| turboICE | 10-28-2005 11:05 AM |
Head's up NASA racers - H&N restraint requirements coming
�
�
[url]http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=38571#38571[/url]
[QUOTE]The 2006 CCR will state:
"IMPORTANT NOTICE: It is expected that use of a head and neck restraint system or device, meeting SFI 38.1 may become mandatory for all road race series as soon as of July 1st, 2006."
This is the earliest. It may likely even be 2007 or more. We are just trying to keep our comeptitors informed and prepared.
Jerry Kunzman[/QUOTE]
Keep an eye on this so you don't show up to that July race unprepared.
[QUOTE]The 2006 CCR will state:
"IMPORTANT NOTICE: It is expected that use of a head and neck restraint system or device, meeting SFI 38.1 may become mandatory for all road race series as soon as of July 1st, 2006."
This is the earliest. It may likely even be 2007 or more. We are just trying to keep our comeptitors informed and prepared.
Jerry Kunzman[/QUOTE]
Keep an eye on this so you don't show up to that July race unprepared.
| CirrusWRX | 10-28-2005 11:18 AM |
Cool - thanks for the heads up. Just ordered mine today:
[img]http://altura.speedera.net/ccimg.catalogcity.com/210000/214300/214359/products/7362405.jpg[/img]
that should be legal, right?
[img]http://altura.speedera.net/ccimg.catalogcity.com/210000/214300/214359/products/7362405.jpg[/img]
that should be legal, right?
| Safe Drives | 10-28-2005 01:43 PM |
No I think they want you to use something that actually works... like the R3.
[img]http://www.safedrives.com/prodimages/lfttech/SFI_test_Col2_lg.jpg[/img]
Yes, ^^^ that's the HANS DEVICE comeing outta the belts in a side impact. :eek: :furious:
This new set of rules is a good thing folks. It might just save your neck. :)
Best regards,
Charles Buren
Safe Drives LLC
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/"]safedrives.com[/url]
877-739-1713
[img]http://www.safedrives.com/prodimages/lfttech/SFI_test_Col2_lg.jpg[/img]
Yes, ^^^ that's the HANS DEVICE comeing outta the belts in a side impact. :eek: :furious:
This new set of rules is a good thing folks. It might just save your neck. :)
Best regards,
Charles Buren
Safe Drives LLC
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/"]safedrives.com[/url]
877-739-1713
| shemoves | 10-28-2005 02:05 PM |
Will this new rule include HPDEs?
| Patrick L | 10-28-2005 05:53 PM |
[QUOTE=shemoves]Will this new rule include HPDEs?[/QUOTE]
He said racing. HPDE's are not racing.
He said racing. HPDE's are not racing.
| shemoves | 10-28-2005 06:15 PM |
Yah, I saw that. Some people call all forms of driving on a track or auto-x course racing though so I wanted to clarify.
Would a HANS device be pretty easy to fix in this manner with a couple extra straps around the shoulder area of the harness and Hans?
Would a HANS device be pretty easy to fix in this manner with a couple extra straps around the shoulder area of the harness and Hans?
| abaxter34 | 10-28-2005 07:03 PM |
the R3 looks like a nice unit but i wonder what kind of test procedures they used on the HANS in those pics. how tight were the shoulder straps cinched down? it doesnt look like they used the schroth HANS specific belts that lock onto to shoulder yoke more effectively than conventional 3" belts. i also think it would be easier to get out of the car with a HANS. to get out of my spec miata i have to completely take my HANS off because it gets caught on the roll tube connecting the A and B pillars (stupid door bar is mounted too high). im not trying to hate on the R3, it looks to be very effective if not more so, it just doesnt have the track record yet of the HANS. im also glad to see nasa doing this. i value my HANS more than a firesuit.
| turboICE | 10-28-2005 11:32 PM |
[QUOTE=shemoves]Yah, I saw that. Some people call all forms of driving on a track or auto-x course racing though so I wanted to clarify.
Would a HANS device be pretty easy to fix in this manner with a couple extra straps around the shoulder area of the harness and Hans?[/QUOTE]
Um some people would be wrong then. The initial post quote states "road race series" which could not be confused with anything that is not competitive. And anyone that treats HPDE as competitive shouldn't be on track - you can't win an HPDE but you can lose one.
[b][URL=http://www.nsxfiles.com/Pyramid_of_speed.htm]The Pyramid of Speed[/URL][/b] should also explain things further. :lol:
[IMG]http://www.nsxfiles.com/images/s2k_laguna_triangle_7.jpg[/IMG]
Since the topic at hand deals with a potential CCR rule then only the CCR definition of "Race" matters:
[quote]1.1.4 Competition
Any high speed contest, where more than one (1) vehicle is on course at the same time, using predetermined rules specifying a format where Participants [Ref: (1.4.4)] are scored based on their performance, and recognition in high regards is given to the top finishers. �Race� and �Competition� may be used interchangeably within the context of this, and other related NASA publications, unless other wise clarified.[/quote]
Either way H&N couldn't be required for HPDE since the safety equipment required to properly utilize it is not required in HPDE. Hans shouldn't be used without a competition seat and harnesses - which then necessitates at a bare minimum a four point roll cage with diagonal brace and horizontal harness bar.
[QUOTE=abaxter34]i value my HANS more than a firesuit.[/QUOTE]Unless the Hans prevents proper egress from the car then you will value your firesuit a lot more! ;)
Personally I think it reeks that SFI was so lazy that it wrote a standard designed around the Hans instead of independently developing a standard and then determining which products met the requirements. For one I would much rather use Isaac (and no not the links strap the real Isaac) but as it stands now besides Isaac not being permitted any place that requires H&N restraints some have come out to say that using the Isaac would result in losing the certification on you harness, since SFI has stated that the Isaac would be an improper use of your harness! If the SFI wants to espouse safety that is fine but then do it independently not with clear laziness and acceptance of a producer's claims.
That said unless Isaac and SFI can somehow come to a meeting of the minds I am probably going to end up with Hans - hopefully I won't be paying more for that choice than the cash out of pocket.
And yes I do think H&N requirements are a good thing. I just don't like the politics of the details in the requirements.
Would a HANS device be pretty easy to fix in this manner with a couple extra straps around the shoulder area of the harness and Hans?[/QUOTE]
Um some people would be wrong then. The initial post quote states "road race series" which could not be confused with anything that is not competitive. And anyone that treats HPDE as competitive shouldn't be on track - you can't win an HPDE but you can lose one.
[b][URL=http://www.nsxfiles.com/Pyramid_of_speed.htm]The Pyramid of Speed[/URL][/b] should also explain things further. :lol:
[IMG]http://www.nsxfiles.com/images/s2k_laguna_triangle_7.jpg[/IMG]
Since the topic at hand deals with a potential CCR rule then only the CCR definition of "Race" matters:
[quote]1.1.4 Competition
Any high speed contest, where more than one (1) vehicle is on course at the same time, using predetermined rules specifying a format where Participants [Ref: (1.4.4)] are scored based on their performance, and recognition in high regards is given to the top finishers. �Race� and �Competition� may be used interchangeably within the context of this, and other related NASA publications, unless other wise clarified.[/quote]
Either way H&N couldn't be required for HPDE since the safety equipment required to properly utilize it is not required in HPDE. Hans shouldn't be used without a competition seat and harnesses - which then necessitates at a bare minimum a four point roll cage with diagonal brace and horizontal harness bar.
[QUOTE=abaxter34]i value my HANS more than a firesuit.[/QUOTE]Unless the Hans prevents proper egress from the car then you will value your firesuit a lot more! ;)
Personally I think it reeks that SFI was so lazy that it wrote a standard designed around the Hans instead of independently developing a standard and then determining which products met the requirements. For one I would much rather use Isaac (and no not the links strap the real Isaac) but as it stands now besides Isaac not being permitted any place that requires H&N restraints some have come out to say that using the Isaac would result in losing the certification on you harness, since SFI has stated that the Isaac would be an improper use of your harness! If the SFI wants to espouse safety that is fine but then do it independently not with clear laziness and acceptance of a producer's claims.
That said unless Isaac and SFI can somehow come to a meeting of the minds I am probably going to end up with Hans - hopefully I won't be paying more for that choice than the cash out of pocket.
And yes I do think H&N requirements are a good thing. I just don't like the politics of the details in the requirements.
| M. Hurst | 10-29-2005 05:27 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]And yes I do think H&N requirements are a good thing. I just don't like the politics of the details in the requirements.[/QUOTE]
I believe the single point of release requirement for 38.1 is a legitimate one, especially for rally applications, where you might find youself upside down in a creek, in the dark, trying to release pins from your helmet. We (R-A) have concerns about window / restraint nets for the same reason.
These issues would bother me less on a track, where the environment is controlled, and help isn't so far away.
What happens if (after your bell is rung by an impact), you're hanging upside down from the belts, and you forget you're wearing the Isaac and release your belts first?, even worse what if the car came to rest standing on it's nose? (happens in rally quite often) Wouldn't this grab your helmet when the isaac hit the shoulder belt adjusters, while the rest of you keeps going?
I believe the Isaac could be redesigned to incorporate a single release, and still take advantage of dashpots / distributing a greater portion of the load directly into the belts.
I believe the single point of release requirement for 38.1 is a legitimate one, especially for rally applications, where you might find youself upside down in a creek, in the dark, trying to release pins from your helmet. We (R-A) have concerns about window / restraint nets for the same reason.
These issues would bother me less on a track, where the environment is controlled, and help isn't so far away.
What happens if (after your bell is rung by an impact), you're hanging upside down from the belts, and you forget you're wearing the Isaac and release your belts first?, even worse what if the car came to rest standing on it's nose? (happens in rally quite often) Wouldn't this grab your helmet when the isaac hit the shoulder belt adjusters, while the rest of you keeps going?
I believe the Isaac could be redesigned to incorporate a single release, and still take advantage of dashpots / distributing a greater portion of the load directly into the belts.
| turboICE | 10-29-2005 08:36 PM |
I can see the point to a point - except that they slide on the shoulder harnesses and would continue to do so after you release the harness - yes there is a limit to the adjusting buckles but at least in my car there is quite a length of harness from seat to the buckles.
The same issues should arise for R-A then at the problems that have occured regarding Hans and the yoke catching on roll cages preventing egress.
It probably is not possible to come up with a perfect restraint system economically but they all have their pluses and minuses - if they achieve the primary objective let the user decide among them.
I don't feel very safe with a system that limits my situational awareness by preventing normal head motion in order to prevent potential injury. I feel I am much more likely in wheel to wheel situations to become involved in an incident based on the minimum permitted slack in nondampened solutions. Unlikely rally where once you pass a tree or rock or ditch it is by you and you don't need to worry about it - in wheel to wheel things pull up next to you that have mass and velocity. This would be especially true for NASA events which tend to have wider varieties of car classes in the same race group with widely varying closing speeds. I can't go into turns with blinders on with cars that are likely going to dive inside me with up to 50% more turn in speed than my car.
The same issues should arise for R-A then at the problems that have occured regarding Hans and the yoke catching on roll cages preventing egress.
It probably is not possible to come up with a perfect restraint system economically but they all have their pluses and minuses - if they achieve the primary objective let the user decide among them.
I don't feel very safe with a system that limits my situational awareness by preventing normal head motion in order to prevent potential injury. I feel I am much more likely in wheel to wheel situations to become involved in an incident based on the minimum permitted slack in nondampened solutions. Unlikely rally where once you pass a tree or rock or ditch it is by you and you don't need to worry about it - in wheel to wheel things pull up next to you that have mass and velocity. This would be especially true for NASA events which tend to have wider varieties of car classes in the same race group with widely varying closing speeds. I can't go into turns with blinders on with cars that are likely going to dive inside me with up to 50% more turn in speed than my car.
| Bort | 10-29-2005 08:49 PM |
[QUOTE=CirrusWRX]Cool - thanks for the heads up. Just ordered mine today:
[img]http://altura.speedera.net/ccimg.catalogcity.com/210000/214300/214359/products/7362405.jpg[/img]
that should be legal, right?[/QUOTE]
Yes. She's definitely over 17.
[img]http://altura.speedera.net/ccimg.catalogcity.com/210000/214300/214359/products/7362405.jpg[/img]
that should be legal, right?[/QUOTE]
Yes. She's definitely over 17.
| M. Hurst | 10-29-2005 10:10 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]I can see the point to a point - except that they slide on the shoulder harnesses and would continue to do so after you release the harness - yes there is a limit to the adjusting buckles but at least in my car there is quite a length of harness from seat to the buckles.
The same issues should arise for R-A then at the problems that have occured regarding Hans and the yoke catching on roll cages preventing egress.
It probably is not possible to come up with a perfect restraint system economically but they all have their pluses and minuses - if they achieve the primary objective let the user decide among them.
[/QUOTE]
Without standards and 3rd party testing, stndards, and certification, how do we know they meet the primary objective?
"Users" have relatives, and relatives have lawyers, and requiring safety equipment to meet a recognized standard (whether it be SFI or FIA) puts the sanctioning body in a more defendable position, by showing that "generally accepted practice" was followed.
I agree that we haven't seen the ideal head and neck restraint yet. I'm sure it will evolve, and future (approved) designs may have dashpots and allow better vision, and most certainly they will have a single point of release.
The same issues should arise for R-A then at the problems that have occured regarding Hans and the yoke catching on roll cages preventing egress.
It probably is not possible to come up with a perfect restraint system economically but they all have their pluses and minuses - if they achieve the primary objective let the user decide among them.
[/QUOTE]
Without standards and 3rd party testing, stndards, and certification, how do we know they meet the primary objective?
"Users" have relatives, and relatives have lawyers, and requiring safety equipment to meet a recognized standard (whether it be SFI or FIA) puts the sanctioning body in a more defendable position, by showing that "generally accepted practice" was followed.
I agree that we haven't seen the ideal head and neck restraint yet. I'm sure it will evolve, and future (approved) designs may have dashpots and allow better vision, and most certainly they will have a single point of release.
| turboICE | 10-30-2005 12:21 AM |
I agree with sanctioning body decisions based on the position they are in. My complaint is with SFI not any sanctioning body. The SFI standard is not a true third party standard as normally issued, it was written to an existing product out of convenience. There was a lack of independent decision making with respect to this standard and that is not how it should work. They chose an existing product and wrote the standard to its characteristics.
That is my complaint and that is where I think changes should be made my comment was that SFI should focus on the primary objective and let users decide among them not that sanctioning bodies should allow choice when a "standard" exists. Though I see R-A has no problem developing standards as an alternative to FIA certified roll cages.
That is my complaint and that is where I think changes should be made my comment was that SFI should focus on the primary objective and let users decide among them not that sanctioning bodies should allow choice when a "standard" exists. Though I see R-A has no problem developing standards as an alternative to FIA certified roll cages.
| DILLIGAF Racing | 10-30-2005 01:44 AM |
Glad to see a sanctioning body stepping up, and making these mandatory. Wonder how long till SCCA follows suit?
| LOLSTi | 10-30-2005 08:59 AM |
[QUOTE=Bort]Yes. She's definitely over 17.[/QUOTE]
:lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
| M. Hurst | 10-30-2005 09:20 AM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]That is my complaint and that is where I think changes should be made my comment was that SFI should focus on the primary objective and let users decide among them not that sanctioning bodies should allow choice when a "standard" exists. Though I see R-A has no problem developing standards as an alternative to FIA certified roll cages.[/QUOTE]
R-As new roll cage standards are basically a re-print of FIA article 253, same as NASA and CARS.
Once again, I believe the single point release requirement is legitimate, and the R3 and Hutchens II have been able to meet this requirement and become certified.
R-As new roll cage standards are basically a re-print of FIA article 253, same as NASA and CARS.
Once again, I believe the single point release requirement is legitimate, and the R3 and Hutchens II have been able to meet this requirement and become certified.
| turboICE | 10-30-2005 11:10 AM |
[QUOTE=DILLIGAF Racing]Glad to see a sanctioning body stepping up, and making these mandatory. Wonder how long till SCCA follows suit?[/QUOTE]Similar language was in the 2005 CCR for 1/1/06. Don't be surprised if the notice NASA is giving is actually only that notice - they likely will not move until the SCCA does. I don't think the SCCA will be pondering the issue too much longer and would not be surprised to see a requirement for the 2007 season at the latest if not earlier. NASA doesn't want to do anything that discourages SCCA racers from racing with them unless insurance issues make it necessary for them to do so. IMO I doubt they will be mandatory with NASA until they are for SCCA. But it is definitely time for them all to step and and require them.
| Safe Drives | 10-31-2005 02:02 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]I agree with sanctioning body decisions based on the position they are in. My complaint is with SFI not any sanctioning body. The SFI standard is not a true third party standard as normally issued, it was written to an existing product out of convenience. There was a lack of independent decision making with respect to this standard and that is not how it should work. They chose an existing product and wrote the standard to its characteristics.
