Larry Herman

George, I'll give you the info for that test IF I can find it again. I cannot remember if it was a test of SA helmets or Motorcycle, though I think it was for the bikes. What it found was that the hardness of the shell and the density of the inner foam did make a difference. Some helmets had slightly softer foam, and so they performed better (vis a vie brain cushioning) in lower impact tests, while they did worst in higher impact tests. It also found that some lower priced fiberglass helmets did very well. All helmets met and exceeded Snell guidelines. That was the essence of the test, although they did name names, so that you could compare models of helmets.

Alan C.

Here is one helmet test site that I found interesting, though a bit long. It is geared to motorcycles but still worth a read. Near the end Snell responds to the findings.

Larry Herman

Thanks Alan, thats the one!

Geo

Awesome! Thanks guys.

Just litke with H&N restraints I thinik it behooves us all to understand the trade-offs (they are always there) and then make our own decisions how we accept the trade-offs.

Geo

While this is going to sound crazy, I wouldn't necessary bank on that. I think it is important for every racer and tracker to understand just how and why SFI is set up and how they operate. In theory you would expect SFI to have a body of people who independently consider the latest science and data to make the most up to date and informed standards, conducted using the latest appropriate testing techniques.

Having done a bunch of this research when the 2 year belt rule came out, I was shocked at what I found. SFI is run by and for the manufacturers. I could not find any real info on how they conduct their research and determine standards (see the Snell Memorial Foundation site for a contrast). Personally, I think SFI is made up of a bunch of greedy little bastards whose purpose in life is to sell product and successfully defend law suits. Cynical? Perhaps, but I try very hard not to be a cynical person.

Just to give you an idea of how lame SFI is (or at least can be), their test for belts is a static test hanging weight off it. THEY REQUIRE ZERO DYNAMIC TESTING OF BELTS. I know this because I wrote to SFI and requested a copy of their latest specs and testing procedures. OK, this doesn't relate directly to H&N restraints, but the point is, don't assume that SFI is at the forefront of anything.

As I have said before, need a group to set independent standards and conduct testing. Snell may not be perfect, but they are independent, I know exactly how they test, THEY do the testing. I trust Snell. I'd love to see HR.org create an independent body to test and certify H&N restraints. I'd love to see another independent body do the same for other safety gear. Shoot, who here believes there is any good reason to require window nets be replaced every 2 years other than to sell more nets?

OK, rant off. Santa is coming and I've got to be good (for a change).

gbaker

I agree, but we're talking about a product that exceeds those standards, yet the driver is not allowed to use it.

Jurors (and I've been one) will consider standard of care, but as only one factor. If they learn that sanctioning bodies are hiding behind SFI's skirt while not allowing a tested, superior product they will "send a mesage", especially if they smell money in the mix.

Joe P. is a good example. He wants to use an Isaac. He has egress concerns with his HANS. If, heaven forbid, the worse happens with his HANS device what will PCA tell the jury? "Yeah, we knew the Isaac was better but none of the other bodies were using it."? It won't wash.

The irony here is that sanctioning bodies have historically believed SFI to be a safe haven. I'm not sure they realize that's changed.

RedlineMan

Of course, you have said that you value the discussion, as I think most of us do. That can likely be judged by the depth, breadth, and popularity of it. However, I disagree about who is and is not qualified to make judgements. If you mean do we have the knowledge to actually design a product or decipher its intricacies, then I agree. But if you mean make judgements on how things work and why, I disagree.

I feel completely qualified to make such judgements. Further, I seek the counsel of those who DO design this stuff to proof my theorizing, and they agree. NO matter if I can barely add 2+2, there is still room for sound seat-of-the-pants and instinct is scientific endeavor.

Study and learn, that's what smart consumers do. They study all the apsects of whatever and make the best informed decision they can. I don't think they NEED to know complex differential analyisis to make such judgements. When it comes to something this important, a lot of us thinking enthusiasts really put a LOT into it.

I did not buy a HANS device because freaking NASCAR uses it. I bought one because they had the most miles on them at the time. I don't regret it, but to be honest I'm not sure I would do the same thing today because I know so much more.

Actually, there is one on the market that probably doesn't do too much MORE than a collar!

gbaker

I'll take an open-minded garage mechanic anyday over some geeked-out gearhead.

When it comes to biomechanics, all load is bad and should be minimized. It's not that tricky.

Z-man

I am curious to know which H&N you are referring to... (PM me if you don't want to state it publically... )

Thanks,
-Z.

mitch236

This is the problem I have with your assessment. i am not convinced that your product exceeds SFI to any greater degree than the HANS. Yes, you have that impressive video showing a single test but that and alot of supposition seems to be it. I don't think that proves superiority.

Let's leave lawyers and juries out of this discussion. I don't think that should sway anybody's opinion.

It's interesting about the knowledge thing. I remember when airbags first made their appearance. They actually injured people because they deployed too powerfully. That is the kind of information that can only be gleened by experience.

kurt M

The airbags that injured some saved many including most of those that were injured. People tend to focus on what did happen and forget to think of what might have happened. All things can be improved upon and improvements don't disprove or reduce the items earler worth. I know of a woman that had a hard hit into the back of another car. After walking away from a totaled car she complaned that her nose was sore and her glasses were bent. Go figure.

mitch236

I couldn't agree more, I was just pointing out that even the best plans can show weaknesses when put out in the real world.

mitch236

As a followup to my previous post, what I was trying to point out is that the reason we see the flaws of the HANS is because it has the most real world tests.

RedlineMan

Quite True!

If we saw a product that was less than fully developed, do not blame the car companies. Blame the self righteous safety zealots for cramming an idea down their throats, creating a hue & cry, and forcing the manufacturers to put out a product that was a bit green around the edges.

They bitched to get it out there, then bithced when it was not perfect. That seems to fall into the "go figure" category for sure.

RedlineMan

Hmmm...

- I think you would agree the numbers associated with this test were probably quite indicative of the success Isaac is claiming, at least relative to the HANS, and in that particular situation. Even without the numbers, it is fairly safe to guess that the Isaac performed just a bit better than the HANS, even if the HANS numbers fell within a "surviveable" range.

- To the extent that the "park bench" used in the SFI test is representative of anything we might experience in the real world, I'd like to know the frequency of the HANS dumping? Further, if it were not to dump on any occasion, what were its numbers then?

- How representative would that "church pew" be? It might indeed approximate a stock seat. How much of a difference would a generic wing seat have made? Full containment?

After this test, I still think there are more questions than answers. Maybe THAT is what you are feeling?