| turboICE | 06-27-2006 04:10 PM |
In case anyone missed it another HANS egress issue with a gas and oil soaked driver
�
�
completely unable to get out of the car on his own.
Joey Hand on his Rolex wreck...
[url]http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/grandam/27471/[/url]
[quote]When it was all said and done, I came to a stop upside down. I was still in the seat, and the first thing I noticed was my right shoe was off. I blew my right shoe off and my right glove somehow. I unbuckled myself and fell down out of the car onto the roof. There was fuel running down my back and into the roof of the car, and oil and stuff. The corner workers were yelling to get out of the car because it was going to catch fire, and I couldn�t get out because my HANS device was stuck in the window net, and the window was smaller than normal.
I went back in and tried to get my helmet off and then they called me back out again, and then they finally got me out with my HANS and everything on. I just climbed out and laid against the wall. We were too close to the car, still, so they dragged me up the way and worked on me from there.
[/quote]
Everytime I see someone get out of something that bad OK I am thankful for all the safety requirements - and then there is always that part that regrets that we are likely going to be mandated to use a product that has serious egress issues in production bodied cars.
Joey Hand on his Rolex wreck...
[url]http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/grandam/27471/[/url]
[quote]When it was all said and done, I came to a stop upside down. I was still in the seat, and the first thing I noticed was my right shoe was off. I blew my right shoe off and my right glove somehow. I unbuckled myself and fell down out of the car onto the roof. There was fuel running down my back and into the roof of the car, and oil and stuff. The corner workers were yelling to get out of the car because it was going to catch fire, and I couldn�t get out because my HANS device was stuck in the window net, and the window was smaller than normal.
I went back in and tried to get my helmet off and then they called me back out again, and then they finally got me out with my HANS and everything on. I just climbed out and laid against the wall. We were too close to the car, still, so they dragged me up the way and worked on me from there.
[/quote]
Everytime I see someone get out of something that bad OK I am thankful for all the safety requirements - and then there is always that part that regrets that we are likely going to be mandated to use a product that has serious egress issues in production bodied cars.
| MattDell | 06-27-2006 04:24 PM |
Even though he couldn't get it off...
[QUOTE]Q: What about the HANS Device?
HAND: That�s number two for me and the HANS Device. That�s the second time the HANS Device saved me. They said there�s no way I could have survived the impacts without the HANS Device[/QUOTE]
-Matt
[QUOTE]Q: What about the HANS Device?
HAND: That�s number two for me and the HANS Device. That�s the second time the HANS Device saved me. They said there�s no way I could have survived the impacts without the HANS Device[/QUOTE]
-Matt
| turboICE | 06-27-2006 04:28 PM |
But that isn't to say that another device wouldn't have worked just as well and not caused the egress issue. The fact of the matter is there is no choice allowed in which product a driver uses. If he were permitted to use a design that worked just as well without egress issues would he use it? I can't say - but as a driver I sure wish we had that choice to be allowed to make it.
Using the HANS (and other yoke egress inhibitting designs) when you choose to is one thing but not being allowed to use something without egress issues like the Isaac is another thing all together.
The problem is not HANS - it is a great product that has reduced a lot of injuries.
The problem is that there are equivalent protection methods not being permitted because of an arbitrary single point release rule that was added that prevents a driver from using a product without egress issues. What good is single point of release if you can't get out. I would rather have two points of release and be able to get out of the damn car - but coming soon I won't have that choice any longer.
Using the HANS (and other yoke egress inhibitting designs) when you choose to is one thing but not being allowed to use something without egress issues like the Isaac is another thing all together.
The problem is not HANS - it is a great product that has reduced a lot of injuries.
The problem is that there are equivalent protection methods not being permitted because of an arbitrary single point release rule that was added that prevents a driver from using a product without egress issues. What good is single point of release if you can't get out. I would rather have two points of release and be able to get out of the damn car - but coming soon I won't have that choice any longer.
| Kha0S | 06-27-2006 04:39 PM |
I've been avoiding purchase of an H&N restraint until the single point release issue is clarified... I firmly believe that the ISAAC is the most effective device on the market (and have thought so since the device came out a few years ago), particularly for likely side impacts in things like rallying, but I don't want to get left out to dry when a narrowly designed certification is mandated in the series I want to participate in.
| turboICE | 06-27-2006 04:49 PM |
Don't forgoe H&N restraint for that reason. If the budget can not allow the risk of investing in an ISAAC and then being required later to get a HANS - get a HANS now. It is is net risk reductive to do so even with the egress issue.
I am not saying people should not be using HANS or that HANS should not be used to meet a H&N restraint requirement. I am saying that drivers should have the choice to use products that would otherwise pass 38.1 if not for the single point release requirement, which is a total fallacy and does not exist in production bodied cars, irrespective of the H&N restraint's presence.
I am not saying people should not be using HANS or that HANS should not be used to meet a H&N restraint requirement. I am saying that drivers should have the choice to use products that would otherwise pass 38.1 if not for the single point release requirement, which is a total fallacy and does not exist in production bodied cars, irrespective of the H&N restraint's presence.
| speedblind | 06-27-2006 05:28 PM |
Egress is even harder when you're dead. ;)
Nasty crash for sure.
Nasty crash for sure.
| solo-x | 06-27-2006 05:42 PM |
[QUOTE=speedblind]Egress is even harder when you're dead. ;)
Nasty crash for sure.[/QUOTE]
+1234
Nasty crash for sure.[/QUOTE]
+1234
| RB5 Clone | 06-27-2006 05:53 PM |
Those who are putting off purchasing a H&N device should price out months of physical therapy after an otherwise minor (or major) incident versus the cost of replacing a piece of safety gear down the line as rules change.
H&N devices WORK. As of now, the HANS is most widely used and accepted. Continuing to race without H&N protection because you think things might change later is the same sort of flawed thinking that led drivers to resist seat belts and approved helmets and Nomex suits when they were first mandated.
Dave G
HANS fan for 2 years and one big wreck
H&N devices WORK. As of now, the HANS is most widely used and accepted. Continuing to race without H&N protection because you think things might change later is the same sort of flawed thinking that led drivers to resist seat belts and approved helmets and Nomex suits when they were first mandated.
Dave G
HANS fan for 2 years and one big wreck
| ghschirtz | 06-27-2006 06:02 PM |
What is an ISSAC device? I run track days, but looking at the video, it seems to me they were traveling about 100, maybe some more, and I get to those speeds often enough. I have a Schroth 4 point Rally harness, no cage, but might as well stack the deck as much as possible in my favor.
George
George
| MPME | 06-27-2006 06:05 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]completely unable to get out of the car on his own.
Joey Hand on his Rolex wreck...
[url]http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/grandam/27471/[/url]
Everytime I see someone get out of something that bad OK I am thankful for all the safety requirements - and then there is always that part that regrets that we are likely going to be mandated to use a product that has serious egress issues in production bodied cars.[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding me? The guy has the mother of all crashes, folds the car into oragami, states in his release that the window opening was made smaller because of the crash, and when he's upside down in this mess, you decide the HANS is at fault?
Sorry, dude, but this wins the "ignorant post of the month award."
Without the HANS, it's true, it would have been easier to pull Joey from the car--a snapped neck IS much easier to fold over and extract.
Joey Hand on his Rolex wreck...
[url]http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/grandam/27471/[/url]
Everytime I see someone get out of something that bad OK I am thankful for all the safety requirements - and then there is always that part that regrets that we are likely going to be mandated to use a product that has serious egress issues in production bodied cars.[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding me? The guy has the mother of all crashes, folds the car into oragami, states in his release that the window opening was made smaller because of the crash, and when he's upside down in this mess, you decide the HANS is at fault?
Sorry, dude, but this wins the "ignorant post of the month award."
Without the HANS, it's true, it would have been easier to pull Joey from the car--a snapped neck IS much easier to fold over and extract.
| turboICE | 06-27-2006 06:27 PM |
MPME - RIF.
"HANS device was stuck in the window net,"
Isaac doesn't catch on nets - the window was large enough to get out of - the HANS prevented him not the window size.
And Isaac would have provided just as much protection from injury.
The fact of the matter is my choice would be Isaac instead and I would be prevented from using it because of a single point of release rule.
Have you read 38.1? Have you tried HANS? Have you tried Isaac?
George - [url]http://www.isaacdirect.com/[/url]
"HANS device was stuck in the window net,"
Isaac doesn't catch on nets - the window was large enough to get out of - the HANS prevented him not the window size.
And Isaac would have provided just as much protection from injury.
The fact of the matter is my choice would be Isaac instead and I would be prevented from using it because of a single point of release rule.
Have you read 38.1? Have you tried HANS? Have you tried Isaac?
George - [url]http://www.isaacdirect.com/[/url]
| fliz | 06-27-2006 06:30 PM |
[QUOTE=MPME]Are you kidding me? The guy has the mother of all crashes, folds the car into oragami, states in his release that the window opening was made smaller because of the crash, and when he's upside down in this mess, you decide the HANS is at fault?
Sorry, dude, but this wins the "ignorant post of the month award."
Without the HANS, it's true, it would have been easier to pull Joey from the car--a snapped neck IS much easier to fold over and extract.[/QUOTE]
He's using the interview to stump for the Isaac...which hasn't passed the crash test portions of SFI 38.1, irrespective of the single point of release requirement.
I think the Hutchins devices are much more compact than the HANS, and work just as well (the new Hybrid device claims to be better).
Sorry, dude, but this wins the "ignorant post of the month award."
Without the HANS, it's true, it would have been easier to pull Joey from the car--a snapped neck IS much easier to fold over and extract.[/QUOTE]
He's using the interview to stump for the Isaac...which hasn't passed the crash test portions of SFI 38.1, irrespective of the single point of release requirement.
I think the Hutchins devices are much more compact than the HANS, and work just as well (the new Hybrid device claims to be better).
| turboICE | 06-27-2006 06:31 PM |
[QUOTE=fliz]He's using the interview to stump for the Isaac...which hasn't passed the crash test portions of SFI 38.1, irrespective of the single point of release requirement.[/QUOTE]
Don't say it in a way that would indicate that they failed it - they haven't taken the test because SFI told them in advance it would fail the single point of release requirement. Irrespective of that they outperformed the HANS on the offset sled test. They only haven't paid for the direct frontal test - doesn't mean they wouldn't pass.
How often do you go pay for expensive tests that you were told won't make a difference in advance?
Don't say it in a way that would indicate that they failed it - they haven't taken the test because SFI told them in advance it would fail the single point of release requirement. Irrespective of that they outperformed the HANS on the offset sled test. They only haven't paid for the direct frontal test - doesn't mean they wouldn't pass.
How often do you go pay for expensive tests that you were told won't make a difference in advance?
| fliz | 06-27-2006 06:32 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]Don't say it in a way that would indicate that they failed it - they haven't taken the test because SFI told them in advance it would fail the single point of release requirement. Irrespective of that they outperformed the HANS on the offset sled test. They only haven't paid for the direct frontal test - doesn't mean they wouldn't pass.
How often do you go pay for expensive tests that you were told won't make a difference in advance?[/QUOTE]
So as a consumer you don't care that the Isaac hasn't passed the frontal crash test?
Just because they claim it will pass, doesn't mean it will. I don't care what they're reasoning is behind not getting it tested. Get it tested, and I might be interested.
How often do you go pay for expensive tests that you were told won't make a difference in advance?[/QUOTE]
So as a consumer you don't care that the Isaac hasn't passed the frontal crash test?
Just because they claim it will pass, doesn't mean it will. I don't care what they're reasoning is behind not getting it tested. Get it tested, and I might be interested.
| turboICE | 06-27-2006 06:35 PM |
Hasn't done the test - which is different than failing it.
Remove the single point of release requirement and allow them a SFI 38.1 license when they pass the test and they will pass the test.
People were using HANS before 38.1 existed or it was tested.
38.1 was written by people financially linked to HANS in a way that HANS was the only one that could get license to use 38.1 logo without modification. All other systems had to modify to get their license to use 38.1.
See you would seek to restrict my choices - I am not seeking to restrict yours.
Remove the single point of release requirement and allow them a SFI 38.1 license when they pass the test and they will pass the test.
People were using HANS before 38.1 existed or it was tested.
38.1 was written by people financially linked to HANS in a way that HANS was the only one that could get license to use 38.1 logo without modification. All other systems had to modify to get their license to use 38.1.
See you would seek to restrict my choices - I am not seeking to restrict yours.
| GarySheehan | 06-27-2006 06:39 PM |
The title of this thread made it sound like the HANS is an evil device that damned near killed the driver. You can purchase quick releases for the HANS device specifically for this reason. I have them. Joey Hand may have them for his next race.
If the Isaac product complied with the rules, I'm sure it would be certified.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
If the Isaac product complied with the rules, I'm sure it would be certified.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| turboICE | 06-27-2006 06:42 PM |
Gary, so the HANS needs a second point of release then for safe egress. How has it passed the licensing?
Certified is misleading as well - SFI doesn't certify they license. Manufacturers certify under the SFI model. No conflict there.
Certified is misleading as well - SFI doesn't certify they license. Manufacturers certify under the SFI model. No conflict there.
| GarySheehan | 06-27-2006 06:54 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]Gary, so the HANS needs a second point of release then for safe egress. How has it passed the licensing?
Certified is misleading as well - SFI doesn't certify they license. Manufacturers certify under the SFI model. No conflict there.[/QUOTE]
That's not true. It doesn't NEED it. In some extreme cases, it may be easier to egress without the HANS attached. I've been able to get in and out of every car with my HANS on without issue. Including crawling across the car to get out the passenger side when the driver's side was too crushed to get out of. In the case that I do need to get it off in a hurry, I can.
There is more to consider about the single point of release than just from the driver's point of view. A corner worker has a much higher chance of successfully releasing a driver from a burning or wrecked vehicle by unfastening the safety belt and dragging the driver out. Consider that maneuvering a driver with a HANS device on is significantly easier for the person not wearing it. It only adds a half an inch of thickness.
Here are some things to consider regarding not having a single point of release. What would have happened if Joey, groggy from multiple hits and suspended upside-down, released his belts with his Isaac still attached? What would the resulting injuries be when his body drops out of the seat and all his weight is hanging from his neck which is now bend in half still connected to the belts?
What would happen if a cornerworker released the harness of a driver that is upside-down not knowing that the driver was wearing an Isaac? Do we need stickers on the sides of the car that explain to the corner workers how to extract this particular driver because his safety gear works differently than others.
Finally, what would happen if the car is ablaze and the corner worker only has time to undo the belts?
I'm sure the Isaac works wonderfully as a H&N restraint system. But the single point of release is no joke. With the HANS, undoing the belts disconnects the driver from the vehicle, period. When the Isaac does this, I'm sure it will be considered.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
Certified is misleading as well - SFI doesn't certify they license. Manufacturers certify under the SFI model. No conflict there.[/QUOTE]
That's not true. It doesn't NEED it. In some extreme cases, it may be easier to egress without the HANS attached. I've been able to get in and out of every car with my HANS on without issue. Including crawling across the car to get out the passenger side when the driver's side was too crushed to get out of. In the case that I do need to get it off in a hurry, I can.
There is more to consider about the single point of release than just from the driver's point of view. A corner worker has a much higher chance of successfully releasing a driver from a burning or wrecked vehicle by unfastening the safety belt and dragging the driver out. Consider that maneuvering a driver with a HANS device on is significantly easier for the person not wearing it. It only adds a half an inch of thickness.
Here are some things to consider regarding not having a single point of release. What would have happened if Joey, groggy from multiple hits and suspended upside-down, released his belts with his Isaac still attached? What would the resulting injuries be when his body drops out of the seat and all his weight is hanging from his neck which is now bend in half still connected to the belts?
What would happen if a cornerworker released the harness of a driver that is upside-down not knowing that the driver was wearing an Isaac? Do we need stickers on the sides of the car that explain to the corner workers how to extract this particular driver because his safety gear works differently than others.
Finally, what would happen if the car is ablaze and the corner worker only has time to undo the belts?
I'm sure the Isaac works wonderfully as a H&N restraint system. But the single point of release is no joke. With the HANS, undoing the belts disconnects the driver from the vehicle, period. When the Isaac does this, I'm sure it will be considered.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| turboICE | 06-27-2006 07:04 PM |
However, Gary the single point of release is a fallacy in a production based car.
1 - Window net (not all have same release - corner workers identify the type and release them)
2 - Cool shirt
3 - Communications
Corner workers have posted on this topic on SCCA boards they said they are already familar at a glance with every commonly used restraint system. Isaac is used already and they know what it looks like and how it works - they are a group of dedicated and consciencious folks they know what is what.
You make it sound like Isaac is tied to the back of the seat - it moves freely on the straps when the belt is released and with the adjusters in the same position you would have to put them for HANS there is a lot of room for the Isaac mounts to travel on the belts.
What about the dual strap HANS? I have seen how that is supposed to be installed and you have much more chance of injury releasing the belts from a double belt HANS than you do from Isaac - the yoke is wedged between belts. The weight of the body upside down increases the wedging action on the lip - it isn't going to free from the belts without direct intentional motion seperate from belt release.
I am not sure why everyone responds as if I am reducing their safety by desiring to use an option I believe to be better. It is much more accurate that my safety is being reduced once the NASA and SCCA requires only 38.1 products. What will I do, I will use a HANS but as long as I am permitted to choose it is not my choice.
1 - Window net (not all have same release - corner workers identify the type and release them)
2 - Cool shirt
3 - Communications
Corner workers have posted on this topic on SCCA boards they said they are already familar at a glance with every commonly used restraint system. Isaac is used already and they know what it looks like and how it works - they are a group of dedicated and consciencious folks they know what is what.
You make it sound like Isaac is tied to the back of the seat - it moves freely on the straps when the belt is released and with the adjusters in the same position you would have to put them for HANS there is a lot of room for the Isaac mounts to travel on the belts.
What about the dual strap HANS? I have seen how that is supposed to be installed and you have much more chance of injury releasing the belts from a double belt HANS than you do from Isaac - the yoke is wedged between belts. The weight of the body upside down increases the wedging action on the lip - it isn't going to free from the belts without direct intentional motion seperate from belt release.
I am not sure why everyone responds as if I am reducing their safety by desiring to use an option I believe to be better. It is much more accurate that my safety is being reduced once the NASA and SCCA requires only 38.1 products. What will I do, I will use a HANS but as long as I am permitted to choose it is not my choice.
| MPME | 06-27-2006 07:05 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]MPME - RIF.
"HANS device was stuck in the window net,"
Isaac doesn't catch on nets - the window was large enough to get out of - the HANS prevented him not the window size.
And Isaac would have provided just as much protection from injury.
The fact of the matter is my choice would be Isaac instead and I would be prevented from using it because of a single point of release rule.
Have you read 38.1? Have you tried HANS? Have you tried Isaac?
George - [url]http://www.isaacdirect.com/[/url][/QUOTE]
I did--very simple to understand--a crashed, compacted car will always be harder to get out of--things like nets and such will only complicate this.
The ignorant part is your cautionary "can't see the forest for the trees" tale of how a HANS device unboubtedly saved Joey's life, but slowed his egress from the worst crash I've seen in a long while.
Hmmn, still breathing because he wore the HANS versus a slowed extraction from his twisted car becuase of the HANS. Hmmn. Not sure which one he's willing to accept.
It's like complaining after you got shot and were saved by your kevlar that bullet-proof vests are bulky and cumbersome at times.
Get real.
"HANS device was stuck in the window net,"
Isaac doesn't catch on nets - the window was large enough to get out of - the HANS prevented him not the window size.
And Isaac would have provided just as much protection from injury.
The fact of the matter is my choice would be Isaac instead and I would be prevented from using it because of a single point of release rule.
Have you read 38.1? Have you tried HANS? Have you tried Isaac?
George - [url]http://www.isaacdirect.com/[/url][/QUOTE]
I did--very simple to understand--a crashed, compacted car will always be harder to get out of--things like nets and such will only complicate this.
The ignorant part is your cautionary "can't see the forest for the trees" tale of how a HANS device unboubtedly saved Joey's life, but slowed his egress from the worst crash I've seen in a long while.
Hmmn, still breathing because he wore the HANS versus a slowed extraction from his twisted car becuase of the HANS. Hmmn. Not sure which one he's willing to accept.
It's like complaining after you got shot and were saved by your kevlar that bullet-proof vests are bulky and cumbersome at times.
Get real.
| turboICE | 06-27-2006 07:13 PM |
MPME - I am being very real.
You are taking huge liberties with what I said.
I never said he shouldn't use H&N restraint and I never said if that was his choice that he shouldn't use HANS. Your inference that I did is inaccurate.
You are making a huge assumption that HANS saved him and another H&N restraint would not have.
The egress issue was a huge shortcoming that HANS ignored for a long time - they added the releases in acknowledgement that there is an egress issue.
So my criticism that SFI 38.1's focus on single point of release while not being concerned with actually getting out of the car is not inappropriate.
It is a flawed standard, developed in flawed manner, by a flawed model - and restricting to only those products to the exclusion of the product I desire to use is risking my safety in the vested commercial interests that wrote 38.1 IMO.
You are taking huge liberties with what I said.
I never said he shouldn't use H&N restraint and I never said if that was his choice that he shouldn't use HANS. Your inference that I did is inaccurate.
You are making a huge assumption that HANS saved him and another H&N restraint would not have.
The egress issue was a huge shortcoming that HANS ignored for a long time - they added the releases in acknowledgement that there is an egress issue.
So my criticism that SFI 38.1's focus on single point of release while not being concerned with actually getting out of the car is not inappropriate.
It is a flawed standard, developed in flawed manner, by a flawed model - and restricting to only those products to the exclusion of the product I desire to use is risking my safety in the vested commercial interests that wrote 38.1 IMO.
| GarySheehan | 06-27-2006 07:28 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]However, Gary the single point of release is a fallacy in a production based car.
1 - Window net (not all have same release - corner workers identify the type and release them)
2 - Cool shirt
3 - Communications[/QUOTE]
First of all, the cool shirt, communications and drink tube will all release themselves, so that's a ridiculous argument. In-fact, so is the window net. Are you suggesting that it's OK to just add more and more steps for egress because we already have a few?
[QUOTE=turboICE]Corner workers have posted on this topic on SCCA boards they said they are already familar at a glance with every commonly used restraint system. Isaac is used already and they know what it looks like and how it works - they are a group of dedicated and consciencious folks they know what is what.[/quote]
That's great. Have you ever been a corner worker? I was a Texas Turn Marshall and Racer Chaser for 3 years and I can tell you that when the $h!t hits the fan, it's not so cut an dry. Tell me how easy it is to identify the type of restraining device is being used when the car is upside down, smashed to hell and full of dust and smoke.
[QUOTE=turboICE]You make it sound like Isaac is tied to the back of the seat - it moves freely on the straps when the belt is released and with the adjusters in the same position you would have to put them for HANS there is a lot of room for the Isaac mounts to travel on the belts.[/quote]
But you are STILL attached to the belts if you just undo the latch. If your adjusters sit high up, you don't have much room to travel at all when your body falls to the roof.
[QUOTE=turboICE]What about the dual strap HANS? I have seen how that is supposed to be installed and you have much more chance of injury releasing the belts from a double belt HANS than you do from Isaac - the yoke is wedged between belts. The weight of the body upside down increases the wedging action on the lip - it isn't going to free from the belts without direct intentional motion seperate from belt release.[/quote]
I have no idea what a dual strap HANS is. I'm just familiar with the regular old HANS device which doesn't have any issues like this.
[QUOTE=turboICE]I am not sure why everyone responds as if I am reducing their safety by desiring to use an option I believe to be better. It is much more accurate that my safety is being reduced once the NASA and SCCA requires only 38.1 products. What will I do, I will use a HANS but as long as I am permitted to choose it is not my choice.[/QUOTE]
You are not reducing my safety by desiring any option you want. However, the rules were created for your safety, whether you agree with them or not. There are safety reasons for the single point of release rule that I have pointed out here that you have chosen to downplay or disregard. That's your choice, but it doesn't change the rules or the reasoning behind them.
The HANS device is extremely effective in what it's designed to do. Saying another product does the job better while not addressing some of the issues that potential users may have regarding that device does little to convince them.
Bitching about the rules and making it sound like the device many of us have worn, tested and come to trust sound like a dangerous piece of $h!t will rub some the wrong way.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
1 - Window net (not all have same release - corner workers identify the type and release them)
2 - Cool shirt
3 - Communications[/QUOTE]
First of all, the cool shirt, communications and drink tube will all release themselves, so that's a ridiculous argument. In-fact, so is the window net. Are you suggesting that it's OK to just add more and more steps for egress because we already have a few?
[QUOTE=turboICE]Corner workers have posted on this topic on SCCA boards they said they are already familar at a glance with every commonly used restraint system. Isaac is used already and they know what it looks like and how it works - they are a group of dedicated and consciencious folks they know what is what.[/quote]
That's great. Have you ever been a corner worker? I was a Texas Turn Marshall and Racer Chaser for 3 years and I can tell you that when the $h!t hits the fan, it's not so cut an dry. Tell me how easy it is to identify the type of restraining device is being used when the car is upside down, smashed to hell and full of dust and smoke.
[QUOTE=turboICE]You make it sound like Isaac is tied to the back of the seat - it moves freely on the straps when the belt is released and with the adjusters in the same position you would have to put them for HANS there is a lot of room for the Isaac mounts to travel on the belts.[/quote]
But you are STILL attached to the belts if you just undo the latch. If your adjusters sit high up, you don't have much room to travel at all when your body falls to the roof.
[QUOTE=turboICE]What about the dual strap HANS? I have seen how that is supposed to be installed and you have much more chance of injury releasing the belts from a double belt HANS than you do from Isaac - the yoke is wedged between belts. The weight of the body upside down increases the wedging action on the lip - it isn't going to free from the belts without direct intentional motion seperate from belt release.[/quote]
I have no idea what a dual strap HANS is. I'm just familiar with the regular old HANS device which doesn't have any issues like this.
[QUOTE=turboICE]I am not sure why everyone responds as if I am reducing their safety by desiring to use an option I believe to be better. It is much more accurate that my safety is being reduced once the NASA and SCCA requires only 38.1 products. What will I do, I will use a HANS but as long as I am permitted to choose it is not my choice.[/QUOTE]
You are not reducing my safety by desiring any option you want. However, the rules were created for your safety, whether you agree with them or not. There are safety reasons for the single point of release rule that I have pointed out here that you have chosen to downplay or disregard. That's your choice, but it doesn't change the rules or the reasoning behind them.
The HANS device is extremely effective in what it's designed to do. Saying another product does the job better while not addressing some of the issues that potential users may have regarding that device does little to convince them.
Bitching about the rules and making it sound like the device many of us have worn, tested and come to trust sound like a dangerous piece of $h!t will rub some the wrong way.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| turboICE | 06-27-2006 07:38 PM |
I doubt that my equipment would just release on its own. They are all secure attachments that don't just release.
No I haven't been a corner worker which is why I take what those who are corner workers say is the case to be accurate, I am in no position to question them.
[QUOTE=GarySheehan]making it sound like the device many of us have worn, tested and come to trust sound like a dangerous piece of $h!t will rub some the wrong way.[/QUOTE]The feeling is mutual. Thank you for putting into words how I feel when people knock my choice - maybe the appreciation of this can go both ways.
If driver safety is the ultimate concern why not also require a secondary quick release on all yoke devices? I think there have been plenty of examples of difficulty with egress when the it hits the fan and there is dust and smoke and
Or better yet why wouldn't HANS make it standard instead of an option?
Wouldn't an extension of your views be that part of the standard should be address full egress in addition to single point of release? Why not lobby for that for the safety of drivers?
No I haven't been a corner worker which is why I take what those who are corner workers say is the case to be accurate, I am in no position to question them.
[QUOTE=GarySheehan]making it sound like the device many of us have worn, tested and come to trust sound like a dangerous piece of $h!t will rub some the wrong way.[/QUOTE]The feeling is mutual. Thank you for putting into words how I feel when people knock my choice - maybe the appreciation of this can go both ways.
If driver safety is the ultimate concern why not also require a secondary quick release on all yoke devices? I think there have been plenty of examples of difficulty with egress when the it hits the fan and there is dust and smoke and
Or better yet why wouldn't HANS make it standard instead of an option?
Wouldn't an extension of your views be that part of the standard should be address full egress in addition to single point of release? Why not lobby for that for the safety of drivers?
| turboICE | 06-27-2006 07:45 PM |
The double belt HANS I am referring to: [url]http://www.schrothracing.com/info/9[/url]
| GarySheehan | 06-27-2006 08:02 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]The feeling is mutual. Thank you for putting into words how I feel when people knock my choice - maybe the appreciation of this can go both ways.[/quote]
Wow. You need to go back and reread this entire thread. No one knocked your choice. There were some concerns raised, but no one knocked you regarding your use of the Isaac.
People DID take exception to you trying to bash the device right after it may have been responsible for saving Joey Hand from serious injury or worse.
[QUOTE=turboICE]If driver safety is the ultimate concern why not also require a secondary quick release on all yoke devices? I think there have been plenty of examples of difficulty with egress when the it hits the fan and there is dust and smoke and
Or better yet why wouldn't HANS make it standard instead of an option?[/quote]
Why don't you ask the makers of the HANS device? I certainly don't know the answers to these questions.
[QUOTE=turboICE]Wouldn't an extension of your views be that part of the standard should be address full egress in addition to single point of release? Why not lobby for that for the safety of drivers?[/QUOTE]
My gear works and I trust it. If you've got so much extra time and motivation regarding this issue, why don't YOU lobby for this stuff.
You are asking the wrong questions, which is the part that's most irritating. If you want to use an Isaac in competition, focus your efforts on getting Isaac to make changes to conform to the current rules or get Isaac to lobby the sanctioning bodies and eliminate their concerns about single point of release.
How many injuries or deaths has the HANS device caused? How many injuries or deaths has the HANS prevented? The HANS is staying. Stop pointing fingers at a proven product and get your choice approved.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
Wow. You need to go back and reread this entire thread. No one knocked your choice. There were some concerns raised, but no one knocked you regarding your use of the Isaac.
People DID take exception to you trying to bash the device right after it may have been responsible for saving Joey Hand from serious injury or worse.
[QUOTE=turboICE]If driver safety is the ultimate concern why not also require a secondary quick release on all yoke devices? I think there have been plenty of examples of difficulty with egress when the it hits the fan and there is dust and smoke and
Or better yet why wouldn't HANS make it standard instead of an option?[/quote]
Why don't you ask the makers of the HANS device? I certainly don't know the answers to these questions.
[QUOTE=turboICE]Wouldn't an extension of your views be that part of the standard should be address full egress in addition to single point of release? Why not lobby for that for the safety of drivers?[/QUOTE]
My gear works and I trust it. If you've got so much extra time and motivation regarding this issue, why don't YOU lobby for this stuff.
You are asking the wrong questions, which is the part that's most irritating. If you want to use an Isaac in competition, focus your efforts on getting Isaac to make changes to conform to the current rules or get Isaac to lobby the sanctioning bodies and eliminate their concerns about single point of release.
How many injuries or deaths has the HANS device caused? How many injuries or deaths has the HANS prevented? The HANS is staying. Stop pointing fingers at a proven product and get your choice approved.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| bjorn240 | 06-27-2006 09:30 PM |
Gary said to TurboICE:
[QUOTE=GarySheehan]Wow. You need to go back and reread this entire thread. No one knocked your choice. There were some concerns raised, but no one knocked you regarding your use of the Isaac.[/QUOTE]
Let me be the first. Between Greg's refusal to do a frontal test, and his refusal to redesign the device to meet SFI 38.1 standards, and the expressed concern of the FIA experts of the ISAAC dashpots serving as anvils against which you can strike your head, I hereby officially knock your choice.
So I says, to TurboICE, get a proper head restraint, and stop whinging on the internet. It could save your life. The former, that is.
- Christian
[QUOTE=GarySheehan]Wow. You need to go back and reread this entire thread. No one knocked your choice. There were some concerns raised, but no one knocked you regarding your use of the Isaac.[/QUOTE]
Let me be the first. Between Greg's refusal to do a frontal test, and his refusal to redesign the device to meet SFI 38.1 standards, and the expressed concern of the FIA experts of the ISAAC dashpots serving as anvils against which you can strike your head, I hereby officially knock your choice.
So I says, to TurboICE, get a proper head restraint, and stop whinging on the internet. It could save your life. The former, that is.
- Christian
| cooleyjb | 06-27-2006 10:15 PM |
12345 bjorn240
[QUOTE=turboICE]Hasn't done the test - which is different than failing it.
[/QUOTE]
Ya know I haven't sat for the neurosurgery boards, so that means I haven't failed it. How bout I operate on your brain.
My only beef with ISAAC is that they complain "oh whoa is me I won't test until SFI standards are changed to make me a viable option." Well guess what it's not. But if you did the tests and supported why it was a viable option maybe it would go a long way to getting the rules changed.
As for the driver in this incident I'm glad he's okay.
[QUOTE=turboICE]Hasn't done the test - which is different than failing it.
[/QUOTE]
Ya know I haven't sat for the neurosurgery boards, so that means I haven't failed it. How bout I operate on your brain.
My only beef with ISAAC is that they complain "oh whoa is me I won't test until SFI standards are changed to make me a viable option." Well guess what it's not. But if you did the tests and supported why it was a viable option maybe it would go a long way to getting the rules changed.
As for the driver in this incident I'm glad he's okay.
| bjorn240 | 06-27-2006 10:25 PM |
[QUOTE=cooleyjb]Ya know I haven't sat for the neurosurgery boards, so that means I haven't failed it. How bout I operate on your brain.[/QUOTE]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
| turboICE | 06-27-2006 11:22 PM |
Christian - why spend money on an expensive test after being told it doesn't matter if you pass it. Offset test is the tougher test and it passed - it would pass the frontal test if it mattered to licensing. Guess we can rehash the last 5 threads again. Nah - I'm out.
cooley - people were using a lot of H&N restraints that hadn't passed any test including years of the HANS without having passed a test.
[QUOTE=GarySheehan]Wow. You need to go back and reread this entire thread. No one knocked your choice. There were some concerns raised, but no one knocked you regarding your use of the Isaac.[/quote]Read all the threads plenty on this board have knocked my choice, repeatedly.
[quote]The HANS is staying.[/QUOTE]I never said it shouldn't, quite the contrary. The point is if the HANS is good enough for the safety of a driver that chooses it - the ISAAC is good enough for the safety of a driver that choose it.
I have lobbied sanctioning bodies that I participate in and will continue to do so.
Ed.
cooley - people were using a lot of H&N restraints that hadn't passed any test including years of the HANS without having passed a test.
[QUOTE=GarySheehan]Wow. You need to go back and reread this entire thread. No one knocked your choice. There were some concerns raised, but no one knocked you regarding your use of the Isaac.[/quote]Read all the threads plenty on this board have knocked my choice, repeatedly.
[quote]The HANS is staying.[/QUOTE]I never said it shouldn't, quite the contrary. The point is if the HANS is good enough for the safety of a driver that chooses it - the ISAAC is good enough for the safety of a driver that choose it.
I have lobbied sanctioning bodies that I participate in and will continue to do so.
Ed.
| GarySheehan | 06-27-2006 11:45 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]The point is if the HANS is good enough for the safety of a driver that chooses it - the ISAAC is good enough for the safety of a driver that choose it.[/QUOTE]
That is not a true statement. It doesn't matter if the Isaac is superior in protection in an impact, especially if the HANS performance is proving itself over and over on the racetrack. The sanctioning bodies have real issues with multiple points of release which makes it more difficult for a driver to exit the vehicle after an impact. THEREFORE, in the eyes of the sanctioning body, the Isaac is NOT good enough for the safety of a driver that chooses it.
Regarding your comment on the dual-strap Schroth BELT SYSTEM (not HANS device), that is only for F1, and F1 is an entirely different beast both in sanctioning body, vehicle type and driver extrication. Perhaps the Isaac system would be more appropriate for certification in F1, where single point of release is not as large a concern.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
That is not a true statement. It doesn't matter if the Isaac is superior in protection in an impact, especially if the HANS performance is proving itself over and over on the racetrack. The sanctioning bodies have real issues with multiple points of release which makes it more difficult for a driver to exit the vehicle after an impact. THEREFORE, in the eyes of the sanctioning body, the Isaac is NOT good enough for the safety of a driver that chooses it.
Regarding your comment on the dual-strap Schroth BELT SYSTEM (not HANS device), that is only for F1, and F1 is an entirely different beast both in sanctioning body, vehicle type and driver extrication. Perhaps the Isaac system would be more appropriate for certification in F1, where single point of release is not as large a concern.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| turboICE | 06-27-2006 11:55 PM |
Likewise ISAAC has been proven on the racetrack. And relative to the force reduction between the two they are nearly identical in relative terms which is why I tell people all the time if you aren't getting H&N restraint because you are concerned about what is allowed to get the HANS now - just get it.
I don't use HANS now because I tried it and in casual nonemergency egress I got hung up on the yoke. I didn't want to try that in an emergency situation.
If the sanctioning bodies had real issues with things making it more difficult to exit the vehicle after an impact they would have issues with yoke devices that don't have quick disconnects.
The HANS yoke for the Schroth BELT SYSTEM is modified with a lip to prevent the yoke from dislodging in multiple impacts.
I don't use HANS now because I tried it and in casual nonemergency egress I got hung up on the yoke. I didn't want to try that in an emergency situation.
If the sanctioning bodies had real issues with things making it more difficult to exit the vehicle after an impact they would have issues with yoke devices that don't have quick disconnects.
The HANS yoke for the Schroth BELT SYSTEM is modified with a lip to prevent the yoke from dislodging in multiple impacts.
| GarySheehan | 06-28-2006 12:12 AM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]The HANS yoke for the Schroth BELT SYSTEM is modified with a lip to prevent the yoke from dislodging in multiple impacts.[/QUOTE]
That's not true. The lip on the HANS device has been around for awhile to help prevent normal shoulder belts from slipping off. I don't have that issue, so I my HANS is still the older, smooth kind.
I too had initial issues with getting out of the car with the HANS on. It took a concious effort to get it into my head that there is something behind my head that I need to consider. I don't get hung up anymore. Just in case I ever do, I have quick releases. So, while there MAY be a case where the quick releases might come in handy, it's quite a bit different than the mandatory 3 point release of the Isaac to get out of the car, which is what the sanctioning bodies are concerned about.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
That's not true. The lip on the HANS device has been around for awhile to help prevent normal shoulder belts from slipping off. I don't have that issue, so I my HANS is still the older, smooth kind.
I too had initial issues with getting out of the car with the HANS on. It took a concious effort to get it into my head that there is something behind my head that I need to consider. I don't get hung up anymore. Just in case I ever do, I have quick releases. So, while there MAY be a case where the quick releases might come in handy, it's quite a bit different than the mandatory 3 point release of the Isaac to get out of the car, which is what the sanctioning bodies are concerned about.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| turboICE | 06-28-2006 08:29 AM |
[QUOTE=GarySheehan]So, while there MAY be a case where the quick releases might come in handy, it's quite a bit different than the mandatory 3 point release of the Isaac to get out of the car, which is what the sanctioning bodies are concerned about.[/QUOTE]If you say so, there is no evidence that any club road racing sanctioning body has ever been concerned about single point of release before. I can find no language in any club road racing rule book which required single point of release.
You make it sound as if there was broad sanctioning body input into SFI 38.1.
The SFI widely acknowledged and discussed they had no technical ability to write 38.1 and they passed the writing of 38.1 to NASCAR. All of NASCAR's H&N experts had a financial interest in HANS. And we know how well NASCAR considers any other sanctioning body concerns and they frequently seek their input.
So if there was any sanctioning body interest in single point of release it was only NASCAR. There was no NASA or SCCA expression of single point of release being an issue for them - or it would have already been in their safety rule sets. There was nothing preventing either organization from having single point of release rules before 38.1.
As a matter of fact at this very moment NASA and SCCA have no single point release requirement at all - so where has their concern and interest in single point release been expressed?
If single point of release was really something the sanctioning bodies saw as a real issue it would be expressed explicitly and not buried in a yet to be adopted standard.
Ed.
You make it sound as if there was broad sanctioning body input into SFI 38.1.
The SFI widely acknowledged and discussed they had no technical ability to write 38.1 and they passed the writing of 38.1 to NASCAR. All of NASCAR's H&N experts had a financial interest in HANS. And we know how well NASCAR considers any other sanctioning body concerns and they frequently seek their input.
So if there was any sanctioning body interest in single point of release it was only NASCAR. There was no NASA or SCCA expression of single point of release being an issue for them - or it would have already been in their safety rule sets. There was nothing preventing either organization from having single point of release rules before 38.1.
As a matter of fact at this very moment NASA and SCCA have no single point release requirement at all - so where has their concern and interest in single point release been expressed?
If single point of release was really something the sanctioning bodies saw as a real issue it would be expressed explicitly and not buried in a yet to be adopted standard.
Ed.
| SlideWRX | 06-28-2006 09:48 AM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]How often do you go pay for expensive tests that you were told won't make a difference in advance?[/QUOTE]
They were told the wrong answer for the wrong reasons. The test engineer isn't a marketer or lobbyist, and fundamentally without having data there's no way to market the device properly or lobby for a change without blurring the issue. The Issac needs the test to market the device, not to pass SFI.
People interested in buying the device need the data; SFi doesn't so long as the other contraint is in effect.
For rally, if more people were using issac versus hans when requirements were put into effect, I think RA would be sane enough to amicably deal with it. Having a lot of issac's in use won't happen until he does the testing.
Tom
They were told the wrong answer for the wrong reasons. The test engineer isn't a marketer or lobbyist, and fundamentally without having data there's no way to market the device properly or lobby for a change without blurring the issue. The Issac needs the test to market the device, not to pass SFI.
People interested in buying the device need the data; SFi doesn't so long as the other contraint is in effect.
For rally, if more people were using issac versus hans when requirements were put into effect, I think RA would be sane enough to amicably deal with it. Having a lot of issac's in use won't happen until he does the testing.
Tom
| bjorn240 | 06-28-2006 10:13 AM |
[QUOTE=SlideWRX]For rally, if more people were using issac versus hans when requirements were put into effect, I think RA would be sane enough to amicably deal with it. Having a lot of issac's in use won't happen until he does the testing.[/QUOTE]
Alas, no. No sanctioning body is going to allow a device that doesn't meet SFI 38.1 or the FIA standard (currently HANS only) when H&N devices are mandated. Too much liability in not following the industry standards.
Yet another reason to go with a proven, approved, product.
Alas, no. No sanctioning body is going to allow a device that doesn't meet SFI 38.1 or the FIA standard (currently HANS only) when H&N devices are mandated. Too much liability in not following the industry standards.
Yet another reason to go with a proven, approved, product.
| kfoote | 06-28-2006 10:57 AM |
One other note on the egress issue:
Within the last couple of years, many sanctioning bodies, including World Challenge and Grand-Am, are requireing that window nets be mounted so that they can be released from the top to help with the egress issue (the "Jeff Altenburg" rule). This is the first time I have heard of it being a problem at all since these rules have been put in place, and only because the car stopped upside down.
When I have to redesign the net for my car, I will be designing it to be able to be easily released from both the top and the bottom, to account for both possibilities. In my car, the lower release is much more convenient in non emergency situations, but the upper release does have safety advantages.
Within the last couple of years, many sanctioning bodies, including World Challenge and Grand-Am, are requireing that window nets be mounted so that they can be released from the top to help with the egress issue (the "Jeff Altenburg" rule). This is the first time I have heard of it being a problem at all since these rules have been put in place, and only because the car stopped upside down.
When I have to redesign the net for my car, I will be designing it to be able to be easily released from both the top and the bottom, to account for both possibilities. In my car, the lower release is much more convenient in non emergency situations, but the upper release does have safety advantages.
| turboICE | 06-28-2006 11:45 AM |
Tom - valid points alot of good products don't get to market because they didn't do what was needed to penetrate it. HANS in its current form has the longest history and deepest market penetration (with a lot of help from NASCAR requirements prior to 38.1) and it is a very established fact that it is just damn great at restraining the H&N and reducing injury to the driver in impacts. I am not comfortable in it and don't like the egress difficulty - which led me to look at the Isaac originally. However, if I didn't think the Isaac would be just as effective I would have dealt with my issues with the HANS. And most likely at some point in the near future I will have to do exactly that.
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.
Unfortunately for me and others who would prefer to use the Isaac - it is likely too late. The HANS is good and nothing is going to perform so much better that it is going to shift the regulatory situation. Even if Isaac were to outperform the HANS it would be marginal - both HANS and Isaac reduce forces to such a diminished level that the degree of injury reduction/prevention are essentially equivalent.
I am fighting a lost battle and tilting at windmills because I think it is fundamentally wrong that I will be prevented from using a piece of equipment that I believe to be just as effective at H&N restraint while providing me with more comfort especially regarding egress.
Christian you are absolutely right - as long as there is a standard there is no sanctioning body that could justify for a second continuing to allow the use of devices that don't meet the standard.
Everyone thinks that I am some how slamming the HANS - I am using example of issues with the HANS to slam the standard - not the HANS. I don't want anything at all changed regarding anyone's ability to use the HANS to protect themselves - I want the standard fixed to be consistent with the realities faced by me as a driver in the car. And the reality is the Isaac performs well on the topic at hand which is H&N restraint. Egress issues including points of release should be dealt with either completely as it own rules because it goes beyond H&N restraint to include other attachments, nets, and steering wheels. Or if they want to address egress only in the H&N standard and nowhere else - then make it a comprehensive egress standard. Make it so no driver that is awake and alert can not escape the vehicle on his own without getting caught up on a window net or anything else. It took a long time for someone to come and help in this situation where fuel and oil were filling up the roof. And a fuel and oil soaked driver suit is useless for fire protection.
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.
Unfortunately for me and others who would prefer to use the Isaac - it is likely too late. The HANS is good and nothing is going to perform so much better that it is going to shift the regulatory situation. Even if Isaac were to outperform the HANS it would be marginal - both HANS and Isaac reduce forces to such a diminished level that the degree of injury reduction/prevention are essentially equivalent.
I am fighting a lost battle and tilting at windmills because I think it is fundamentally wrong that I will be prevented from using a piece of equipment that I believe to be just as effective at H&N restraint while providing me with more comfort especially regarding egress.
Christian you are absolutely right - as long as there is a standard there is no sanctioning body that could justify for a second continuing to allow the use of devices that don't meet the standard.
Everyone thinks that I am some how slamming the HANS - I am using example of issues with the HANS to slam the standard - not the HANS. I don't want anything at all changed regarding anyone's ability to use the HANS to protect themselves - I want the standard fixed to be consistent with the realities faced by me as a driver in the car. And the reality is the Isaac performs well on the topic at hand which is H&N restraint. Egress issues including points of release should be dealt with either completely as it own rules because it goes beyond H&N restraint to include other attachments, nets, and steering wheels. Or if they want to address egress only in the H&N standard and nowhere else - then make it a comprehensive egress standard. Make it so no driver that is awake and alert can not escape the vehicle on his own without getting caught up on a window net or anything else. It took a long time for someone to come and help in this situation where fuel and oil were filling up the roof. And a fuel and oil soaked driver suit is useless for fire protection.
| ghschirtz | 06-28-2006 01:39 PM |
^^^Seconded.
The problem is not with HANS, and ICE never said that. He said there is another system available that might solve the HANS issue with egress, and that the regulation is narrowly focused to inhibit any solution but HANS.
This is not right in the overall scheme of things, where innovation is needed to improve solutions. Yes there are issues with change, with inexperience of corner workers with all restraint systems, etc. And those will never go away completely. Murphy was an optimist.
Safe and timely egress after a crash involves many factors. Having a single release point is one, if a major, consideration, but not the only one. Lorenzo Bandini had a single point release system at Monaco in 1967.
The solution, as ICE lays it out, is a balanced approach to get the best overall solution, and technology such as Issac should not be banned out of hand due to a narrow focus on one aspect of egress if it otherwise proves itself equivalent in its mission to preventing H+N injury. What needs honest evaluation is whether the overall mission-getting somebody out of a wrecked vehicle-is compromised significantly in comparison to other solutions.
We didn't have a 38.1 rule when HANS or Issac were invented. So why do we think we know all there is to know about H+N protection and egress now that we have a rule?
Sorry, chaps, but blind obedience to rules just never works for long. To point out the extreme case, certain people in 1940's Europe obeyed "the rules" and sent other people by train to the camping experience of a lifetime. Change the labels, the era and the act...you still have people applying a rule without thought or introspection (or so some of them said).
Keep in mind that innovation always involves breaking somebody's rules, and rules deserve respect when they work, not simply because they are rules. Without innovation, we would still be in caves.
I have strayed from the topic, you may think, but not really. You either look for innovation constantly or calcify into rigidity, miss chances to make things better. How do you want to live and what do you want to be?
Regards,
George
The problem is not with HANS, and ICE never said that. He said there is another system available that might solve the HANS issue with egress, and that the regulation is narrowly focused to inhibit any solution but HANS.
This is not right in the overall scheme of things, where innovation is needed to improve solutions. Yes there are issues with change, with inexperience of corner workers with all restraint systems, etc. And those will never go away completely. Murphy was an optimist.
Safe and timely egress after a crash involves many factors. Having a single release point is one, if a major, consideration, but not the only one. Lorenzo Bandini had a single point release system at Monaco in 1967.
The solution, as ICE lays it out, is a balanced approach to get the best overall solution, and technology such as Issac should not be banned out of hand due to a narrow focus on one aspect of egress if it otherwise proves itself equivalent in its mission to preventing H+N injury. What needs honest evaluation is whether the overall mission-getting somebody out of a wrecked vehicle-is compromised significantly in comparison to other solutions.
We didn't have a 38.1 rule when HANS or Issac were invented. So why do we think we know all there is to know about H+N protection and egress now that we have a rule?
Sorry, chaps, but blind obedience to rules just never works for long. To point out the extreme case, certain people in 1940's Europe obeyed "the rules" and sent other people by train to the camping experience of a lifetime. Change the labels, the era and the act...you still have people applying a rule without thought or introspection (or so some of them said).
Keep in mind that innovation always involves breaking somebody's rules, and rules deserve respect when they work, not simply because they are rules. Without innovation, we would still be in caves.
I have strayed from the topic, you may think, but not really. You either look for innovation constantly or calcify into rigidity, miss chances to make things better. How do you want to live and what do you want to be?
Regards,
George
| RichardM | 06-28-2006 01:44 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]If you say so, there is no evidence that any club road racing sanctioning body has ever been concerned about single point of release before. I can find no language in any club road racing rule book which required single point of release.
snipped
Ed.[/QUOTE]
From the present SCCA GCR "the single release common to the seat belt and
shoulder harness." I read that to mean a single point of release. Also, the GCR refers to SFI and FIA standards for restraint systems and these require a single point of release. I will also go review the GCRs from years ago but if my aging memory is correct, a single point of release used to be specifically mentioned.
snipped
Ed.[/QUOTE]
From the present SCCA GCR "the single release common to the seat belt and
shoulder harness." I read that to mean a single point of release. Also, the GCR refers to SFI and FIA standards for restraint systems and these require a single point of release. I will also go review the GCRs from years ago but if my aging memory is correct, a single point of release used to be specifically mentioned.
| 10th Warrior | 06-28-2006 02:37 PM |
[quote]Sorry, chaps, but blind obedience to rules just never works for long. To point out the extreme case, certain people in 1940's Europe obeyed "the rules" and sent other people by train to the camping experience of a lifetime.[/quote]
I don't care one way or another about H&N restraints. What I do care about is you being a dumbass and making light of genocide in a discussion on motorsport safety equipment and having the gall to even insinutate that adhering to a rulebook for our hobby is even remotly the same as slaughtering millions of people. Piss off.
I don't care one way or another about H&N restraints. What I do care about is you being a dumbass and making light of genocide in a discussion on motorsport safety equipment and having the gall to even insinutate that adhering to a rulebook for our hobby is even remotly the same as slaughtering millions of people. Piss off.
| gbaker | 06-28-2006 02:52 PM |
[QUOTE=SlideWRX]They were told the wrong answer for the wrong reasons. The test engineer isn't a marketer or lobbyist, and fundamentally without having data there's no way to market the device properly or lobby for a change without blurring the issue. The Issac needs the test to market the device, not to pass SFI....
Tom[/QUOTE]
That is an interesting point. Only those unfamiliar with the science believe the frontal test is necessary to "prove" the effectiveness, but then most people are unfamiliar with the science.
I wonder what the reaction would be if we performed a 100G test, rather than the SFI 70G?
Tom[/QUOTE]
That is an interesting point. Only those unfamiliar with the science believe the frontal test is necessary to "prove" the effectiveness, but then most people are unfamiliar with the science.
I wonder what the reaction would be if we performed a 100G test, rather than the SFI 70G?
| ghschirtz | 06-28-2006 03:30 PM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior]I don't care one way or another about H&N restraints. What I do care about is you being a dumbass and making light of genocide in a discussion on motorsport safety equipment and having the gall to even insinutate that adhering to a rulebook for our hobby is even remotly the same as slaughtering millions of people. Piss off.[/QUOTE]
I made light of genocide? Where do I say that, except in your head? Did I not say it is an extreme example of "following the rules"? Was that not the defense of many, and the derivation of the Nuremberg Principle? Where do I say issues of life and death-camp trips or Hand's crash-are light matters?
Lives are at stake in what goes into the racing handbook and what government decides you can or can't or should do. You can argue about numbers, but both situations are bloody serious to me (no pun intended). I've been badly hurt in a wreck, and I have been to the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam. Haven't been to Cambodia or Rwanda, yet, though. I think I understand genocide. I think I understand egress from a destroyed car (road accident, not racing, no HANS involved). I understand the difference between the two. The point I think ICE is making and I expanded upon, is that "rules" are not always optimal and are sometimes pernicious, if not evil, in their outcome.
With so many government rules controlling US citizens today, decisions like [I]Kelo[/I], abrogation of the right to self-defense in New Orleans after Katrina, rules are multiplying and we are accepting them like sheep in some cases. We should go to another forum to discuss details of that thought, I agree. I mention it purely to illustrate where I am coming from.
So, for racing, 38.1 is important to follow, but thinking narrowly about safety (the intent of 38.1-can we agree on that?) is not a comfortable state for me.
The lesson is that rules are rules, and some ought to be broken or ignored or repealed, with applicability of this observation far beyond the rulebook of our hobby. It is a challenge to think all the time, be open-minded and/or innovate all the time, in all you can do. Fine, let's keep the discussion here to the rule book, but I think ICE has been misinterpreted by some. Drawing from outside racing is to illustrate that point.
If you don't get that message, then I don't agree about which of us is the dumbass, and/or I apologize for being less clear about my meaning.
If you don't like what I mean, I hope you are happy with your choice and always do what you are told. I want to live differently, and will, like it or don't.
George
I made light of genocide? Where do I say that, except in your head? Did I not say it is an extreme example of "following the rules"? Was that not the defense of many, and the derivation of the Nuremberg Principle? Where do I say issues of life and death-camp trips or Hand's crash-are light matters?
Lives are at stake in what goes into the racing handbook and what government decides you can or can't or should do. You can argue about numbers, but both situations are bloody serious to me (no pun intended). I've been badly hurt in a wreck, and I have been to the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam. Haven't been to Cambodia or Rwanda, yet, though. I think I understand genocide. I think I understand egress from a destroyed car (road accident, not racing, no HANS involved). I understand the difference between the two. The point I think ICE is making and I expanded upon, is that "rules" are not always optimal and are sometimes pernicious, if not evil, in their outcome.
With so many government rules controlling US citizens today, decisions like [I]Kelo[/I], abrogation of the right to self-defense in New Orleans after Katrina, rules are multiplying and we are accepting them like sheep in some cases. We should go to another forum to discuss details of that thought, I agree. I mention it purely to illustrate where I am coming from.
So, for racing, 38.1 is important to follow, but thinking narrowly about safety (the intent of 38.1-can we agree on that?) is not a comfortable state for me.
The lesson is that rules are rules, and some ought to be broken or ignored or repealed, with applicability of this observation far beyond the rulebook of our hobby. It is a challenge to think all the time, be open-minded and/or innovate all the time, in all you can do. Fine, let's keep the discussion here to the rule book, but I think ICE has been misinterpreted by some. Drawing from outside racing is to illustrate that point.
If you don't get that message, then I don't agree about which of us is the dumbass, and/or I apologize for being less clear about my meaning.
If you don't like what I mean, I hope you are happy with your choice and always do what you are told. I want to live differently, and will, like it or don't.
George
| turboICE | 06-28-2006 03:35 PM |
[QUOTE=RichardM]From the present SCCA GCR "the single release common to the seat belt and shoulder harness." I read that to mean a single point of release. Also, the GCR refers to SFI and FIA standards for restraint systems and these require a single point of release. I will also go review the GCRs from years ago but if my aging memory is correct, a single point of release used to be specifically mentioned.[/QUOTE]That relates to releasing the harness with a single release point - not releasing the driver for full egress from the car. Full egress is achieved much faster by undoing all our connections than trying to pull them all out with us.
If I am awake and aware but can not get out of the car unassisted I don't care if it was the harness, the net, the steering wheel, the comms gear, the cool shirt or the H&N restraint that hindered my egress all I care about is that I need to get out of the car. QR on a H&N restraint whether HANS or Isaac are fairly simple - my cool shirt connection with gloves on not so much so. My point is that the sanctioning bodies have not put full egress high up on their list so I don't see 38.1's restriction furthering the cause of getting away from the car.
If I am awake and aware but can not get out of the car unassisted I don't care if it was the harness, the net, the steering wheel, the comms gear, the cool shirt or the H&N restraint that hindered my egress all I care about is that I need to get out of the car. QR on a H&N restraint whether HANS or Isaac are fairly simple - my cool shirt connection with gloves on not so much so. My point is that the sanctioning bodies have not put full egress high up on their list so I don't see 38.1's restriction furthering the cause of getting away from the car.
| 10th Warrior | 06-28-2006 03:45 PM |
[quote]I made light of genocide? Where do I say that, except in your head?[/quote]
Lets see, you refered to the Nazi death camps by saying:
[quote]the camping experience of a lifetime[/quote]
[quote]If you don't like what I mean, I hope you are happy with your choice and always do what you are told.[/quote]
See, you continue to be a dumbass. I never mentioned anything about me except that I'm unconcerned about x h&n vs y h&n and that I don't like it when people such as yourself exploit mass murder to say that 'either you agree with me, or you're a Nazi'. From a rational point of view, its a poor arguement. From a moral point of view, it makes you seem like a sleazeball.
Lets see, you refered to the Nazi death camps by saying:
[quote]the camping experience of a lifetime[/quote]
[quote]If you don't like what I mean, I hope you are happy with your choice and always do what you are told.[/quote]
See, you continue to be a dumbass. I never mentioned anything about me except that I'm unconcerned about x h&n vs y h&n and that I don't like it when people such as yourself exploit mass murder to say that 'either you agree with me, or you're a Nazi'. From a rational point of view, its a poor arguement. From a moral point of view, it makes you seem like a sleazeball.
| turboICE | 06-28-2006 03:49 PM |
[QUOTE=gbaker]That is an interesting point. Only those unfamiliar with the science believe the frontal test is necessary to "prove" the effectiveness, but then most people are unfamiliar with the science.
I wonder what the reaction would be if we performed a 100G test, rather than the SFI 70G?[/QUOTE]
What was the offset test results in laymen's terms? i.e. how much stress with no H&N, how much stress to cause mortal damage, how much stress to pass 38.1, how much stress with the Isaac?
I wonder what the reaction would be if we performed a 100G test, rather than the SFI 70G?[/QUOTE]
What was the offset test results in laymen's terms? i.e. how much stress with no H&N, how much stress to cause mortal damage, how much stress to pass 38.1, how much stress with the Isaac?
| elgorey | 06-28-2006 03:52 PM |
wow. some of you guys are [i]really[/i] drinking the HANS kool-aid.
Ive been researching head and neck restraint devices for quite some time. Reading the reports, test data, talking to LOTS of people about different devices, evaluating them myself. I WANTED the HANS to be the best system. It is the path of least resistance. Its the most widely used and most likely to be approved for use.
But it has major issues that I simply couldnt ignore. First off is claviclar fractures (chest bones) All that force from the stop has to go somewhere, and in the HANS design it is transferred to the carbon fiber arms that come down across your chest. A recent busch car wreck that HANS has quoted in marketing actually broke the drivers clavicle.
Next up is the belts staying on the HANS. When there are many instances of the entire driver coming through the belts, I didnt have much confidence in the HANS staying under the belts. That grip tape stuff and little lip may make it easier to keep the belts on in the paddock but with any force applied its going to come right off.
Not surprisingly, when Isaac tested the HANS they simply couldnt keep the belts on it on any of the sled impacts, and it appeared as though something extra was done to the test setup when HANS did their official tests.
The egress issue is a major one. What good is being saved from a wreck to be trapped inside a burning car? I drive a miata and have a seat with head supports, so the window is quite small. I have zero confidence that I could easily get out of my car easily while wearing a hans. This is what makes the SFI spec such a joke. They require a single point of release, which translates to wearing the device, yet wearing that device will almost assuredly cause you to take more time to get out of the car than reaching up to touch your ears, which is how long it takes to release a device attached to the helmet. The only issue with this is that if a EV worker needs to pull you out of the car when you are knocked out, it may take him/her longer to realize you are wearing a device attached to the helmet and release both sides.
The hans restrains your head by position, but what kills you is acceleration of your head. Isaac seems to be the only h&n to adress this.
so far the only device that meets most of my requirements is the Isaac. Its not 100% ideal, as I dont like the angle it sits at in comparison to the angle of impact, but it doesnt seem as though that is critical
edit: i didnt notice that greg baker was here, he can correct me if i misstated anything
Ive been researching head and neck restraint devices for quite some time. Reading the reports, test data, talking to LOTS of people about different devices, evaluating them myself. I WANTED the HANS to be the best system. It is the path of least resistance. Its the most widely used and most likely to be approved for use.
But it has major issues that I simply couldnt ignore. First off is claviclar fractures (chest bones) All that force from the stop has to go somewhere, and in the HANS design it is transferred to the carbon fiber arms that come down across your chest. A recent busch car wreck that HANS has quoted in marketing actually broke the drivers clavicle.
Next up is the belts staying on the HANS. When there are many instances of the entire driver coming through the belts, I didnt have much confidence in the HANS staying under the belts. That grip tape stuff and little lip may make it easier to keep the belts on in the paddock but with any force applied its going to come right off.
Not surprisingly, when Isaac tested the HANS they simply couldnt keep the belts on it on any of the sled impacts, and it appeared as though something extra was done to the test setup when HANS did their official tests.
The egress issue is a major one. What good is being saved from a wreck to be trapped inside a burning car? I drive a miata and have a seat with head supports, so the window is quite small. I have zero confidence that I could easily get out of my car easily while wearing a hans. This is what makes the SFI spec such a joke. They require a single point of release, which translates to wearing the device, yet wearing that device will almost assuredly cause you to take more time to get out of the car than reaching up to touch your ears, which is how long it takes to release a device attached to the helmet. The only issue with this is that if a EV worker needs to pull you out of the car when you are knocked out, it may take him/her longer to realize you are wearing a device attached to the helmet and release both sides.
The hans restrains your head by position, but what kills you is acceleration of your head. Isaac seems to be the only h&n to adress this.
so far the only device that meets most of my requirements is the Isaac. Its not 100% ideal, as I dont like the angle it sits at in comparison to the angle of impact, but it doesnt seem as though that is critical
edit: i didnt notice that greg baker was here, he can correct me if i misstated anything
| turboICE | 06-28-2006 03:52 PM |
BTW does anyone know if there is any data collection on Rolex cars? What was the G force of the initial impact into the berm for the road and the first couple nose first flips?
Just curious because no matter what your opinion on the appropriateness of the other issues in 38.1 H&N restraint sure is one heck of an addition to driver safety addition watching wrecks like this and considering its primary function to reduce stresses applied to the H&N.
Just curious because no matter what your opinion on the appropriateness of the other issues in 38.1 H&N restraint sure is one heck of an addition to driver safety addition watching wrecks like this and considering its primary function to reduce stresses applied to the H&N.
| turboICE | 06-28-2006 04:00 PM |
elgorey I appreciate your open minded considerations and your views. One thing I would like to mildly object to though is what I will call in not light terms coincidental injury. While a claviclar fracture is no minor side affect - it is substantially better than the alternative. (I have suffered multiple soft tissue injuries to my neck.) There are those that suggest Isaac likewise could contribute to a coincidental injury to the shoulder blade. (Or an anvil suggestion which I can't even visualize exactly what that is about.) [Neither reference by me should be taken as concurring with the views only acknowledging they exist.] Unless there was something that was a repeated issue surrounding injuries being caused by the equipment I would take it as a really bad wreck where there was a net reduction in injury no matter which piece of equipment is being used.
I don't know how some of you ever get out of your miatas without a yoke especially with the full state of the art halo seats, so I can sympathize that you have more objection to yokes than even I do.
I don't know how some of you ever get out of your miatas without a yoke especially with the full state of the art halo seats, so I can sympathize that you have more objection to yokes than even I do.
| RB5 Clone | 06-28-2006 04:15 PM |
[QUOTE=elgorey]wow. some of you guys are [i]really[/i] drinking the HANS kool-aid.
major issues that I simply couldnt ignore. First off is claviclar fractures (chest bones) .... A recent busch car wreck that HANS has quoted in marketing actually broke the drivers clavicle.
I drive a miata and have a seat with head supports, so the window is quite small. I have zero confidence that I could easily get out of my car easily while wearing a hans. This is what makes the SFI spec such a joke.
[/QUOTE]
in the context of clouting the wall at 170 mph in a 3500 lb car, isn't a busted collarbone the least of your worries?...?!
egress from a car with small windows? that is a car owner/builder/racer issue, not an SFI or H&N one. I executed a quad roll in a freakin Fiat X1/9 while codriving in my very first rally. we landed at the bottom of a 20-foot embankment on the roof. the stupid Fiat side window was so small I had to unstrap my helmet to get out. Window egress is a major reason I race nice tall Subarus now.
My concern with this thread is not "which H&N restraint is better" but that ppl are putting off racing with one pending some future rules change or certification that may or may not ever happen. Face it, guys--racing without a H&N because it might complicate egress is only slightly dumber than not wearing seatbelts because you might drive into a lake, or not having a roll cage because you might smack your elbow on it, etc etc.
Dave G
major issues that I simply couldnt ignore. First off is claviclar fractures (chest bones) .... A recent busch car wreck that HANS has quoted in marketing actually broke the drivers clavicle.
I drive a miata and have a seat with head supports, so the window is quite small. I have zero confidence that I could easily get out of my car easily while wearing a hans. This is what makes the SFI spec such a joke.
[/QUOTE]
in the context of clouting the wall at 170 mph in a 3500 lb car, isn't a busted collarbone the least of your worries?...?!
egress from a car with small windows? that is a car owner/builder/racer issue, not an SFI or H&N one. I executed a quad roll in a freakin Fiat X1/9 while codriving in my very first rally. we landed at the bottom of a 20-foot embankment on the roof. the stupid Fiat side window was so small I had to unstrap my helmet to get out. Window egress is a major reason I race nice tall Subarus now.
My concern with this thread is not "which H&N restraint is better" but that ppl are putting off racing with one pending some future rules change or certification that may or may not ever happen. Face it, guys--racing without a H&N because it might complicate egress is only slightly dumber than not wearing seatbelts because you might drive into a lake, or not having a roll cage because you might smack your elbow on it, etc etc.
Dave G
| turboICE | 06-28-2006 04:18 PM |
I agree with that Dave - use H&N restraint - choose which for your own reasons but every time you race without one is rolling the dice for a bad result. The equipment is there use it.
Ed.
Ed.
| gbaker | 06-28-2006 04:41 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]What was the offset test results in laymen's terms? i.e. how much stress with no H&N, how much stress to cause mortal damage, how much stress to pass 38.1, how much stress with the Isaac?[/QUOTE]Let me link to a graph we have around somewhere.
| ghschirtz | 06-28-2006 05:08 PM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior]Lets see, you refered to the Nazi death camps by saying:
See, you continue to be a dumbass. I never mentioned anything about me except that I'm unconcerned about x h&n vs y h&n and that I don't like it when people such as yourself exploit mass murder to say that 'either you agree with me, or you're a Nazi'. From a rational point of view, its a poor arguement. From a moral point of view, it makes you seem like a sleazeball.[/QUOTE]
Okay, 10th, I grant you I sound flip about the camping trip. Forgive me, please. In other debates about similar matters, I have used the expression to lighten up people's reaction, to get them to see the point rather than emote about a touchy subject. Those have been face to face and I have never been accused of making light of genocide. I guess my tone and facial expression convince otherwise. I do see your point. Believe me, whether Europe, the Ukraine, Cambodia, Rwanda, Dharfur, Somalia, under Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or anybody else, mass murder illustrates a great historian's point that the power of the state to do ill to its citizens has grown, in the 20th Century, far faster than its power to do good. That's from "Modern Times". Embarassed I can't recall thee author.
I also know you never mentioned anything about you, which is why I prefaced each of those concluding sentences with "if". I don't know anything about you, really. Not your education, not what you do for a living, not your criminal record or whether you prefer dogs to cats or go to church. Which is why I refrain from concluding you are a dumbass. You are not simiarly constrained, though you know just as much about me as I do you. I do know we both like to race and like Subs, though.
Certainly it is a far stretch to equate rules for a genocide with rules for racing harnesses. NOT MY POINT. My point, as I have thought about it further is this:
Does 38.1 have as its mission promotion of safety by whatever means is reasonable and effective, or the use of a single point release system to the exclusion of all alternatives? The two are not necessarily the same. Some people have reacted as if ICE is attacking the HANS device. I see him commenting that maybe a single release point requirement, which bars alternatives, may not be the absolute best solution. When lives are on the line, shall we use the best available solution or not? The answer could be "not", for various reasons. Better to ask the question, though, than blindly accept the rule.
You object to my similies to point out the difference. I apologize again for my poor writing. The above paragraph would have sufficed, probably, to make my point.
My problem, for which others have called me a dumbass, is that I keep asking questions like that about many rules. What is the mission and is this getting us there? It is an attitude some don't like. Good on them. Some people resent boat rockers. The world needs both.
Do remember that Hitler's Final Solution started out with lots of little rules that made sense at the time. No equivalence implied to 38.1, just a warning that "rules" have unintended consequences.
ISO 9000 rules have slowed the rate of industrial innovation palpably by making some incremental process changes uneconomic. I have been in the thick of that. Several winners of the Baldridge Award for excellent business processes have gone TU a year or so later, so wrapped up in their processes and rules they forgot why they existed, their mission. That can happen with rules in the handbook.
Are we clear?
George
See, you continue to be a dumbass. I never mentioned anything about me except that I'm unconcerned about x h&n vs y h&n and that I don't like it when people such as yourself exploit mass murder to say that 'either you agree with me, or you're a Nazi'. From a rational point of view, its a poor arguement. From a moral point of view, it makes you seem like a sleazeball.[/QUOTE]
Okay, 10th, I grant you I sound flip about the camping trip. Forgive me, please. In other debates about similar matters, I have used the expression to lighten up people's reaction, to get them to see the point rather than emote about a touchy subject. Those have been face to face and I have never been accused of making light of genocide. I guess my tone and facial expression convince otherwise. I do see your point. Believe me, whether Europe, the Ukraine, Cambodia, Rwanda, Dharfur, Somalia, under Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or anybody else, mass murder illustrates a great historian's point that the power of the state to do ill to its citizens has grown, in the 20th Century, far faster than its power to do good. That's from "Modern Times". Embarassed I can't recall thee author.
I also know you never mentioned anything about you, which is why I prefaced each of those concluding sentences with "if". I don't know anything about you, really. Not your education, not what you do for a living, not your criminal record or whether you prefer dogs to cats or go to church. Which is why I refrain from concluding you are a dumbass. You are not simiarly constrained, though you know just as much about me as I do you. I do know we both like to race and like Subs, though.
Certainly it is a far stretch to equate rules for a genocide with rules for racing harnesses. NOT MY POINT. My point, as I have thought about it further is this:
Does 38.1 have as its mission promotion of safety by whatever means is reasonable and effective, or the use of a single point release system to the exclusion of all alternatives? The two are not necessarily the same. Some people have reacted as if ICE is attacking the HANS device. I see him commenting that maybe a single release point requirement, which bars alternatives, may not be the absolute best solution. When lives are on the line, shall we use the best available solution or not? The answer could be "not", for various reasons. Better to ask the question, though, than blindly accept the rule.
You object to my similies to point out the difference. I apologize again for my poor writing. The above paragraph would have sufficed, probably, to make my point.
My problem, for which others have called me a dumbass, is that I keep asking questions like that about many rules. What is the mission and is this getting us there? It is an attitude some don't like. Good on them. Some people resent boat rockers. The world needs both.
Do remember that Hitler's Final Solution started out with lots of little rules that made sense at the time. No equivalence implied to 38.1, just a warning that "rules" have unintended consequences.
ISO 9000 rules have slowed the rate of industrial innovation palpably by making some incremental process changes uneconomic. I have been in the thick of that. Several winners of the Baldridge Award for excellent business processes have gone TU a year or so later, so wrapped up in their processes and rules they forgot why they existed, their mission. That can happen with rules in the handbook.
Are we clear?
George
| gbaker | 06-28-2006 05:58 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]What was the offset test results in laymen's terms? i.e. how much stress with no H&N, how much stress to cause mortal damage, how much stress to pass 38.1, how much stress with the Isaac?[/QUOTE]
A lot of testing has been done over the years by several groups. We got tired of digging it out all the time and finally put it in a single spreadsheet (all testing 30 degree offset).
Here is upper neck tension for the SFI test conducted at Delphi:
[IMG]http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/SFIFz.GIF[/IMG],
and this is my personal favorite, from the Wayne State University Bioengineering Center lab, which has crashed everything:
[IMG]http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/WSUFz.GIF[/IMG]
Upper neck tension is by far the most important measure. It is the first--and sometimes only--number people want to hear. The injury limit is considered to be 4,000 Newtons, which is 900 pounds.
The offset test also produces a measure of lateral head torque, i.e. the torque that twists your head to the side. Here is the SFI/Delphi chart:
[IMG]http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/SFIMx.GIF[/IMG]
I don't recall the injury limit. One Newton-meter = 0.738 ft-pounds of torque, so the unprotected driver will experience ~50 '#.
There is a WSU chart around also.
I'm doing this on the fly at the end of the day, so I apologize a priori for any errors.
A lot of testing has been done over the years by several groups. We got tired of digging it out all the time and finally put it in a single spreadsheet (all testing 30 degree offset).
Here is upper neck tension for the SFI test conducted at Delphi:
[IMG]http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/SFIFz.GIF[/IMG],
and this is my personal favorite, from the Wayne State University Bioengineering Center lab, which has crashed everything:
[IMG]http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/WSUFz.GIF[/IMG]
Upper neck tension is by far the most important measure. It is the first--and sometimes only--number people want to hear. The injury limit is considered to be 4,000 Newtons, which is 900 pounds.
The offset test also produces a measure of lateral head torque, i.e. the torque that twists your head to the side. Here is the SFI/Delphi chart:
[IMG]http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/SFIMx.GIF[/IMG]
I don't recall the injury limit. One Newton-meter = 0.738 ft-pounds of torque, so the unprotected driver will experience ~50 '#.
There is a WSU chart around also.
I'm doing this on the fly at the end of the day, so I apologize a priori for any errors.
| 10th Warrior | 06-28-2006 06:28 PM |
[QUOTE=ghschirtz]Okay, 10th, I grant you I sound flip about the camping trip. Forgive me, please. [/quote]
fine.
[quote]I also know you never mentioned anything about you, which is why I prefaced each of those concluding sentences with "if".[/quote]
lets look at your use of "if":
[quote]If you don't like what I mean, I hope you are happy with your choice and always do what you are told. [/quote]
So, you aren't saying anything about me per se, but [i]if[/i] I disagree with you, then I must be some blindly obedient robot who [i]always[/i] does what I'm told. Yep, you're not making any assumptions about me with that statement. :lol: It also bears uncanny resemblence to you're initial claim after your camping trip comment:
[quote]Change the labels, the era and the act...you still have people applying a rule without thought or introspection (or so some of them said).[/quote]
Nice. So, if anyone actually has the audacity to agree with 38.1, they are akin to being Nazis. Perhaps 38.1 isn't perfect, or maybe its altogether wrong. Still, you're basically calling anyone who disagrees with your view of it 'evil'. Like I said, its a pathetically weak arguement. There are plenty of well thought out, rational, and lucid arguements made in this thread as well as the others, but this would not be one. One might even suppose that by having multiple threads about this very issue and a number of people weighing in with thoughtful posts on both ends of the spectrum, that people here [I]aren't[/I] simply blindly following rules, making your comment even more inane.
[quote]
Does 38.1 have as its mission promotion of safety by whatever means is reasonable and effective, or the use of a single point release system to the exclusion of all alternatives? The two are not necessarily the same. Some people have reacted as if ICE is attacking the HANS device. I see him commenting that maybe a single release point requirement, which bars alternatives, may not be the absolute best solution. When lives are on the line, shall we use the best available solution or not? The answer could be "not", for various reasons. Better to ask the question, though, than blindly accept the rule.[/QUOTE]
well said. Its better to stay on topic.
fine.
[quote]I also know you never mentioned anything about you, which is why I prefaced each of those concluding sentences with "if".[/quote]
lets look at your use of "if":
[quote]If you don't like what I mean, I hope you are happy with your choice and always do what you are told. [/quote]
So, you aren't saying anything about me per se, but [i]if[/i] I disagree with you, then I must be some blindly obedient robot who [i]always[/i] does what I'm told. Yep, you're not making any assumptions about me with that statement. :lol: It also bears uncanny resemblence to you're initial claim after your camping trip comment:
[quote]Change the labels, the era and the act...you still have people applying a rule without thought or introspection (or so some of them said).[/quote]
Nice. So, if anyone actually has the audacity to agree with 38.1, they are akin to being Nazis. Perhaps 38.1 isn't perfect, or maybe its altogether wrong. Still, you're basically calling anyone who disagrees with your view of it 'evil'. Like I said, its a pathetically weak arguement. There are plenty of well thought out, rational, and lucid arguements made in this thread as well as the others, but this would not be one. One might even suppose that by having multiple threads about this very issue and a number of people weighing in with thoughtful posts on both ends of the spectrum, that people here [I]aren't[/I] simply blindly following rules, making your comment even more inane.
[quote]
Does 38.1 have as its mission promotion of safety by whatever means is reasonable and effective, or the use of a single point release system to the exclusion of all alternatives? The two are not necessarily the same. Some people have reacted as if ICE is attacking the HANS device. I see him commenting that maybe a single release point requirement, which bars alternatives, may not be the absolute best solution. When lives are on the line, shall we use the best available solution or not? The answer could be "not", for various reasons. Better to ask the question, though, than blindly accept the rule.[/QUOTE]
well said. Its better to stay on topic.
| MPME | 06-28-2006 06:31 PM |
Title of your post:
[I]In case anyone missed it another HANS egress issue with a gas and oil soaked driver[/I]
But then you flip-flop and say:
[B]"Everyone thinks that I am some how slamming the HANS - I am using example of issues with the HANS to slam the standard - not the HANS"[/B]
Sorry, G, you post an alarmist thread (a baseless one, too), then get upset why people call you out.
Maybe you can help me to understand how a thread title of "[I]In case anyone missed it another HANS egress issue with a gas and oil soaked driver[/I]" isn't critical of the HANS. even better, tell me how the SFI standards that you claim to be your biggest point, have anything to do with your original post?
Your whole thread and flip-flopping opinion is comical.
[I]In case anyone missed it another HANS egress issue with a gas and oil soaked driver[/I]
But then you flip-flop and say:
[B]"Everyone thinks that I am some how slamming the HANS - I am using example of issues with the HANS to slam the standard - not the HANS"[/B]
Sorry, G, you post an alarmist thread (a baseless one, too), then get upset why people call you out.
Maybe you can help me to understand how a thread title of "[I]In case anyone missed it another HANS egress issue with a gas and oil soaked driver[/I]" isn't critical of the HANS. even better, tell me how the SFI standards that you claim to be your biggest point, have anything to do with your original post?
Your whole thread and flip-flopping opinion is comical.
| gbaker | 06-28-2006 06:40 PM |
[QUOTE=MPME]...tell me how the SFI standards that you claim to be your biggest point, have anything to do with your original post?...[/QUOTE]
SFI requires that the driver wear the gizmo while attempting to egress, which is why they get stuck while attempting to egress.
ICE's point is simply one of giving the driver the choice of taking the gizmo with them, or leaving it behind.
SFI requires that the driver wear the gizmo while attempting to egress, which is why they get stuck while attempting to egress.
ICE's point is simply one of giving the driver the choice of taking the gizmo with them, or leaving it behind.
| turboICE | 06-28-2006 06:51 PM |
I go back to it again RIF.
[QUOTE=MPME]Your whole thread and flip-flopping opinion is comical.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=turboICE]Everytime I see someone get out of something that bad OK I am thankful for all the safety requirements - and then there is always that part that regrets that we are likely going to be mandated to use a product that has serious egress issues in production bodied cars.[/QUOTE]
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=MPME]Your whole thread and flip-flopping opinion is comical.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=turboICE]Everytime I see someone get out of something that bad OK I am thankful for all the safety requirements - and then there is always that part that regrets that we are likely going to be mandated to use a product that has serious egress issues in production bodied cars.[/QUOTE]
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.
| turboICE | 06-28-2006 07:09 PM |
I ask again though MPME have you read 38.1? Used HANS? Used Isaac?
| Draken | 06-28-2006 07:41 PM |
turboICE: I don't wear a Hans, or an Isaac, nor have i read 38.1. I am a fairly educated person, read often, write technical journals, and at this point in time appear quite rational. When i get home and open a beer, things may change.
Without a doubt, I read your title, and your original post as a slam against HANS. Period. It is very misleading, has an intent to discredit the HANS, and is self serving towards ISAAC. Plain and simple, most of what you have said after that first post has been taken with a huge grain of salt on my part, because it appears you are on the ISAAC payroll, and hugely biased.
That is my opinion, as someone who has no interest in the topic, other than learning and keeping abreast of things. Good luck with your efforts.
Chris H.
Without a doubt, I read your title, and your original post as a slam against HANS. Period. It is very misleading, has an intent to discredit the HANS, and is self serving towards ISAAC. Plain and simple, most of what you have said after that first post has been taken with a huge grain of salt on my part, because it appears you are on the ISAAC payroll, and hugely biased.
That is my opinion, as someone who has no interest in the topic, other than learning and keeping abreast of things. Good luck with your efforts.
Chris H.
| ghschirtz | 06-28-2006 08:08 PM |
"Nice. So, if anyone actually has the audacity to agree with 38.1, they are akin to being Nazis...or evil".
No, 10th-you missed. They are applying a rule without considering ALTERNATIVES. That doesn't make anybody a Nazi, a dumbass or smart. It makes them a follower of rules, which can have great or terrible results. It depends on the rule.
Sometimes, you have to follow, like if you want to race this weekend and 38.1 applies. Go get a HANS or don't compete. Sometimes you don't have to follow 38.1-I don't on my track days.
Some rules should not be followed, no matter who issues the order, which is the Nuremberg Prinicple, of which you may be aware.
ICE is talking about debating the rule with the sanctioning bodies. He might well follow the rules if he has to, or not when he doesn't. That is called freedom, to make choices. Might be bad ones, but freedom trumps the nanny state any day.
Thank you for the complient about my restatement of the issue. I feel that I did get the point across with much more precision. I am glad we could close with agreement on the issue ICE is trying to deal with.
Race and fly safe,
George
BTW-my business is alive because we do stuff others cannot. Without looking at some "rules" as advisory instead of limiting, we would not attempt or succeed at some things. Conventional wisdom ("rule"), for instance, is you cannot run a composite manufacturing process called "pultrusion" faster than about 3-10 feet per minute. We have run as fast as 60. The attitude of "questioning" is very valuable.
No, 10th-you missed. They are applying a rule without considering ALTERNATIVES. That doesn't make anybody a Nazi, a dumbass or smart. It makes them a follower of rules, which can have great or terrible results. It depends on the rule.
Sometimes, you have to follow, like if you want to race this weekend and 38.1 applies. Go get a HANS or don't compete. Sometimes you don't have to follow 38.1-I don't on my track days.
Some rules should not be followed, no matter who issues the order, which is the Nuremberg Prinicple, of which you may be aware.
ICE is talking about debating the rule with the sanctioning bodies. He might well follow the rules if he has to, or not when he doesn't. That is called freedom, to make choices. Might be bad ones, but freedom trumps the nanny state any day.
Thank you for the complient about my restatement of the issue. I feel that I did get the point across with much more precision. I am glad we could close with agreement on the issue ICE is trying to deal with.
Race and fly safe,
George
BTW-my business is alive because we do stuff others cannot. Without looking at some "rules" as advisory instead of limiting, we would not attempt or succeed at some things. Conventional wisdom ("rule"), for instance, is you cannot run a composite manufacturing process called "pultrusion" faster than about 3-10 feet per minute. We have run as fast as 60. The attitude of "questioning" is very valuable.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét