H&N restraints - need opinions
12-22-2005, 04:27 PM
#301
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Snell Approved?
Yes, a worthy designation. What makes one Snell helmet worth so much more? Subtleties. Higher quality fabrics, better workmanship, better hardware. Removeable washable liners. Straps that don't fray in a few months. Better visor hardware, and on and on. Sometimes there is a difference.
Just like with H&N devices.
Yes, a worthy designation. What makes one Snell helmet worth so much more? Subtleties. Higher quality fabrics, better workmanship, better hardware. Removeable washable liners. Straps that don't fray in a few months. Better visor hardware, and on and on. Sometimes there is a difference.
Just like with H&N devices.
12-22-2005, 04:54 PM
#302
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Geo
There is been NO independent study that I'm aware of. I'd sure like to see headrestraint.org set up a company to write independed standards, ratings, and issue certifications.
Barring that I doubt we will ever see independent information on H&N restraints.
Barring that I doubt we will ever see independent information on H&N restraints.
Whether manufacturers wish to open their Komono is another matter.
12-22-2005, 05:00 PM
#303
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ltc
...Bobby Labonte was highly critical of the device after his car caught tire after impact with a wall (front right corner IIRC) and had a VERY difficult time extracating himself from the vehicle while wearing a HANS device...
This is what will get the SFI spec changed--when NASCAR cooks a driver on TV.
12-22-2005, 05:23 PM
#304
Super Moderator
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Here is an interesting hypothetical (wtih a high degree of probability of someday being played out):
Race Series "fill in the blank" mandates the use of SFI 38.1 certified H&N restraint "exhibit A".
The driver is not happy wearing exhibit "A" and prefers to wear SFI 38.1 H&N restraint "exhibit B", as he is comfortable with it and has experience with it. The Race series "fill in the blank" says, no, in order to compete in our event, you must wear H&N restraint "exhibit A".
The driver, agrees, but puts his concerns down in writing, as a written protest to the policies of the Race Series.
A driver, licensed by Race Series "fill in the blank" and competing in one of their events while wearing "exhibit A", as mandated, is involved in an accident (let's say single car) and dies due to a BSF.
His family, aware of his concerns regarding the series choice of "exhibit A" over "exhibit B" sues the Race Series and the manufacturer of "Exhibit A", due to mandating one certified device over another, without supplying a reason as to why. This decision, they claim, lead to the fatality.
Who is most likely to prevail at the time of the jury trial?
Disclaimer: I have absolutely NO interest in any H&N restraint company, sanctioning body. This is merely a hypothetical to start a discussion.
Race Series "fill in the blank" mandates the use of SFI 38.1 certified H&N restraint "exhibit A".
The driver is not happy wearing exhibit "A" and prefers to wear SFI 38.1 H&N restraint "exhibit B", as he is comfortable with it and has experience with it. The Race series "fill in the blank" says, no, in order to compete in our event, you must wear H&N restraint "exhibit A".
The driver, agrees, but puts his concerns down in writing, as a written protest to the policies of the Race Series.
A driver, licensed by Race Series "fill in the blank" and competing in one of their events while wearing "exhibit A", as mandated, is involved in an accident (let's say single car) and dies due to a BSF.
His family, aware of his concerns regarding the series choice of "exhibit A" over "exhibit B" sues the Race Series and the manufacturer of "Exhibit A", due to mandating one certified device over another, without supplying a reason as to why. This decision, they claim, lead to the fatality.
Who is most likely to prevail at the time of the jury trial?
Disclaimer: I have absolutely NO interest in any H&N restraint company, sanctioning body. This is merely a hypothetical to start a discussion.
12-22-2005, 05:43 PM
#305
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ltc
Here is an interesting hypothetical (wtih a high degree of probability of someday being played out):
Race Series "fill in the blank" mandates the use of SFI 38.1 certified H&N restraint "exhibit A".
The driver is not happy wearing exhibit "A" and prefers to wear SFI 38.1 H&N restraint "exhibit B", as he is comfortable with it and has experience with it. The Race series "fill in the blank" says, no, in order to compete in our event, you must wear H&N restraint "exhibit A".
The driver, agrees, but puts his concerns down in writing, as a written protest to the policies of the Race Series.
A driver, licensed by Race Series "fill in the blank" and competing in one of their events while wearing "exhibit A", as mandated, is involved in an accident (let's say single car) and dies due to a BSF.
His family, aware of his concerns regarding the series choice of "exhibit A" over "exhibit B" sues the Race Series and the manufacturer of "Exhibit A", due to mandating one certified device over another, without supplying a reason as to why. This decision, they claim, lead to the fatality.
Who is most likely to prevail at the time of the jury trial?
Disclaimer: I have absolutely NO interest in any H&N restraint company, sanctioning body. This is merely a hypothetical to start a discussion.
Race Series "fill in the blank" mandates the use of SFI 38.1 certified H&N restraint "exhibit A".
The driver is not happy wearing exhibit "A" and prefers to wear SFI 38.1 H&N restraint "exhibit B", as he is comfortable with it and has experience with it. The Race series "fill in the blank" says, no, in order to compete in our event, you must wear H&N restraint "exhibit A".
The driver, agrees, but puts his concerns down in writing, as a written protest to the policies of the Race Series.
A driver, licensed by Race Series "fill in the blank" and competing in one of their events while wearing "exhibit A", as mandated, is involved in an accident (let's say single car) and dies due to a BSF.
His family, aware of his concerns regarding the series choice of "exhibit A" over "exhibit B" sues the Race Series and the manufacturer of "Exhibit A", due to mandating one certified device over another, without supplying a reason as to why. This decision, they claim, lead to the fatality.
Who is most likely to prevail at the time of the jury trial?
Disclaimer: I have absolutely NO interest in any H&N restraint company, sanctioning body. This is merely a hypothetical to start a discussion.
Not mentioned in this thread (I think) is the fact that we ended up where we are after testing and rejecting an "SFI version" of the Isaac system. It complied with section 2.5 and worked great on the WSU sled, which has a real seat. It did not test well at Delphi, but could have been modified to work "OK". The problem was that it did not capture the belt so it did not hold the belt on the shoulder. In short, it was SFI compliant, but inferior.
If we sold it to a driver who was injured after losing a belt, how do we explain that to his family--or a jury? We did it so we could make more money?
It's not all that hypothetical, Lewis. The word is the lawyers are already poking around, although the topic is not H&N restraints.
12-22-2005, 07:52 PM
#306
Originally Posted by gbaker
Is
If we sold it to a driver who was injured after losing a belt, how do we explain that to his family--or a jury? We did it so we could make more money?
It's not all that hypothetical, Lewis. The word is the lawyers are already poking around, although the topic is not H&N restraints.
If we sold it to a driver who was injured after losing a belt, how do we explain that to his family--or a jury? We did it so we could make more money?
It's not all that hypothetical, Lewis. The word is the lawyers are already poking around, although the topic is not H&N restraints.
I am not sure I buy this at all. I'm not an engineer but I do not see why you cannot make the ISAAC anchor with the out board end open. In fact then the belts could slide out and comply with 38.1 but may dump just like HANS. In fact you could have the end open say 50% more than the width of the belt and make " L" shapped ends so that the belt could only dump if it get squarely in the middle...a rare occurence during an impact. This may comply with the letter of 38.1 but not so much practically yet still have the old QR release pins as the primary release mode. You would avoid most belt dumping too. When the lawyers ask why you don't have it changed it is because smart guys who craft 38.1 have other reasons for single point release and you are not privillaged to that information. ISSAC device is designed to comply with the "standard in the industry" 38.1. Nobody looses lawsuits if they practice to the standard of care. Ask any doctor... Now if your device can pass the sled tests I don't see any problem. You are a better engineer than I what do you say about a not so passive, passive single point release? 38.1 says nothing about how fast you have to get that single point release. It will be slower than HANS avoid belt dumping and still have fast release the original way.
12-22-2005, 09:30 PM
#307
Race Director
FBB,
I think this is the variation of the ISAAC Gregg talked about. Obviously I am not sure of the details of this design, but clearly what they did try failed to satisfy their expectations and apparently they are at a loss as to meeting both SFI38.1 release rules and their own performance expectations.
Sadly this IS the reason I got a HANS. I know Gregg was trying something, but it seems to come up short and they seemed to have no way to make it SFI compliant. So rather than wait around for ISAAC to try again and possible still come up SFI shy, I got the HANS. I just finished my first weekend with the HANS and really won't drive my car without it anymore. Thankfully I did not need to test it and hope I never need to, but I have no idea what I would do to my family if one day at the track I needed and instead of the HANS I was "waiting on the SFI ISAAC". Nope I feel safer with the HANS than waiting for an SFI ISAAC. Sure I could just have gotten the ISAAC, but maybe in July NASA says you MUST have and SFI38.1 device. I am screwed out of $900. I can't afford that. So I got the HANS and am done with it. The HANS may not be perfect, but it is legal and will get the job done.
I think this is the variation of the ISAAC Gregg talked about. Obviously I am not sure of the details of this design, but clearly what they did try failed to satisfy their expectations and apparently they are at a loss as to meeting both SFI38.1 release rules and their own performance expectations.
Sadly this IS the reason I got a HANS. I know Gregg was trying something, but it seems to come up short and they seemed to have no way to make it SFI compliant. So rather than wait around for ISAAC to try again and possible still come up SFI shy, I got the HANS. I just finished my first weekend with the HANS and really won't drive my car without it anymore. Thankfully I did not need to test it and hope I never need to, but I have no idea what I would do to my family if one day at the track I needed and instead of the HANS I was "waiting on the SFI ISAAC". Nope I feel safer with the HANS than waiting for an SFI ISAAC. Sure I could just have gotten the ISAAC, but maybe in July NASA says you MUST have and SFI38.1 device. I am screwed out of $900. I can't afford that. So I got the HANS and am done with it. The HANS may not be perfect, but it is legal and will get the job done.
12-23-2005, 01:02 AM
#308
Race Director
Originally Posted by Larry Herman
That is the essence of this debate. With the H&N devices, the obvious difference in look and function is what fuels the controversy.
With helmets, everyone assumes that because the look is similar, the protection is the same. That is patently untrue, as I read a helmet test that compared cheap and expensive full face helmets to see if there was a difference. There was, but not what you might think. And each helmet did have differing amounts of protection in different scenarios. They all passed Snell certification, but some with a lot more room to spare than others.
With helmets, everyone assumes that because the look is similar, the protection is the same. That is patently untrue, as I read a helmet test that compared cheap and expensive full face helmets to see if there was a difference. There was, but not what you might think. And each helmet did have differing amounts of protection in different scenarios. They all passed Snell certification, but some with a lot more room to spare than others.
12-23-2005, 08:10 AM
#309
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gbaker
Is there any doubt who will prevail if someone can demonstrate that Exhibit B is better? Along a similar vein...
Not mentioned in this thread (I think) is the fact that we ended up where we are after testing and rejecting an "SFI version" of the Isaac system. It complied with section 2.5 and worked great on the WSU sled, which has a real seat. It did not test well at Delphi, but could have been modified to work "OK". The problem was that it did not capture the belt so it did not hold the belt on the shoulder. In short, it was SFI compliant, but inferior.
If we sold it to a driver who was injured after losing a belt, how do we explain that to his family--or a jury? We did it so we could make more money?
It's not all that hypothetical, Lewis. The word is the lawyers are already poking around, although the topic is not H&N restraints.
Not mentioned in this thread (I think) is the fact that we ended up where we are after testing and rejecting an "SFI version" of the Isaac system. It complied with section 2.5 and worked great on the WSU sled, which has a real seat. It did not test well at Delphi, but could have been modified to work "OK". The problem was that it did not capture the belt so it did not hold the belt on the shoulder. In short, it was SFI compliant, but inferior.
If we sold it to a driver who was injured after losing a belt, how do we explain that to his family--or a jury? We did it so we could make more money?
It's not all that hypothetical, Lewis. The word is the lawyers are already poking around, although the topic is not H&N restraints.
This discussion, which is very good academically, is silly practically. I can't see how any driver would use a product to protect their neck that doesn't meet the minimum standard of a recognized and accepted body. I know from my standpoint that I know far less than the folks that set up and maintain SFI.
12-23-2005, 08:36 AM
#310
Super Moderator
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by M758
The HANS may not be perfect, but it is legal and will get the job done.
12-23-2005, 08:39 AM
#311
Super Moderator
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by mitch236
This discussion, which is very good academically, is silly practically.
Originally Posted by mitch236
I can't see how any driver would use a product to protect their neck that doesn't meet the minimum standard of a recognized and accepted body. I know from my standpoint that I know far less than the folks that set up and maintain SFI.
12-23-2005, 08:43 AM
#312
Super Moderator
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
This thread now apparently ranks #3 in the DE forum (over the past year) for # of views (up from #5 only a few pages ago):
#1: open letter Posted by: GhettoRacer 27,112
#2: Fatality at WGI DE this weekend Posted by: ltc 25,728
#3: H&N restraints - need opinions Posted by: Z-man 6,231
#4: a lap around Sebring in the GT3rs *vid* Posted by: kingleh 5,993
#5: Putnam Park Recap And PSM/ABS Disconnection Posted by: ColorChange 5,803
#6: Adios Posted by: ColorChange 4,234
#1: open letter Posted by: GhettoRacer 27,112
#2: Fatality at WGI DE this weekend Posted by: ltc 25,728
#3: H&N restraints - need opinions Posted by: Z-man 6,231
#4: a lap around Sebring in the GT3rs *vid* Posted by: kingleh 5,993
#5: Putnam Park Recap And PSM/ABS Disconnection Posted by: ColorChange 5,803
#6: Adios Posted by: ColorChange 4,234
12-23-2005, 09:24 AM
#313
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ltc
I don't agree that from a practicality standpoint, it is silly. As John (Redlineman) has stated previously (and I'm paraphrasing), this is an excellent opportunity for education and discussion on the practical (driver centric) level.
Originally Posted by ltc
How about an SFI/FIA approved foam neck brace that almost all of us wore at one time?
12-23-2005, 09:35 AM
#314
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ltc
This thread now apparently ranks #3 in the DE forum (over the past year) for # of views (up from #5 only a few pages ago):
#1: open letter Posted by: GhettoRacer 27,112
#2: Fatality at WGI DE this weekend Posted by: ltc 25,728
#3: H&N restraints - need opinions Posted by: Z-man 6,231
#4: a lap around Sebring in the GT3rs *vid* Posted by: kingleh 5,993
#5: Putnam Park Recap And PSM/ABS Disconnection Posted by: ColorChange 5,803
#6: Adios Posted by: ColorChange 4,234
#1: open letter Posted by: GhettoRacer 27,112
#2: Fatality at WGI DE this weekend Posted by: ltc 25,728
#3: H&N restraints - need opinions Posted by: Z-man 6,231
#4: a lap around Sebring in the GT3rs *vid* Posted by: kingleh 5,993
#5: Putnam Park Recap And PSM/ABS Disconnection Posted by: ColorChange 5,803
#6: Adios Posted by: ColorChange 4,234
If I recall correctly, much of the WGI thread also addressed H&N systems so if you want to see what topic is most on the mind of us racers, its there to see.
Hopefully, the pros are also as interested in safety (which I think they are) and we are entering an era of development.
Looks like Tim is being bumped down the order. He needs to return to at least entertain us and perhaps, enlighten us somewhat.
Tim can be found here!!!
12-23-2005, 10:19 AM
#315
Super Moderator
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
