| blue blurr | 02-18-2006 12:34 AM |
Speaking of roll bars I just got mine today, plan to weld it in as soon as I get a harness.
[IMG]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b130/blueblurr1/IMG_7447.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b130/blueblurr1/IMG_7447.jpg[/IMG]
| davis10 | 02-18-2006 04:11 AM |
this one looks more like a rool bar than anything else and thats what matters, people have been refering to it as a roll cage or somthing and it isnt
| bjorn240 | 02-18-2006 12:44 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]Isaac did the more difficult offset test, why spend capital on the less difficult test[/QUOTE]
the Isaac site claims that the device "meets SFI 38.1 performance levels" yet SFI 38.1 requires a three 70G frontal impacts with a neck tension less than 4000N? I'm not sure how I reconcile those statements.
Ultimately, there are two reasons I'd like to know the data for a frontal impact on the Isaac:
1) Less seriously, given the attachment method of the Isaac to the belts, I'd be concerned about the belt attachment sliding down the belts in a frontal accident.
2) And a greater concern, given the non-horizontal position of the reaction links at rest, I'd be concerned that the Isaac would have the same problems on the test as the original Hutchens device.
And btw, I don't have any stake in this game - I'm a racer just like turboICE. Unlike turboICE, I'm don't think we've got all the data to make a clear comparison of the benefits of the different H&N devices.
- Christian
the Isaac site claims that the device "meets SFI 38.1 performance levels" yet SFI 38.1 requires a three 70G frontal impacts with a neck tension less than 4000N? I'm not sure how I reconcile those statements.
Ultimately, there are two reasons I'd like to know the data for a frontal impact on the Isaac:
1) Less seriously, given the attachment method of the Isaac to the belts, I'd be concerned about the belt attachment sliding down the belts in a frontal accident.
2) And a greater concern, given the non-horizontal position of the reaction links at rest, I'd be concerned that the Isaac would have the same problems on the test as the original Hutchens device.
And btw, I don't have any stake in this game - I'm a racer just like turboICE. Unlike turboICE, I'm don't think we've got all the data to make a clear comparison of the benefits of the different H&N devices.
- Christian
| turboICE | 02-18-2006 01:08 PM |
I agree all the data isn't available and more data would be beneficial. However, Isaac is not the only product that has less data than desired, others have data that they won't even give you why not request for their data? At least all of Isaac's data is available - and much more other information than sled results are available for Isaac than others. More Isaac data wouldn't change your options I don't think, I would concentrate data sufficiency criticism on options that matter. You only run in RA sanctioned events right? Isaac's expenditure of additional capital more sled runs won't get them certified anyway, can be better spent elsewhere at this time I would think. You want them to spend money on something that has no impact on your options, whereas others have spent the money and have data they are withholding that does impact your options.
On your two questions, the belt attachment absolutely would slide down the belts in a frontal accident even more than in the offset. They are intended to do so. Read the instructions for installation you are supposed to have free travel of at least 12" on the belt so that they can travel down the belt. Keep in mind there is no desire to restrain the position of the head to the car - you want to restrain the position of the head to the relative position of the torso, after all you want your head to remain attached to your torso not to the car.
Isaac's biomechanical computer modelling using the best computing power available to this area resulted in actual vs modeled results within 20-40N of each other (with actual lower stresses than modeled IIRC). As long as Isaac remains an option for me - I am satisfied that their frontal impact modeling is as valid as their offset modeling was shown to be by their sled run. People were using all sorts of restraints with much less information available than that and still are doing so even with certification they aren't forthcoming with data to compare.
I have read everything anyone has put out on the topic that I have been able to get my hands on - including patent applications that I can find. While more data availability would be desirable - have you read what is already out there for each product you considered? Though still confused why it would matter to you since in any circumstance in RA Isaac is not an option for you.
On your two questions, the belt attachment absolutely would slide down the belts in a frontal accident even more than in the offset. They are intended to do so. Read the instructions for installation you are supposed to have free travel of at least 12" on the belt so that they can travel down the belt. Keep in mind there is no desire to restrain the position of the head to the car - you want to restrain the position of the head to the relative position of the torso, after all you want your head to remain attached to your torso not to the car.
Isaac's biomechanical computer modelling using the best computing power available to this area resulted in actual vs modeled results within 20-40N of each other (with actual lower stresses than modeled IIRC). As long as Isaac remains an option for me - I am satisfied that their frontal impact modeling is as valid as their offset modeling was shown to be by their sled run. People were using all sorts of restraints with much less information available than that and still are doing so even with certification they aren't forthcoming with data to compare.
I have read everything anyone has put out on the topic that I have been able to get my hands on - including patent applications that I can find. While more data availability would be desirable - have you read what is already out there for each product you considered? Though still confused why it would matter to you since in any circumstance in RA Isaac is not an option for you.
| BLK REX | 02-18-2006 01:45 PM |
[QUOTE=blue blurr]Speaking of roll bars I just got mine today, plan to weld it in as soon as I get a harness.
[IMG]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b130/blueblurr1/IMG_7447.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
The box that thing came in mustve been rediculously huge.
[IMG]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b130/blueblurr1/IMG_7447.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
The box that thing came in mustve been rediculously huge.
| turboICE | 02-18-2006 01:50 PM |
It comes strapped to a plat and the rear legs aren't bolted on for shipping.
| bjorn240 | 02-18-2006 05:38 PM |
BTW, TurboICE, should I interpret your post to indicate that the Isaac has not been subjected to a head-on test?
- Christian
- Christian
| gbaker | 02-18-2006 06:43 PM |
We have not crashed the Isaac system in a head-on sled test. Those are for girly men.
It has been well established from the research literature and computer modeling that the highest head loads nearly always occur in the offset test, so why bother with a head-on?
There is not a snowball's chance in hell that the Isaac system would register Fz loads > 3kN on that test. Anyone who thinks otherwise can grab their wallet and meet us at the Delphi lab.
It has been well established from the research literature and computer modeling that the highest head loads nearly always occur in the offset test, so why bother with a head-on?
There is not a snowball's chance in hell that the Isaac system would register Fz loads > 3kN on that test. Anyone who thinks otherwise can grab their wallet and meet us at the Delphi lab.
| griplimited | 02-18-2006 07:19 PM |
ok. didn't check back and saw my error. yes, i indeed meant to say "not". sorry for the error, changes the whole thing, lol.
| AlexP | 02-18-2006 09:54 PM |
[QUOTE=gbaker]We have not crashed the Isaac system in a head-on sled test. Those are for girly men.
[/quote]
This is a very poor attempt at humor.
[quote=gbaker]It has been well established from the research literature and computer modeling that the highest head loads nearly always occur in the offset test, so why bother with a head-on?
[/QUOTE]
So you ask "why bother with a head on?".... Let me answer that by quoting the same exact sentence in which you ask that:
[I]It has been well established from the research literature and computer modeling that the highest head loads [B]nearly always[/B] occur in the offset test[/I]
"nearly always" is NOT always. This post has inspired me to buy a HANS. Thank you for making the decision an easy one.
[/quote]
This is a very poor attempt at humor.
[quote=gbaker]It has been well established from the research literature and computer modeling that the highest head loads nearly always occur in the offset test, so why bother with a head-on?
[/QUOTE]
So you ask "why bother with a head on?".... Let me answer that by quoting the same exact sentence in which you ask that:
[I]It has been well established from the research literature and computer modeling that the highest head loads [B]nearly always[/B] occur in the offset test[/I]
"nearly always" is NOT always. This post has inspired me to buy a HANS. Thank you for making the decision an easy one.
| blue blurr | 02-18-2006 11:14 PM |
It is actually just free. It's covered in platic wrap/foam from head to toe.
| trhoppe | 02-18-2006 11:34 PM |
[QUOTE=gbaker]It has been well established from the research literature and computer modeling that the highest head loads nearly always occur in the offset test, so why bother with a head-on.[/QUOTE]
You know, I thought about buying an Isaac, I was leaning towards the HANS like I said earlier in the thread as I'm worried about my H&N device being outlawed by the sanctioning body. This kind of attitude though has also swayed me towards a HANS. You cannot be cocky without even testing a safety device that is designed to maybe save my life. Thats retarded and you cost yourself at least 1 sale with your retarded post.
-Tom
You know, I thought about buying an Isaac, I was leaning towards the HANS like I said earlier in the thread as I'm worried about my H&N device being outlawed by the sanctioning body. This kind of attitude though has also swayed me towards a HANS. You cannot be cocky without even testing a safety device that is designed to maybe save my life. Thats retarded and you cost yourself at least 1 sale with your retarded post.
-Tom
| M. Hurst | 02-18-2006 11:51 PM |
[QUOTE=gbaker]It has been well established from the research literature and computer modeling that the highest head loads nearly always occur in the offset test, so why bother with a head-on?
[/QUOTE]
You make this claim on your website:
[I]"The Isaac� head and neck restraint system meets or exceeds the performance requirements of SFI Specification 38.1."[/I]
38.1 does not allow arithmetic or theoretical "research literature and computer modeling" as proof to meet the performance specification. [B]38.1 "performance requirements" require acceptable results from both frontal and offset testing[/B], not computer modeling or printed theory.
This is a piece of safety equipment intended to protect human life, not some insignificant piece of bling. Please skip the conspiracy theories, jokes, wager talk, spin, and test the product in a head-on impact!
Forget the SFI, FIA, (If you don't agree with the SFI standards, why do you claim to meet them?, and the FIA has mandated HANS only), invite reprentatives from the media: Grassroots Motorsports, Car & Driver, etc., and clubs (Nasa, PCA, SCCA, etc) as witnesses to a test at Delphi and prove your claims. The other manufacturers don't do this, but conspiracy or not, they have the SFI certification and FIA approval instead, and that is not an avenue for you.
There was enough capital for you to test the HANS, right?
[/QUOTE]
You make this claim on your website:
[I]"The Isaac� head and neck restraint system meets or exceeds the performance requirements of SFI Specification 38.1."[/I]
38.1 does not allow arithmetic or theoretical "research literature and computer modeling" as proof to meet the performance specification. [B]38.1 "performance requirements" require acceptable results from both frontal and offset testing[/B], not computer modeling or printed theory.
This is a piece of safety equipment intended to protect human life, not some insignificant piece of bling. Please skip the conspiracy theories, jokes, wager talk, spin, and test the product in a head-on impact!
Forget the SFI, FIA, (If you don't agree with the SFI standards, why do you claim to meet them?, and the FIA has mandated HANS only), invite reprentatives from the media: Grassroots Motorsports, Car & Driver, etc., and clubs (Nasa, PCA, SCCA, etc) as witnesses to a test at Delphi and prove your claims. The other manufacturers don't do this, but conspiracy or not, they have the SFI certification and FIA approval instead, and that is not an avenue for you.
There was enough capital for you to test the HANS, right?
| greg donovan | 02-19-2006 09:07 AM |
n/m..
| gbaker | 02-19-2006 12:04 PM |
[QUOTE=M. Hurst]...Please skip the conspiracy theories, jokes, wager talk, spin, and test the product in a head-on impact!...[/QUOTE]Why? What would we learn that we don't already know? It's going to come in between 1.5kN and 2.5kN--well below the 3.0kN limit.
[quote]...invite reprentatives from the media: Grassroots Motorsports, Car & Driver, etc., and clubs (Nasa, PCA, SCCA, etc) as witnesses to a test at Delphi and prove your claims. The other manufacturers don't do this...[/quote]
Exactly. What proof do you have that any of these other products have passed any test? Because SFI "certified" them? Did SFI tell you how many times the product [i]failed[/i] the test? Does it work 100% of the time? 10%? 1%? 0.01%? Ever seen a video from SFI?
And FIA doesn't even have a test, last time we checked.
[quote]There was enough capital for you to test the HANS, right?[/QUOTE]
We wouldn't do it if it were free. Why waste the time?
Look gentlemen, it's very simple. The Isaac system is not certifiable because of reasons having nothing to do with performance, and it won't be until the Spec changes. No rational person would waste any resources fine tuning a sled value that is well under the pass/fail limit.
[quote]...invite reprentatives from the media: Grassroots Motorsports, Car & Driver, etc., and clubs (Nasa, PCA, SCCA, etc) as witnesses to a test at Delphi and prove your claims. The other manufacturers don't do this...[/quote]
Exactly. What proof do you have that any of these other products have passed any test? Because SFI "certified" them? Did SFI tell you how many times the product [i]failed[/i] the test? Does it work 100% of the time? 10%? 1%? 0.01%? Ever seen a video from SFI?
And FIA doesn't even have a test, last time we checked.
[quote]There was enough capital for you to test the HANS, right?[/QUOTE]
We wouldn't do it if it were free. Why waste the time?
Look gentlemen, it's very simple. The Isaac system is not certifiable because of reasons having nothing to do with performance, and it won't be until the Spec changes. No rational person would waste any resources fine tuning a sled value that is well under the pass/fail limit.
| bjorn240 | 02-19-2006 12:58 PM |
[QUOTE=gbaker]We wouldn't do it if it were free. Why waste the time?
[/QUOTE]
Because the reaction links are not horizontal at rest, just like the original Hutchens. I think it'll fail the test. You think it will pass. Who's to say?
[/QUOTE]
Because the reaction links are not horizontal at rest, just like the original Hutchens. I think it'll fail the test. You think it will pass. Who's to say?
| cooleyjb | 02-19-2006 01:05 PM |
A word of advice gbaker--
Stop digging a bigger hole. Your inflammatory posts aren't helping sell your product. As is quite obvious from earlier posts you are losing sales because of stubborness and reactionary posts.
Take what people here say as ideas to work with. We are your POTENTIAL customers. Listen to our concerns. If you do that you'll get more of us to listen.
Stop digging a bigger hole. Your inflammatory posts aren't helping sell your product. As is quite obvious from earlier posts you are losing sales because of stubborness and reactionary posts.
Take what people here say as ideas to work with. We are your POTENTIAL customers. Listen to our concerns. If you do that you'll get more of us to listen.
| gbaker | 02-19-2006 01:10 PM |
[QUOTE=cooleyjb]A word of advice gbaker--
Stop digging a bigger hole. Your inflammatory posts aren't helping sell your product. As is quite obvious from earlier posts you are losing sales because of stubborness and reactionary posts.
Take what people here say as ideas to work with. We are your POTENTIAL customers. Listen to our concerns. If you do that you'll get more of us to listen.[/QUOTE]Good point. Thank you.
The issue seems to be one of credibility, i.e. some of you are of the opinion that I don't know what I am talking about. I'll address that in the next post.
Stop digging a bigger hole. Your inflammatory posts aren't helping sell your product. As is quite obvious from earlier posts you are losing sales because of stubborness and reactionary posts.
Take what people here say as ideas to work with. We are your POTENTIAL customers. Listen to our concerns. If you do that you'll get more of us to listen.[/QUOTE]Good point. Thank you.
The issue seems to be one of credibility, i.e. some of you are of the opinion that I don't know what I am talking about. I'll address that in the next post.
| gbaker | 02-19-2006 01:19 PM |
[QUOTE=bjorn240]Because the reaction links are not horizontal at rest, just like the original Hutchens. I think it'll fail the test. You think it will pass. Who's to say?[/QUOTE]
Dr. John Melvin, Dr. Paul Begeman, Dr. Hubert Gramling...
When we ran our first crash test we asked for a head on impact. Dr. Melvin said no, the 30 degree offset was more severe. He made the same comment to me at the Delphi lab when we were testing Jay Wright's design. Paraphrasing, "You may as well do the offset. If you can pass that you can pass the other."
This is a fact we are dealing with. It is not a theory. I'm sorry if the readers are not aware of it, but it's not worthy of debate and we are all wasting our time with this nonsense.
If you think I am wrong, then you think Dr. Melvin is wrong.
Dr. John Melvin, Dr. Paul Begeman, Dr. Hubert Gramling...
When we ran our first crash test we asked for a head on impact. Dr. Melvin said no, the 30 degree offset was more severe. He made the same comment to me at the Delphi lab when we were testing Jay Wright's design. Paraphrasing, "You may as well do the offset. If you can pass that you can pass the other."
This is a fact we are dealing with. It is not a theory. I'm sorry if the readers are not aware of it, but it's not worthy of debate and we are all wasting our time with this nonsense.
If you think I am wrong, then you think Dr. Melvin is wrong.
| M. Hurst | 02-19-2006 02:04 PM |
The hole gets deeeper?
�
�
Are you saying that John Melvin and Hubert Gramling have told you that a frontal test is not necessary to prove your product's worth?
I have forwarded your claims to Mr. Gramling and Dr. Melvin.
I have forwarded your claims to Mr. Gramling and Dr. Melvin.
| cooleyjb | 02-19-2006 04:06 PM |
[QUOTE=gbaker]Dr. John Melvin, Dr. Paul Begeman, Dr. Hubert Gramling...
When we ran our first crash test we asked for a head on impact. Dr. Melvin said no, the 30 degree offset was more severe. He made the same comment to me at the Delphi lab when we were testing Jay Wright's design. Paraphrasing, "You may as well do the offset. If you can pass that you can pass the other."
This is a fact we are dealing with. It is not a theory. I'm sorry if the readers are not aware of it, but it's not worthy of debate and we are all wasting our time with this nonsense.
If you think I am wrong, then you think Dr. Melvin is wrong.[/QUOTE]
Thats just bad science. This is probably what the Michelin Tire engineers were saying to eachother when they were on their way to the Brickyard last year.
As a business you should never compromise 'just because'.
A better way to test a product like yours in my opinion is to find out when it fails and not make general statements like "it should pass the other test" At what level of impact does the Isaac restraint no longer provide adequate protection.
I'm not sure what adequate protection is and what kind of tests would need to be run but if I was running a test I'd run it to the maximum point I could and not worry so much about saying we are better than Brand X all the time.
When we ran our first crash test we asked for a head on impact. Dr. Melvin said no, the 30 degree offset was more severe. He made the same comment to me at the Delphi lab when we were testing Jay Wright's design. Paraphrasing, "You may as well do the offset. If you can pass that you can pass the other."
This is a fact we are dealing with. It is not a theory. I'm sorry if the readers are not aware of it, but it's not worthy of debate and we are all wasting our time with this nonsense.
If you think I am wrong, then you think Dr. Melvin is wrong.[/QUOTE]
Thats just bad science. This is probably what the Michelin Tire engineers were saying to eachother when they were on their way to the Brickyard last year.
As a business you should never compromise 'just because'.
A better way to test a product like yours in my opinion is to find out when it fails and not make general statements like "it should pass the other test" At what level of impact does the Isaac restraint no longer provide adequate protection.
I'm not sure what adequate protection is and what kind of tests would need to be run but if I was running a test I'd run it to the maximum point I could and not worry so much about saying we are better than Brand X all the time.
| AlexP | 02-19-2006 06:11 PM |
[QUOTE=gbaker]
We wouldn't do it if it were free. Why waste the time?