[/QUOTE]
While I agree that the standard as it was written is not perfect but I understand that it was written with supposed expert consultation. You can guess who that was mostely.
Still, Secondary testing and standards are important and the SFI 38.1 is a good first step and certainly better than no standard and independant testing at all.
Best regards,
Charles Buren
Safe Drives LLC
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/"]safedrives.com[/url]
877-739-1713
[/QUOTE]
While I agree that the standard as it was written is not perfect but I understand that it was written with supposed expert consultation. You can guess who that was mostely.
Still, Secondary testing and standards are important and the SFI 38.1 is a good first step and certainly better than no standard and independant testing at all.
Best regards,
Charles Buren
Safe Drives LLC
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/"]safedrives.com[/url]
877-739-1713
| turboICE | 11-04-2005 09:34 AM |
This is a response from Isaac on the NASA thread:
[quote="gbaker"][quote="turboice"] I really wanted to go with the Isaac (the real one not the strap) one, but at least I know in advance that it will not pass tech.[/quote]Ed,
Not so fast. We have always known that the Isaac system would meet the SFI performance standards, but just to make it official we ran the SFI test on Tuesday. It worked extremely well. Probably set a new record.
So if NASA, or any other santioning body, wants to mandate only products that are certified to meet SFI performance standards, we would be happy to do that.
The paperwork problem is, as someone noted earlier, that the SFI spec was written by the folks involved in the development of the HANS device, who--using logic that is contrary to all the evidence--inserted a section to keep us out.
Jerry is being very smart with his wording. He is saying it must "meet SFI 38.1"; he is not saying it must be certified by SFI. This way you get more choice of products and lower cost without sacrificing performance.
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
[url]http://www.isaacdirect.com[/url][/quote]And depending on the final rule language and regional tech response - I find this to be a positive development.
[quote="gbaker"][quote="turboice"] I really wanted to go with the Isaac (the real one not the strap) one, but at least I know in advance that it will not pass tech.[/quote]Ed,
Not so fast. We have always known that the Isaac system would meet the SFI performance standards, but just to make it official we ran the SFI test on Tuesday. It worked extremely well. Probably set a new record.
So if NASA, or any other santioning body, wants to mandate only products that are certified to meet SFI performance standards, we would be happy to do that.
The paperwork problem is, as someone noted earlier, that the SFI spec was written by the folks involved in the development of the HANS device, who--using logic that is contrary to all the evidence--inserted a section to keep us out.
Jerry is being very smart with his wording. He is saying it must "meet SFI 38.1"; he is not saying it must be certified by SFI. This way you get more choice of products and lower cost without sacrificing performance.
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
[url]http://www.isaacdirect.com[/url][/quote]And depending on the final rule language and regional tech response - I find this to be a positive development.
| turboICE | 11-04-2005 10:48 AM |
More news from ITforums
[quote]As some of you may have guessed, we were testing some design concepts at the Delphi lab in Vandalia, Ohio. The 70G test protocol we used is a specific version of what has come to be known as the SFI test. It's not the easy, straight-ahead frontal test, it's the 30 degree offset frontal which generates the highest head loads. It's a designer's nightmare. If you can pass this one you can pass the straight frontal.
It is important to put this load value in perspective. SFI Specification 38.1 calls for a maximum upper neck load of 4,000 Newtons, 40.0 for our purposes here, for the offset frontal test. Coming in at only 2210N implies protection well in excess of 100Gs.
Unfortunately, our competitors have only published numbers for the easier straight frontal test. If memory serves, the R3 came in at 3,000N, the SFI limit for that test, and the HANS device at 1,700N. However, these values will be higher in the offset frontal test. So much so that we have a sneaking suspicion that we can now lay claim to the best head and neck restraint in the solar system.
If any of our competitors disagree, we expect them to soon make public their test results.
What did we test on Tuesday that produced such great numbers? The original Isaac system.
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
[url]http://www.isaacdirect.com[/url][/quote]
I am not at all surprised - there was clearly always a reason behind Isaac's open and public faith in the product's design and ability to meet the objective of limiting injury - as further reflected by being the most transparent of all the H&N restraint companies.
I would say congratulations but wasn't this really the expected result anyway! ;)
Ed.
PS - I would rather be conscious after a wreck than have a single point of release. Others can feel differently and I wouldn't do anything to prevent them from their preference. I take exception with my preference not being given the same deference as I give to others.
PPS - this wasn't a new system out of the box for the test either it was a helmet and system that has been subjected to numerous other tests previously
[quote]As some of you may have guessed, we were testing some design concepts at the Delphi lab in Vandalia, Ohio. The 70G test protocol we used is a specific version of what has come to be known as the SFI test. It's not the easy, straight-ahead frontal test, it's the 30 degree offset frontal which generates the highest head loads. It's a designer's nightmare. If you can pass this one you can pass the straight frontal.
It is important to put this load value in perspective. SFI Specification 38.1 calls for a maximum upper neck load of 4,000 Newtons, 40.0 for our purposes here, for the offset frontal test. Coming in at only 2210N implies protection well in excess of 100Gs.
Unfortunately, our competitors have only published numbers for the easier straight frontal test. If memory serves, the R3 came in at 3,000N, the SFI limit for that test, and the HANS device at 1,700N. However, these values will be higher in the offset frontal test. So much so that we have a sneaking suspicion that we can now lay claim to the best head and neck restraint in the solar system.
If any of our competitors disagree, we expect them to soon make public their test results.
What did we test on Tuesday that produced such great numbers? The original Isaac system.
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
[url]http://www.isaacdirect.com[/url][/quote]
I am not at all surprised - there was clearly always a reason behind Isaac's open and public faith in the product's design and ability to meet the objective of limiting injury - as further reflected by being the most transparent of all the H&N restraint companies.
I would say congratulations but wasn't this really the expected result anyway! ;)
Ed.
PS - I would rather be conscious after a wreck than have a single point of release. Others can feel differently and I wouldn't do anything to prevent them from their preference. I take exception with my preference not being given the same deference as I give to others.
PPS - this wasn't a new system out of the box for the test either it was a helmet and system that has been subjected to numerous other tests previously
| M. Hurst | 11-04-2005 06:59 PM |
BTW, "meeting 38.1", even if not "certified by SFI", would mean having a single point of release, as this requirement is part of the 38.1 specification.
My personal preference would be to be both conscious, and have a single point of release.
Information and testimonials from the manufacturer is advertising / propaganda...it carries no weight at all compared to testimonials in the form of approval or certification from a 3rd party in the business of testing and certifying safety equipment (FIA, SFI, Nascar, etc).
My personal preference would be to be both conscious, and have a single point of release.
Information and testimonials from the manufacturer is advertising / propaganda...it carries no weight at all compared to testimonials in the form of approval or certification from a 3rd party in the business of testing and certifying safety equipment (FIA, SFI, Nascar, etc).
| turboICE | 11-04-2005 07:20 PM |
2210N in side impact 70g sled is certified by a 3rd party in the business of testing safety equipment. The lab provides the result not the manufacturer and this is the lab required by SFI and it ran the test.
There is nothing preventing you from using the system of your choice. You have your preference and it is available. I have my preference and others would seek to make it not available to me and you support preventing me from using my preference.
Would your views be the same if you had reached a conclusion regarding your safety and then were being prevented from using it by others due politics?
For instance, suppose instead the decision had been that the system not be able to be disabled by a side impact and as result they chose that requirement over a single point of release and required systems that necessitated multiple points of release - would you then be OK with the result and be fine with someone else telling you that they are fine with the result so you should accept it as well because they do? Personally while I would be fine with that result - I wouldn't turn that into telling someone else they should accept it just because I am satisfied with the resulting standard. I think it is within their perview to decide for themselves the manner in which they want to keep their head attached.
My choice of Isaac would not prevent you from using your choice - use your choice and your single ponit of release you are permitted to, but wouldn't like it if you weren't. I desire the Isaac system.
There is nothing preventing you from using the system of your choice. You have your preference and it is available. I have my preference and others would seek to make it not available to me and you support preventing me from using my preference.
Would your views be the same if you had reached a conclusion regarding your safety and then were being prevented from using it by others due politics?
For instance, suppose instead the decision had been that the system not be able to be disabled by a side impact and as result they chose that requirement over a single point of release and required systems that necessitated multiple points of release - would you then be OK with the result and be fine with someone else telling you that they are fine with the result so you should accept it as well because they do? Personally while I would be fine with that result - I wouldn't turn that into telling someone else they should accept it just because I am satisfied with the resulting standard. I think it is within their perview to decide for themselves the manner in which they want to keep their head attached.
My choice of Isaac would not prevent you from using your choice - use your choice and your single ponit of release you are permitted to, but wouldn't like it if you weren't. I desire the Isaac system.
| M. Hurst | 11-04-2005 07:31 PM |
I've been to Delphi- Vandalia and witnessed H&N device testing, and consulted first hand face to face on the subject with my counterparts from the FIA, IRL, OWRS, and NASCAR, and will meet with most of them again next month...so I believe I'm better informed than most.
I have no doubt that given the design of the isaac, it would perform well in a 30deg offset impact, because the device is captured by the belts, and can't move sideways without the belts. (an advantage over the Hans?)
I am curious however, to see how a device performs whose attatchment would allow it to move forward, down the shoulder belt, in the same direction of imapct, also in the same direction an unrestrained head moves. I didn't see those straight ahead numbers (N of force in 68G impact) quoted.
I have no doubt that given the design of the isaac, it would perform well in a 30deg offset impact, because the device is captured by the belts, and can't move sideways without the belts. (an advantage over the Hans?)
I am curious however, to see how a device performs whose attatchment would allow it to move forward, down the shoulder belt, in the same direction of imapct, also in the same direction an unrestrained head moves. I didn't see those straight ahead numbers (N of force in 68G impact) quoted.
| turboICE | 11-04-2005 07:39 PM |
Call Gregg I am sure he would provide those numbers to you. Could I say the same for the other manufacturers about their 30 deg numbers? I can only find straight ahead numbers, will they give me the offset numbers if I call them?
I can readily acknowledge that there are those with access to more information than me. I would be curious about the number of high g impacts that are closer to 30 deg vs closer to straight ahead.
If multiple points of release are not suitable for rally lets say then let the rally organization make that additional requirement - the supposedly 3rd party standard setter shouldn't include that requirement unrelated to protecting the head and neck because it suited the expert input from a manufacturer designed to limit competitive alternatives.
I can readily acknowledge that there are those with access to more information than me. I would be curious about the number of high g impacts that are closer to 30 deg vs closer to straight ahead.
If multiple points of release are not suitable for rally lets say then let the rally organization make that additional requirement - the supposedly 3rd party standard setter shouldn't include that requirement unrelated to protecting the head and neck because it suited the expert input from a manufacturer designed to limit competitive alternatives.
| gbaker | 11-06-2005 08:58 PM |
Frontal loads would be in the 1,500N-2,000N range.
| M. Hurst | 11-06-2005 11:44 PM |
[QUOTE=gbaker]Frontal loads would be in the 1,500N-2,000N range.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by "would be"?
Have you tested this device in a frontal impact?
What do you mean by "would be"?
Have you tested this device in a frontal impact?
| gbaker | 11-07-2005 07:08 AM |
Why bother? Offset loads are higher than frontal loads, independent of the design.
| M. Hurst | 11-07-2005 06:04 PM |
[QUOTE=gbaker]Why bother? Offset loads are higher than frontal loads, independent of the design.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not true. If a device is very effective at limiting the side to side motion of the head, but not effective at limiting the forward motion of the head, the frontal loads would most certainly be higher than the offest loads.
Absolutely not true. If a device is very effective at limiting the side to side motion of the head, but not effective at limiting the forward motion of the head, the frontal loads would most certainly be higher than the offest loads.
| gbaker | 11-07-2005 07:16 PM |
There is no correlation between head position and head load. Check the research.
| M. Hurst | 11-07-2005 09:04 PM |
So I could remove my head from the rest of my body [I]without[/I] breaking my neck?
| Zephyr | 11-07-2005 09:53 PM |
[QUOTE=M. Hurst]Absolutely not true. If a device is very effective at limiting the side to side motion of the head, but not effective at limiting the forward motion of the head, the frontal loads would most certainly be higher than the offest loads.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/018_18.jpg[/IMG]
Look where the unit is mounted on the belts. I'm not an engineer but based off of my knowledge of physics in a frontal impact the dampers will be just as effective as they would be in a offset impact.
Who really cares about frontal impact in road racing. When was the last time someone hit a wall dead on? I would feel much more comfortable with a product like the Isaac which would not limit my movement under normal conditions. I for one like to be able to look ahead as I'm traveling though a tight turn.
Z
[IMG]http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/018_18.jpg[/IMG]
Look where the unit is mounted on the belts. I'm not an engineer but based off of my knowledge of physics in a frontal impact the dampers will be just as effective as they would be in a offset impact.
Who really cares about frontal impact in road racing. When was the last time someone hit a wall dead on? I would feel much more comfortable with a product like the Isaac which would not limit my movement under normal conditions. I for one like to be able to look ahead as I'm traveling though a tight turn.
Z
| turboICE | 11-07-2005 10:17 PM |
Ahead? Would that sometimes mean needing to look through your passenger window? Dang what a novel idea.
What I really don't get is the people in the world completely intolerant of the interests that others may have different than their own. Dang this world would go down the tubes if we were to accept someone else might have different concerns and if they don't affect you there is no legitimate reason to try and prevent them. Any time I have an interaction which illustrates anyone to do with competition and safety that is so intolerant of differing concerns, it scares me to be involved in motorsports.
Sedan road racing already has multiple points of release with the harness and window net - so single point of release is not valid in sedan road racing it already does not exist. And I do know for sure I wouldn't want to race in any event without something to prevent my arms from exiting the car in an incident.
What I really don't get is the people in the world completely intolerant of the interests that others may have different than their own. Dang this world would go down the tubes if we were to accept someone else might have different concerns and if they don't affect you there is no legitimate reason to try and prevent them. Any time I have an interaction which illustrates anyone to do with competition and safety that is so intolerant of differing concerns, it scares me to be involved in motorsports.
Sedan road racing already has multiple points of release with the harness and window net - so single point of release is not valid in sedan road racing it already does not exist. And I do know for sure I wouldn't want to race in any event without something to prevent my arms from exiting the car in an incident.
| M. Hurst | 11-07-2005 10:23 PM |
[QUOTE=Zephyr250]Look where the unit is mounted on the belts. I'm not an engineer but based off of my knowledge of physics in a frontal impact the dampers will be just as effective as they would be in a offset impact.
Who really cares about frontal impact in road racing. When was the last time someone hit a wall dead on? I would feel much more comfortable with a product like the Isaac which would not limit my movement under normal conditions. I for one like to be able to look ahead as I'm traveling though a tight turn.
Z[/QUOTE]
How can the dampers be effective in a forward impact if they are nearly vertical? Have you noticed that every other device that has been tested and approved by any 3rd party has the links nearly horizontal?
What are the dampers attatched to? Collars that are free to slide down the belts?
I agree, that forced to choose, I'd take the a device that performs better in a more common offset impact, but we still need to know that it's effective head on (remember, your car spends most of its time traveling in that direction)...and why not choose as product that has been tested and proven to protect in both a forward and offset impact?
Who really cares about frontal impact in road racing. When was the last time someone hit a wall dead on? I would feel much more comfortable with a product like the Isaac which would not limit my movement under normal conditions. I for one like to be able to look ahead as I'm traveling though a tight turn.
Z[/QUOTE]
How can the dampers be effective in a forward impact if they are nearly vertical? Have you noticed that every other device that has been tested and approved by any 3rd party has the links nearly horizontal?
What are the dampers attatched to? Collars that are free to slide down the belts?
I agree, that forced to choose, I'd take the a device that performs better in a more common offset impact, but we still need to know that it's effective head on (remember, your car spends most of its time traveling in that direction)...and why not choose as product that has been tested and proven to protect in both a forward and offset impact?
| turboICE | 11-07-2005 10:34 PM |
What are the offset numbers for these products? They seem to be pretty happy with their frontals - by what margin did they pass their offsets? Exactly what amount of slack resulted in those test numbers? What happens if you allow 1/4" more slack?
| gbaker | 11-08-2005 05:52 AM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]What are the offset numbers for these products? They seem to be pretty happy with their frontals - by what margin did they pass their offsets? Exactly what amount of slack resulted in those test numbers? What happens if you allow 1/4" more slack?[/QUOTE]
HANS doesn't release test data. They know we beat them.
HANS doesn't release test data. They know we beat them.
| Safe Drives | 11-08-2005 01:54 PM |
R3 test data and photos,
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/prodimages/lfttech/R3_Sled_Test.pdf"]http://www.safedrives.com/prodimages/lfttech/R3_Sled_Test.pdf[/url]
70G with 30 degree angular frontal test results (page 20),
R3= 1933 and 2667N
HANS= 2650N
45G test
Isaac = 900N ([url="http://isaacdirect.com/html/works.html"]claim from Isaac website[/url])
Still, sanctioning bodies must, for insurance purposes, use 3rd party testing and certifications. Plus it just makes sence to get behind products that have third party testing and certification. At safedrives.com when you look at the seats that we offer you'll only find seats that have FIA Homologation since those are the only seats that have the third party testing and certification. We like tested and certified products and so should you.
Best regards,
Charles Buren
Safe Drives LLC
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/"]safedrives.com[/url]
877-739-1713
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/prodimages/lfttech/R3_Sled_Test.pdf"]http://www.safedrives.com/prodimages/lfttech/R3_Sled_Test.pdf[/url]
70G with 30 degree angular frontal test results (page 20),
R3= 1933 and 2667N
HANS= 2650N
45G test
Isaac = 900N ([url="http://isaacdirect.com/html/works.html"]claim from Isaac website[/url])
Still, sanctioning bodies must, for insurance purposes, use 3rd party testing and certifications. Plus it just makes sence to get behind products that have third party testing and certification. At safedrives.com when you look at the seats that we offer you'll only find seats that have FIA Homologation since those are the only seats that have the third party testing and certification. We like tested and certified products and so should you.
Best regards,
Charles Buren
Safe Drives LLC
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/"]safedrives.com[/url]
877-739-1713
| turboICE | 11-08-2005 02:20 PM |
[QUOTE=Safe Drives]Still, sanctioning bodies must, for insurance purposes, use 3rd party testing and certifications.[/quote]I think there has been enough commercial interest in H&N standard setting - I think the sanctioning body through its legal counsel and insurance companies will determine for themselves what they "must" do.
[quote]Plus it just makes sence to get behind products that have third party testing and certification.[/quote]It makes no sense at all to support a third party process that was not third party - the standard was written by manufacturer not a an independent party with no commericial interest in the standard. The process to develop this standard was completely flawed and fraught with conflicts of interest it makes no sense for me to get behind it.
It was already indicated in this thread that the Isaac came in at 2210N on its 70G 30* impact.
R3 confused me with their results, which one should I buy the 1933N model or the 2667N model?
[quote]Plus it just makes sence to get behind products that have third party testing and certification.[/quote]It makes no sense at all to support a third party process that was not third party - the standard was written by manufacturer not a an independent party with no commericial interest in the standard. The process to develop this standard was completely flawed and fraught with conflicts of interest it makes no sense for me to get behind it.
It was already indicated in this thread that the Isaac came in at 2210N on its 70G 30* impact.
R3 confused me with their results, which one should I buy the 1933N model or the 2667N model?
| Zephyr | 11-08-2005 02:24 PM |
[QUOTE=M. Hurst]How can the dampers be effective in a forward impact if they are nearly vertical?[/QUOTE]
The damper is in a fixed position. No mater which way it is pulled it is going to add resistance and thus slowing down the movement of ones head. It seems like you are a salesman for Hans. Before I opened my mouth about this subject I looked at all of the offerings in the H&N department, their pros and cons and I have spoken to drivers who use them. If I'm going to shell out a large sum of money for a device that is going to save my neck I would like go buy one that I feel will suit my needs the best. In this case it is the Isaac that fits the bill.
Ed, yes looking out the passenger side window.
Z
The damper is in a fixed position. No mater which way it is pulled it is going to add resistance and thus slowing down the movement of ones head. It seems like you are a salesman for Hans. Before I opened my mouth about this subject I looked at all of the offerings in the H&N department, their pros and cons and I have spoken to drivers who use them. If I'm going to shell out a large sum of money for a device that is going to save my neck I would like go buy one that I feel will suit my needs the best. In this case it is the Isaac that fits the bill.
Ed, yes looking out the passenger side window.
Z
| M. Hurst | 11-08-2005 07:44 PM |
Please, make your decision based on testing, research and certification by a 3rd party, and not claims made by the manufacturer or conspiracy theories...no matter who the manufacture is.
If you don't believe the SFI, then listen to Hubert Gramling (FIA), Steve Peterson (Nascar), or Dr. John Melvin.
If you don't believe the SFI, then listen to Hubert Gramling (FIA), Steve Peterson (Nascar), or Dr. John Melvin.
| turboICE | 11-08-2005 08:28 PM |
Hmmmm, let's see SFI goes to NASCAR to develop the standard and NASCAR goes to Hans for their research. Nah, no conspiracy there because NASCAR doesn't follow the golden rule (the one with the gold makes the rules). In 2005 was there any other H&N restraint permitted in NASCAR besides Hans?
NASCAR is all about making money - I wouldn't trust any standard that was outsourced to NASCAR. NASCAR is more corrupted by commercialism than a NJ politician.
Wasn't R3 the first one to pass 38.1 in 3rd party testing, but NASCAR still only permitted the Hans for competition before it had even been tested? How much more tainted does your supposedly 3rd party grail have to be?
NASCAR is all about making money - I wouldn't trust any standard that was outsourced to NASCAR. NASCAR is more corrupted by commercialism than a NJ politician.
Wasn't R3 the first one to pass 38.1 in 3rd party testing, but NASCAR still only permitted the Hans for competition before it had even been tested? How much more tainted does your supposedly 3rd party grail have to be?
| M. Hurst | 11-08-2005 08:33 PM |
So every recognized motorsports safety expert in the world, and all the world's major sanctioning bodies, F1, World Rally, IRL, OWRS (CART), Nascar, FIA, are all part of this vast conspiracy?..and now the R3 and hutchens people are in on it too?
...geez.
...geez.
| Kincaid Racing | 11-08-2005 09:11 PM |
Not a bad idea, but expensive, Can you say Cha-Ching boys and girls?
| turboICE | 11-08-2005 09:38 PM |
[QUOTE=M. Hurst]So every recognized motorsports safety expert in the world, and all the world's major sanctioning bodies, F1, World Rally, IRL, OWRS (CART), Nascar, FIA, are all part of this vast conspiracy?..and now the R3 and hutchens people are in on it too?[/QUOTE]
No, that is not what I have said at all, I am saying that SFI 38.1 is severly flawed. It's purpose is intended to reduce head and neck injury but has items completely unrelated to that purpose attached to it that by design benefits the party who drove its language.
Are you saying that NASCAR did not ask SFI for a standard? SFI's President has said they were approached for the standard.
Are you saying that SFI did not go back to NASCAR and ask them for a proposed standard? It has been published that SFI relied on NASCAR for the standard.
Are you saying that NASCAR did not have a predetermined preference for Hans? Their behavior indicates they did - even after meeting the standard R3 was [b]not[/b] permitted by NASCAR, while Hans was the sole permitted H&N in NASCAR prior to its even passing 38.1. (that hardly says that R3 was a part of it, now does it - reread what you replied to)
What in the world does your sacred single point of release have to do with preventing a H&N injury? Single points of release are not a concern to NASCAR - they use window nets. The single point of release was incorporated solely to provide a barrier to the availability of alternatives to Hans.
Not only are you completely intolerant of other people's concerns - you don't even bother listening to them very well. (er, reading what they are actually saying)
I am all for a H&N standard. Issue a standard that has solely to do with reducing injury to the H&N. Issue a standard that does the exact same sled tests that are required now and get rid of the peripherial BS that was inserted by Hans. Your single point of release rant is a seperate issue - make it 38.2 for all I care and then you can use it as an additional standard for your organization - don't push it on me it has nothing to do with my H&N.
If you are going to keep your mind completely closed to any other view point that is fine - but don't take what I have said as implying that I don't think there should be a standard.
Isaac would pass all sled test requirements of 38.1 at Delphi - that has been shown. Why should they do all of them and incur that cost when this petty single point of release requirement remains and even if they outperformed every system out there closed minded people like yourself that have accepted Hans purchase of this standard would still whine "it doesn't have a single point of release." The result is a good H&N system is now not available to me - congratulations you have just made my participation in this sport less safe, sleep well.
No, that is not what I have said at all, I am saying that SFI 38.1 is severly flawed. It's purpose is intended to reduce head and neck injury but has items completely unrelated to that purpose attached to it that by design benefits the party who drove its language.
Are you saying that NASCAR did not ask SFI for a standard? SFI's President has said they were approached for the standard.
Are you saying that SFI did not go back to NASCAR and ask them for a proposed standard? It has been published that SFI relied on NASCAR for the standard.
Are you saying that NASCAR did not have a predetermined preference for Hans? Their behavior indicates they did - even after meeting the standard R3 was [b]not[/b] permitted by NASCAR, while Hans was the sole permitted H&N in NASCAR prior to its even passing 38.1. (that hardly says that R3 was a part of it, now does it - reread what you replied to)
What in the world does your sacred single point of release have to do with preventing a H&N injury? Single points of release are not a concern to NASCAR - they use window nets. The single point of release was incorporated solely to provide a barrier to the availability of alternatives to Hans.
Not only are you completely intolerant of other people's concerns - you don't even bother listening to them very well. (er, reading what they are actually saying)
I am all for a H&N standard. Issue a standard that has solely to do with reducing injury to the H&N. Issue a standard that does the exact same sled tests that are required now and get rid of the peripherial BS that was inserted by Hans. Your single point of release rant is a seperate issue - make it 38.2 for all I care and then you can use it as an additional standard for your organization - don't push it on me it has nothing to do with my H&N.
If you are going to keep your mind completely closed to any other view point that is fine - but don't take what I have said as implying that I don't think there should be a standard.
Isaac would pass all sled test requirements of 38.1 at Delphi - that has been shown. Why should they do all of them and incur that cost when this petty single point of release requirement remains and even if they outperformed every system out there closed minded people like yourself that have accepted Hans purchase of this standard would still whine "it doesn't have a single point of release." The result is a good H&N system is now not available to me - congratulations you have just made my participation in this sport less safe, sleep well.
| M. Hurst | 11-08-2005 11:17 PM |
[QUOTE=turboICE]Isaac would pass all sled test requirements of 38.1 at Delphi - that has been shown. [/QUOTE]
On this point I 100% disagree. The only way to pass all of the sled test requirements is to actually perform all of the tests.
I'm not a Hans salesman, my only concern was with the inquiries I've received about the Isaac, complete with the same claims you have made.
I'm in favor of any device certified by 38.1 or approved by the FIA (which has conducted testing seperate from SFI). I applaud the Isaac's performance in the offset test, but disagree that these results can be extrapolated into frontal test performance.
Originally, my only concern with the Isaac was the single point of release, (as I have stated, less of a point of concern outside rallying) until I learned that it (Isaac) has either never been subjected to a frontal imapct test, or it has and the results are not being published.
Feel free to get in the last word on this, I'll let it go, I'm sure others are tired of our discussion, but please, be safe!
On this point I 100% disagree. The only way to pass all of the sled test requirements is to actually perform all of the tests.
I'm not a Hans salesman, my only concern was with the inquiries I've received about the Isaac, complete with the same claims you have made.
I'm in favor of any device certified by 38.1 or approved by the FIA (which has conducted testing seperate from SFI). I applaud the Isaac's performance in the offset test, but disagree that these results can be extrapolated into frontal test performance.
Originally, my only concern with the Isaac was the single point of release, (as I have stated, less of a point of concern outside rallying) until I learned that it (Isaac) has either never been subjected to a frontal imapct test, or it has and the results are not being published.
Feel free to get in the last word on this, I'll let it go, I'm sure others are tired of our discussion, but please, be safe!
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét