curious to see whether it might speak more towards the personal injury, than the type of property damage that is being talked about here.Quote:
Originally Posted by R7That's what they make you think anyways... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesome
As mentioned when this thread was first started, if/when something happens, it's going to be a lawyers wet dream!
I can see some of the focus being on NHMS and LRRS, but not sure why its entirely on them. Products which cause damage to person and property ... product liability claims ... generally focus on the supply chain i.e., the product designer, manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer. I know I expressed my concerns to Steve Aspland at Rising Sun Cycles LLC just before I purchased the eject system from his retail establishment. Mr. Aspland didn't bother to respond and I don't know whether he bothered to pass along my concerns down the supply chain to the manufacturer. I do know that I save everything ... including emails.
What, lawyers aren't allowed to have wet dreams?
And csmutty, I don't think anyone is saying "LRRS is now the worst series ever" ... don't be so over dramatic my friend. Nobody questions all the great things NHMS & LRRS have done for the riders, especially in recent years (except for the paint in T1a -- but I digress). As you say, this is but one issue. However, at least to me, protecting my melon is a pretty important issue (obviously, some may disagree with me, including my wife at times -- but again I digress). I think, in toto, everyone is just expressing concern and raising the issue. Heck, even at the banquet Eric (or maybe it was Tom) was expressing their desire to continue to have the riders make comment/suggestions/etc. to help better the series. If the eject system does in fact compromises helmets or doesn't work in practical applications, then getting rid of it will be better for the series. The fact that at the present time it's mandated for 2013 doesn't mean that cannot change before next April. Heck, they are always changing/modifying things.
Now, while I do question the system, I'm not yet willing to condemn the whole thing, but I have two grave concerns about it at this time: (1) it didn't work in practical application; (2) it may be compromising the protective qualities/integrity of our helmet's in two ways, (a) the "cracking of the (black) identification marking and the tube indentation into the foam" from use, and (b) just having that tube and lump under the netting (that's not designed by the manufacturer to be there) in an impact.
With regard to the first, the manufacturer should be contacted and made aware of the problem. See what they say, what improvements they intend to make to allow it to consistently perform EVERY time. If they have no suggestions or offer no improvements, I would consider their commitment to rider safety seriously in question. I'd also contact the retail establishment from which you purchased the eject system, for most of us Steve Aspland at Rising Sun Cycles LLC, and see what they say, whether they contact the manufacturer, what improvements they intend to suggest to allow the system to consistently perform EVERY time. If the retailer won't contact the manufacturer for a response or has no suggestions or offers no improvements, I would consider their commitment to rider safety seriously in question too. Any lack of commitment from the supply chain should raise all kinds of red flags to the organizations who look out for our/rider safety.
With regard to the second, I have not checked my helmet yet ... I meant to do it last night, but life got in the way. If my helmet shows the same kind of wear, I intend to send it to Arai and have them inspect and check the integrity of the helmet. I'll write a note and draw particular focus to the eject system and see if I can get a recommendation from them as to whether it should even be there in the first place.
If Arai/ShoeiAGV/HJC or whatever manufacturer comes back and says the integrity of our helmets have been compromised (due not to faulty installation of the system), then I have to think this should be an open and closed issue. If there are a number of documented failures based on this system's installation in the helmets, then it should REALLY raise all kinds of red flags to the organizations who look out for our safety.
If the manufacturer comes back and says the integrity of our helmets are not compromised, then, for now, we need only deal with the first concern ... because a safety product should work as represented and not just sometimes, but 100% of the time.
I'm willing to jump through a few hoops and send my helmet for inspection (if it shows the alleged ware), especially now that its the off season and there will be a few months of idle time. I hope others take this seriously and join in and do the same.
I heard if you slip tech a $10, they'll let you pass without eject installed....
I saw the size of this post & was like "Aw shit, here we go..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Gecko
But then I took the time to read it & thought it was very reasonable & well stated, unlike the "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!" posts on this forum.
Thanks John.
I get it. I'm just sick of all the non-racers bitching about it. I just want to race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pittenger5
And yes...that was well said John.
I thought the Eject was a good idea. After seeing the damage I'm not so sure. So...I went to look at my helmet...
My helmet has a small groove from the tube. I just emailed Arai about it. If they want me to send it in I will. We'll see what they say. Not sure where it will go but its a start.
Amen... Eject or not, i'm still going to race next year. There is no way I would strike LRRS, that is crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by csmutty
Is that what I'm doing, Pete?
whats so crazy about it? if it was founded that the eject system was/is compromising the integrity of the helmets then that seems like a really good reason to strike. its not like youre some whiny pro footballer striking so you can make an extra $20k a game.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinVT
the idea of the system is a good one. theres just a few questions that need to be answered before next season:
-we have several people saying that its denting the foam in the helmets...is this a cause for concern? if the answer to this is YES then it should definitely be revisited
-we know of at least 1 person that the device didnt work...are there any others? if the answer is YES then it needs to be revisited.
-was the device used every time EMTs removed a helmet? if the answer is NO...then why?
Re: waivers, they are only as strong as the litigation history behind them. NHMS has a very good record defending their waiver, so I'm told.
Maybe there will be a definitive answer if someone wearing one falls off the back of a golf cart at the track?
Wirelessly posted
2 people ( well, health insurance companies) have tried to sue Boston Moto. We fax over our liability waiver and we never hear from them again.
You don't understand Degs, you guys NEVER mentioned the possibility of getting an STD from pitting near Jim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Degsy