[/QUOTE]
Because you claim on your website that your product meets the SFI 38.1 performance requirements, yet in reality it has NEVER meet those requirements because it's never been tested with the SFI 38.1 head-on test.
You've been caught in a lie, Mr. Baker.
We wouldn't do it if it were free. Why waste the time?
[/QUOTE]
Because you claim on your website that your product meets the SFI 38.1 performance requirements, yet in reality it has NEVER meet those requirements because it's never been tested with the SFI 38.1 head-on test.
You've been caught in a lie, Mr. Baker.
| wrxzboost | 02-19-2006 06:52 PM |
ummm...i think the cusco cage looks sweet!
| STiMULi | 02-19-2006 06:56 PM |
Bolt on though...
Now about those H&N restrants, what are they for again :)
Now about those H&N restrants, what are they for again :)
| turboICE | 02-21-2006 09:50 AM |
[QUOTE=cooleyjb]At what level of impact does the Isaac restraint no longer provide adequate protection.[/QUOTE]Why would you want Isaac to perform this testing when 1) no matter how well it does, do to items unrelated to maintaining head to torso integrity it would not receive SFI and 2) no product you are using or have considered using has done this. If they have show me one with results - at what level of impact does Hans no longer provide adequate protection I guarantee if they actually do know - it won't be made public.
If that is a standard that is important to you than every standard making body and manufacturer has failed you. I can't find a single snippit about at what level of impact or other relevant metric any safety equipment no longer provides adequate protection - with the possible exception of fire suit ratings and their seconds until crispy system.
If that is a standard that is important to you than every standard making body and manufacturer has failed you. I can't find a single snippit about at what level of impact or other relevant metric any safety equipment no longer provides adequate protection - with the possible exception of fire suit ratings and their seconds until crispy system.
| turboICE | 02-21-2006 09:55 AM |
OK and why with all these experts, who are only posting in the interest of open discussion and helping each other understand pluses and deltas can't a single one respond to my question?
[QUOTE=turboICE][quote]2.4 The Head and Neck Restraint System must be designed and manufactured to allow freedom of movement of head, torso, arms, etc., commensurate with operating a race vehicle under all race and associated conditions.[/quote]
I and others have tried HANS on - it definitely does not meet the operation of a race vehicle requirement when installed per manufacturer instructions. SFI 38.1 provides no way to quantify this. What determines that this requirement was met manufacturer representation? Is that the level of quality you want in your standard - the manufacturer represents that it allows the freedom to operate your race vehicle under all race and associated conditions with no third party evaluation? What happens when you are sliding 90* to the direction of desired travel and you are trying to correct and you can't see what you are going to correct into because you don't have the freedom to turn your neck more than 25* or so?
[quote]2.5 Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations.[/quote]
OK, I have just released the seat belts and with no other motion how has the HANS been disengaged from a dual belt system? Is some sort of internal mag-lev system in the yoke going to slide the belts under and over the yoke, off of the yoke?
Keep in mind that while I have in no way suggested that anyone else's safety should be sacrificed based on my views - many of you are suggesting that my safety be sacrificed based on yours.[/QUOTE]
And where are everyone else's numbers for their SFI testing?
Come on someone tell me how I would be unequivocally safer utilizing a Hans unit rather than Isaac's?
The Flame fest against a manufacturer which most of you posting can not even utilize no matter how much money they throw at a sled test, have yet to answer questions regarding the suitability of your prefered solution.
[QUOTE=turboICE][quote]2.4 The Head and Neck Restraint System must be designed and manufactured to allow freedom of movement of head, torso, arms, etc., commensurate with operating a race vehicle under all race and associated conditions.[/quote]
I and others have tried HANS on - it definitely does not meet the operation of a race vehicle requirement when installed per manufacturer instructions. SFI 38.1 provides no way to quantify this. What determines that this requirement was met manufacturer representation? Is that the level of quality you want in your standard - the manufacturer represents that it allows the freedom to operate your race vehicle under all race and associated conditions with no third party evaluation? What happens when you are sliding 90* to the direction of desired travel and you are trying to correct and you can't see what you are going to correct into because you don't have the freedom to turn your neck more than 25* or so?
[quote]2.5 Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations.[/quote]
OK, I have just released the seat belts and with no other motion how has the HANS been disengaged from a dual belt system? Is some sort of internal mag-lev system in the yoke going to slide the belts under and over the yoke, off of the yoke?
Keep in mind that while I have in no way suggested that anyone else's safety should be sacrificed based on my views - many of you are suggesting that my safety be sacrificed based on yours.[/QUOTE]
And where are everyone else's numbers for their SFI testing?
Come on someone tell me how I would be unequivocally safer utilizing a Hans unit rather than Isaac's?
The Flame fest against a manufacturer which most of you posting can not even utilize no matter how much money they throw at a sled test, have yet to answer questions regarding the suitability of your prefered solution.
| turboICE | 02-21-2006 09:57 AM |
[QUOTE=AlexP]You've been caught in a lie, Mr. Baker.[/QUOTE]Not even close it has been well documented since they did the offset and announced those results, that the head on test had not been performed. This is not a just discovered fact on this thread - it has been an open public fact since the offset test was announced.
| cooleyjb | 02-21-2006 10:02 AM |
[QUOTE=turboICE] I can't find a single snippit about at what level of impact or other relevant metric any safety equipment no longer provides adequate protection - with the possible exception of fire suit ratings seconds until crispy.[/QUOTE]
Hey that's an example but not really my point
My point was to gbaker about testing. Why test to meet the expectations in every way. Why not go above and beyond. He brags about how well it does in testing. Show me something that is absolutely amazing and then use that to help change the rulings if they need to be changed. But right now the graphs I saw did not show the Isaac was markedly better than a correctly installed tightly pulled HANS.
For example if something meets safety levels at point x it will pass the safety rating. What happens at point x+1. What if that is the failure point. What if the failure point was x+150 but everyone elses was at x+65. That is a heck of difference that could sway people.
I've heard of instances where things are tested until they break just to see how far they can go. Car engines, airplane wings for takeoff and landing cycles, plastic forks, tires etc.
Wouldn't you like to know where the breaking points is. Wouldn't you like to know that you had a bit larger margin of safety?
Hey that's an example but not really my point
My point was to gbaker about testing. Why test to meet the expectations in every way. Why not go above and beyond. He brags about how well it does in testing. Show me something that is absolutely amazing and then use that to help change the rulings if they need to be changed. But right now the graphs I saw did not show the Isaac was markedly better than a correctly installed tightly pulled HANS.
For example if something meets safety levels at point x it will pass the safety rating. What happens at point x+1. What if that is the failure point. What if the failure point was x+150 but everyone elses was at x+65. That is a heck of difference that could sway people.
I've heard of instances where things are tested until they break just to see how far they can go. Car engines, airplane wings for takeoff and landing cycles, plastic forks, tires etc.
Wouldn't you like to know where the breaking points is. Wouldn't you like to know that you had a bit larger margin of safety?
| akuhner | 02-21-2006 10:05 AM |
Here's something I'm not following in this thread - the whole "why test it when..." idea. Why test it!? If the manufacturer believes in his product and wants it to save lives, and wants it to be approved (eventually), he will unquestionably cough up any amount of money necessary to perform the most accurate and real world testing possible. Of course the cost of doing so would have to go back into the price of the product, and he might have to secure a loan or get investors to pay for extensive testing. If he goes through all that and it's still not approved there's a chance he'd have to take losses on the investment made for testing. That's business.
If the manufacturer doesn't believe in his product enough to pay for the best, most accurate testing... then neither do I.
If the manufacturer doesn't believe in his product enough to pay for the best, most accurate testing... then neither do I.
| cooleyjb | 02-21-2006 10:07 AM |
[QUOTE=Car #187]Here's something I'm not following in this thread - the whole "why test it when..." idea. Why test it!? If the manufacturer believes in his product and wants it to save lives, and wants it to be approved (eventually), he will unquestionably cough up any amount of money necessary to perform the most accurate and real world testing possible. Of course the cost of doing so would have to go back into the price of the product, and he might have to secure a loan or get investors to pay for extensive testing. If he goes through all that and it's still not approved there's a chance he'd have to take losses on the investment made for testing. That's business.
If the manufacturer doesn't believe in his product enough to pay for the best, most accurate testing... then neither do I.[/QUOTE]
This makes me think of Bill Simpson going to everyone......
"oh yeah, my firesuit is the best and I'll prove it"
Later he is covered in flames sitting 'calmly' while wearing the suit.
I bet a few people bought his suit the day they saw that video.
If the manufacturer doesn't believe in his product enough to pay for the best, most accurate testing... then neither do I.[/QUOTE]
This makes me think of Bill Simpson going to everyone......
"oh yeah, my firesuit is the best and I'll prove it"
Later he is covered in flames sitting 'calmly' while wearing the suit.
I bet a few people bought his suit the day they saw that video.
| turboICE | 02-21-2006 10:13 AM |
[QUOTE=gbaker]Dr. John Melvin, Dr. Paul Begeman, Dr. Hubert Gramling...
When we ran our first crash test we asked for a head on impact. Dr. Melvin said no, the 30 degree offset was more severe. He made the same comment to me at the Delphi lab when we were testing Jay Wright's design. Paraphrasing, "You may as well do the offset. If you can pass that you can pass the other."
This is a fact we are dealing with. It is not a theory. I'm sorry if the readers are not aware of it, but it's not worthy of debate and we are all wasting our time with this nonsense.
If you think I am wrong, then you think Dr. Melvin is wrong.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=M. Hurst]Are you saying that John Melvin and Hubert Gramling have told you that a frontal test is not necessary to prove your product's worth?
I have forwarded your claims to Mr. Gramling and Dr. Melvin.[/QUOTE]
Is reading comprehension that low on NASIOC that is not what he wrote. If you pass offset you will pass head on was what he wrote. IOW if you only are going to do one test at this time do the offset.
When we ran our first crash test we asked for a head on impact. Dr. Melvin said no, the 30 degree offset was more severe. He made the same comment to me at the Delphi lab when we were testing Jay Wright's design. Paraphrasing, "You may as well do the offset. If you can pass that you can pass the other."
This is a fact we are dealing with. It is not a theory. I'm sorry if the readers are not aware of it, but it's not worthy of debate and we are all wasting our time with this nonsense.
If you think I am wrong, then you think Dr. Melvin is wrong.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=M. Hurst]Are you saying that John Melvin and Hubert Gramling have told you that a frontal test is not necessary to prove your product's worth?
I have forwarded your claims to Mr. Gramling and Dr. Melvin.[/QUOTE]
Is reading comprehension that low on NASIOC that is not what he wrote. If you pass offset you will pass head on was what he wrote. IOW if you only are going to do one test at this time do the offset.
| turboICE | 02-21-2006 10:16 AM |
[QUOTE=cooleyjb]Wouldn't you like to know where the breaking points is. Wouldn't you like to know that you had a bit larger margin of safety?[/QUOTE]Absolutely - but know for a population of one rather than the entire population is a useless data point. Demand the same from the alternatives would consider against. See if you even get a response from Hans on such a request - I have never gotten an answer or response to any inquiry I have made to Hans.
| turboICE | 02-21-2006 10:19 AM |
[QUOTE=Car #187]If the manufacturer doesn't believe in his product enough to pay for the best, most accurate testing... then neither do I.[/QUOTE]Then people used these products for numerous years without meeting your standard. Testing was not performed (and still is not public) for Hans until a standard was written guaranteeing their usage. HANS did no such expending of capital until those involved deeply with HANS wrote the standard for them to be held against. People were using Hans and other producst well before there was a test to even use. So what were the test results for the product you are going to use?
| turboICE | 02-21-2006 10:22 AM |
[QUOTE=cooleyjb]This makes me think of Bill Simpson going to everyone......
"oh yeah, my firesuit is the best and I'll prove it"
Later he is covered in flames sitting 'calmly' while wearing the suit.
I bet a few people bought his suit the day they saw that video.[/QUOTE]That maybe true but it didn't prove it was the best it was a comparison of one.
And the offset test of Isaac showed lower neck loads than any other public results. If that isn't enough to make an impression, and they did the head on also resulting in the lowest neck load - it still wouldn't be enough for the SFI standard due to qualitative factors that have nothing to do with reducing neck loads and it is very questionable that Hans passes these qualitative requirements.
"oh yeah, my firesuit is the best and I'll prove it"
Later he is covered in flames sitting 'calmly' while wearing the suit.
I bet a few people bought his suit the day they saw that video.[/QUOTE]That maybe true but it didn't prove it was the best it was a comparison of one.
And the offset test of Isaac showed lower neck loads than any other public results. If that isn't enough to make an impression, and they did the head on also resulting in the lowest neck load - it still wouldn't be enough for the SFI standard due to qualitative factors that have nothing to do with reducing neck loads and it is very questionable that Hans passes these qualitative requirements.
| turboICE | 02-21-2006 10:23 AM |
[QUOTE=cooleyjb]But right now the graphs I saw did not show the Isaac was markedly better than a correctly installed tightly pulled HANS.[/QUOTE]And installed in such a manner how does HANS pass 2.4 of the spec? In wheel to wheel racing you are more likely to have a collision with this installation because in fact it does not pass 2.4, even more so when like most of us in club racing you are in mixed class with extreme closing rates.
| bjorn240 | 02-21-2006 10:38 AM |
turboICE, I think you're setting up a bit of a strawman, here, but I'll answer:
[QUOTE=turboICE]I and others have tried HANS on - it definitely does not meet the operation of a race vehicle requirement when installed per manufacturer instructions. SFI 38.1 provides no way to quantify this. What determines that this requirement was met manufacturer representation? Is that the level of quality you want in your standard - the manufacturer represents that it allows the freedom to operate your race vehicle under all race and associated conditions with no third party evaluation? What happens when you are sliding 90* to the direction of desired travel and you are trying to correct and you can't see what you are going to correct into because you don't have the freedom to turn your neck more than 25* or so?[/QUOTE]
I (and lots of others) have been wearing a HANS for a significant time, and can tell you that there is no different in my mobility between wearing the HANS and not, with the exception of turning my head greater than 90 degrees. As a co-driver, I'm able to reach all around my office, turn on and off the radio (on the transmission tunnel behind the handbrake lever), turn on and off the intercoms (in the ceiling), grab things out of my bag (on the floor), play with the odo (on the door), and read the notes (hands extended in front of me). None of these activities are any more difficult with the HANS than without out. Additionally, as a co-driver, I'm often expected to look over my right shoulder to check if roads are clear of traffic when we're turning left. With the HANS tethers at 150mm, I can turn my head 75 or 80 degrees and turn my eyes a bit more. I have no problem sitting in my seat and looking at the b-pillar. What's that? 120 degrees off to my right.
[QUOTE]OK, I have just released the seat belts and with no other motion how has the HANS been disengaged from a dual belt system?[/QUOTE]
I haven't used the dual-belt system, so I can't say.
[QUOTE]Keep in mind that while I have in no way suggested that anyone else's safety should be sacrificed based on my views - many of you are suggesting that my safety be sacrificed based on yours.[/QUOTE]
Not at all. I'm suggesting that the device you're depending on for your safety is leaving me with more questions than answers. You're free to make your own choice, so long as you race in a sanctioning body that doesn't require SFI 38.1-compliant equipment (or just HANS).
- Christian
[QUOTE=turboICE]I and others have tried HANS on - it definitely does not meet the operation of a race vehicle requirement when installed per manufacturer instructions. SFI 38.1 provides no way to quantify this. What determines that this requirement was met manufacturer representation? Is that the level of quality you want in your standard - the manufacturer represents that it allows the freedom to operate your race vehicle under all race and associated conditions with no third party evaluation? What happens when you are sliding 90* to the direction of desired travel and you are trying to correct and you can't see what you are going to correct into because you don't have the freedom to turn your neck more than 25* or so?[/QUOTE]
I (and lots of others) have been wearing a HANS for a significant time, and can tell you that there is no different in my mobility between wearing the HANS and not, with the exception of turning my head greater than 90 degrees. As a co-driver, I'm able to reach all around my office, turn on and off the radio (on the transmission tunnel behind the handbrake lever), turn on and off the intercoms (in the ceiling), grab things out of my bag (on the floor), play with the odo (on the door), and read the notes (hands extended in front of me). None of these activities are any more difficult with the HANS than without out. Additionally, as a co-driver, I'm often expected to look over my right shoulder to check if roads are clear of traffic when we're turning left. With the HANS tethers at 150mm, I can turn my head 75 or 80 degrees and turn my eyes a bit more. I have no problem sitting in my seat and looking at the b-pillar. What's that? 120 degrees off to my right.
[QUOTE]OK, I have just released the seat belts and with no other motion how has the HANS been disengaged from a dual belt system?[/QUOTE]
I haven't used the dual-belt system, so I can't say.
[QUOTE]Keep in mind that while I have in no way suggested that anyone else's safety should be sacrificed based on my views - many of you are suggesting that my safety be sacrificed based on yours.[/QUOTE]
Not at all. I'm suggesting that the device you're depending on for your safety is leaving me with more questions than answers. You're free to make your own choice, so long as you race in a sanctioning body that doesn't require SFI 38.1-compliant equipment (or just HANS).
- Christian
| turboICE | 02-21-2006 10:47 AM |
As a road course driver I disagree, the Hans properly installed results in changes to a drivers awareness of surrounding and a modification in responsiveness.
Not that any of this is going to metter - no longer free within the SCCA to protect myself as I was hoping at least through 2006. I am not being forced to use no H&N restraint when I have one or to use one that I feel offers me less protection.
[quote]Item 17. Effective 11/1/06: Add new section 11 to section 20 as follows:
11. Head and Neck Restraint
The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by the SFI Foundation and bear the SFI 38.1 label.[/quote]
Not that any of this is going to metter - no longer free within the SCCA to protect myself as I was hoping at least through 2006. I am not being forced to use no H&N restraint when I have one or to use one that I feel offers me less protection.
[quote]Item 17. Effective 11/1/06: Add new section 11 to section 20 as follows:
11. Head and Neck Restraint
The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by the SFI Foundation and bear the SFI 38.1 label.[/quote]
| cooleyjb | 02-21-2006 10:55 AM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]As a road course driver I disagree, the Hans properly installed results in changes to a drivers awareness of surrounding and a modification in responsiveness.
[/QUOTE]
So does a helmet. You use that don't you?
[/QUOTE]
So does a helmet. You use that don't you?
| turboICE | 02-21-2006 11:04 AM |
I guess it is a battle of straw men.
I do - but as a point of interest I read NASCAR rules have no helmet requirements...
The snell standard does not have a section 2.4 in it. So do items with the SFI label meet the spec or not?
If the section is unduly restrictive and prevents the proper use of equipment AND is not being met anyway it should be eliminated - as should other superfluous sections with intentions other than H&N restraint.
I do - but as a point of interest I read NASCAR rules have no helmet requirements...
The snell standard does not have a section 2.4 in it. So do items with the SFI label meet the spec or not?
If the section is unduly restrictive and prevents the proper use of equipment AND is not being met anyway it should be eliminated - as should other superfluous sections with intentions other than H&N restraint.
| turboICE | 02-21-2006 11:09 AM |
[quote]Item 17. Effective 11/1/06: Add new section 11 to section 20 as follows:
11. Head and Neck Restraint
The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by the SFI Foundation and bear the SFI 38.1 label.[/quote]
To add to the humor of all this - the SCCA just banned the use of all H&N restraints.
SFI Foundation does not certify any equipment. Their licensing explicitly states such. Each item with an SFI label is certified by the [i]manufacturer[/i] to comply with the referenced standard.
So you everyone knows exactly what they are placing their comfort in:
[quote=SFI 38.1]14.0 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS
Testing procedures and/or standards contained in this specification are intended for use only as a guide in determining compliance with the minimum performance requirements as defined herein. The granting and assignment of the [b]"This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1"[/b] logo/designation is in [b]no way[/b] an endorsement or certification of product performance or reliability by SFI. SFI, its officers, directors and/or members assume no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for failure or malfunctions of a product under this program.[/quote]
11. Head and Neck Restraint
The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by the SFI Foundation and bear the SFI 38.1 label.[/quote]
To add to the humor of all this - the SCCA just banned the use of all H&N restraints.
SFI Foundation does not certify any equipment. Their licensing explicitly states such. Each item with an SFI label is certified by the [i]manufacturer[/i] to comply with the referenced standard.
So you everyone knows exactly what they are placing their comfort in:
[quote=SFI 38.1]14.0 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS
Testing procedures and/or standards contained in this specification are intended for use only as a guide in determining compliance with the minimum performance requirements as defined herein. The granting and assignment of the [b]"This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1"[/b] logo/designation is in [b]no way[/b] an endorsement or certification of product performance or reliability by SFI. SFI, its officers, directors and/or members assume no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for failure or malfunctions of a product under this program.[/quote]
| AlexP | 02-21-2006 10:42 PM |
I've never seen this dual belt system in person, but it looks like the tension of the the two straps could provide more than enough friction to hold the hans in place. Once the camlock is released, so is the tension in the dual belts, then allowing the hans to pull right out with no effort. Of course, seeing as nobody uses this thing, who cares?
The hans has been tested by hundreds of people in head on and offset crashes, all with standard 3" harnesses and typical non-hans specific race seats. I've heard probably 20 or so success stories about the hans... never heard any horror stories. As soon as I get back from 100AW, I'm spending my hard earned tax refund on a hans.
The hans has been tested by hundreds of people in head on and offset crashes, all with standard 3" harnesses and typical non-hans specific race seats. I've heard probably 20 or so success stories about the hans... never heard any horror stories. As soon as I get back from 100AW, I'm spending my hard earned tax refund on a hans.
| turboICE | 02-21-2006 11:06 PM |
[QUOTE=AlexP]then allowing the hans to [b][i]pull[/i][/b] right out with no effort[/QUOTE]
That is an additional motion - additional motion is not permitted to be required per section 2.5, effort is not a factor as disengaging the Isaac takes no effort either - it does not meet the requirements of 38.1 or is the application of single point of release requirement for everyone selective?
That is an additional motion - additional motion is not permitted to be required per section 2.5, effort is not a factor as disengaging the Isaac takes no effort either - it does not meet the requirements of 38.1 or is the application of single point of release requirement for everyone selective?
| turboICE | 02-21-2006 11:34 PM |
I know you guys think that I am solo on this and tilting at wind mills but there are many many club racers who agree with me (NASIOC motorsports section doesn't come close to representation of a cross section of race participants) and the SCCA is set to get a real ear full.
Just click over to the ITforums.com and tell the veteran racers over there how wrong they are, apparently they all need protection from their own experienced judgment:
[url]http://itforum.improvedtouring.com[/url]
[url]http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7173[/url]
See how your views stand up when not ganging up on a single individual on a back woods trail.
Just click over to the ITforums.com and tell the veteran racers over there how wrong they are, apparently they all need protection from their own experienced judgment:
[url]http://itforum.improvedtouring.com[/url]
[url]http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7173[/url]
See how your views stand up when not ganging up on a single individual on a back woods trail.
| STiMULi | 02-22-2006 02:57 AM |
Jack this thread!!!
Oh wait... that happened a long time ago.
Carry on.... :)
Oh wait... that happened a long time ago.
Carry on.... :)
| bjorn240 | 02-22-2006 09:03 AM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]See how your views stand up when not ganging up on a single individual on a back woods trail.[/QUOTE]
Gee, with that attitude, I'll pass.
You really do have a persecution complex though. I still fail to see how my asking questions of Gregg on the internet is somehow an indictment of whatever equipment you want to use. Your beef is with SCCA or SFI, not the members of NASIOC. I'm not convinced that Isaac is a safe product, but AlexP and I don't regulate its use in IT, or any other form of motorsport.
Then again, maybe there is a giant internet conspiracy to prevent you from using the Isaac. Occam's razor and all that.
- Christian
Gee, with that attitude, I'll pass.
You really do have a persecution complex though. I still fail to see how my asking questions of Gregg on the internet is somehow an indictment of whatever equipment you want to use. Your beef is with SCCA or SFI, not the members of NASIOC. I'm not convinced that Isaac is a safe product, but AlexP and I don't regulate its use in IT, or any other form of motorsport.
Then again, maybe there is a giant internet conspiracy to prevent you from using the Isaac. Occam's razor and all that.
- Christian
| turboICE | 02-22-2006 09:18 AM |
LOL, that is funny I am now a conspiracy theorist. As previously the most reasonable poster on the topic somehow your perception of what transpired here and of me has become rather flawed.
Convincing you that Isaac is a safe product is not the objective, they have already illustrated sufficiently to many many drivers that it is, and when a standard arrives that addresses only H&N neck safety without arbitrarily applied subjective attributes they will put it on a sled and pass that standard. The objective is that participants be able to exercise their perogative to utilize safety equipment that suits them. I hope you never have to face being made to use saftey equipment that you think is less desirable than an available, viable alternative.
The thread began to look like I was the sole individual that desired to have Isaac available for use or that the SFI is a flawed marketing organization issuing flawed safety standards. You can take my pointing to an illustration of a body of views alternative to those here how you wish, but I believe the response shows a flawed perception of reality. I am not alone in my criticism and it isn't a conspiracy theory - take it how you wish.
Ed.
Convincing you that Isaac is a safe product is not the objective, they have already illustrated sufficiently to many many drivers that it is, and when a standard arrives that addresses only H&N neck safety without arbitrarily applied subjective attributes they will put it on a sled and pass that standard. The objective is that participants be able to exercise their perogative to utilize safety equipment that suits them. I hope you never have to face being made to use saftey equipment that you think is less desirable than an available, viable alternative.
The thread began to look like I was the sole individual that desired to have Isaac available for use or that the SFI is a flawed marketing organization issuing flawed safety standards. You can take my pointing to an illustration of a body of views alternative to those here how you wish, but I believe the response shows a flawed perception of reality. I am not alone in my criticism and it isn't a conspiracy theory - take it how you wish.
Ed.
| bjorn240 | 02-22-2006 09:38 AM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]Convincing you that Isaac is a safe product is not the objective, they have already illustrated sufficiently to many many drivers that it is, and when a standard arrives that addresses only H&N neck safety without arbitrarily applied subjective attributes they will put it on a sled and pass that standard. [/QUOTE]
Then your only option is to somehow get SFI to change 38.1.
I'm afraid that I won't join you in that quest because your impressions and Gregg's claims of superior safety are in direct conflict to my own research (subsequent to the start of this thread) and the emails I've gotten from the FIA Institute and medical and tech folks at Rally America.
I [u]don't[/u] for a moment think that you're the only person who wants to use Isaac. But you're the only person who's said in this thread that we're somehow trying to restrict your access. We're not. At least I'm not. What I am doing is not agreeing that changing SFI 38.1 is required.
Because to me, whether SFI 38.1 is a perfect standard is immaterial, for the following reason: From my own research and discussions with knowledgeable and disinterested parties at Rally America and the FIA Institute, I've come to the conclusion that the current offerings that pass 38.1 are better than the Isaac, not simply because of single-point of release, but because of the horizontal nature of the reaction links at rest, and the potential for the Isaac dashpots to act as anvils against the helmet in an accident.
It comes down to this: You think the Isaac is better. As such, you have an imperative to change SFI 38.1. I think Isaac is worse, and possibly dangerous, and as such have no imperative to change SFI 38.1.
What we have here is not a failure to communicate. It's a disagreement. :)
Regardless, it's a good discussion. I know more about H&N restraint function than I did 10 days ago.
- Christian
Then your only option is to somehow get SFI to change 38.1.
I'm afraid that I won't join you in that quest because your impressions and Gregg's claims of superior safety are in direct conflict to my own research (subsequent to the start of this thread) and the emails I've gotten from the FIA Institute and medical and tech folks at Rally America.
I [u]don't[/u] for a moment think that you're the only person who wants to use Isaac. But you're the only person who's said in this thread that we're somehow trying to restrict your access. We're not. At least I'm not. What I am doing is not agreeing that changing SFI 38.1 is required.
Because to me, whether SFI 38.1 is a perfect standard is immaterial, for the following reason: From my own research and discussions with knowledgeable and disinterested parties at Rally America and the FIA Institute, I've come to the conclusion that the current offerings that pass 38.1 are better than the Isaac, not simply because of single-point of release, but because of the horizontal nature of the reaction links at rest, and the potential for the Isaac dashpots to act as anvils against the helmet in an accident.
It comes down to this: You think the Isaac is better. As such, you have an imperative to change SFI 38.1. I think Isaac is worse, and possibly dangerous, and as such have no imperative to change SFI 38.1.
What we have here is not a failure to communicate. It's a disagreement. :)
Regardless, it's a good discussion. I know more about H&N restraint function than I did 10 days ago.
- Christian
| gbaker | 02-23-2006 05:12 PM |
[QUOTE=bjorn240]...Regardless, it's a good discussion. I know more about H&N restraint function than I did 10 days ago.
- Christian[/QUOTE]
Excellent, though you remain misinformed.
- Christian[/QUOTE]
Excellent, though you remain misinformed.
| dlouie87 | 04-24-2006 03:02 PM |
hey..that's my friends evo with the cusco cage!
| 95sti | 04-24-2006 04:51 PM |
I have this same cage in my car. It is only meant for the Japanese market and says right on the paperwork that came with it when I got it "not to be sold in North America". Probably not that safe for crashes but it stiffens up the body nicely for corners and stuff. Not something I would want to test in a crash but the ride is better with the cage than without.
The one pictured in the original post would be illegal on the street in Japan since there is no pad.
Just thought I would chime in with my two cents.
The one pictured in the original post would be illegal on the street in Japan since there is no pad.
Just thought I would chime in with my two cents.
| turboICE | 04-24-2006 05:12 PM |
ZOMG somebody kill this thread.
[img]http://chargedperformance.com/images/photo/ricersbabyjesus.jpg[/img]
Rice pure and simple.
There is no way this tube structure adds any worthwhile amount to stiffness or rigidity of the body, chassis or anything else. The mechanics of it don't add any support between any of the legs that aren't already in what is a soundly built, fairly stiff chassis (by OEM standards). Any flex or twist that would occur OEM would continue to occur with this tube structure in it. Any ride improvement is as imaginary as improved power from hearing air intake and external BOV.
Your location is so on the mark.
And all Cusco hardware I have ever seen says it is not for sale in the NA market, including sway bars and camber plates. This is likely because 95% of their stuff is grey market and not distributed through their intended NA distribution.
[img]http://chargedperformance.com/images/photo/ricersbabyjesus.jpg[/img]
Rice pure and simple.
There is no way this tube structure adds any worthwhile amount to stiffness or rigidity of the body, chassis or anything else. The mechanics of it don't add any support between any of the legs that aren't already in what is a soundly built, fairly stiff chassis (by OEM standards). Any flex or twist that would occur OEM would continue to occur with this tube structure in it. Any ride improvement is as imaginary as improved power from hearing air intake and external BOV.
Your location is so on the mark.
And all Cusco hardware I have ever seen says it is not for sale in the NA market, including sway bars and camber plates. This is likely because 95% of their stuff is grey market and not distributed through their intended NA distribution.
| MFR Sweep | 04-24-2006 05:21 PM |
OMG it's back!!!!!!!!!1!! KILL KILL!!!
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét