gbaker

The family has not responded to our request for a copy of the autopsy.

See post above re sources.

It is a possibilty that may never be proved, but it is consistent with the injury. We may never know what happened, even with the autopsy report.

Absent additional information, this man died one of two ways. Either the belts slipped off and his head moved far enough forward to cause a head injury at the front/top of his head when impacting the other car, or the belts slipped off the HANS causing it to fail in protecting from BSF.

Either way, it is obvious that using a H&N restraint that keeps the belts on the shoulders may have saved him.

Clearly, the belts coming off doesn't do any driver any good in any setting. That's rather fundamental.

fatbillybob

Agreed! I can tell you right now that is happening to me. I'm dinking with these things trying to get them to work despite excellent help and suggestions from the reps.. I just have not found the soultion yet but I bet you know one...

gbaker

I do, but to suggest it would sound commercial...

Everyone have a good weekend.

camber799

In case you haven't heard, BMWCCA Club RAcing, as of April 1, 2006, is mandating the use of a H&N restraint that meets SFI 38.1.

They state that there are three products now meeting that standard:

1. HANS
2. R3
3. Hutchens

They are also claiming to be the first amateur road racing organization to require this.

More sanctioning bodies will follow suit. It is just a matter of when.

Choose wisely.

Professor Helmüt Tester

Someone needs to look up 'logical fallacies', specifically 'arguments from authority'. Mr. Baker, you are providing us with a textbook example. You post:

Wait a minute…didn't you previously post:

So…the family hasn't responded to your request for information, but you're citing as 'sources' the CT Office of Chief Medical Examiner, the physician who conducted the autopsy, LRP personnel, SCCA personnel (east coast & Topeka), etc. etc.

It's interesting to note the records release policy of the CT Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, available here:

http://www.ct.gov/ocme/cwp/view.asp?a=2166&Q=295104&ocmeNav=|

which states:

In accordance with the regulations of the Commission on Medicolegal Investigations, the complete records of all investigations are made available to the family of the deceased, to any federal, state or municipal governmental agency or public health authority investigating the death; to insurance companies with a legitimate interest in the death; to all parties in civil litigative proceedings, and to treating physicians. In addition, records may be made available to any other individual with the written consent of the family or by court order. Legitimate scientific research organizations may also have access to the records provided the identity of the decedents are not published or otherwise made public. Records are not otherwise open to the general public.

...And you just said:

You don't fit into any of the categories specified for records release, the family won't respond to you, but you've cited it as a 'source' ??? You need to explain that.

You also cited a Dr. Shah, but isn't he barred from discussing it with you based on the policy cited above (not to mention HIPAA regulations) ?

You cited SCCA personnel, and specifically cited 'east coast' and 'Topeka'. Why are you talking to them, and what insight did they provide ? It wasn't an SCCA event. What possible use could 'east coast and 'Topeka' staff be in this ? If you're going to invent 'specific' facts, at least get the sanctioning body right.

You've also cited LRP officials…but I believe that they're very closed-lipped about this, and are unlikely to discuss it with some guy calling from Florida who claims to be an 'expert'.

Others are questioning your citation of 'facts' on this very subject, and it's not the first time that you've been questioned about it…although no answers have followed:

http://forum.specmiata.com/cgi-bin/u...1;t=000045;p=0

Also interesting in the above thread is the side-by-side comparison of still images, and the discussion of the differences noted by observers (other than you).

What I find really interesting is the complete lack of an identifying 'marker slate' in the sled test videos you posted. You can't identify a date, a time, a 'test event #'....there is no 'signature' at all. What test lab does testing without an identifying 'stamp' or'marker' somewhere in the picture ? Where did this video come from, and why are those elements missing ? Was this just preliminary testing, or were these 'certifying runs' ?

It seems that you've sometimes confused fact and fiction, all over the internet, where you're the safety gadfly at all the club racing sites. How can you find time to get any work done, when you're at SpecMiata.com, ImprovedTouring.com, Specracer.com, Apexspeed.com, Hondatech.com, SCCA Production (coloradoscca.com), etc. etc. etc. all day long ? Check out page 5 of this thread at 'apexspeed', when the open wheel formula racers tend to congregate:

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11838

Specifically, note your selective use of quotes from newpaper articles , and how they are summarily discredited.

In other threads on apexspeed, you posted knowledge of 'facts' that were subsequently personally discredited by Dr. Bob Hubbard and staff (HANS). Anyone can find those posts - just go to the search engine there and type in 'baker' and do some reading.

In this very thread, you posted:

…developing something that looked like 'mathematical equations' (#n, #n+x) to define information that you later admitted was 'anecdotal'. It's a thin screen, but it's enough to raise suspicions among people who like to engage in 'critical thinking'. At first glance, someone would think "oh…he's got data" but in reality, you were just throwing darts at the wall.

I don't know you. My only exposure to you is thru your internet-wide postings. Maybe you're a decent fellow, but for several years now you've sneered at other producers of H&N protection equipment, engaged in mean-spirited internet exchanges with people with legitimate questions about your product and your data (I remember a certain Physics PhD on another site who seemed to be spanking you with a large plank), and lately have seemed to claim that there is a conspiracy in the creation of the specs for SFI 38.1 to keep you from market. As I said, I don't know you, but from your writings you often times come off as evasive and arrogant.

And you still haven't answered the question that I just keep asking – what risks are posed by your product in the event of a belt or seat failure ? Again…I have personally seen 3 instances of those…just last night I had dinner with an ex-FVee driver friend who had belts release during a crash and suffered major injuries. To sum up my personal concerns about the Isaac system – I don't want my head tethered, if the rest of me is untethered.

You're now making claims that your product 'meets' 38.1, without actually having '38.1 certification'. Is that because it won't get it, due to your tethers not releasing when the harness releases ?

I've just dug around for an hour to raise the many questions above. I have neither the interest nor the time to dig deeper. If you've got real facts and information, I'm willing to listen. I'm just not willing to listen to equivocating, cherry-picked 'facts', or 'facts' that turn out to be pure conjecture.

gbaker

Congratulations. Every fact I mentioned is available from the sources cited. If you didn't find them, it's probably because you only spent an hour. We've been working on this since September.

BTW, Dr. Shah is a she, not a he.

Greg Fishman

Are you related to Bill Clinton? You sure seem to be able to duck the "real" questions. Maybe you should spend the time and your engineering degree working on a good solution vs. marketing your compromised one? Why don't you disclose your financial interest in this company? Are you an employee/shareholder/partner?

RedlineMan

Interesting;

Well, I am not the king of debate, and not of critical thought either, perhaps, at least where it concerns statements, language, intent, or "facts." So I am going to turn my critical thinking toward hardware rather than software.

The topic now seems to be the SFI 38.1 test. I will look at the spector of devices becoming dislodged from belts vs- those that do not. Being a HANS owner, this topic is of concern.

From watching the HANS clip, it seems apparent that either the body "deforms out from under" the belt, the body travels away from the belt, the HANS tether pulls the device from under the belt, or a combination of the three. To some degree, it is also possible that the HANS "helps" flip the belts off. It certainly seems at the least that the HANS can do little to help the belts stay in place.

It seems to me that the Isaac is definitely helpful in this regard, and may indeed be working directly in the occupant's favor. If you bang the sled at the mandated 30 degree offset, at the mandated rate to induce a 68G impact, the body and head will travel at a 30 degree tangent, and through the Isaac device, the head will pull (mainly on the outboard belt) with a force of roughly 1020lbs. This would seem to be very helpful in "bringing the outboard belt along" and keeping it more proximate to its proper position on the occupant.

- Could my assumtive phenomenon be responsible for keeping the belt - and occupant - in place?
- Has there ever been an "escape" in Isaac testing?

If such an escape were to take place, I wonder how closely it would rival the HANS escape? Mightn't it actually be ugly?

Rick964

I am not in favor of inferior products but isn't this exactly why you launched the Isaac Link model? Less performance, less money. Was your SFI38.1 model even less effective than the Link?

FamilyCar

Dear everyone,
Pick one, get one. Then, when something proves to be truly superior, get that.
Thanks.

Greg Fishman

Sort of like Russian roulette? No thanks. What happens if you choose the wrong one and it is your turn for the "big one"?

gbaker

Interesting question. With no belts the H&N restraint issue becomes secondary as the driver may be injured by that alone. Any product would not help with respect to H&N injuries, obviously, so your question becomes, can it hurt?

If the break occured behind the shoulders, it would have no effect--the belt would slide through the connector and disconnect of its own accord. It is conceivable that an injury could result if the break were elsewhere, but the load could be beneficial in offsetting other loads.

I don't believe the answeris obvious. I find it difficult to imagine the driver would be injured in that scenario where he would otherwise be safe--a driver with no belts is not safe.

These issues are not always intuitively obvious. For years John Melvin was saying that the Isaac would create lateral head torque in lateral impacts. This test series proved it actually reduces lateral head, and keeps the belts as a bonus.

gbaker

Sorry for the confusion, Rick. There are three Isaac designs that have worked their way into the discussion, The Link, the original damper version, and a modified damper version we designed for SFI specs. We do not market the latter because it has the same belt slippage issue as the HANS device, which is dangerous.

Yes, the Link is designed for the low risk driver. 80% of the performance at 30% of the cost.

gbaker

Ah, back to the things that really matter...

Excellent summary. I wouldn't be too hard on the HANS device in this regard. It doesn't cause the belt slippage, but it doesn't prevent it either. Why do we say this? Because the baseline video shows the same phenomenon. One would expect to see the same of the R3 and similar worn designs, also.

Yes, that appears to be the case.

No, not with any product we offer the racer. The "SFI Version" referenced above did "escape", which is why we don't offer it.

It would be extremely ugly. With the belt captured by T6 Aluminum and SS components, the forces required for a metallic failure would only be seen at outrageously high G loads, which would scramble the driver's internal organs. Ugly is a good word for it.

SundayDriver

I have followed, and appreciated your posts about H&N over the years. In the early days of your posts, you were helpful, answered all questions and tried to discuss the merits of your product. Over the last year or so, that has changed dramatically. I find you have become quite evasive about some issues, including this one. It is a simple question and a very valid concern - the Professor has seen a few incidents of belts coming off and I have seen a couple. They can be from a failure, but I have never seen one for the example you wanted to use - latch matal failure. They happen because a belt was not really latched, or it was way too loose or poor installation, etc, etc. If the driver pops out of the belt (let's assume lap belt) and they are flailing about, no one would suggest that is safe and any H&N Is supposed to protect the occupant. The question is - what additional damage does a product do, potentially, when the driver's head is restrained and the rest of their body is not. Your product seems to have that as a unique risk and you have continued to avoid that question.

You have also seemed to have done quite a politicians avoidance on the Spec Pinata board about anomolies in the video you use for marketing. You were evasive previously in the SM board about data (though I think you finally provided some).

Finally, the vast majority of your messages any more, are focused on attacking your competitors rather than the virtues of your product. And there is the conspiracy theory about SFI and how you are excluded for no good reason except that you are a competitive threat. Well, if the product is so good, then why can't you get the major pro bodies to accept it?

Such changes in behaviour from trying to take the high ground to wallowing in the mud certainly cause me to wonder if there are business or personal problems driving you to such desperate behaviour. I used to enjoy reading your posts for the information provided. Now you are like listening to a low end used car salesman (with apologies to good car salesmen). I was an early buyer of HANS so was never a potential customer of yours. However, I used to suggest that people consider your product as it seemed reasonable. Your behaviour on this, and other boards, makes me try to steer others away from your stuff.

Why not pull yourself out of the mud and answer questions in a complete and professional manner?