| turboICE | 02-13-2006 10:51 AM |
[QUOTE=greg donovan]i think they have a pill or an ointment for that now.[/QUOTE]It is available OTC its called Mt. Dew! ;)
| MFR Sweep | 02-13-2006 11:04 AM |
there is about .025ml of my dew left. I think I am going to have to resort to Red Bull or MDX (not the acura) :alien:
| Safe Drives | 02-13-2006 02:26 PM |
[QUOTE=trhoppe][url="http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/Video/SFIBoth.mpg"]http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/Video/SFIBoth.mpg[/url]
Here is a great video of the HANS still working when failing :)
-Tom[/QUOTE]
That's a great video. ^^^ :eek:
I still don't think I'll buy a Isaac H&N system anytime soon (still not SFI certified) but it sure illustraits why we currently don't offer the HANS Device at safedrives.com.
Regards,
Charles Buren
Safe Drives LLC
[url="http://www.safedrives.com"]www.safedrives.com[/url]
877-739-1713 toll free
cburen @@@@ safedrives.com
Here is a great video of the HANS still working when failing :)
-Tom[/QUOTE]
That's a great video. ^^^ :eek:
I still don't think I'll buy a Isaac H&N system anytime soon (still not SFI certified) but it sure illustraits why we currently don't offer the HANS Device at safedrives.com.
Regards,
Charles Buren
Safe Drives LLC
[url="http://www.safedrives.com"]www.safedrives.com[/url]
877-739-1713 toll free
cburen @@@@ safedrives.com
| trhoppe | 02-13-2006 06:50 PM |
To be fair to the HANS, that was an old version that did not have those little nub things to prevent the harness from coming off.
I guess what it demonstrated to me, is even if it "fails" it still works and makes me safer then w/o a H&N restraint.
I like the ISAAC personally but will not buy one until he finds some way to SFI to certify it as I have a feeling it would become obsolete quick when SCCA mandates SFI devices for its club racers.
-Tom
I guess what it demonstrated to me, is even if it "fails" it still works and makes me safer then w/o a H&N restraint.
I like the ISAAC personally but will not buy one until he finds some way to SFI to certify it as I have a feeling it would become obsolete quick when SCCA mandates SFI devices for its club racers.
-Tom
| Safe Drives | 02-13-2006 07:17 PM |
[QUOTE=trhoppe]
I guess what it demonstrated to me, is even if it "fails" it still works and makes me safer then w/o a H&N restraint.
-Tom[/QUOTE]
Tom,
What exactly did you mean by this statement? Are you talking about the HANS Device failure situation?
Best regards,
Charles Buren
Safe Drives LLC
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/"]www.safedrives.com[/url]
877-739-1713 toll free
cburen @@@@ safedrives.com
I guess what it demonstrated to me, is even if it "fails" it still works and makes me safer then w/o a H&N restraint.
-Tom[/QUOTE]
Tom,
What exactly did you mean by this statement? Are you talking about the HANS Device failure situation?
Best regards,
Charles Buren
Safe Drives LLC
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/"]www.safedrives.com[/url]
877-739-1713 toll free
cburen @@@@ safedrives.com
| turboICE | 02-13-2006 07:40 PM |
He is saying even though one side of the old hans slipped the harness in the offset clip shown that it was still better than no H&N protection. I am using my recently ordered Isaac intermediate until someone tells me I can't.
| bjorn240 | 02-13-2006 07:45 PM |
[QUOTE=Safe Drives]That's a great video. ^^^ :eek: [/QUOTE]
No it isn't.
1) It's made by a competing manufacturer (who rather than build a H&N restraint that complies with SFI 38.1 complains about why 38.1 is wrong...)
2) The dummy isn't in a standard seat.
3) The arms seem constrained, which doesn't equate to reality.
4) The head movement and speed look equal with both devices.
5) And MOST importantly, they fail to share any actual deceleration data captured.
Oh wait, maybe you're talking cinematographically. In which case, I'm not really qualified to rebut. But I prefer the work of Visconti.
- Christian
No it isn't.
1) It's made by a competing manufacturer (who rather than build a H&N restraint that complies with SFI 38.1 complains about why 38.1 is wrong...)
2) The dummy isn't in a standard seat.
3) The arms seem constrained, which doesn't equate to reality.
4) The head movement and speed look equal with both devices.
5) And MOST importantly, they fail to share any actual deceleration data captured.
Oh wait, maybe you're talking cinematographically. In which case, I'm not really qualified to rebut. But I prefer the work of Visconti.
- Christian
| M. Hurst | 02-13-2006 08:02 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE] I am using my recently ordered Isaac intermediate until someone tells me I can't.[/QUOTE]
Rally America rule 5.1.D.
[B]Head and neck restraint systems, such as HANS, are recommended.
When fitted, these systems shall be mounted per the manufacturer's
recommendations and shall not violate the single latch requirement of
the occupant restraint system.[/B]
Rally America rule 5.1.D.
[B]Head and neck restraint systems, such as HANS, are recommended.
When fitted, these systems shall be mounted per the manufacturer's
recommendations and shall not violate the single latch requirement of
the occupant restraint system.[/B]
| turboICE | 02-13-2006 08:10 PM |
[QUOTE=bjorn240]No it isn't.
1) It's made by a competing manufacturer (who rather than build a H&N restraint that complies with SFI 38.1 complains about why 38.1 is wrong...)
2) The dummy isn't in a standard seat.
3) The arms seem constrained, which doesn't equate to reality.
4) The head movement and speed look equal with both devices.
5) And MOST importantly, they fail to share any actual deceleration data captured.
Oh wait, maybe you're talking cinematographically. In which case, I'm not really qualified to rebut. But I prefer the work of Visconti.
- Christian[/QUOTE]Let's not act like SFI 38.1 was independently developed. Hans, Isaac and others existed prior to 38.1 - SFI outsourced the writing of 38.1 to those with an interst in Hans. Highly conflicting interest which is redundant when used in context of SFI. Hans wasn't developed to 38.1, 38.1 was written to Hans. Relative to the safety issue being covered which is reduction in forces exerted on the H&N 38.1 oversteps its bounds. A single point of release is a fallacy as it already doesn't exist in many forms of racing. If rally wants a single point of release they can add that to their own H&N requirement. But if SFI wants to get into release areas why not address full egress issues - get rid of all their SFI window nets and require that 38.1 products not interfer with egress. Oh wait the new Hans now has releases to help with egress... hmm no longer a single point of release. 38.1 is a joke with more conflicts of interest embedded in it than a congressional bill.
And there is no H&N restraint manufacturer that is more forth coming with their data. Ask them for any data they have and they have, do and will release it. Can any other H&N restraint manufacturer say that? If so I am waiting to see it.
from ITforums
[quote]As some of you may have guessed, we were testing some design concepts at the Delphi lab in Vandalia, Ohio. The 70G test protocol we used is a specific version of what has come to be known as the SFI test. It's not the easy, straight-ahead frontal test, it's the 30 degree offset frontal which generates the highest head loads. It's a designer's nightmare. If you can pass this one you can pass the straight frontal.
It is important to put this load value in perspective. SFI Specification 38.1 calls for a maximum upper neck load of 4,000 Newtons, 40.0 for our purposes here, for the offset frontal test. Coming in at only 2210N implies protection well in excess of 100Gs.
Unfortunately, our competitors have only published numbers for the easier straight frontal test. If memory serves, the R3 came in at 3,000N, the SFI limit for that test, and the HANS device at 1,700N. However, these values will be higher in the offset frontal test. So much so that we have a sneaking suspicion that we can now lay claim to the best head and neck restraint in the solar system.
If any of our competitors disagree, we expect them to soon make public their test results.
What did we test on Tuesday that produced such great numbers? The original Isaac system.
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
[url]http://www.isaacdirect.com[/url][/quote]
If you have a real interest in Isaac data - ask Gregg don't post up here saying they fail to share, if you haven't asked.
Ed.
1) It's made by a competing manufacturer (who rather than build a H&N restraint that complies with SFI 38.1 complains about why 38.1 is wrong...)
