| turboICE | 06-28-2006 08:43 PM |
Chris,
I do not now, nor have I ever, had any financial interest in Isaac nor received any compensation, contingent or otherwise from Isaac. Nor do I personally know anyone at Isaac. I have made two phone calls to Isaac to talk about the product and to order the product at the public price.
I am a financial professional in NNJ and club racer. I have no interest in what anyone else buys or doesn't buy. I have made no suggestion anywhere that anyone else should even buy Isaac. I have made no suggestion anywhere that anyone should not buy HANS or any of the other egress restricting yoke designs.
My interest is solely as a club racer - MY safety. I feel that 38.1 and its pending adoption by the sanctioning bodies I race with will reduce MY safety from my current situation by excluding the safety product that I have determined will prevent further soft tissue injury to MY neck effectively and allow me to operate my car without impediments and offer me the most efficient means of egress.
So my bias is MY safety. Be as critical as you want of that bias - I acknowledge and will continue to apply it. But it is my well being at the source of the bias not financial incentive - all of this only costs me money. I don't have sponsorships or contracts which conflict me regarding Motorsports. Now if you have a need for financial engineering of investment products we can get into making me money.
Keep in mind I am not asking a single other person to reduce their own safety - use whatever effective product they desire - none of my business. I am the one being subjected to a restriction on choice, I am not seeking to restrict others choices unless those same drivers thumping on the single point of release really want to instead support a standard providing for FULL egress from the car and make multiple release mandatory to get those damn yokes off drivers backs.
First your position is flawed, because the content of the thread doesn't support what you have proposed as there being a financial conflict.
Second unless you are going to strap in and go wheel to wheel with your neck on the line you don't have a vested interest in the topic or its issues, your ability to appreciate my position is limited and the degree to which you would be compelled to fully research the topic is only that of passing interest rather than your own safety. Only a driver can appreciate the risk and the importance of safety choices and be fully compelled to fully research the issue.
If you had more than a passing interest you would have researched and realized that 38.1 limited H&N restraint to a single product when it was issued. Only one product could receive licensing to label 38.1 on the date it was issued HANS. Every other product besides HANS required re-engineering.
NASCAR desperately wanted their drivers using H&N restraints, not improperly so. Their drivers are their commodity and they couldn't keep having them break their necks at 180 mph. They hired outside consultants to assist them - consultants with real financial ties to HANS. As time passed and NASCAR was going more and more towards HANS being the ONLY permitted H&N restraint, significant numbers of drivers protested the lack of alternatives and choices because they were not comfortable in HANS. So NASCAR figured they needed an outside standard to make their drivers use HANS. So they go to the SFI.
SFI admitted they did not have the knowledge necessary to write 38.1 when NASCAR asked the SFI to write a H&N standard. So SFI punted and asked NASCAR to write the standard for them and they would put their stamp on it and issue it. NASCAR itself didn't have the knowledge necessary to write 38.1 - they relied on the same consultants to write it for them that they had relied on before 38.1 to provide them advice on the H&N mandates they were trying to force on drivers. All the same consultants with financial conflicts that wanted all NASCAR drivers in HANS.
Now if your passing interest has been at all peeked, all of this is supported by this collection of articles at this disinterested site on H&N restraints, do your thing. It is clips and posts of articles no commentary or conclusions. [url]http://www.jayski.com/pages/restraint.htm[/url]
But don't accuse me of being concerned about anything but MY safety when I strap in and persue the disease for which there is no cure - wheel to wheel, competitive racing. That is just unbased and offensive.
Ed.
I do not now, nor have I ever, had any financial interest in Isaac nor received any compensation, contingent or otherwise from Isaac. Nor do I personally know anyone at Isaac. I have made two phone calls to Isaac to talk about the product and to order the product at the public price.
I am a financial professional in NNJ and club racer. I have no interest in what anyone else buys or doesn't buy. I have made no suggestion anywhere that anyone else should even buy Isaac. I have made no suggestion anywhere that anyone should not buy HANS or any of the other egress restricting yoke designs.
My interest is solely as a club racer - MY safety. I feel that 38.1 and its pending adoption by the sanctioning bodies I race with will reduce MY safety from my current situation by excluding the safety product that I have determined will prevent further soft tissue injury to MY neck effectively and allow me to operate my car without impediments and offer me the most efficient means of egress.
So my bias is MY safety. Be as critical as you want of that bias - I acknowledge and will continue to apply it. But it is my well being at the source of the bias not financial incentive - all of this only costs me money. I don't have sponsorships or contracts which conflict me regarding Motorsports. Now if you have a need for financial engineering of investment products we can get into making me money.
Keep in mind I am not asking a single other person to reduce their own safety - use whatever effective product they desire - none of my business. I am the one being subjected to a restriction on choice, I am not seeking to restrict others choices unless those same drivers thumping on the single point of release really want to instead support a standard providing for FULL egress from the car and make multiple release mandatory to get those damn yokes off drivers backs.
First your position is flawed, because the content of the thread doesn't support what you have proposed as there being a financial conflict.
Second unless you are going to strap in and go wheel to wheel with your neck on the line you don't have a vested interest in the topic or its issues, your ability to appreciate my position is limited and the degree to which you would be compelled to fully research the topic is only that of passing interest rather than your own safety. Only a driver can appreciate the risk and the importance of safety choices and be fully compelled to fully research the issue.
If you had more than a passing interest you would have researched and realized that 38.1 limited H&N restraint to a single product when it was issued. Only one product could receive licensing to label 38.1 on the date it was issued HANS. Every other product besides HANS required re-engineering.
NASCAR desperately wanted their drivers using H&N restraints, not improperly so. Their drivers are their commodity and they couldn't keep having them break their necks at 180 mph. They hired outside consultants to assist them - consultants with real financial ties to HANS. As time passed and NASCAR was going more and more towards HANS being the ONLY permitted H&N restraint, significant numbers of drivers protested the lack of alternatives and choices because they were not comfortable in HANS. So NASCAR figured they needed an outside standard to make their drivers use HANS. So they go to the SFI.
SFI admitted they did not have the knowledge necessary to write 38.1 when NASCAR asked the SFI to write a H&N standard. So SFI punted and asked NASCAR to write the standard for them and they would put their stamp on it and issue it. NASCAR itself didn't have the knowledge necessary to write 38.1 - they relied on the same consultants to write it for them that they had relied on before 38.1 to provide them advice on the H&N mandates they were trying to force on drivers. All the same consultants with financial conflicts that wanted all NASCAR drivers in HANS.
Now if your passing interest has been at all peeked, all of this is supported by this collection of articles at this disinterested site on H&N restraints, do your thing. It is clips and posts of articles no commentary or conclusions. [url]http://www.jayski.com/pages/restraint.htm[/url]
But don't accuse me of being concerned about anything but MY safety when I strap in and persue the disease for which there is no cure - wheel to wheel, competitive racing. That is just unbased and offensive.
Ed.
| JoshS | 06-28-2006 09:00 PM |
You are complaining to the wrong people.
NASCAR, SCCA, and the other sanctioning bodies don't say "you can only use HANS", they say (or might soon say), "You can only use H&N restraints that meet the SFI 38.1 certification."
The reason that the sanctioning bodies say this, instead of just listing the H&N devices that you can use, is that they don't want to be responsible for their own testing. They want to pass the buck to an industry body who has more expertise than they do. Quite understandable.
So, you SHOULD be complaining to SFI. Bitching about it to fellow club racers is not likely to get you very far.
BTW, I'm sympathetic. I'm a club racer too. I use a HANS, chosen mostly because of the huge amount of anecdotal evidence that they work. I'm aware of the potential egress issues, but I made the personal decision that I'd rather release ONE thing, try to get out, and then still have a plan B if I fail (pull the helmet releases, try again), and then STILL have a plan C if that fails (pull the thing away from my neck and try a third time.) The Isaac system, which I did consider, makes me release three things before the first attempt to escape.
Anyway, my point is not that one H&N system is better than another. I respect your belief that you'd rather make your first attempt without a yoke on your neck. I empathize that it looks like your club might not let you make that choice. But I just don't think it's reasonable to expect the club to do anything different -- the club NEEDS an external body to certify these things as safe. So I think you need to be complaining to SFI, not to your club, and certainly not to us.
Good luck!
NASCAR, SCCA, and the other sanctioning bodies don't say "you can only use HANS", they say (or might soon say), "You can only use H&N restraints that meet the SFI 38.1 certification."
The reason that the sanctioning bodies say this, instead of just listing the H&N devices that you can use, is that they don't want to be responsible for their own testing. They want to pass the buck to an industry body who has more expertise than they do. Quite understandable.
So, you SHOULD be complaining to SFI. Bitching about it to fellow club racers is not likely to get you very far.
BTW, I'm sympathetic. I'm a club racer too. I use a HANS, chosen mostly because of the huge amount of anecdotal evidence that they work. I'm aware of the potential egress issues, but I made the personal decision that I'd rather release ONE thing, try to get out, and then still have a plan B if I fail (pull the helmet releases, try again), and then STILL have a plan C if that fails (pull the thing away from my neck and try a third time.) The Isaac system, which I did consider, makes me release three things before the first attempt to escape.
Anyway, my point is not that one H&N system is better than another. I respect your belief that you'd rather make your first attempt without a yoke on your neck. I empathize that it looks like your club might not let you make that choice. But I just don't think it's reasonable to expect the club to do anything different -- the club NEEDS an external body to certify these things as safe. So I think you need to be complaining to SFI, not to your club, and certainly not to us.
Good luck!
| turboICE | 06-28-2006 09:20 PM |
[QUOTE=JoshS]You are complaining to the wrong people.
NASCAR, SCCA, and the other sanctioning bodies don't say "you can only use HANS", they say (or might soon say), "You can only use H&N restraints that meet the SFI 38.1 certification."
The reason that the sanctioning bodies say this, instead of just listing the H&N devices that you can use, is that they don't want to be responsible for their own testing. They want to pass the buck to an industry body who has more expertise than they do. Quite understandable.
So, you SHOULD be complaining to SFI. Bitching about it to fellow club racers is not likely to get you very far.[/QUOTE]
Your are absolutely right, I have sent input into SFI, NASA and SCCA. Not that they care, their lawyers are all fully satisified that litigation risk has been spread sufficiently.
OK, I guess this is no longer an area to discuss things - even if my ultimate desire can't be achieved by the discussion. I didn't think this thread was going to achieve my desired result that 38.1 be fixed - but I didn't realize discussions were no longer the purpose of a forum in the first place.
So no more discussions of how Bernie is the devil and the USGP is dead - because those posters are talking to the wrong people. They need to instead only talk to tracks, media, sponsors and F1 because discussing it here won't get them any results and they are complaining to the wrong people.
No more complaining about NJ police giving tickets, yada, yada, yada...
No more threads for people to discuss their complaints - you just cut the size of the NASIOC database and post count to about 15% of its previous size.
NASCAR, SCCA, and the other sanctioning bodies don't say "you can only use HANS", they say (or might soon say), "You can only use H&N restraints that meet the SFI 38.1 certification."
The reason that the sanctioning bodies say this, instead of just listing the H&N devices that you can use, is that they don't want to be responsible for their own testing. They want to pass the buck to an industry body who has more expertise than they do. Quite understandable.
So, you SHOULD be complaining to SFI. Bitching about it to fellow club racers is not likely to get you very far.[/QUOTE]
Your are absolutely right, I have sent input into SFI, NASA and SCCA. Not that they care, their lawyers are all fully satisified that litigation risk has been spread sufficiently.
OK, I guess this is no longer an area to discuss things - even if my ultimate desire can't be achieved by the discussion. I didn't think this thread was going to achieve my desired result that 38.1 be fixed - but I didn't realize discussions were no longer the purpose of a forum in the first place.
So no more discussions of how Bernie is the devil and the USGP is dead - because those posters are talking to the wrong people. They need to instead only talk to tracks, media, sponsors and F1 because discussing it here won't get them any results and they are complaining to the wrong people.
No more complaining about NJ police giving tickets, yada, yada, yada...
No more threads for people to discuss their complaints - you just cut the size of the NASIOC database and post count to about 15% of its previous size.
| ghschirtz | 06-29-2006 01:24 AM |
^^^
Hey ICE,
STAY THE COURSE. WHAT YOU HAVE SAID IS RIGHT, ABOUT THE MISSION OF 38.1. DO NOT BACK DOWN. DO NOT GIVE UP.
A body influences and changes others as they go through life, sort of like the wake of a boat rocks all those it passes. Before you write me off as a philospher wanna-be, think about your own life and the people who have tangentially influenced it.
Be true to yourself. 10th Warrior thinks I am a dumbass. Well, fine. Everybody is somebody else's weirdo, but I think you and I made some hard critical points about "rules" and the confusion between what rules say and what they purport to achieve.
Spit out what you think. You think good, to me, but I am not everyone. Don't matter that some disagree...that can be valuable as you have no corner on the truth, no more than anyone else (even Al Gore) does. Until you have valid information that says you are wrong-stay at it, but listen, and learn, change course when you figure you are wrong. Nobody learns if you shut up, you don't learn if you don't listen...and if this or any other forum is to be useful, people have to be able to learn-even if it is what NOT to do.
This is not a popularity contest, guys. It is a place to exchange ideas and knowledge. That we disagree civilly is the sign of a healthy system. So few on this planet can do so.
I don't claim any honor here, but I am 55 and I may have seen some crap some of you have not. The wonderful aspect of starting to do track days and getting into the forums here has been the open communication, agreement, disagreement, sharing of experience and conjecture about so many things. I have learned so much, and thank you all.
ICE, you have to keep at it. Either that or I find you and do terrible things to your car. No threat, a promise. Another promise is if you come to So Cal and don't have a beer with me, well, hell to pay, mate.
George
Hey ICE,
STAY THE COURSE. WHAT YOU HAVE SAID IS RIGHT, ABOUT THE MISSION OF 38.1. DO NOT BACK DOWN. DO NOT GIVE UP.
A body influences and changes others as they go through life, sort of like the wake of a boat rocks all those it passes. Before you write me off as a philospher wanna-be, think about your own life and the people who have tangentially influenced it.
Be true to yourself. 10th Warrior thinks I am a dumbass. Well, fine. Everybody is somebody else's weirdo, but I think you and I made some hard critical points about "rules" and the confusion between what rules say and what they purport to achieve.
Spit out what you think. You think good, to me, but I am not everyone. Don't matter that some disagree...that can be valuable as you have no corner on the truth, no more than anyone else (even Al Gore) does. Until you have valid information that says you are wrong-stay at it, but listen, and learn, change course when you figure you are wrong. Nobody learns if you shut up, you don't learn if you don't listen...and if this or any other forum is to be useful, people have to be able to learn-even if it is what NOT to do.
This is not a popularity contest, guys. It is a place to exchange ideas and knowledge. That we disagree civilly is the sign of a healthy system. So few on this planet can do so.
I don't claim any honor here, but I am 55 and I may have seen some crap some of you have not. The wonderful aspect of starting to do track days and getting into the forums here has been the open communication, agreement, disagreement, sharing of experience and conjecture about so many things. I have learned so much, and thank you all.
ICE, you have to keep at it. Either that or I find you and do terrible things to your car. No threat, a promise. Another promise is if you come to So Cal and don't have a beer with me, well, hell to pay, mate.
George
| Kitsune | 06-29-2006 02:02 AM |
I would like to point out that as novice in TT and events beyond rallyx which I've been doing for years, but was not required to have the type of safety equipment I am required to have for road race/TT now, that this thread has actually been informative for me. It has prompted me to consider these issues more closely among others.
I lack information to take sides on the equipment issues, but I am going to point out that these discussions are useful (to me anyway) and I'd rather see them discussed somewhere then just in a sanctioning body's back rooms and closed doors.
I lack information to take sides on the equipment issues, but I am going to point out that these discussions are useful (to me anyway) and I'd rather see them discussed somewhere then just in a sanctioning body's back rooms and closed doors.
| sunnynw | 06-29-2006 03:44 AM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]
My interest is solely as a club racer - MY safety. I feel that 38.1 and its pending adoption by the sanctioning bodies I race with will reduce MY safety from my current situation by excluding the safety product that I have determined will prevent further soft tissue injury to MY neck effectively and allow me to operate my car without impediments and offer me the most efficient means of egress.
So my bias is MY safety. Be as critical as you want of that bias - I acknowledge and will continue to apply it. [/QUOTE]
Thanks for being so vocal! This is a matter of personal choice based on your racing application & personal liability...One must do the research before blindly jumping on the HANS train.
What are your thoughts on the new SFI Certified Hutchens Hybrid? It does not have high back like the HANS.
[url]http://www.safedrives.com/proddetail.asp?prod=HutchensHybrid&cat=82[/url]
[QUOTE=turboICE]
I am the one being subjected to a restriction on choice, I am not seeking to restrict others choices unless those same drivers thumping on the single point of release really want to instead support a standard providing for FULL egress from the car and make multiple release mandatory to get those damn yokes off drivers backs.[/QUOTE]
I too will NOT wear the HANS based on MY specific racing application. Why should I wear something that may cause additional physical damage (broken collar bones - no thanks!), possibly fail by coming out of the harnesses, or possibly trap me in the car? Again, it is a matter of personal choice, personal liability...
[QUOTE=turboICE]
Only a driver can appreciate the risk and the importance of safety choices and be fully compelled to fully research the issue.[/QUOTE]
Or Co-Driver. ;)
[QUOTE=turboICE]
If you had more than a passing interest you would have researched and realized that 38.1 limited H&N restraint to a single product when it was issued. Only one product could receive licensing to label 38.1 on the date it was issued HANS. Every other product besides HANS required re-engineering.[/QUOTE]
The following is a statement from Trevor Ashline, President, Safety Solutions/LFT Tech (Safety Solutions PR)(1-6-2005): "As one of the products that were submitted to NASCAR last November, the R3 was the first head and neck restraint system to exceed the SFI 38.1 specification after it was written. Yet, to date, the only restraint system selected by NASCAR has been the HANS Device. If there were additional criteria beyond the SFI specs that NASCAR used to make their selection, I am unaware of it."
Source- [url]http://www.jayski.com/pages/restraint.htm[/url]
�The R3 after August 2005 was improved by around 20% in the frontal (so it should be around 80% of 680 on new ones) changing the position of the clips on the helmet and where the tether attaches to the R3.�
Source - [url]http://www.trackpedia.com/wiki/Head_and_Neck_Restraints[/url]
[QUOTE=turboICE]
As time passed and NASCAR was going more and more towards HANS being the ONLY permitted H&N restraint, significant numbers of drivers protested the lack of alternatives and choices because they were not comfortable in HANS. So NASCAR figured they needed an outside standard to make their drivers use HANS. So they go to the SFI.
SFI admitted they did not have the knowledge necessary to write 38.1 when NASCAR asked the SFI to write a H&N standard. So SFI punted and asked NASCAR to write the standard for them and they would put their stamp on it and issue it. NASCAR itself didn't have the knowledge necessary to write 38.1 - they relied on the same consultants to write it for them that they had relied on before 38.1 to provide them advice on the H&N mandates they were trying to force on drivers. All the same consultants with financial conflicts that wanted all NASCAR drivers in HANS.[/QUOTE]
Why has NASCAR forced the HANS to be used when there are three other H&N restraints that have passed SFI 38.1 testing?
We may be held to the SFI 38.1 rule in the future, hopefully the sanctioning bodies will have the foresight to not force us to use only the HANS.
Another source for general H&N restraint information:
[url]http://www.trackpedia.com/wiki/Head_and_Neck_Restraints[/url]
A thought to ponder:
�The simple fact of the matter is, an auto racing incident is a massively complex situation. The kind of crash, for example, that I might be involved in my racing car on a road course is going to be very different than the kind of incident I might be involved in that same exact car at a performance rally out in the woods."
"So, the nature of all of these potential crashes becomes a huge set of variables that include different kinds of cars, open wheels cars versus closed cars, cars with doors that open or don't open, or cars that might be upside down in the woods with nobody near to help.�
Source - Kirk Knestis
My interest is solely as a club racer - MY safety. I feel that 38.1 and its pending adoption by the sanctioning bodies I race with will reduce MY safety from my current situation by excluding the safety product that I have determined will prevent further soft tissue injury to MY neck effectively and allow me to operate my car without impediments and offer me the most efficient means of egress.
So my bias is MY safety. Be as critical as you want of that bias - I acknowledge and will continue to apply it. [/QUOTE]
Thanks for being so vocal! This is a matter of personal choice based on your racing application & personal liability...One must do the research before blindly jumping on the HANS train.
What are your thoughts on the new SFI Certified Hutchens Hybrid? It does not have high back like the HANS.
[url]http://www.safedrives.com/proddetail.asp?prod=HutchensHybrid&cat=82[/url]
[QUOTE=turboICE]
I am the one being subjected to a restriction on choice, I am not seeking to restrict others choices unless those same drivers thumping on the single point of release really want to instead support a standard providing for FULL egress from the car and make multiple release mandatory to get those damn yokes off drivers backs.[/QUOTE]
I too will NOT wear the HANS based on MY specific racing application. Why should I wear something that may cause additional physical damage (broken collar bones - no thanks!), possibly fail by coming out of the harnesses, or possibly trap me in the car? Again, it is a matter of personal choice, personal liability...
[QUOTE=turboICE]
Only a driver can appreciate the risk and the importance of safety choices and be fully compelled to fully research the issue.[/QUOTE]
Or Co-Driver. ;)
[QUOTE=turboICE]
If you had more than a passing interest you would have researched and realized that 38.1 limited H&N restraint to a single product when it was issued. Only one product could receive licensing to label 38.1 on the date it was issued HANS. Every other product besides HANS required re-engineering.[/QUOTE]
The following is a statement from Trevor Ashline, President, Safety Solutions/LFT Tech (Safety Solutions PR)(1-6-2005): "As one of the products that were submitted to NASCAR last November, the R3 was the first head and neck restraint system to exceed the SFI 38.1 specification after it was written. Yet, to date, the only restraint system selected by NASCAR has been the HANS Device. If there were additional criteria beyond the SFI specs that NASCAR used to make their selection, I am unaware of it."
Source- [url]http://www.jayski.com/pages/restraint.htm[/url]
�The R3 after August 2005 was improved by around 20% in the frontal (so it should be around 80% of 680 on new ones) changing the position of the clips on the helmet and where the tether attaches to the R3.�
Source - [url]http://www.trackpedia.com/wiki/Head_and_Neck_Restraints[/url]
[QUOTE=turboICE]
As time passed and NASCAR was going more and more towards HANS being the ONLY permitted H&N restraint, significant numbers of drivers protested the lack of alternatives and choices because they were not comfortable in HANS. So NASCAR figured they needed an outside standard to make their drivers use HANS. So they go to the SFI.
SFI admitted they did not have the knowledge necessary to write 38.1 when NASCAR asked the SFI to write a H&N standard. So SFI punted and asked NASCAR to write the standard for them and they would put their stamp on it and issue it. NASCAR itself didn't have the knowledge necessary to write 38.1 - they relied on the same consultants to write it for them that they had relied on before 38.1 to provide them advice on the H&N mandates they were trying to force on drivers. All the same consultants with financial conflicts that wanted all NASCAR drivers in HANS.[/QUOTE]
Why has NASCAR forced the HANS to be used when there are three other H&N restraints that have passed SFI 38.1 testing?
We may be held to the SFI 38.1 rule in the future, hopefully the sanctioning bodies will have the foresight to not force us to use only the HANS.
Another source for general H&N restraint information:
[url]http://www.trackpedia.com/wiki/Head_and_Neck_Restraints[/url]
A thought to ponder:
�The simple fact of the matter is, an auto racing incident is a massively complex situation. The kind of crash, for example, that I might be involved in my racing car on a road course is going to be very different than the kind of incident I might be involved in that same exact car at a performance rally out in the woods."
"So, the nature of all of these potential crashes becomes a huge set of variables that include different kinds of cars, open wheels cars versus closed cars, cars with doors that open or don't open, or cars that might be upside down in the woods with nobody near to help.�
Source - Kirk Knestis
| turboICE | 06-29-2006 08:39 AM |
I have never tried the Hutchens Hybrid, nor have any anecdotal experiences in order to form an opinion that I would express to others.
Absolutely correct on the co-driver, not to exclude them - just consider any time I say driver it is inclusive rather than inclusive of multi-occupant situations.
The R3 was the first to complete the requirements of 38.1 but it was modified before it did. The HANS completed second but it did not require modification to do so.
As far as NASCAR there shouldn't be any surprise before 38.1 they made it clear that HANS was their sole choice. I guess they didn't think there would be others that would pass 38.1 so fast. A sanctioning body can make its choices and be more or less limiting than 38.1 as their risk management determines to be appropriate for them, it is the choice of participants to seek change or not to.
As for those that think that I need to focus on the SFI - the SFI didn't write 38.1 and likely still doesn't have the knowledge to consider requests for a change, especially from consumers. Any change at SFI to 38.1 will have to come at the request of their member sanctioning bodies. Participants can put pressure on their sanctioning bodies by contacting them. So I guess one purpose of this thread would be that for others that are concerned about the condition of 38.1 and the adoption of it by their sanctioning bodies alreday (BMWCCA and I think maybe RA) or pending (SCCA and NASA) can contact their sanctioning bodies with their concerns.
Oh BTW I know 38.1 is hard to find as SFI doesn't publish it and I should have posted earlier - here you go: [url]http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1_Head_Restraint_Specification.pdf[/url]
Ed. (wishing nasioc would allow short signatures...)
Absolutely correct on the co-driver, not to exclude them - just consider any time I say driver it is inclusive rather than inclusive of multi-occupant situations.
The R3 was the first to complete the requirements of 38.1 but it was modified before it did. The HANS completed second but it did not require modification to do so.
As far as NASCAR there shouldn't be any surprise before 38.1 they made it clear that HANS was their sole choice. I guess they didn't think there would be others that would pass 38.1 so fast. A sanctioning body can make its choices and be more or less limiting than 38.1 as their risk management determines to be appropriate for them, it is the choice of participants to seek change or not to.
As for those that think that I need to focus on the SFI - the SFI didn't write 38.1 and likely still doesn't have the knowledge to consider requests for a change, especially from consumers. Any change at SFI to 38.1 will have to come at the request of their member sanctioning bodies. Participants can put pressure on their sanctioning bodies by contacting them. So I guess one purpose of this thread would be that for others that are concerned about the condition of 38.1 and the adoption of it by their sanctioning bodies alreday (BMWCCA and I think maybe RA) or pending (SCCA and NASA) can contact their sanctioning bodies with their concerns.
Oh BTW I know 38.1 is hard to find as SFI doesn't publish it and I should have posted earlier - here you go: [url]http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1_Head_Restraint_Specification.pdf[/url]
Ed. (wishing nasioc would allow short signatures...)
| bjorn240 | 06-29-2006 09:33 AM |
Ed,
My only critique of your SFI 38.1 quest is that you continually conflate the issue of SFI 38.1 with the claimed efficacy of the ISAAC device. Which continually prompts those of us who think the ISAAC device is wicked snakeoil to shout "Wicked snakeoil!" So, I'm all for your continuing to critique SFI 38.1, but when you do it with the intent of convincing people that the ISAAC is the solution, I'm forced to comment. It's potentially people's lives we're dealing with here!
ISAAC: Hasn't done a frontal impact test, and does not plan to do one. Lacks horizontal reaction links. Has hard dashpots (rather than soft straps) against which you can strike your head (the anvil I referred to earlier). Has known issues with single point of release. Does not have the confidence of the FIA safety experts I've spoken to. (And isn't approved for FIA racing, which has nothing to do with SFI 38.1.)
HANS: Has done a frontal impact test. Has horizontal reaction links and soft straps. Is solely mandated in FIA series and recommended by the FIA.
And in addition, I've personally exited a rally car wearing a HANS device 100+ times, never being constricted in so doing. In one of those exits, it was through the window of a car rolled 7 3/4 times.
- Christian
My only critique of your SFI 38.1 quest is that you continually conflate the issue of SFI 38.1 with the claimed efficacy of the ISAAC device. Which continually prompts those of us who think the ISAAC device is wicked snakeoil to shout "Wicked snakeoil!" So, I'm all for your continuing to critique SFI 38.1, but when you do it with the intent of convincing people that the ISAAC is the solution, I'm forced to comment. It's potentially people's lives we're dealing with here!
ISAAC: Hasn't done a frontal impact test, and does not plan to do one. Lacks horizontal reaction links. Has hard dashpots (rather than soft straps) against which you can strike your head (the anvil I referred to earlier). Has known issues with single point of release. Does not have the confidence of the FIA safety experts I've spoken to. (And isn't approved for FIA racing, which has nothing to do with SFI 38.1.)
HANS: Has done a frontal impact test. Has horizontal reaction links and soft straps. Is solely mandated in FIA series and recommended by the FIA.
And in addition, I've personally exited a rally car wearing a HANS device 100+ times, never being constricted in so doing. In one of those exits, it was through the window of a car rolled 7 3/4 times.
- Christian
| turboICE | 06-29-2006 09:57 AM |
And Christian I acknowledge and respect that you have those views. But on this topic I have lost confidence that the two of us are able discuss it in successful and contributive ways. I will just accept the fault of those occurrences since I am just stating a historic fact - not pointing fingers.
Isaac is my solution not the solution, it may be others or may not be, that is for them to decide.
I am not sure how a low mass item like the dashposts attached at two ends is going to strike the head through the helmet any more than the back of a yoke is going to strike the head through the helmet. I haven't weighed them but their mass is very low - and it is attached at two ends.
It is nature of risk today that we have managed the risk down to low occurrence events - but unfortunately those low occurrences increasingly are the ones with the worse outcome. Until I can't do otherwise I choose the same degree of protection as shown in offset tests with consistently easier egress.
One nice thing is that if I do ever have to go to HANS, I am grateful that sufficient recognition of the events that have occurred out in race conditions have caused them to add QR. If I ever do have to go to HANS they will absolutely have QR, especially since I will already be accustomed to the quarter of a second it takes to use them.
I am glad that on the unfortunate occassion you have needed to rely on H&N restraint it was in use and caused no coincedental problems after its successful restraining function. But not all cars in competition today have the same degree of structural integrity or window size - some start out a tight fit and some end up with a tighter fit after the wreck. My 240SX has completely different egress characteristics than my STi or when I had one my VW Golf did.
Ed.
Isaac is my solution not the solution, it may be others or may not be, that is for them to decide.
I am not sure how a low mass item like the dashposts attached at two ends is going to strike the head through the helmet any more than the back of a yoke is going to strike the head through the helmet. I haven't weighed them but their mass is very low - and it is attached at two ends.
It is nature of risk today that we have managed the risk down to low occurrence events - but unfortunately those low occurrences increasingly are the ones with the worse outcome. Until I can't do otherwise I choose the same degree of protection as shown in offset tests with consistently easier egress.
One nice thing is that if I do ever have to go to HANS, I am grateful that sufficient recognition of the events that have occurred out in race conditions have caused them to add QR. If I ever do have to go to HANS they will absolutely have QR, especially since I will already be accustomed to the quarter of a second it takes to use them.
I am glad that on the unfortunate occassion you have needed to rely on H&N restraint it was in use and caused no coincedental problems after its successful restraining function. But not all cars in competition today have the same degree of structural integrity or window size - some start out a tight fit and some end up with a tighter fit after the wreck. My 240SX has completely different egress characteristics than my STi or when I had one my VW Golf did.
Ed.
| bjorn240 | 06-29-2006 10:35 AM |
I don't think we're unable to discuss this in a positive manner. You've managed to convince me that SFI 38.1 should potentially be reviewed and a future standard should possibly be based on additional criteria. That's progress!
I'm not convinced that ISAAC is a good product, and I will continue to make that point, as I think new racers should be steered away from the product. In that, we don't have a failure to communicate. We just have a disagreement. No harm in that.
I'm not convinced that ISAAC is a good product, and I will continue to make that point, as I think new racers should be steered away from the product. In that, we don't have a failure to communicate. We just have a disagreement. No harm in that.
| turboICE | 06-29-2006 11:00 AM |
Tru nuff on the improvements in our discourse (or maybe it was someone else that the combination of our posts to each other was not always contributing to the thread) - with the addition of the QR on the HANS I am less apprehensive about someday maybe having to use it.
| gbaker | 06-29-2006 11:02 AM |
[QUOTE=bjorn240]...It's potentially people's lives we're dealing with here!...[/QUOTE]
So stick to the science and track results and keep the speculative gobbledygook out of it. "Anvils", "horizontal reaction links"? What's next, flying saucers?
So stick to the science and track results and keep the speculative gobbledygook out of it. "Anvils", "horizontal reaction links"? What's next, flying saucers?
| Brian-ATL | 06-29-2006 01:50 PM |
[u][color=black][url="http://s25.photobucket.com/albums/c72/everybodylikepi/?action=view¤t=m3flipmp4.flv"]here[/url]'s[/color][/u] the accident that started this whole thread
| MPME | 06-29-2006 01:59 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]I go back to it again RIF.
You must be in media - selective sound bites and presenting conclusive as fact your view of the sound bite that you very selectively used in only a partial context.
Alternatively you are easily swayed by the media and draw all your conclusions from the title of an article or the 5 second teaser ad to get you to watch the evening news rather than actually reading the article or watching the entire program.
Take the full context and consider the core proposition.
I am fairly confident that the subject of my regret is the mandate, not the product. So as always on this topic 38.1 is my biggest point. It is through your selective inference that you arrive at your so factually stated erroneous conclusion.
However, if someone can't read in context and get the message of my communication then my fault as a communicator, the redeeming factor is that at least you were amused. Albeit by your own failure to try to comprehend the full context of the post and continuing to bite on the title.[/QUOTE]
Uh, yeah.
I happen to know the two gents that have done the majority of the HANS testing and development, the SFI spec, and have plenty of experience with the device itself.
Whereas you seem to think one needs to read your anthology on this topic, it's fairly simple to parse out the sentiment, value, and misguided points of view.
With all that said, please, and I do mean please, go buy whatever you think is best to use, fight the good 38.1 fight, and strap on whatever you think will save you.
To those that know, use, and have experience with safety equipment, continuing to engage in this dimwitted, flip-flopping diatribe has reached the end point on a path of diminishing return.
You must be in media - selective sound bites and presenting conclusive as fact your view of the sound bite that you very selectively used in only a partial context.
Alternatively you are easily swayed by the media and draw all your conclusions from the title of an article or the 5 second teaser ad to get you to watch the evening news rather than actually reading the article or watching the entire program.
Take the full context and consider the core proposition.
I am fairly confident that the subject of my regret is the mandate, not the product. So as always on this topic 38.1 is my biggest point. It is through your selective inference that you arrive at your so factually stated erroneous conclusion.
However, if someone can't read in context and get the message of my communication then my fault as a communicator, the redeeming factor is that at least you were amused. Albeit by your own failure to try to comprehend the full context of the post and continuing to bite on the title.[/QUOTE]
Uh, yeah.
I happen to know the two gents that have done the majority of the HANS testing and development, the SFI spec, and have plenty of experience with the device itself.
Whereas you seem to think one needs to read your anthology on this topic, it's fairly simple to parse out the sentiment, value, and misguided points of view.
With all that said, please, and I do mean please, go buy whatever you think is best to use, fight the good 38.1 fight, and strap on whatever you think will save you.
To those that know, use, and have experience with safety equipment, continuing to engage in this dimwitted, flip-flopping diatribe has reached the end point on a path of diminishing return.
| turboICE | 06-29-2006 02:24 PM |
[QUOTE=MPME]Uh, yeah.
I happen to know the two gents that have done the majority of the HANS testing and development, the SFI spec, and have plenty of experience with the device itself.[/quote]Ahh, I know people too, I wonder if in knowing them, I somehow know what they know now rather then benefitting from first hand experience myself. So you have used HANS as a driver and have had no issues with full egress from the car after an accident? Or is your plenty of experience with it, strapping others in?
[quote]To those that know, use, and have experience with safety equipment, continuing to engage in this dimwitted, flip-flopping diatribe has reached the end point on a path of diminishing return.[/QUOTE]Well since I know, use and have experience with safety equipment personally rather than through knowing other people - I am in pretty good shape here. However, I love the elgant argument of 'I have no coherent supportable basis for what I am saying so I am going to resort to unbased school yard name calling'. Bravo.
I happen to know the two gents that have done the majority of the HANS testing and development, the SFI spec, and have plenty of experience with the device itself.[/quote]Ahh, I know people too, I wonder if in knowing them, I somehow know what they know now rather then benefitting from first hand experience myself. So you have used HANS as a driver and have had no issues with full egress from the car after an accident? Or is your plenty of experience with it, strapping others in?
[quote]To those that know, use, and have experience with safety equipment, continuing to engage in this dimwitted, flip-flopping diatribe has reached the end point on a path of diminishing return.[/QUOTE]Well since I know, use and have experience with safety equipment personally rather than through knowing other people - I am in pretty good shape here. However, I love the elgant argument of 'I have no coherent supportable basis for what I am saying so I am going to resort to unbased school yard name calling'. Bravo.
| turboICE | 06-29-2006 02:30 PM |
[QUOTE=Brian-ATL][u][color=black][url="http://s25.photobucket.com/albums/c72/everybodylikepi/?action=view¤t=m3flipmp4.flv"]here[/url]'s[/color][/u] the accident that started this whole thread[/QUOTE]
Actually this is the one that concerned me the most:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LAtIE2ORCs&search=%22Joey%20Hand%22[/url]
From the time stamp 0:20 when the car came to a rest to the time stamp between 1:20 and 1:24 when he made full egress from the car. It is that 1:00 that it took an awake and aware driver soaked in fuel and oil to make full egress from the car that originated my desire to discuss this topic in this thread. Doing so here because I knew there would be people like Gary and others who have a lot of seat time who could respond to the discussion which I do appreciate because I come away from it with more.
Actually this is the one that concerned me the most:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LAtIE2ORCs&search=%22Joey%20Hand%22[/url]
From the time stamp 0:20 when the car came to a rest to the time stamp between 1:20 and 1:24 when he made full egress from the car. It is that 1:00 that it took an awake and aware driver soaked in fuel and oil to make full egress from the car that originated my desire to discuss this topic in this thread. Doing so here because I knew there would be people like Gary and others who have a lot of seat time who could respond to the discussion which I do appreciate because I come away from it with more.
| RichardM | 06-29-2006 02:50 PM |
ICE,
My review of old GCRs last night did not find any statement that clearly says it shall take only one motion to disconnect seat belt, shoulder straps, leg straps, wrist straps and neck restraints. Heck, my oldest book goes back to when only roll bars were required. But as each added restraint such as arm restraints was added, the rules made it clear that all had to release simultaneously with the rest of the restraints. Therefore, I think there has been a continuing and clear intent that there shall be only one action to release the driver from restraints. Other things you mentioned such as cool suits and radio wiring are supposed to be on break away fittings. And in my opinion based on crashing a few times, is that the fewer motions needed to release me, the better.
Now I could tell the time of how it took my wife (my rally co-driver) 3 tries to get out of the car after a sudden stop due to severe mechanical failure because first try the door swung back and whacked her on the helmet. Second try she forgot to unhook the intercom and when she reached the end of the cable, it pulled her back in the car. Third time, she got out but immediately tripped and fell in the ditch. But I won't tell that story because she might read this. Oh the intercom wire would have broken but she claims she pulled herself back in so as to not break the intercom.
My review of old GCRs last night did not find any statement that clearly says it shall take only one motion to disconnect seat belt, shoulder straps, leg straps, wrist straps and neck restraints. Heck, my oldest book goes back to when only roll bars were required. But as each added restraint such as arm restraints was added, the rules made it clear that all had to release simultaneously with the rest of the restraints. Therefore, I think there has been a continuing and clear intent that there shall be only one action to release the driver from restraints. Other things you mentioned such as cool suits and radio wiring are supposed to be on break away fittings. And in my opinion based on crashing a few times, is that the fewer motions needed to release me, the better.
Now I could tell the time of how it took my wife (my rally co-driver) 3 tries to get out of the car after a sudden stop due to severe mechanical failure because first try the door swung back and whacked her on the helmet. Second try she forgot to unhook the intercom and when she reached the end of the cable, it pulled her back in the car. Third time, she got out but immediately tripped and fell in the ditch. But I won't tell that story because she might read this. Oh the intercom wire would have broken but she claims she pulled herself back in so as to not break the intercom.
| turboICE | 06-29-2006 03:05 PM |
Richard - thank you for the follow up if there is one thing I can always benefit from is those with more history than I have access to.
I understand the desirability of dealing with as little as possible. And I understand that it would be even harder to develop wording that was workable about "acceptable" and "unacceptable" multi point releasing.
I have not stress tested the coolshirt connection to know at what amount of force it would come undone but I expect before the hose would break. This connection concerns me because of first its location and second the difficulty I have undoing it with gloves on. In a crash I aint taking my gloves off till far from the car - so I think about this connection a lot and whether or not it would break on egress.
I do expect that I could easily on egress rip/break the comms cable and since it routes under my arm it would be pulling against my whole torso and not my head - it is just yet another area of egress I think about.
I guess my view is that this is all a balancing act. Safety needs to prevent injury and then allow full egress and I think 38.1 has made a choice in balance that I think should be more for the driver to decide on - I would have balanced the prevention and egress differently than the SFI did and don't know that it is in every single driver's best interest that they took the choice away. At least I don't feel it was in my best interest to lose that choice of balance.
I think about safety a lot and have a lot of things to change even:
I need to get a newer style seat with more head surround, I need to get a right hand side net, I need to replace the steering column so I can put a better release on the wheel (car came with one welded on with a single button you gotta search for instead of a full surround pull off), etc. I will be spending several thousand in safety related items and still will be thinking about the whatifs - and I don't mind as much when I was able to choose among good alternatives.
Ed.
I understand the desirability of dealing with as little as possible. And I understand that it would be even harder to develop wording that was workable about "acceptable" and "unacceptable" multi point releasing.
I have not stress tested the coolshirt connection to know at what amount of force it would come undone but I expect before the hose would break. This connection concerns me because of first its location and second the difficulty I have undoing it with gloves on. In a crash I aint taking my gloves off till far from the car - so I think about this connection a lot and whether or not it would break on egress.
I do expect that I could easily on egress rip/break the comms cable and since it routes under my arm it would be pulling against my whole torso and not my head - it is just yet another area of egress I think about.
I guess my view is that this is all a balancing act. Safety needs to prevent injury and then allow full egress and I think 38.1 has made a choice in balance that I think should be more for the driver to decide on - I would have balanced the prevention and egress differently than the SFI did and don't know that it is in every single driver's best interest that they took the choice away. At least I don't feel it was in my best interest to lose that choice of balance.
I think about safety a lot and have a lot of things to change even:
I need to get a newer style seat with more head surround, I need to get a right hand side net, I need to replace the steering column so I can put a better release on the wheel (car came with one welded on with a single button you gotta search for instead of a full surround pull off), etc. I will be spending several thousand in safety related items and still will be thinking about the whatifs - and I don't mind as much when I was able to choose among good alternatives.
Ed.
| gbaker | 06-29-2006 03:46 PM |
This is the same argument that happened with the advent of harnesses. Racers screamed that the extra step needed to release would trap them in the car. That was fine until someone pointed out that dead drivers need not worry about release points.
It is a matter of giving the driver the opportunity to invest one second of time in exchange for the guarantee that they will not get trapped in a gas-soaked car, not loose their belts and not give up significant lateral protection which is absent from SFI designs. Most drivers would make that investment, especially given that all the egress problems--not most, ALL--occur with the SFI design.
Just because a rule has been around for half a century doesn't mean it still makes sense. It was once thought that the only way to shoot a basketball was with two hands.
It is a matter of giving the driver the opportunity to invest one second of time in exchange for the guarantee that they will not get trapped in a gas-soaked car, not loose their belts and not give up significant lateral protection which is absent from SFI designs. Most drivers would make that investment, especially given that all the egress problems--not most, ALL--occur with the SFI design.
Just because a rule has been around for half a century doesn't mean it still makes sense. It was once thought that the only way to shoot a basketball was with two hands.
| TheRipler | 06-29-2006 06:23 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]And while I harp that people used all sorts of H&N restraints without having done or put up any test numbers - it is accurate now that tests are done that it is fully reasonable to expect any product to do the tests as a mere competitive necessity. And Isaac has done the offset tests. You can't disregard the proven more difficult offset test for lack of a direct frontal test either. No product that passed the offset test failed the frontal - the other combinations of results can't say the same thing - such as failing the frontal also failed the offset and those that passed the frontal (barely) and failed the offset.[/QUOTE]
I find the ISAAC system interesting, and I think that competing designs are generally a good thing. There would seem to be some inherent advantages in mobility/comfort as compared to HANS, and the offset test results look good. Unfortunately, without a frontal test, I'd never touch one. Conjecture that, "every other device tested better in frontal impact; therefore, the ISAAC will perform better in frontal impact." is not a sound testing methodology. As the old saying goes, there is a first time for everything. Why spend the money on an offset test if the only reason for the test is for certification? Why not perform the frontal impact tests as well? I haven't seen a good reason yet. Why did the devices that failed one test go ahead and do the other? They know they're probably going to fail the next test as well, but the data still held value to them, even if they failed both.
Granted I haven't conducted any safety testing on my own, but I did run an R&D lab for the past 6 years. I've done thousands of hours of testing. "It passed this one, so surely it will pass that one" wouldn't work for me there, and that wasn't even a life and death scenario. To think that argument is good enough for safety equipment just baffles me. I'm not saying there is anything that leads me to believe ISAAC would perform worse in frontal testing, just that there is nothing to make me believe the testing done is adequate.
[SIZE=1]disclaimer: I'm just now getting to the point of spending a ton of money on safety equipment, and this peaked my interest in H&N restraints. I have no first hand experience at all. Everything in this post is purely speculation on my part. [/SIZE]
Thanks for the interesting thread.
I find the ISAAC system interesting, and I think that competing designs are generally a good thing. There would seem to be some inherent advantages in mobility/comfort as compared to HANS, and the offset test results look good. Unfortunately, without a frontal test, I'd never touch one. Conjecture that, "every other device tested better in frontal impact; therefore, the ISAAC will perform better in frontal impact." is not a sound testing methodology. As the old saying goes, there is a first time for everything. Why spend the money on an offset test if the only reason for the test is for certification? Why not perform the frontal impact tests as well? I haven't seen a good reason yet. Why did the devices that failed one test go ahead and do the other? They know they're probably going to fail the next test as well, but the data still held value to them, even if they failed both.
Granted I haven't conducted any safety testing on my own, but I did run an R&D lab for the past 6 years. I've done thousands of hours of testing. "It passed this one, so surely it will pass that one" wouldn't work for me there, and that wasn't even a life and death scenario. To think that argument is good enough for safety equipment just baffles me. I'm not saying there is anything that leads me to believe ISAAC would perform worse in frontal testing, just that there is nothing to make me believe the testing done is adequate.
[SIZE=1]disclaimer: I'm just now getting to the point of spending a ton of money on safety equipment, and this peaked my interest in H&N restraints. I have no first hand experience at all. Everything in this post is purely speculation on my part. [/SIZE]
Thanks for the interesting thread.
| turboICE | 06-29-2006 07:06 PM |
Greg can chime in on the industry experts that have modeled extensively the biomechanics of impacts based on thousands of sled tests - when those other experts say if you pass the offset, you will pass the frontal, I do accept it because I do have faith in the biomechanical modeling. That is not to say that others should accept it, as I think reasonable skeptcism and critical thinking are healthy attributes and in all too short supply in these days of 'well I saw it on the web'. My faith is based on my having sufficient understanding of what is involved in the modeling - if I didn't have that understanding my faith likely wouldn't be as strong.
I don't know if the exact reasons that passing the offset predicts passing the frontal. Maybe it is because the experts know that the relative standard of the frontal is lower than the relative standard of the offset - so it is a result that they expect by the standard's design. Or maybe it is because the experts understand that an offset impact incrementally is so much more stressful that the lower stress of the frontal to begin with is such a lower threshhold. Only they could tell you exact reason why an offset pass result sufficiently predicts a frontal pass result.
Greg can also address specifically the reasons why Isaac hasn't done additonal tests.
Keep in mind even the actual sled test is only modeling an impact - it isn't exactly what occurs in an actual impact. By relying on the test standard we are all relying on modeling - including the model dummy in the test sled. Almost all of our safety relies on modeling in designing what keeps us safe - from car and plane crashes to hurricane and earth quake building codes. All these modelings are predictors of actual performance - not guarantees of actual performance.
I don't know if the exact reasons that passing the offset predicts passing the frontal. Maybe it is because the experts know that the relative standard of the frontal is lower than the relative standard of the offset - so it is a result that they expect by the standard's design. Or maybe it is because the experts understand that an offset impact incrementally is so much more stressful that the lower stress of the frontal to begin with is such a lower threshhold. Only they could tell you exact reason why an offset pass result sufficiently predicts a frontal pass result.
Greg can also address specifically the reasons why Isaac hasn't done additonal tests.
Keep in mind even the actual sled test is only modeling an impact - it isn't exactly what occurs in an actual impact. By relying on the test standard we are all relying on modeling - including the model dummy in the test sled. Almost all of our safety relies on modeling in designing what keeps us safe - from car and plane crashes to hurricane and earth quake building codes. All these modelings are predictors of actual performance - not guarantees of actual performance.
| ghschirtz | 06-29-2006 07:10 PM |
[QUOTE=gbaker]This is the same argument that happened with the advent of harnesses. Racers screamed that the extra step needed to release would trap them in the car. That was fine until someone pointed out that dead drivers need not worry about release points.
It is a matter of giving the driver the opportunity to invest one second of time in exchange for the guarantee that they will not get trapped in a gas-soaked car, not loose their belts and not give up significant lateral protection which is absent from SFI designs. Most drivers would make that investment, especially given that all the egress problems--not most, ALL--occur with the SFI design.
Just because a rule has been around for half a century doesn't mean it still makes sense. It was once thought that the only way to shoot a basketball was with two hands.[/QUOTE]
You use your hands??? I have always used a .45....(kidding, kidding, bad joke, I know...back in the box...sorry, chaps).
George
It is a matter of giving the driver the opportunity to invest one second of time in exchange for the guarantee that they will not get trapped in a gas-soaked car, not loose their belts and not give up significant lateral protection which is absent from SFI designs. Most drivers would make that investment, especially given that all the egress problems--not most, ALL--occur with the SFI design.
Just because a rule has been around for half a century doesn't mean it still makes sense. It was once thought that the only way to shoot a basketball was with two hands.[/QUOTE]
You use your hands??? I have always used a .45....(kidding, kidding, bad joke, I know...back in the box...sorry, chaps).
George
| turboICE | 06-29-2006 07:13 PM |
But holding the .45 with two hands when shooting the basketball provides more gun control.
That is OK I was going to say two hands is still the best way to roll a bowling ball IMO.
That is OK I was going to say two hands is still the best way to roll a bowling ball IMO.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét