Z-man

Another point I've been thinking about, relating H&N systems to DE's:

Currently, most regions have a 'similar safety gear for driver and passenger' rule in place. EX: if a driver has a racing bucket with harnesses, then the passenger seat should also be similar, in non-solo cars.

How does H&N systems relate to this rule? Will they require students with H&N restraint systems to supply their instructor with a similar system? Will instructors need to do the same for students who wish to ride with them?

H&N restraint systems are fairly new to DE's, but are gaining in popularity. Wonder if such rules would be consiered, or is it too difficult to come up with a standard? (They can't come up with a standard across the board in racing - I doubt they can come up with one for DE's)

Please discuss,
-Zoltan.

PS:
It's over 4,730 now. And gaining on CC's Putnam Park thread! I wonder if that's a good thing?! I doubt this thread will ever surpass the infamous Ghetto Racer... Hmmm - I feel the need for some H&N Haiku:

At the track - grand race,
The car is out of control
Spin, crash - a bad hit!

The big aftermath:
Driver wearing H and N!
He will race again.

(Ok, so my Haiku's a little rusty - perhaps you can do better!)

38D

Z- that is a really interesting question. I'm not sure I would be completely comfortable riding with a student that had a H&N device if I didn't (same those for a non H&N student riding with an instructor with a H&N). Has this been discussed at all as part of tech? Not sure I even really have a well formulated opinion either way, but it certainly deserves some consideration.

M758

There was thread about this a few weeks back. Does the instructor need a H&N if the student has one.

My feeling and that of many, but not all, was no. A head and neck device is personaly safey device similar to a helmet and race suit. Any instructor needs to provide "personal" safety gear themselves and cannot rely on the student. Clearly in the case of seat & harness no instructor can be reasonable expected to bring and install a seat & harness in a students car. Thus the student is expected to do that.

Clem

I think one of the difficulties in answering this question is that H&N restraints are not all independent / personal safety items.
Use of a HANS is particularly sensitive to seating, belts and other forms of containment in the cockpit. If you wear a HANS, do you expect your instructor to? If your drivers seat has halos, should your passenger seat? If you have halos on your passenger seat should you have shoulder containment? If you have shoulder containment then what size?
I think the greater independence of the Issac or R3 in this respect is a benefit over a HANS.

It is an excellent question and I am interested in hearing instructor opinions.

mitch236

As far as this equal restraint issue goes, this was discussed at length in another thread but my take is that beyond seat type and harness, it is not fair to require a student to provide much more.

Geo

Gregg, you know I am about as neutral as people get in the discussion of H&N restraints. I also have no love for SFI. However, the spec requires 100% compliance. Any confusion on this point will only cause heartache for everybody involved. I'd personally be rather circumspect regarding discussions related to SFI 38.1.

Plavan

Mr. Baker,
I have done extensive research into H&N restraints. You skirted one of my questions about mutiple impacts. I think it is fair for everyone to see this since you are marketing it here.
I have a few more serious questions I would like you to answer:
1.) Did you just perform one single delphi sled test? Or did you perform the 4 tests (3 frontal and one 30 degree)?
2.) What are your Nij #'s for all tests?
3.) In the video, is this your first test at 70g's?
4.) If you did multiple tests, what were your NT values for each?

Thank You,
Chad

gbaker

I agree that there should be no confusion. The question is what wording do we use to inform racers that the product meets/exceed the SFI performance spec, but is not certified to that spec by SFI? I see how there can be some confusion, so how do we clarify it?

"Kicks HANS butt" conveys no level of performance, although I do like the sound of it.

There's a thought, perhaps a statement relative to the performance of other products.

Seriously, ideas?

Plavan

Mr. Baker could you please answer my questions.

gbaker

Which one was that? We're a bit busy, BTW.

Chad,

I'll get those for you in time. Remind me tomorrow if I don't post them yet today.

We hit a total of four designs on two sleds in the past six months. We only ran one test each. We did not pick and choose the videos.

You realize you've left out the Mx moment, don't you?

BTW, what are those numbers for the R3?

RedlineMan

Gregg;

To say that something is certified in such a manner is misleading at best. What is certified? The Isaac to SFI 38.1? We know that is not the case, although the current wording could lead one in that possible direction. Does Delphi certify it for SFI? I don't think so! Does Delphi certify anything? Yes; likely only that the test was run in accordance with SFI specification, NOTHING MORE.

I think perhaps you need to say something like "easily exceeds and surpasses the accepted SFI specification for minimum neck tension reduction." Beyond that, you might offer a link to another section that explains your position on the SFI test specs, and why your product cannot be considered for certification. This would be the proper place for editorializing, not on your main page.

RedlineMan

Hey Z;

Search back aways and you'll find a TON of discussion on "restraint equality." It was contained within another H&N thread.

Plavan

Mr. Baker,
I’m sorry you’re busy.
I do believe this is your first test at 70g’s with the Isaac device. I’m surprised you would show that video to the world. Most people are just watching the HANS side and not critiquing your own device. You shown you have done a number of 50g tests, which is great. Please keep in mind that HANS did not know their device would fail until the 70g tests which you have shown. When looking at your video, I would guess that this is your first 70g test because your device may look safe, but when that left dummy harness attachment point goes to the front of the driver he is going to be injured very badly if there is secondary impact. Do you agree? Imagine another frontal impact. Where is that rod going to go? It would for sure break the collar bone or ribs at the least. I’m baffled to why you think this video shows that the “Isaac kicks HANS butt”.
Do you have a video of the shoulder attachment point not going in front of the driver after a 70g impact?
I think your device may give good numbers for the initial impact, but I have to question the real safety AFTER that initial impact. This video does not convince me it is a safe device to use, especially in multiple impacts which most crashes are.
Now this brings me to another observation. We all know the Isaac will never get a SFI certification in its current state. But what most people do not realize is that if they attach you Isaac to their helmet they are in fact voiding their Snell rating on their helmet. This may seem minimal, but there is a big safety risk of having that big piece of hardware on both sides of your helmet. Your hardware does not follow the Snell guidelines of 7mm protrusion. This in fact technically makes your device illegal in all racing organizations. Both the HANS and R3 device hardware adhere to the Snell guidelines. Why does yours not? This may seem minimal, but think about it. Snell made this rule up because they do not want something to get snagged on the helmet. Think of a cleat on a soccer shoe. It is used for traction. Your hardware (cleat) on the helmet could easily “grab” a window net, seat halo or side net further injuring the driver in an impact. Your hardware that attaches to the helmet is pretty big. I would not consider your hardware having a “smooth faired” design to it.
Looking at the video, seeing the disregard for following engineering guidelines set forth by Snell and SFI makes me question why you would not just build it to comply in the first place? You’re an engineer, I’m sure you can figure it out.

For those who are not familiar with the Snell guidelines. Here is a portion of it.
A. General
The assembled helmet shall have smooth external and internal surfaces. Any feature projecting more than 7 mm beyond the outer surface must readily break away; all other projections on the outer surface shall be smoothly faired and offer minimal frictional resistance to tangential impact forces. Rivets and similar projections into the helmet interior must offer no laceration or puncture hazard. Restraint clips may be used at the rear or on the side of the helmet.
I'm just throwing everything out there so people can make a better educated decision on what device (s) to buy. People need to look at the big picture when buying a safety device.

RedlineMan

Yes indeed;

The R3 has passed the SFI spec. But I am STILL left wondering what in its design keeps it in place on the shoulders? Or, is this not important? Seems to me it would be. I don't see what keeps it there, and I would like to know. If my surmize is correct, and only simple surface friction/tension keeps the yoke in place on the shoulders, how reliable is that?

Or does it rely on the head rest portion of the yoke snagging on the shoulder belts to keep it roughly centered on the wearer? This would seem only slightly more reliable than surface tension.

This leads me to wonder about percentages. Did it pass the test once, twice, three times, every time, or did it fail as many times, more times, until it passed? Is it straight up and legitimate, or are the results cherry picked? These are the kinds of critical points that are NEVER broadcast, and even the most forthcoming must be cajoled a bit to make this stuff known.

I may be wrong, or right. I'm just theorizing. That is not so important as knowing the answers to my questions. That is good for EVERYONE.

Chad, since you have stepped forward as a representative of the R3 product, perhaps you can get that information for me? I'd appreciate it.

gbaker

John,

I like that approach.

Yeah, the more I think about our wording the less I like it. But to answer your question, I think that in every case of "SFI" products it is the manufacturer who certifies it, not SFI. That's why we chose that wording.

Of course, if SFI does not certify anything, why bother with them? I know, I know...

Still, I see your point. We'll give that a good scrubbing.