2) The dummy isn't in a standard seat.
3) The arms seem constrained, which doesn't equate to reality.
4) The head movement and speed look equal with both devices.
5) And MOST importantly, they fail to share any actual deceleration data captured.
Oh wait, maybe you're talking cinematographically. In which case, I'm not really qualified to rebut. But I prefer the work of Visconti.
- Christian[/QUOTE]Let's not act like SFI 38.1 was independently developed. Hans, Isaac and others existed prior to 38.1 - SFI outsourced the writing of 38.1 to those with an interst in Hans. Highly conflicting interest which is redundant when used in context of SFI. Hans wasn't developed to 38.1, 38.1 was written to Hans. Relative to the safety issue being covered which is reduction in forces exerted on the H&N 38.1 oversteps its bounds. A single point of release is a fallacy as it already doesn't exist in many forms of racing. If rally wants a single point of release they can add that to their own H&N requirement. But if SFI wants to get into release areas why not address full egress issues - get rid of all their SFI window nets and require that 38.1 products not interfer with egress. Oh wait the new Hans now has releases to help with egress... hmm no longer a single point of release. 38.1 is a joke with more conflicts of interest embedded in it than a congressional bill.
And there is no H&N restraint manufacturer that is more forth coming with their data. Ask them for any data they have and they have, do and will release it. Can any other H&N restraint manufacturer say that? If so I am waiting to see it.
from ITforums
[quote]As some of you may have guessed, we were testing some design concepts at the Delphi lab in Vandalia, Ohio. The 70G test protocol we used is a specific version of what has come to be known as the SFI test. It's not the easy, straight-ahead frontal test, it's the 30 degree offset frontal which generates the highest head loads. It's a designer's nightmare. If you can pass this one you can pass the straight frontal.
It is important to put this load value in perspective. SFI Specification 38.1 calls for a maximum upper neck load of 4,000 Newtons, 40.0 for our purposes here, for the offset frontal test. Coming in at only 2210N implies protection well in excess of 100Gs.
Unfortunately, our competitors have only published numbers for the easier straight frontal test. If memory serves, the R3 came in at 3,000N, the SFI limit for that test, and the HANS device at 1,700N. However, these values will be higher in the offset frontal test. So much so that we have a sneaking suspicion that we can now lay claim to the best head and neck restraint in the solar system.
If any of our competitors disagree, we expect them to soon make public their test results.
What did we test on Tuesday that produced such great numbers? The original Isaac system.
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
[url]http://www.isaacdirect.com[/url][/quote]
If you have a real interest in Isaac data - ask Gregg don't post up here saying they fail to share, if you haven't asked.
Ed.
| turboICE | 02-13-2006 08:13 PM |
[QUOTE=M. Hurst]Rally America rule 5.1.D.
[B]Head and neck restraint systems, such as HANS, are recommended.
When fitted, these systems shall be mounted per the manufacturer's
recommendations and shall not violate the single latch requirement of
the occupant restraint system.[/B][/QUOTE]
They don't tell me I can't, I don't race Rally America. Single point of release is a fallacy as there is multiple releases in order to safely, efficiently and effectively fully egress the vehicle anyway. I care about getting out of the car completely and unless Rally America is going to require ejection seats single point egress doesn't exist.
[B]Head and neck restraint systems, such as HANS, are recommended.
When fitted, these systems shall be mounted per the manufacturer's
recommendations and shall not violate the single latch requirement of
the occupant restraint system.[/B][/QUOTE]
They don't tell me I can't, I don't race Rally America. Single point of release is a fallacy as there is multiple releases in order to safely, efficiently and effectively fully egress the vehicle anyway. I care about getting out of the car completely and unless Rally America is going to require ejection seats single point egress doesn't exist.
| M. Hurst | 02-13-2006 08:22 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]
If you have a real interest in Isaac data - ask Gregg don't post up here saying they fail to share, if you haven't asked.
Ed.[/QUOTE]
I asked Gregg, and according to him, the Isaac ("the best head and neck device in the solar system") has never been tested in a frontal impact.
Find fault with 38.1 if you like, but it's a hell of alot more democratic than the FIA or NASCAR, or IRL, or OWRL which mandate the HANS only.
some pretty good thread drift, eh? :)
If you have a real interest in Isaac data - ask Gregg don't post up here saying they fail to share, if you haven't asked.
Ed.[/QUOTE]
I asked Gregg, and according to him, the Isaac ("the best head and neck device in the solar system") has never been tested in a frontal impact.
Find fault with 38.1 if you like, but it's a hell of alot more democratic than the FIA or NASCAR, or IRL, or OWRL which mandate the HANS only.
some pretty good thread drift, eh? :)
| bjorn240 | 02-13-2006 08:27 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]If you have a real interest in Isaac data - ask Gregg don't post up here saying they fail to share, if you haven't asked.[/QUOTE]
First off, the point I was making was that the video displayed doesn't prove anything. People shouldn't be making H&N purchase decisions based on a video without statistical data, anymore than they should make decisions about flying based on watching airplane crashes (which are spectacular, but rare.)
I have asked, and I've read the dashpot SAE article, and I agree that Gregg has been pretty forthcoming. I think the 45G 30 degree offset values were around 200 lbs for the ISAAC and 230 lbs for the HANS.
I also happen to think that the dashpot idea has merit and that it may, in fact, be the basis of the best future H&N restraint.
But if ISAAC wanted my money, they could easily design a HANS-style or R3-style yoke, with attached dashpots, or somehow otherwise meet 38.1.
For some reason, they don't want to do that. They'd rather argue about the merits of SFI 38.1. The thing is, as a consumer, I don't care about the merits of SFI 38.1, because when I'm required to wear a H&N restraint, I am assured that the sanctioning bodies are going to require SFI 38.1 restraints. Like it or not, that's a fact, and I'm not spending my money on a non-SFI 38.1 restraint.
And while Rally America rules might not matter to you, they do to me.
- Christian
First off, the point I was making was that the video displayed doesn't prove anything. People shouldn't be making H&N purchase decisions based on a video without statistical data, anymore than they should make decisions about flying based on watching airplane crashes (which are spectacular, but rare.)
I have asked, and I've read the dashpot SAE article, and I agree that Gregg has been pretty forthcoming. I think the 45G 30 degree offset values were around 200 lbs for the ISAAC and 230 lbs for the HANS.
I also happen to think that the dashpot idea has merit and that it may, in fact, be the basis of the best future H&N restraint.
But if ISAAC wanted my money, they could easily design a HANS-style or R3-style yoke, with attached dashpots, or somehow otherwise meet 38.1.
For some reason, they don't want to do that. They'd rather argue about the merits of SFI 38.1. The thing is, as a consumer, I don't care about the merits of SFI 38.1, because when I'm required to wear a H&N restraint, I am assured that the sanctioning bodies are going to require SFI 38.1 restraints. Like it or not, that's a fact, and I'm not spending my money on a non-SFI 38.1 restraint.
And while Rally America rules might not matter to you, they do to me.
- Christian
| bjorn240 | 02-13-2006 08:30 PM |
[QUOTE=M. Hurst]some pretty good thread drift, eh? :)[/QUOTE]
I was just going to say that. We went from laughing at an assemblance of pretty blue pipes to actually having a discourse on real safety equipment. That's not the usual way these things go.
- Christian
I was just going to say that. We went from laughing at an assemblance of pretty blue pipes to actually having a discourse on real safety equipment. That's not the usual way these things go.
- Christian
| bjorn240 | 02-13-2006 08:35 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]I care about getting out of the car completely and unless Rally America is going to require ejection seats single point egress doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
Ed, usually you're pretty reasonable, but this is nonsense. When Travis and I rolled at Colorado (now, [b]that's[/b] a good video), I undid my harness and climbed out of the driver's side window. I was wearing a helmet, driving suit, shoes, appropriate undergarments and a HANS device. I never disconnected my HANS device from my helmet and in fact took them off as one unit after having exited the car.
Say what you will about SFI 38.1, and I know you don't like SFI, but in terms of the single-point-of release, the HANS operated as advertised when it comes to egress.
- Christian
Ed, usually you're pretty reasonable, but this is nonsense. When Travis and I rolled at Colorado (now, [b]that's[/b] a good video), I undid my harness and climbed out of the driver's side window. I was wearing a helmet, driving suit, shoes, appropriate undergarments and a HANS device. I never disconnected my HANS device from my helmet and in fact took them off as one unit after having exited the car.
Say what you will about SFI 38.1, and I know you don't like SFI, but in terms of the single-point-of release, the HANS operated as advertised when it comes to egress.
- Christian
| turboICE | 02-13-2006 08:58 PM |
In your case and I am most glad it did - I am thankful everytime any of us finish no worse for wear whether that finish is at a stage point, finish line or our driveway. But there have been egress problems with the Hans and I in no way think that Hans should not be an available alternative to anyone - on the contrary I think they absolutely should be used by anyone that cares to use them. As should other systems which validly restrain the H&N from high G crashes.
Was it a single point egress though? Did you disconnect your comms system? Did you open a window net or the dooor? Would the Isaac have been less safe in your egress?
While I do not hesitate for a minute to acknowledge I that I have a pet peeve about this subject I do try to as much as possible respond with reason and rationally - but 38.1 irks the heck out of me.
It is bad enough I waited as long as I did as I had no business racing without H&N restraint in the past given prior neck injuries which have already weakened the structure concerned with in this restraint. But having that underlying issue I have taken looking into my H&N restraint very seriously and believe Isaac suits me best. Fortunately it looks highly likely I will be able to use it throughout 2006 and hopefully the peripheral issues will be resolved prior to my having to use a product less desirable for my usage.
There are a lot of issues and some only reside in only some forms of racing and not in others - they are all valid to their environment but a broad based safety rule should not cover one form's issues to the the exclusion of anothers. Let the specific issues be covered within those form's sanctioning bodies.
Was it a single point egress though? Did you disconnect your comms system? Did you open a window net or the dooor? Would the Isaac have been less safe in your egress?
While I do not hesitate for a minute to acknowledge I that I have a pet peeve about this subject I do try to as much as possible respond with reason and rationally - but 38.1 irks the heck out of me.
It is bad enough I waited as long as I did as I had no business racing without H&N restraint in the past given prior neck injuries which have already weakened the structure concerned with in this restraint. But having that underlying issue I have taken looking into my H&N restraint very seriously and believe Isaac suits me best. Fortunately it looks highly likely I will be able to use it throughout 2006 and hopefully the peripheral issues will be resolved prior to my having to use a product less desirable for my usage.
There are a lot of issues and some only reside in only some forms of racing and not in others - they are all valid to their environment but a broad based safety rule should not cover one form's issues to the the exclusion of anothers. Let the specific issues be covered within those form's sanctioning bodies.
| gbaker | 02-14-2006 08:32 AM |
Personal anecdotes are fine, but when an organization is liable for the safety of its members it must objectively review all the data:
1. Between the Isaac system and the HANS device, every time a H&N restraint has trapped a driver in a car it has been a HANS--not sometime, not most of the time, everytime.
2. Between the Isaac system and the HANS device, every time a driver has died of a head injury he was using a HANS.
3. Between the Isaac system and the HANS device, every time a driver has broken his neck he was using a HANS.
4. Between the Isaac system and the HANS device, every time a driver has lost his belt(s) he was using a HANS.
In the crash lab, the Isaac system has never been beaten by a HANS device. Never. So the question then becomes: What does a HANS device do better than an Isaac system? Not much, obviously.
People are not suggesting the HANS device be banned (although in some circumstances its use should be discouraged), they simply want to know why the driver is not allowed a choice.
If a sanctioning body wants to allow "SFI certified" products, fine. But to not allow a product that outperforms all others not only defies logic, it increases liability dramatically.
1. Between the Isaac system and the HANS device, every time a H&N restraint has trapped a driver in a car it has been a HANS--not sometime, not most of the time, everytime.
2. Between the Isaac system and the HANS device, every time a driver has died of a head injury he was using a HANS.
3. Between the Isaac system and the HANS device, every time a driver has broken his neck he was using a HANS.
4. Between the Isaac system and the HANS device, every time a driver has lost his belt(s) he was using a HANS.
In the crash lab, the Isaac system has never been beaten by a HANS device. Never. So the question then becomes: What does a HANS device do better than an Isaac system? Not much, obviously.
People are not suggesting the HANS device be banned (although in some circumstances its use should be discouraged), they simply want to know why the driver is not allowed a choice.
If a sanctioning body wants to allow "SFI certified" products, fine. But to not allow a product that outperforms all others not only defies logic, it increases liability dramatically.
| cooleyjb | 02-14-2006 08:38 AM |
These are some sweeping statements. Care to back any of them up with actual references. Also the near ubiquity of HANS in most organizations would of course give it a higher probability of being in a failure. I'm not saying you are wrong I just want real statistics and not hearsay.
[QUOTE=gbaker]Personal anecdotes are fine, but when an organization is liable for the safety of its members it must objectively review all the data:
1. Between the Isaac system and the HANS device, every time a H&N restraint has trapped a driver in a car it has been a HANS--not sometime, not most of the time, everytime.
2. Between the Isaac system and the HANS device, every time a driver has died of a head injury he was using a HANS.
3. Between the Isaac system and the HANS device, every time a driver has broken his neck he was using a HANS.
4. Between the Isaac system and the HANS device, every time a driver has lost his belt(s) he was using a HANS.
In the crash lab, the Isaac system has never been beaten by a HANS device. Never. So the question then becomes: What does a HANS device do better than an Isaac system? Not much, obviously.
People are not suggesting the HANS device be banned (although in some circumstances its use should be discouraged), they simply want to know why the driver is not allowed a choice.
If a sanctioning body wants to allow "SFI certified" products, fine. But to not allow a product that outperforms all others not only defies logic, it increases liability dramatically.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=gbaker]Personal anecdotes are fine, but when an organization is liable for the safety of its members it must objectively review all the data:
1. Between the Isaac system and the HANS device, every time a H&N restraint has trapped a driver in a car it has been a HANS--not sometime, not most of the time, everytime.
2. Between the Isaac system and the HANS device, every time a driver has died of a head injury he was using a HANS.
3. Between the Isaac system and the HANS device, every time a driver has broken his neck he was using a HANS.
4. Between the Isaac system and the HANS device, every time a driver has lost his belt(s) he was using a HANS.
In the crash lab, the Isaac system has never been beaten by a HANS device. Never. So the question then becomes: What does a HANS device do better than an Isaac system? Not much, obviously.
People are not suggesting the HANS device be banned (although in some circumstances its use should be discouraged), they simply want to know why the driver is not allowed a choice.
If a sanctioning body wants to allow "SFI certified" products, fine. But to not allow a product that outperforms all others not only defies logic, it increases liability dramatically.[/QUOTE]
| turboICE | 02-14-2006 08:49 AM |
More importantly from the perspective of the vehicle occupant (so as to include the better half of rallying the co-driver ;) ) if they have chosen a device that meets every protection aspect of the standard and decided it suited them better - their chance of injury increases dramatically when they are not able to use it due to an arbitrarily decided release rule that has nothing to do with reducing loads on their necks in a high G impact. I don't care if the Emergency crew only has a single driver restraint release if I am already dead, they already had to open the door and remove the window net and disconnect my cool shirt anyway and unless they are going to require wireless headsets, disconnect my comm as well. I would rather have loads on my neck reduced and add a fifth point of release.
None of that prevents an individual or sanctioning body that feels that a single point of release is a critical to their use and needs from choosing to individually make that choice or put in the rule set for that sanctioning bodies rules. In no way have I ever suggested that single point release was not important to others - but it is not important to the entire spectrum of racing. The perceived or detrmined need of one sanctioning body should not become the requirement of all. The SFI single point of release was included to create a barrier to competition with Hans - it allowed Hans as is and required all others to incur costs uneccessary to the restraint of the H&N.
None of that prevents an individual or sanctioning body that feels that a single point of release is a critical to their use and needs from choosing to individually make that choice or put in the rule set for that sanctioning bodies rules. In no way have I ever suggested that single point release was not important to others - but it is not important to the entire spectrum of racing. The perceived or detrmined need of one sanctioning body should not become the requirement of all. The SFI single point of release was included to create a barrier to competition with Hans - it allowed Hans as is and required all others to incur costs uneccessary to the restraint of the H&N.
| turboICE | 02-14-2006 09:47 AM |
It has been a while so I read FIA 8853-98 and 8854-98 again.
I see nothing in either standard for homologation that would require a single point of release.
The closest item is 5.4.4
[quote]The opening of the buckle shall produce, by itself alone and with a single simple movement of one hand in one direction, that each tongue is ejected on release or that the latching mechanism shall remain in the open position.[/quote]
which addresses that the buckle shall release with a single simple movement - nowhere is it stated that the driver will be free of the harness subsequent to buckle release.
Note the FIA and FIA Institute objective has [i]nothing[/i] to do with manufacturers:
[quote]The heart of the FIA will always remain its member clubs and their activities in both general motoring and sport. FIA member clubs serve the motorist in a multitude of ways.
-------
The objective of the FIA Institute is to promote improvements in the safety of motor sport by supporting and disseminating the results of research; supporting training of officials, circuit and race personnel in safety procedures, practices and the use of equipment; supporting the protection of participants, officials and members of the public at international motor sport events and monitoring motor sport safety trends in order to identify research and regulation priorities.[/quote]
While the SFI on the other hand puts manufacturers first (makes sense having been created by SEMA) and end users of products as a by product of their activities:
[quote]The SFI Foundation, Inc. (SFI) is a non-profit organization established to issue and administer standards for specialty/performance automotive and racing equipment.
SFI was originally a foundation run by SEMA, the automotive aftermarket trade organization. The letters "SFI" stood for "SEMA Foundation, Inc." Although SFI is now completely independent from SEMA, the Foundation has retained the name SFI Foundation, Inc. but the "S" no longer means SEMA.
Manufacturers of equipment are the primary users of SFI standards. Some standards are adopted as part of the rules of race sanctioning organizations. Ultimately, the consumer benefits from the program as it establishes recognized levels of performance or quality for a product.[/quote]This is why the FIA to me is the most relevant safety standard setting body in motorsports it has existed for over a 100 years for motorists while the SFI is for manufacturers.
I would actually like to be able to read spec 16.1 in any form but most importantly its wording as it existed prior to 38.1. As I suspect previous wording had nothing to do with a single point release resulting in the occupant being free of the harness. But can't find any copy available for the end user.
I see nothing in either standard for homologation that would require a single point of release.
The closest item is 5.4.4
[quote]The opening of the buckle shall produce, by itself alone and with a single simple movement of one hand in one direction, that each tongue is ejected on release or that the latching mechanism shall remain in the open position.[/quote]
which addresses that the buckle shall release with a single simple movement - nowhere is it stated that the driver will be free of the harness subsequent to buckle release.
Note the FIA and FIA Institute objective has [i]nothing[/i] to do with manufacturers:
[quote]The heart of the FIA will always remain its member clubs and their activities in both general motoring and sport. FIA member clubs serve the motorist in a multitude of ways.
-------
The objective of the FIA Institute is to promote improvements in the safety of motor sport by supporting and disseminating the results of research; supporting training of officials, circuit and race personnel in safety procedures, practices and the use of equipment; supporting the protection of participants, officials and members of the public at international motor sport events and monitoring motor sport safety trends in order to identify research and regulation priorities.[/quote]
While the SFI on the other hand puts manufacturers first (makes sense having been created by SEMA) and end users of products as a by product of their activities:
[quote]The SFI Foundation, Inc. (SFI) is a non-profit organization established to issue and administer standards for specialty/performance automotive and racing equipment.
SFI was originally a foundation run by SEMA, the automotive aftermarket trade organization. The letters "SFI" stood for "SEMA Foundation, Inc." Although SFI is now completely independent from SEMA, the Foundation has retained the name SFI Foundation, Inc. but the "S" no longer means SEMA.
Manufacturers of equipment are the primary users of SFI standards. Some standards are adopted as part of the rules of race sanctioning organizations. Ultimately, the consumer benefits from the program as it establishes recognized levels of performance or quality for a product.[/quote]This is why the FIA to me is the most relevant safety standard setting body in motorsports it has existed for over a 100 years for motorists while the SFI is for manufacturers.
I would actually like to be able to read spec 16.1 in any form but most importantly its wording as it existed prior to 38.1. As I suspect previous wording had nothing to do with a single point release resulting in the occupant being free of the harness. But can't find any copy available for the end user.
| M. Hurst | 02-14-2006 10:04 AM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]It has been a while so I read FIA 8853-98 and 8854-98 again.
I see nothing in either standard for homologation that would require a single point of release.
[/QUOTE]
Have you checked the FIA's standards for H&N devices instead of looking for them in the seat belt standards?..these make 38.1 look democratic by comparison.
[url]http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1342748455__FIA_Stand_8858_2002_Hans.pdf[/url]
[url]http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/826942018__List_29_App_Hans_system.pdf[/url]
..
I see nothing in either standard for homologation that would require a single point of release.
[/QUOTE]
Have you checked the FIA's standards for H&N devices instead of looking for them in the seat belt standards?..these make 38.1 look democratic by comparison.
[url]http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1342748455__FIA_Stand_8858_2002_Hans.pdf[/url]
[url]http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/826942018__List_29_App_Hans_system.pdf[/url]
..
| turboICE | 02-14-2006 10:36 AM |
That standard is for HANS(R) homologation. While they do not currently have any other H&N device homologation, they have not precluded from adding alternative standards in the future. And they have not required the "single point of release". Dual shoulder harness are no less difficult an additional 2 releases than Isaac (and could get just as hung up releasing the harness upside down as you pointed out in another thread was a problem you had with Isacc.) FIA has a tether cutting requirement for release from HANS, negating egress concerns that would have otherwise arose - because in 2002 when there was substantially fewer alternatives available an egress requirement would have prevented homologation of HANS altogether from closed roof cars and FIA wanted a product available.
I don't see anything wrong with the standard for HANS(R) devices from the FIA, unless they were to conclusively decide it was the only H&N restraint they were going to ever homologate.
As a matter of fact I wish a similar FIA standard was available for Isaac - I wouldn't mind a helmet manufactured with homologated Isaac fittings. But as with other innovative devices it is likely cost prohibitive for small innovative firms like Isaac to directly persue.
Other than BMW CCA does any other US sanctioning body requiring H&N referencing 8858-2002? (And by permitting 8858-2002 BMW CCA has not required a single point of release.)
Is there any sanctioning body which requires H&N and only permits 8858-2002?
Has FIA stated that no other system would be evaluated ever?
HANS(R) has money - that doesn't make them the best or only alternative to consider unless required to do so to participate.
Would the dual shoulder harness receive SFI 38.1? Would Rally America permit it? If so the fallacy of "single point release" as you have described previously continues.
I don't see anything wrong with the standard for HANS(R) devices from the FIA, unless they were to conclusively decide it was the only H&N restraint they were going to ever homologate.
As a matter of fact I wish a similar FIA standard was available for Isaac - I wouldn't mind a helmet manufactured with homologated Isaac fittings. But as with other innovative devices it is likely cost prohibitive for small innovative firms like Isaac to directly persue.
Other than BMW CCA does any other US sanctioning body requiring H&N referencing 8858-2002? (And by permitting 8858-2002 BMW CCA has not required a single point of release.)
Is there any sanctioning body which requires H&N and only permits 8858-2002?
Has FIA stated that no other system would be evaluated ever?
HANS(R) has money - that doesn't make them the best or only alternative to consider unless required to do so to participate.
Would the dual shoulder harness receive SFI 38.1? Would Rally America permit it? If so the fallacy of "single point release" as you have described previously continues.
| M. Hurst | 02-14-2006 11:57 AM |
With regard to the Isaac device and the FIA, you're barking up the wrong tree. As a diehard Isaac fan, you [B]do not[/B] want to hear the opinions regarding the Isaac device, from the safey consultants within the FIA.
I consider the 38.1 to be a marketing opportunity for a prospective H&N device manufacturer, not a hindrance. Make a device that meets the standard and passes the tests, and you're going to have an instant market for your product, without trying to make a competing product look bad, using anecdotal evidence, conspiracy theories, or sounding like a snake oil salesman.
The dual belt Hans systems still have a single point of release.
I consider the 38.1 to be a marketing opportunity for a prospective H&N device manufacturer, not a hindrance. Make a device that meets the standard and passes the tests, and you're going to have an instant market for your product, without trying to make a competing product look bad, using anecdotal evidence, conspiracy theories, or sounding like a snake oil salesman.
The dual belt Hans systems still have a single point of release.
| turboICE | 02-14-2006 12:25 PM |
I am always interested in FIA views on safety - I have much more faith in them than SFI. FIA documented reasons and conclusions would be the strongest means to convince me I am safer with a HANS than an Isaac, because there is nothing else out there that does and certainly not 38.1.
Not sure how news releases which stated the 38.1 relationship between NASCAR, SFI and people connected to HANS is a conspiracy theory, their own news releases documented the relationships.
[QUOTE=M. Hurst]The dual belt Hans systems still have a single point of release.[/QUOTE]
How can that even be possible the yoke is cinched in between two belts and now the yoke has a lip to keep it in those two belts - if you don't think the HANS has to be released from a dual belt system, I don't understand what your concept of release is. Releasing the buckle will not leave you free from tha harnesses, you will have to release the HANS from a dual belt system.
Not sure how news releases which stated the 38.1 relationship between NASCAR, SFI and people connected to HANS is a conspiracy theory, their own news releases documented the relationships.
[QUOTE=M. Hurst]The dual belt Hans systems still have a single point of release.[/QUOTE]
How can that even be possible the yoke is cinched in between two belts and now the yoke has a lip to keep it in those two belts - if you don't think the HANS has to be released from a dual belt system, I don't understand what your concept of release is. Releasing the buckle will not leave you free from tha harnesses, you will have to release the HANS from a dual belt system.
| turboICE | 02-14-2006 12:44 PM |
The very installation method results in the HANS being secured in the dual belt and is designed to not release so as not to get the result in the previously posted video.
[quote]The only complications of this setup are in the installation. It is CRITICAL to install these belts correctly. Failure to do this correctly may result in driver injury. The body belt (3" shoulder strap) must angle down off the shoulders at an angle between 20 and 30 degrees down from parallel to the ground. The HANS belt (2" shoulder strap) needs to come off closer to 10 degrees [i][b]and angle in more[/b][/i] than the body belt does.[/quote]
[img]http://www.schrothracing.com/img/tn.double.belt.jpg[/img]
That system utilizes more than a single point of occupant release from the harness and if that passes 38.1 release requirements so should Isaac.
[quote]The only complications of this setup are in the installation. It is CRITICAL to install these belts correctly. Failure to do this correctly may result in driver injury. The body belt (3" shoulder strap) must angle down off the shoulders at an angle between 20 and 30 degrees down from parallel to the ground. The HANS belt (2" shoulder strap) needs to come off closer to 10 degrees [i][b]and angle in more[/b][/i] than the body belt does.[/quote]
[img]http://www.schrothracing.com/img/tn.double.belt.jpg[/img]
That system utilizes more than a single point of occupant release from the harness and if that passes 38.1 release requirements so should Isaac.
| turboICE | 02-14-2006 01:16 PM |
[QUOTE=M. Hurst]What happens if (after your bell is rung by an impact), you're hanging upside down from the belts, and you forget you're wearing the Isaac and release your belts first?, even worse what if the car came to rest standing on it's nose? (happens in rally quite often) Wouldn't this grab your helmet when the isaac hit the shoulder belt adjusters, while the rest of you keeps going?[/QUOTE]
What happens with Isaac is the exact same thing that would happen with the new double harness design if you don't slip the HANS out of the belt before hitting the buckle release. Acceptance of the double belt HANS has completely tossed out the window (whether netted or not ;) ) any complaints about the Isaac, accept their release as you would accept the double belt release and I bet Isaac has full test sled data in short order. I don't think Isaac has ever objected to the quantitative requirements of the SFI standard - only the qualitative design restrictions which don't bear any affect on load reduction.
What happens with Isaac is the exact same thing that would happen with the new double harness design if you don't slip the HANS out of the belt before hitting the buckle release. Acceptance of the double belt HANS has completely tossed out the window (whether netted or not ;) ) any complaints about the Isaac, accept their release as you would accept the double belt release and I bet Isaac has full test sled data in short order. I don't think Isaac has ever objected to the quantitative requirements of the SFI standard - only the qualitative design restrictions which don't bear any affect on load reduction.
| gbaker | 02-14-2006 02:58 PM |
[QUOTE=M. Hurst]With regard to the Isaac device and the FIA, you're barking up the wrong tree. As a diehard Isaac fan, you [B]do not[/B] want to hear the opinions regarding the Isaac device, from the safey consultants within the FIA.[/quote]Beg your pardon? Professor Sid has never made a disparaging remark about our product.
| turboICE | 02-14-2006 03:09 PM |
The entire post is full of rhetoric not just that part - by use of catch phrases with negative connotations with no support behind their usage, there is a hope that the internal inconsistencies with the decisions that have been made can be quickly glossed over.
No FIA guidance supports a 38.1 type of single point of release requirement and any permitted use of the dual belt under spec 38.1 is inconsistent with that requirement.
M. go ahead and feel free to put in the last word, I have made and supported my points and sufficient holes have been poked into the politics and commercialism that resulted in 38.1 and the single point of release fallacy from this and our other post that until something new is identified to disuss on the topic, I have nothing further to say here.
No FIA guidance supports a 38.1 type of single point of release requirement and any permitted use of the dual belt under spec 38.1 is inconsistent with that requirement.
M. go ahead and feel free to put in the last word, I have made and supported my points and sufficient holes have been poked into the politics and commercialism that resulted in 38.1 and the single point of release fallacy from this and our other post that until something new is identified to disuss on the topic, I have nothing further to say here.
| bjorn240 | 02-14-2006 04:03 PM |
[QUOTE=gbaker]What does a HANS device do better than an Isaac system? Not much, obviously.[/QUOTE]
Pass existing safety standards.
Why don't you redesign the Isaac to meet SFI 38.1? If you did, it would be a legitimate competitor to HANS for all us competitors who are compelled by our sanctioning bodies to meet SFI 38.1 rules for our H&N restraints.
Until then, it doesn't make a difference how much better the Isaac is, because we can't wear it.
- Christian
Pass existing safety standards.
Why don't you redesign the Isaac to meet SFI 38.1? If you did, it would be a legitimate competitor to HANS for all us competitors who are compelled by our sanctioning bodies to meet SFI 38.1 rules for our H&N restraints.
Until then, it doesn't make a difference how much better the Isaac is, because we can't wear it.
- Christian
| gbaker | 02-14-2006 04:58 PM |
[QUOTE=bjorn240]Pass existing safety standards.[/quote]We do. If SFI wrote the egress rule backwards it is SFI's responsibility to fix it, or remove it.
[quote]Why don't you redesign the Isaac to meet SFI 38.1? If you did, it would be a legitimate competitor to HANS for all us competitors who are compelled by our sanctioning bodies to meet SFI 38.1 rules for our H&N restraints.
Until then, it doesn't make a difference how much better the Isaac is, because we can't wear it.
- Christian[/QUOTE]The purpose is not to make money. The purpose is to help save drivers' lives. We are not going to make an inferior product just so we can sell more "stuff".
Smack your sanctioning body upside the head. Tell them SFI isn't good enough for you.
[quote]Why don't you redesign the Isaac to meet SFI 38.1? If you did, it would be a legitimate competitor to HANS for all us competitors who are compelled by our sanctioning bodies to meet SFI 38.1 rules for our H&N restraints.
Until then, it doesn't make a difference how much better the Isaac is, because we can't wear it.
- Christian[/QUOTE]The purpose is not to make money. The purpose is to help save drivers' lives. We are not going to make an inferior product just so we can sell more "stuff".
Smack your sanctioning body upside the head. Tell them SFI isn't good enough for you.
| gbaker | 02-14-2006 05:00 PM |
[QUOTE=cooleyjb]These are some sweeping statements. Care to back any of them up with actual references...[/QUOTE][url]http://isaacdirect.com/SFI.html[/url]
Read all of it.
Read all of it.
| bjorn240 | 02-14-2006 05:02 PM |
Well, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think your premise of saving more lives works, if the people whose lives are to be saved are wearing a competitors products.
- Christian
- Christian
| Safe Drives | 02-14-2006 05:25 PM |
Gregg,
Why does it look like the HANS Device equiped dummy in your latest comparison video look like his left arm is tied to the seat?
Best regards,
Charles Buren
Safe Drives LLC
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/"][u][color=#800080]www.safedrives.com[/color][/u][/url]
877-739-1713 toll free
cburen @@@ safedrives.com
Why does it look like the HANS Device equiped dummy in your latest comparison video look like his left arm is tied to the seat?
Best regards,
Charles Buren
Safe Drives LLC
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/"][u][color=#800080]www.safedrives.com[/color][/u][/url]
877-739-1713 toll free
cburen @@@ safedrives.com
| gbaker | 02-14-2006 05:26 PM |
Christian,
I'm not disagreeing with your position. You're stuck. You have our sympathies. Sanctioning bodies that are either ignorant or lazy (or both) will latch on to any "standard" just for CYA purposes. This is one approach to take if they don't wish to educate themselves on the subject.
But it ain't rocket surgery. They will increase their liability if they ignore established facts that are easy to understand--like dead bodies. Juries do not look kindly on any organization that puts its members at risk just to cover its butt. That's why most sanctioning bodies are waiting until all the data are in, and not doing anything before 2007 at the earliest.
I'm not disagreeing with your position. You're stuck. You have our sympathies. Sanctioning bodies that are either ignorant or lazy (or both) will latch on to any "standard" just for CYA purposes. This is one approach to take if they don't wish to educate themselves on the subject.
But it ain't rocket surgery. They will increase their liability if they ignore established facts that are easy to understand--like dead bodies. Juries do not look kindly on any organization that puts its members at risk just to cover its butt. That's why most sanctioning bodies are waiting until all the data are in, and not doing anything before 2007 at the earliest.
| gbaker | 02-14-2006 05:29 PM |
Charles,
The dummy's arms are tied down on all high-G sled tests to prevent them from being damaged. It's standard procedure for all tests regardless of product.
The dummy's arms are tied down on all high-G sled tests to prevent them from being damaged. It's standard procedure for all tests regardless of product.
| Safe Drives | 02-14-2006 05:37 PM |
Gregg,
It sure looks like the HANS equiped dummys left arm is tied LOWER than the the Isaac equiped dummy on the right. Why is that?
Best regards,
Charles Buren
Safe Drives LLC
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/"][u][color=#800080]www.safedrives.com[/color][/u][/url]
877-739-1713 toll free
cburen @@@ safedrives.com
It sure looks like the HANS equiped dummys left arm is tied LOWER than the the Isaac equiped dummy on the right. Why is that?
Best regards,
Charles Buren
Safe Drives LLC
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/"][u][color=#800080]www.safedrives.com[/color][/u][/url]
877-739-1713 toll free
cburen @@@ safedrives.com
| gbaker | 02-14-2006 05:43 PM |
Charles,
It's at the same elevation. They connect it somewhere along the side rail of the sled structure, ahead of the torso of course. I don't believe there is any "rule" about the location. It's not a factor in the results.
It's at the same elevation. They connect it somewhere along the side rail of the sled structure, ahead of the torso of course. I don't believe there is any "rule" about the location. It's not a factor in the results.
| cooleyjb | 02-14-2006 06:52 PM |
[QUOTE=gbaker][url]http://isaacdirect.com/SFI.html[/url]
Read all of it.[/QUOTE]
You do realize you directed me to a site that is owned by Isaac. That is propaganda and does not contain much scientific evidence or any statistical evidence and is obviously biased since it is on the Isaac sight. It does link to one page showing forces that Isaac, Isaac link, and HANS have and properly installed and used HANS and regular Isaac reduce the force to nearly the same amount.
Do you have any numbers on the amount of miles raced by drivers using a HANS device vs. a Isaac device. I am guessing that the ratio is easily 10,000:1 if not much more just becuase no sanctioning body allows it. It could easily be stated that because there is so much more use of the HANS device that what few incidences there are with H & N devices are always found with HANS just because of its ubiquity.
I just would like some good evidence to support the HANS bashing or vice versa.
Read all of it.[/QUOTE]
You do realize you directed me to a site that is owned by Isaac. That is propaganda and does not contain much scientific evidence or any statistical evidence and is obviously biased since it is on the Isaac sight. It does link to one page showing forces that Isaac, Isaac link, and HANS have and properly installed and used HANS and regular Isaac reduce the force to nearly the same amount.
Do you have any numbers on the amount of miles raced by drivers using a HANS device vs. a Isaac device. I am guessing that the ratio is easily 10,000:1 if not much more just becuase no sanctioning body allows it. It could easily be stated that because there is so much more use of the HANS device that what few incidences there are with H & N devices are always found with HANS just because of its ubiquity.
I just would like some good evidence to support the HANS bashing or vice versa.
| turboICE | 02-14-2006 07:02 PM |
OK new stuff...
You asked him to back it up with references - what's the diff if he typed the same thing in the thread or referred you to the site page where he already typed it up? Of course he referenced the Isaac site, he did already post his position with Isaac - it isn't his fault that NASIOC is ghey and doesn't allow signatures so he doesn't type it in every post. Is propaganda that is factual still propaganda?
And many sanctioning bodies allow Isaac - NASA, SCCA, EMRA, every sanctioning body that has not adopted 38.1 or require a single point of release allow Isaac. So what does that make your comment "no sanctioning body allow it." if not bashing not only without support but factually incorrect.
I still want an explanation how the double belt on a HANS disengages "the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations." as required by 38.1 by just the buckle release.
You asked him to back it up with references - what's the diff if he typed the same thing in the thread or referred you to the site page where he already typed it up? Of course he referenced the Isaac site, he did already post his position with Isaac - it isn't his fault that NASIOC is ghey and doesn't allow signatures so he doesn't type it in every post. Is propaganda that is factual still propaganda?
And many sanctioning bodies allow Isaac - NASA, SCCA, EMRA, every sanctioning body that has not adopted 38.1 or require a single point of release allow Isaac. So what does that make your comment "no sanctioning body allow it." if not bashing not only without support but factually incorrect.
I still want an explanation how the double belt on a HANS disengages "the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations." as required by 38.1 by just the buckle release.
| cooleyjb | 02-14-2006 07:21 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]OK new stuff...
You asked him to back it up with references - what's the diff if he typed the same thing in the thread or referred you to the site page where he already typed it up? Of course he referenced the Isaac site, he did already post his position with Isaac - it isn't his fault that NASIOC is ghey and doesn't allow signatures so he doesn't type it in every post. Is propaganda that is factual still propaganda?
[/QUOTE]
Factual doesn't mean it is statistically significant. I also didn't realize he worked for Isaac. Of course he's going to talk about how great Isaac is and HANS isn't. But I would also expect him to show some real numbers of how Isaac is genuinely better than HANS. Sell me on it. So far he hasn't demonstrably shown me that Isaac is a superior device. I'm not saying HANS is better than Isaac and that I support HANS, I'd just like some solid evidence and statistics
You asked him to back it up with references - what's the diff if he typed the same thing in the thread or referred you to the site page where he already typed it up? Of course he referenced the Isaac site, he did already post his position with Isaac - it isn't his fault that NASIOC is ghey and doesn't allow signatures so he doesn't type it in every post. Is propaganda that is factual still propaganda?
[/QUOTE]
Factual doesn't mean it is statistically significant. I also didn't realize he worked for Isaac. Of course he's going to talk about how great Isaac is and HANS isn't. But I would also expect him to show some real numbers of how Isaac is genuinely better than HANS. Sell me on it. So far he hasn't demonstrably shown me that Isaac is a superior device. I'm not saying HANS is better than Isaac and that I support HANS, I'd just like some solid evidence and statistics
| turboICE | 02-14-2006 07:48 PM |
Look here for an independent history of head and neck restraints hosted on ESPN with links to sources:
[url]http://www.jayski.com/pages/restraint.htm[/url]
Which includes:
"criteria recently developed by NASCAR for the SFI Foundation"
Here is the cliff notes version:
HANS is developed sometime around 1985 I think.
NASCAR very appropriately starts looking into head and neck restraints after several high profile frequent basilar skull fractures.
They work with a lot of manufacturers, but early on show favor to the HANS.
Eventually they figure that everything that needs to be known for standardizing is known in their minds. As an accountant I would love to match up HANS and NASCAR financial transactions during this time.
NASCAR requires H&N restraints, with suggestions but no required products. Drivers complain bitterly about still looking for one that is right for them.
Since NASCAR is not an FIA member that I know of (and to my knowledge uses no FIA standards) they go to SFI, saying we need an "independent" standard to point to and require all drivers to use.
SFI says we don't have a clue - NASCAR you write it for us and we will put our stamp on it. "criteria recently developed by NASCAR for the SFI Foundation"
NASCAR mandates only the HANS even after R3 was the first product to receive 38.1 certification.
The presence of conflicts of interest in the development of SFI 38.1 is laid out clear as day right there on that site.
To say that SFI 38.1 was not written in a manner intended to favor HANS and disadvantage other products is a move ostrichs are most famous for. NASCAR had already expressed a desire to see only HANS used, drivers didn't like it, NASCAR goes to SFI to give them a standard to bring the hammer down on their drivers and then the SFI says we can't write it NASCAR, you write it for us.
If conflicts of interest are conspiracy, then yes it is a conspiracy but not a theory - it's laid out right there on a site with references. A site which has no agenda and makes no analysis just posting of reported events.
Read that site and come back straight faced saying there aren't more conflicts of interest in SFI 38.1 than a congressional lobbyist having meetings in DC.
[url]http://www.jayski.com/pages/restraint.htm[/url]
Which includes:
"criteria recently developed by NASCAR for the SFI Foundation"
Here is the cliff notes version:
HANS is developed sometime around 1985 I think.
NASCAR very appropriately starts looking into head and neck restraints after several high profile frequent basilar skull fractures.
They work with a lot of manufacturers, but early on show favor to the HANS.
Eventually they figure that everything that needs to be known for standardizing is known in their minds. As an accountant I would love to match up HANS and NASCAR financial transactions during this time.
NASCAR requires H&N restraints, with suggestions but no required products. Drivers complain bitterly about still looking for one that is right for them.
Since NASCAR is not an FIA member that I know of (and to my knowledge uses no FIA standards) they go to SFI, saying we need an "independent" standard to point to and require all drivers to use.
SFI says we don't have a clue - NASCAR you write it for us and we will put our stamp on it. "criteria recently developed by NASCAR for the SFI Foundation"
NASCAR mandates only the HANS even after R3 was the first product to receive 38.1 certification.
The presence of conflicts of interest in the development of SFI 38.1 is laid out clear as day right there on that site.
To say that SFI 38.1 was not written in a manner intended to favor HANS and disadvantage other products is a move ostrichs are most famous for. NASCAR had already expressed a desire to see only HANS used, drivers didn't like it, NASCAR goes to SFI to give them a standard to bring the hammer down on their drivers and then the SFI says we can't write it NASCAR, you write it for us.
If conflicts of interest are conspiracy, then yes it is a conspiracy but not a theory - it's laid out right there on a site with references. A site which has no agenda and makes no analysis just posting of reported events.
Read that site and come back straight faced saying there aren't more conflicts of interest in SFI 38.1 than a congressional lobbyist having meetings in DC.
| turboICE | 02-14-2006 08:35 PM |
Finally found a copy of 38.1 since SFI apparently doesn't think it would be relevant to the actual consumer on thier own site.
[url]http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1_Head_Restraint_Specification.pdf[/url]
[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.
[url]http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1_Head_Restraint_Specification.pdf[/url]
[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.
| MFR Sweep | 02-14-2006 09:51 PM |
Well Back to the original subject........
�
�
Who wants to tell this guy that his cage is worthless?
[URL=http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=940286]Link to thread[/URL]
C.N. : dude in Members car gallery has teh POS Cusco cage that was found on page 1 of this thread. Who wants to burst his buble?
[URL=http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=940286]Link to thread[/URL]
C.N. : dude in Members car gallery has teh POS Cusco cage that was found on page 1 of this thread. Who wants to burst his buble?
| greg donovan | 02-15-2006 09:37 AM |
[QUOTE=MFR Sweep]Who wants to tell this guy that his cage is worthless?
[URL=http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=940286]Link to thread[/URL]
C.N. : dude in Members car gallery has teh POS Cusco cage that was found on page 1 of this thread. Who wants to burst his buble?[/QUOTE]
they guys in that forum must not venture over here ever.
86 posts in that thread and only two comments about the cage and mine was one of them.
and all i said was that i hope no one in the back busts their skull on it and the other person agreed w/me.
[URL=http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=940286]Link to thread[/URL]
C.N. : dude in Members car gallery has teh POS Cusco cage that was found on page 1 of this thread. Who wants to burst his buble?[/QUOTE]
they guys in that forum must not venture over here ever.
86 posts in that thread and only two comments about the cage and mine was one of them.
and all i said was that i hope no one in the back busts their skull on it and the other person agreed w/me.
| bjorn240 | 02-15-2006 09:58 AM |
I have no problem with that cage. I only have a problem if that cage is posted in motorsports.
If they keep it in "Let's Play Dress-up!" I'm happy to let them do whatever they want to their cars. As long as I don't have to ride in them.
- Christian
If they keep it in "Let's Play Dress-up!" I'm happy to let them do whatever they want to their cars. As long as I don't have to ride in them.
- Christian
| BLK REX | 02-15-2006 08:52 PM |
Where'd the H&N talk come from int he Cage thread?
| turboICE | 02-15-2006 09:40 PM |
Sorry I guess I am responsible by my passing reference on post 95 and it went down hill from there.
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=935861&page=4&pp=25[/url]
[QUOTE=turboICE]When just about every sanctioning body is on the verge of requiring H&N restraints - I find it hard to believe anyone is arguing that there is anything safe about using a harness on the street. I have seen the pics and videos of harnesses without H&N restraint and that is scary before you have the chance of banging your head on the cage.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=935861&page=4&pp=25[/url]
[QUOTE=turboICE]When just about every sanctioning body is on the verge of requiring H&N restraints - I find it hard to believe anyone is arguing that there is anything safe about using a harness on the street. I have seen the pics and videos of harnesses without H&N restraint and that is scary before you have the chance of banging your head on the cage.[/QUOTE]
| trhoppe | 02-15-2006 11:41 PM |
Cage == safety == H&N == arguing == Isaac vs. Hans argument. It always does that :lol:
-Tom
who would really want a damn Isaac but he isn't going to spend $1K on something he might not be able to use next year.
-Tom
who would really want a damn Isaac but he isn't going to spend $1K on something he might not be able to use next year.
| griplimited | 02-16-2006 03:13 AM |
cusco is allowed in most us sanction racing, due to piping and design (multiple bends over the dash bar). but it works, i've yet to hear any horror stories and hope not to.
| turboICE | 02-16-2006 07:50 AM |
[QUOTE=griplimited]cusco is allowed in most us sanction racing[/QUOTE]Name a single US sanctioning body where a cage is required for racing that allows the Cusco cage to meet that requirement.
| trhoppe | 02-16-2006 11:44 AM |
turboICE - I guarantee you he meant to say "NOT" but just didn't put it in his post. The rest of his post makes sense if you add "NOT" :)
-Tom
-Tom
| turboICE | 02-16-2006 11:46 AM |
I thought so too given the context - but he still said most which is less than all! ;)
Ed.
Ed.
| greg donovan | 02-16-2006 01:55 PM |
[QUOTE=griplimited]cusco is allowed in most us sanction racing, due to piping and design (multiple bends over the dash bar). but it works, i've yet to hear any horror stories and hope not to.[/QUOTE]
myabe Cusco's [I]weld in[/I] kits are alloweed but this bolt in thing would never be allowed in anything other than a car show.
myabe Cusco's [I]weld in[/I] kits are alloweed but this bolt in thing would never be allowed in anything other than a car show.
| MFR Sweep | 02-16-2006 02:15 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]Sorry I guess I am responsible by my passing reference on post 95 and it went down hill from there.
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=935861&page=4&pp=25[/url][/QUOTE]
Damn you for starting this off topic, valid, and interesting turn in this thread! :) :devil:
If there is anything left please keep going. this is a topic that I an severely misinformed about and would really like to know more. (H&N restraint)
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=935861&page=4&pp=25[/url][/QUOTE]
Damn you for starting this off topic, valid, and interesting turn in this thread! :) :devil:
If there is anything left please keep going. this is a topic that I an severely misinformed about and would really like to know more. (H&N restraint)
| turboICE | 02-16-2006 02:32 PM |
The key thing for people to know is that while properly using harnesses and with the additional weight (i.e. momentum) of a helmet on your head the wrong circumstances can produce forces which can cause substantial injury or death at what would otherwise have been thought to be relatively low rates of deceleration (i.e. less than 50mph to 0mph in well under a second)
The next thing to know is that most of the main products available which constrain the head to a relatively stable relationship to the torso is going to reduce the risk of injury or death substantially (and this excludes those $29 neck rings which actually just give leverage to the helmet and more mass to the H&N in motion).
The third key thing is that there are standards that have been developed and agree with their contents or not at some point those standards will determine the population of products you can select from for use with most sanctioning bodies.
After that you are pretty much on your own to research and consider with a healthy level of skepticim or criticism the information out there in order for you to ultimately make your own best informed decision - it's your head and neck.
My own desire to be able to utilize Isaac was arrived at by my own ability at independent thought. By no means does that mean anyone else should use any available product whatever it is without having arrived at the conclusion through their own independent thought. (When sanctioning bodies permit independent thought by the racers regarding their own safety.)
The next thing to know is that most of the main products available which constrain the head to a relatively stable relationship to the torso is going to reduce the risk of injury or death substantially (and this excludes those $29 neck rings which actually just give leverage to the helmet and more mass to the H&N in motion).
The third key thing is that there are standards that have been developed and agree with their contents or not at some point those standards will determine the population of products you can select from for use with most sanctioning bodies.
After that you are pretty much on your own to research and consider with a healthy level of skepticim or criticism the information out there in order for you to ultimately make your own best informed decision - it's your head and neck.
My own desire to be able to utilize Isaac was arrived at by my own ability at independent thought. By no means does that mean anyone else should use any available product whatever it is without having arrived at the conclusion through their own independent thought. (When sanctioning bodies permit independent thought by the racers regarding their own safety.)
| gbaker | 02-16-2006 07:06 PM |
[QUOTE=MFR Sweep]Damn you for starting this off topic, valid, and interesting turn in this thread! :) :devil:
If there is anything left please keep going. this is a topic that I an severely misinformed about and would really like to know more. (H&N restraint)[/QUOTE]Yeah, is he bad or what? :)
There's a lot more, MFR, but it looks like folks are tired of this here.
FWIW, as a licensed engineer I can say with absolute certainty that the subject cage is a loser. IIRC from the photos, not a single plane is triangulated. Hence, it would collapse if my cat jumped on it.
Okay, a mild exaggeration. I could be wrong.
If there is anything left please keep going. this is a topic that I an severely misinformed about and would really like to know more. (H&N restraint)[/QUOTE]Yeah, is he bad or what? :)
There's a lot more, MFR, but it looks like folks are tired of this here.
FWIW, as a licensed engineer I can say with absolute certainty that the subject cage is a loser. IIRC from the photos, not a single plane is triangulated. Hence, it would collapse if my cat jumped on it.
Okay, a mild exaggeration. I could be wrong.
| MFR Sweep | 02-16-2006 07:14 PM |
I guess that "severely" would be an overstatment. But Essentially the only H&N restraint that I am farmilliar with is the HANS device. this is primarily because (hence Name, I sweep Maine Forest Rallies) I have spent time around them, asked questions about them and have farmiliarized myself with their use in the event that our crew must extricate a (co)/driver. This is obviously not somehting that I ever want to have to do. But if it does happen I want to know every aspect about the devices that they use. This is why I am interested inthe Issac (sp), so if/when it is sanctioned for use with rally america. I will know the same about this device.
| turboICE | 02-16-2006 07:25 PM |
[url]http://www.isaacdirect.com/index.html[/url]
Before I get reamed by someone else, yes it is the manufacturer's site - but that is where I go when I start looking at any product, then consider elsewhere.
[url]http://www.jayski.com/pages/restraint.htm[/url]
His site has links to a dozen products or so at the top of the page and a source quoted history of H&N restraints.
[url]http://www.headrestraint.org/[/url]
Site started by a rally and road racer trying to bring together everything on one site - but apparently other than Isaac no one wants to participate in it. (No it is not an Isaac site.)
Before I get reamed by someone else, yes it is the manufacturer's site - but that is where I go when I start looking at any product, then consider elsewhere.
[url]http://www.jayski.com/pages/restraint.htm[/url]
His site has links to a dozen products or so at the top of the page and a source quoted history of H&N restraints.
[url]http://www.headrestraint.org/[/url]
Site started by a rally and road racer trying to bring together everything on one site - but apparently other than Isaac no one wants to participate in it. (No it is not an Isaac site.)
| bjorn240 | 02-16-2006 07:50 PM |
Gregg,
Do you have neck tension data for the Isaac in a non-offset (head-on) accident?
Thanks,
- Christian
Do you have neck tension data for the Isaac in a non-offset (head-on) accident?
Thanks,
- Christian
| Safe Drives | 02-17-2006 10:21 PM |
[QUOTE=bjorn240]Gregg,
Do you have neck tension data for the Isaac in a non-offset (head-on) accident?
Thanks,
- Christian[/QUOTE]
Interesting... Over 24 hours and no answer to this question. Hmmm...
Best regards,
Charles Buren
Safe Drives LLC
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/"][u][color=#800080]www.safedrives.com[/color][/u][/url]
877-739-1713 toll free
cburen @@@ safedrives.com
Do you have neck tension data for the Isaac in a non-offset (head-on) accident?
Thanks,
- Christian[/QUOTE]
Interesting... Over 24 hours and no answer to this question. Hmmm...
Best regards,
Charles Buren
Safe Drives LLC
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/"][u][color=#800080]www.safedrives.com[/color][/u][/url]
877-739-1713 toll free
cburen @@@ safedrives.com
| turboICE | 02-17-2006 11:51 PM |
[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]
It has been many more hours without answers to my questions. Hmm...
Isaac did the more difficult offset test, why spend capital on the less difficult test when there are qualitative aspects arbitrarily applied that would prevent SFI from certifying Isaac at this time, no matter how good the numbers in the sled turn out to be? If all Isaac needed were sled numbers I am sure they would be provided - but there is no point until the standard refocuses on actual H&N restraint rather than release with no concern for egress.
And where are everyone else's numbers for their SFI testing?
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]
It has been many more hours without answers to my questions. Hmm...
Isaac did the more difficult offset test, why spend capital on the less difficult test when there are qualitative aspects arbitrarily applied that would prevent SFI from certifying Isaac at this time, no matter how good the numbers in the sled turn out to be? If all Isaac needed were sled numbers I am sure they would be provided - but there is no point until the standard refocuses on actual H&N restraint rather than release with no concern for egress.
And where are everyone else's numbers for their SFI testing?
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét