Region: WMR
Car #: 18
Year : 1995 Posts: 525
Status: Offline
posted
If you believe that, you believe both sanctioners are sticking their liability necks out a country mile allowing the HPDE and open events they do, just for the sheer pleasure of hosting them. Explain the difference in the trial testimony of a grieving wife of the HPDE'r as opposed to that that of the club racer, and explain the difference in the attitude of the insurer, who covers one event sans roll cage but (you tell me) gets hinkey over another if a Hans isn't used. You are buying the company line methinks. But whatever, I no longer have a dog in this fight.
Region: Chicago
Car #: 94 Posts: 176
Status: Offline
posted
I wear a HANS. I don't like it but I'm glad I have it. Unfortunately I believe we're one serious injury or a fatality away from head restraints being mandated. It would be a shame IMO if there was an incident that hurt someone and that caused the rule change to happen. Looking at the HANS and other devices, it would seem to me that something far less expensive could be produced that would make it an easy decision for all or most to use.
Region: NWR / Oregon
Car #: 88
Year : 95 Posts: 2000
Status: Offline
posted
I think the "they're expensive" argument is ironic. They cost less than a set of tires. People spend all kinds of money to make their car fast or look cool but bitch about safety equipment.
My knee surgury cost about $12k. Shoulder surgury $15k. Last I remember an ER trip for stitches cost more than $100 a stitch. I don't think I've ever been to an ER for less than the cost of a HANS and I've been a whole bunch of times. Insurance may cover that but I'd hand over the cost of a HANS any day to avoid the discomfort, physical therapy, and days or weeks of being drugged out on the couch watching daytime TV due to far less devastating injuries than a HANS can prevent.
-------------------- Keith Novak (Will work for tires)
Region: AZ/SoPac
Car #: 92
Year : 99 Posts: 131
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by Tom Sager: I wear a HANS. I don't like it but I'm glad I have it. Looking at the HANS and other devices, it would seem to me that something far less expensive could be produced that would make it an easy decision for all or most to use.
I am a businessman for the last 21 years, so i look at things in actual costs. I see the HANS devices selling used very quickly for ~ $500. if a new one cost me $750, and has a residual value of $500, then my actual cost was a meager $250. thats nothing for what it can do, the devices are inexpensive when you look at them this way. my tires mounted and shaved are not much cheaper than a new HANS device, and those only last a weekend or 2, and are worth ZERO when i am done with them. for me, the HANS is one of the true bargains in this sport, not only in price, but for what it can do if i ever need to "use it". i think the arguments are really all about peoples freedoms to make their own choices, good or bad. i get that one easy enough, but i also see that i have very few choices when i take my car and gear though tech each year, so this seems to fit into that catagory for me. if i make the choice to race, i need to follow the rules of the club i race with, or go do something else, or go race somewhere else. SCCA IS THE ONLY CLUB I CAN SHOW UP TO AND NOT HAVE TO USE A H+N DEVICE, why is that........... i run a FF car in a VINTAGE group, and even they mandate a H+N restraint now. rules or not, i wont run on track w/o one, same as a harness and helmet, and the HANS is just another extesnsion fo those 2 items IMO.
Region: Southwest
Car #: 22
Year : 92' Posts: 296
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by Tom Sager: Unfortunately I believe we're one serious injury or a fatality away from head restraints being mandated. It would be a shame IMO if there was an incident that hurt someone and that caused the rule change to happen.
It has happened in other racing organizations. Do we have to wait until it happens in SCCA to say, gee that sure was a shame he/she could have walked away from that crash if only....
I am one of those that can't stand centralized decision making or control, however as CNJ so eloquently put it, we should be removed from some decision making processes since we are not rational on the subject.
I hated wearing my seatbelts when it became the law in my state. Why? Irrational opposition to Big Brother telling me what to do. Could it save my life or those of my family in an accident, most likely. Do I wear it today? Absolutely, without fail.
Region: cfr
Car #: 13
Year : 1990 Posts: 105
Status: Offline
posted
Part of my problem with the rule was a lack of guidence of when these items are to be replaced there is no lifing with SFI or FIA ratings. So two years, four years, ten years? Second what are the guidelines for replacing the helmet if there has been a load imposed on the helmet. Who is going to inspect it and be sure its replaced? the officials miss putting car damage in the logbook now. They don't check for legality and condition of driver gear in impound periodically as in the GCR. And yes the cost, $549 and $649 for the cheapest ones I do not see any used one this year in CFR. And those decisions above could drastically raise the cost. We used to be able to have fun and run inexpensively and sadly thats gotten alot harder. Another reason may be I am getting alot older and dont like being told what to wear, it is more of a personal item. Like the cyclist forced to wear helmets in fla. even though I wear one and leathers with armour, my choice. It could also be a irrational fear because the economy is so bad here on the east coast. I think its alittle bit of everything. Sorry if I have ranted or preached but when this rule passes I will know how people feel beside the BOD.
Region: WMR
Car #: 18
Year : 1995 Posts: 525
Status: Offline
posted
I'll try again. There is no one indicating that Hans devices do not make for greater protection.
Consider. The sanctioners mandate fire suits. That might indicate they believe there is an above probability there could be a car fire somewhere in a racers future. They do not, however, mandate a fire system. Why? They do not mandate a fuel cell in SM. Why? They mandate safety cages. I, for one, have seen cages bent to the seat. Yet, they do not mandate I-beam constructed safety cages. Why? They mandate fire protective clothing, but not the Sparco F1 suit ($1700) or Schuberth F1 Schumacher helmet ($1100), all of which an argument could be made would make for a safer racer, and I'm sure no one here would suggest differently. Must we wait for a day when tragedy happens and we say, gee, if only he was wearing the Schumacher F1 Carbon Fibre? It is my guess, simply my guess, that I can find more drivers attesting to accidents caused by a lack of neck mobility preventing them from seeing, than from those injured with basil skull fractures. NASCAR and F1 are full of drivers who have been told to stop talking about it (lack of mobility from Hans), and those drivers knew what we all know, it's the sanctioners show and what he says goes, whether or not it makes perfect sense. I can't stand certralized bureaucratic nanny control either, and I feel helmet and seat belt laws are an anathma and more often than not ignore them, but suggest to me I need a nanny to make my own decisions because I'm not "rational" (smart?) enough and you'll likely get cuffed over the ear hole. Stress safety, publicize the risk, suggest alternatives, beef up the waiver, but cease the mothering mandates.
Region: Central Florida
Car #: 3
Year : 1992 Posts: 1304
Status: Offline
posted
You can always try and find another road racing sanctioning body that doesn't require a H & N device and race with them. I understand being a libertarian....but games have rules and when you don't play by them sometimes you end up playing by yourself. But hey...whatever makes you happy! They used to wear leather helmets when they played football too!
Region: NWR
Car #: 5
Year : 1991 Posts: 252
Status: Offline
posted
FWIW, if the SCCA mandates a H&N restraint, you can be certain it will require the SFI 38.1 certification label. There have been many H&N restraints sold without these labels. I know, I had one. At the hint of a mandate, I contacted the manufacturer and was told they would not certify my used device. I immediately replaced it with one displaying a SFI label.
I feel much safer now.
Also, you can bet that soon to follow will be the requirement to have OEM-installed helmet anchors. FIA requires them already.
I heard through the grape vine that big brother is concerned that one of these days someone is going to break their neck while upside down when they release their seat belts. Big brother is going to mandate a devise bag that fills with air so that when the driver relaeses their belts the air bag will support the driver untill the driver releases the air from the air bag & the driver is slowly lowered to the roof without breaking their neck.
I own an Isaac.
-------------------- Have Fun
David Dewhurst CenDiv Milwaukee Region Spec Miata #14
Region: AZ/SoPac
Car #: 92
Year : 99 Posts: 131
Status: Offline
posted
quote:
I own an Isaac. [/QB]
david, i have heard that the Isaac is not allowed in SCCA because it does not pass the single release point requirement for SCCA. single release being it takes only one movement for the driver to release his restraint, such as popping the latch on his harness and he is free of the car.
Is this true? what club do you use the Isaac with? i ask because i dont know too much about this sytem, only just from reading a bit on the internet(s).
Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991 Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by fishguyaz:
quote:
I own an Isaac.
david, i have heard that the Isaac is not allowed in SCCA because it does not pass the single release point requirement for SCCA. single release being it takes only one movement for the driver to release his restraint, such as popping the latch on his harness and he is free of the car.
Is this true? what club do you use the Isaac with? i ask because i dont know too much about this sytem, only just from reading a bit on the internet(s). [/QB]
This is not true. The SCCA has no such rule. The ISAAC violates the SFI and FIA requirements in more than one way, perhaps the least important of which is the single release point.
IF the SCCA ever requires 38.1 certification, the ISAAC will become illegal.
-------------------- Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?
fishguyaz, at this time the Isaac may be used in the SCCA. From my reading/understanding of the load reduction as a free standing unit of the HANS, Isaac & Defnder the Isaac & the Defnder reduce loads better than the HANS.................. As a H&N restraint becomes mandatory in the SCCA I will procure a Defnder which HANS WAS trying to eliminate through the courts.
It is also my understanding the the only point the Isaac will not meet with the SFI is the one point release rule which fell in place for the HANS folks that supported writting the SFI rule. The SFI operational resources come from manufactures like HANS & many other manufactures.
Kent, care to itemize the other requirements of the SFI that the Isaac does not meet.
-------------------- Have Fun
David Dewhurst CenDiv Milwaukee Region Spec Miata #14
Region: NWR / Oregon
Car #: 88
Year : 95 Posts: 2000
Status: Offline
posted
As I remember, the SFI requirements allow for an alternate means of compliance. In other words, if you can show that even if it doesn't meet all their design requirements, if it meets the performance requirements and you can show an equivalent level of safety to the intent of their design requirements, it can be certified.
In other words, if the requirement says "it must be built like this" and you can say "it wasn't built like that but this way works even better" you get the SFI patch.
Don't know why they haven't gone that route if they're convinced they could make a good argument for equivalent level of safety.
-------------------- Keith Novak (Will work for tires)
Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991 Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by David Dewhurst: fishguyaz, at this time the Isaac may be used in the SCCA. From my reading/understanding of the load reduction as a free standing unit of the HANS, Isaac & Defnder the Isaac & the Defnder reduce loads better than the HANS.................. As a H&N restraint becomes mandatory in the SCCA I will procure a Defnder which HANS WAS trying to eliminate through the courts.
It is also my understanding the the only point the Isaac will not meet with the SFI is the one point release rule which fell in place for the HANS folks that supported writting the SFI rule. The SFI operational resources come from manufactures like HANS & many other manufactures.
Kent, care to itemize the other requirements of the SFI that the Isaac does not meet.
The maker of the ISAAC has been challenged more than once on this forum to address the serious design flaws of the ISAAC that prevent it from receiving either the FIA or SFI certifications. Instead, he continues to tap dance around the single point of release requirement and spin conspiracy theories about SFI. Those rather heated discussions can be found in the archives.
I'm still waiting for a bit of honesty from him on this issue.
-------------------- Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?
Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991 Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by Keith in WA: As I remember, the SFI requirements allow for an alternate means of compliance. In other words, if you can show that even if it doesn't meet all their design requirements, if it meets the performance requirements and you can show an equivalent level of safety to the intent of their design requirements, it can be certified.
In other words, if the requirement says "it must be built like this" and you can say "it wasn't built like that but this way works even better" you get the SFI patch.
Don't know why they haven't gone that route if they're convinced they could make a good argument for equivalent level of safety.
Can't pass a reasonable FMEA.
-------------------- Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?
***Kent, care to itemize the other requirements of the SFI that the Isaac does not meet. ***
Now whose tap dancing.
Itemize the design issue flaws that do not meet the SFI requirements. Not yours or Keiths requirements & I really don't care what profession the two of you work in.
Kent, lets make this whole deal real simple and start with three design issue flaws. This bla, bla, bla crap can keep going just like the track smack deals go.
Item A.
Item B.
Item C.
-------------------- Have Fun
David Dewhurst CenDiv Milwaukee Region Spec Miata #14
Region: NWR / Oregon
Car #: 88
Year : 95 Posts: 2000
Status: Offline
posted
Okayfinethen, David. I was merely trying to help clarify how the SFI process works in that they do explicitly allow for not meeting all their requirements. Their process, their requirements, not mine.
It's pretty obvious to me that not everyone understands the rules, how the testing works, how to interpret the data, why certain things get decertified after a while... All they know is whether or not there is an SFI label attached and does it have an expiration date.
Have fun.
-------------------- Keith Novak (Will work for tires)
Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991 Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by David Dewhurst: You were asked a simple question Kent.
***Kent, care to itemize the other requirements of the SFI that the Isaac does not meet. ***
Now whose tap dancing.
Itemize the design issue flaws that do not meet the SFI requirements. Not yours or Keiths requirements & I really don't care what profession the two of you work in.
Kent, lets make this whole deal real simple and start with three design issue flaws. This bla, bla, bla crap can keep going just like the track smack deals go.
Item A.
Item B.
Item C.
I had hoped that honesty would prevail, but I'll go ahead and call it out:
The ISAAC device cannot pass 38.1 section 2.3 or 2.5 from the March 24, 2009 revision.
-------------------- Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?
quote:2.3 Reaction Linkage: The means by which the head force necessary to limit displacement of the head with respect to the torso is reacted. Acceptable reaction linkages could include load paths to the torso or to the restraint webbing. Direct attachment to react loads to a fixed point or points on a vehicle structure or restraint webbing will not be acceptable because of the potential for torso displacements with respect to these points. Imposed loading by the reaction linkage to other areas of the body should be applied using approaches demonstrated to be practical without imposing risk of serious injury.
quote:2.5 Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations.
-------------------- Viet-Tam Luu (a.k.a. "Tam") SFR-SCCA #14 ITS Director, SCCA San Francisco Region
Region: cfr
Car #: 13
Year : 1990 Posts: 105
Status: Offline
posted
There are only 8 approved units for SFI as I was told by a member of BOD. They will be 38.1 SFI they can be approved by FIA. These are those as listed that meet that requirement on SFI website. Specification 38.1 - Head and Neck Restraint Systems defNder Team Issue Device HANS Performance Products - HANS Device (All Series) Leatt Brace Moto-R Device Safety Solutions R3 Device Safety Solutions R3 Rage Device Safety Solutions Hutchens Hybrid Pro Device Safety Solutions Hutchens Hybrid/Hybrid Rage Device Safety Solutions Hybrid X Device
The Moto R is a weird thing with a chin brace down to chest similar to a device you wear when you have already hurt your neck. So far this is it on their list for approval
Region: Central Florida
Car #: 40
Year : 1991 Posts: 393
Status: Offline
posted
Random thought: I wonder if the operable insurance discussion isn't SCCA event insurance, but insurance on the necks of the paid NASCAR, F1, etc. drivers, who wear HANS?
Kent, I do have the SFI standard which HANS folks helped fashion. That my friend is the way the SFI generates their specifications. Within the SFI the manufacturs pay the SFI bills.
Not meeting your design flaw 2.5 just happens to fall back to the SCCA rule 9.3.19.C. & D. which were in the rules long before the SFI 38.1 or the SFI 38.1 devises ever existed along with long before SCCA rule 9.3.20.c.2. ever entered the picture. What do we do about the radio, drink tube & whatever else is connected to the driver? Are these not release points? Ah shucks never mind the SFI don't care about those items.
Now along to SFI/HANS witten spec 2.3. It's not dificult to create a monolpy when the forrunner (actually Jay Wright had a devise long before the hans with instructions on how to fab) in H&N restraints is a helper in writting the SFI spec. Gee, is that why HANS took Defnder to court so as to continue their monolpy. Defnder was getting into the HANS pocket book.
Now for Kent, Keith & all the other people who like to argue about H&N restraints as do I which are the top two free standing H&N restraints that provides the maximum safety to the driver forgeting about the SFI 38.1.
I own an Isaac now & will own a Defnder for year 2012. No I will not own a Halo seat & I also will not own a right side net.
In case anyone missed the point that was never said within a HANS owner needs a Halo seat in order to meet the load reduction similar to the Isaac or Defnder.
Insurance wise, insurance for my region has been X dollars per entrie for the past four years plus or minus a couple bucks. No previous major increases. Now, is there a insurance/legal threat for year 2012 & beyond I don't know. Kent, you want to check that out?
-------------------- Have Fun
David Dewhurst CenDiv Milwaukee Region Spec Miata #14
Region: NWR / Oregon
Car #: 88
Year : 95 Posts: 2000
Status: Offline
posted
Now granted I don't own an Isaac and don't know any better. It looks to me like the buckles of the harness won't slip easily through the Isaac harness attachments. The attachment to the helmet and the device are pretty strong. The belts definately are. If someone doesn't know to detatch it in addition to the belts, your head is lashed to the car when they try to pull you out. At that point it's like forgetting to unbutton the cuffs on your shirt before taking it off. Once you have it inside out, it's much tougher and very awkward. In a panic people have to figure out how to release you. I don't own a drink bottle but with a good tug my radio will either disconnect from the harness or pull out of my helmet. Different scenario all together. Plus SFI is certifying the HNR not the drink bottle.
The direct attachment to the harness part I would think would be an easier argument. The rule is that it can't be attached to a fixed point because your body can move quite a ways from that fixed point. Very true. I don't see it as a fixed point on the harness. It can slide. If the harness fails, it won't do a thing but neither will my DefNder. I've done my pre-flight bob my head around test and thought I didn't hook up the tethers only to realize I checked before snugging up my shoulder straps.
It raises a big red flag for me the way they seem to spin the data. This test we compare using the WSU data. This test we compare using Delphi data. Any time I see that sort of thing, it looks like people are hand picking their data to tell a story. There's that old saying, "Statistics don't lie but anyone can lie using statistics." Greg Baker doesn't strike me as very professional which only reinforces that opinion.
I can't say much about the insurance rates. With ski resorts my understanding is most of the lift ticket cost is for liability insurance because every time some yahoo gets hurt, someone sues. Hell, people sue for cutting their fingers off with the lawnmower trying to trim the hedge. They might not win but the lawyers still get rich.
-------------------- Keith Novak (Will work for tires)
Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991 Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
posted
Keith,
The ISAAC fails a basic FMEA in many ways. For example when you have a single shoulder harness failure. If the right harness fails and the driver slips out of the harness in an impact, the left harness continues to constrain the ISAAC device as the driver's torso moves freely. The loads placed on the driver's neck are impossible to estimate, but with a bit of imagination you can see that a fatal event could occur. The SFI standards do a decent job of addressing the 'first do no harm' concept.
The behavior of the inventor is a completely different subject.
-------------------- Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?
Region: NWR / Oregon
Car #: 88
Year : 95 Posts: 2000
Status: Offline
posted
I see your point on the one side failure. To do more than randomly speculate I'd have to see some failed belt testing of both though. If I've learned nothing else from testing it's that you're never really sure what's going to happen.
On the other subject, sometimes I just like to kick the ant hill
-------------------- Keith Novak (Will work for tires)
Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
![[yep]](graemlins/yep.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[nope]](graemlins/no.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic