Geo

Amen.

If SFI gains traction on this it will be sad. I can see the need for independent testing (which SFI certainly is NOT) and some sort of pass/fail, only because I'd rather not see people use hopelessly poor H&N restraints (and there certainly are enough of them). However, in additonal to a basic pass/fail I'd like to see additional grades for exceeding the minimum in certain tests, e.g.:

Pass HR.org 05,A2,B1,C3

So:

1) It passes the minimum test for the organization for the certification period.

2) For three distinct portions of the test it has ratings for how well it did in each of these. They may be head-on, side-impact, and angular-impact or some other combination, but you get the idea.

Some H&N devices will do better than other at some things but the other H&N devices might accel in other areas. This sort of rating system would accomplish two things:

1) Sanctioning bodies would be somewhat off the hook for requiring a H&N device that passes the minimum level of safety mandated.

2) Consumers could decide which trade-offs they wish to balance.

Gregg, what do you think of something like this?

Of course, this may be a bit of a pipe dream. I'll make a contribution to headrestraints.org after the first of the year however. I'd like nothing better than to take SFI out of influence in my life.

Super D

Those thoughts have crossed my mind as well. It seems to me that the more important factor than body deformation with the R3 is how tightly the driver is harnessed to the seatback. The "lever", for lack of a better term, is flush against the seatback behind the driver, and if the driver's body is allowed to move forward, the lever is not effective until the driver stops moving and all harness stretch has ceased. The strap around the front of the body isn't a big factor IMO unless the seatback isn't providing resistance against the lever. In the case of the HANS, the lever(s) are held against the drivers chest by the shoulder straps, so given the straps are tight, the time before the levers encounter load (and begin resistance) is nearly nil. But then, the driver's chest can compress some because it's not rock-solid. Okay, well, mine is, but I don't expect everyone's to be... Bwahahaha! (j/k)

Anyway, I could be totally wrong in my assumptions also. I'm just an amateur safety nut as well.

RedlineMan

Dude!!! You were supposed to call me. I thought it was Dayton?

OGRacing

Gregg: I met Chuck Russo at the PRI show and tried to find you. Sorry we didn't get a chance to meet and talk. Was that a lot nicer place to hold the PRI show then the last 15 that I have attended? I can't believe that I've been in the safety equipment business for 15 years. Time flies when you're saving lives.

To everyone that is thinking about a purchase of a Head & Neck device, get as much information as you can from reliable sources. Make your decision based on facts from independent qualified sources, and that may not be the manufacturer. Don't give information that is from an unqualified source much weight. Information which is second party or undocumented is not something that you should be using to make this decision.

These devices are designed to do a very specific job. Don't expect nor ask them to do anything other then what they are designed to do. Do not use them in a manner that they are not intended to be used in. If you are thinking about using them in a manner other then what they were designed for contact the manufacturer to see if the way that you are thinking about using the device is OK or if it may be dangerous. The misuse of the best equipment in the world could be worse then using nothing at all. Use the Head & Neck device as it was intended.

Shameless plug follows. Not required reading.



OG Racing was given 2 awards by Hubbard/Downing at the PRI show. The first was the "Most Impressive New Dealer Award 2005" for outstanding customer service, impressive sales and having a great attitude. If that wasn't enough we were also given the "Most Valuable Dealer Award 2005" for outstanding sales (sold more Hans devices then any other dealer in the country) great attitude and a commitment to HANS Performance Products.

Thank you to all the drivers and others who trusted OG Racing when it was time to make a purchase of a HANS Product.

Bill Love

RedlineMan

SuperD;

Sounds like you've been doing some like critical thinking! But... let me throw a fly in your ointment... as it were.

Fact: Your body will project away from the seat to a significant degree IN ANY EVENT, even if you had belts that would not stretch (which we don't, and perhaps should not).

There is a thing that Dr. John Melvin calls Shape Change. I've done a diagram that might help explain it.



In the background is obviously a static seated driver. The foreground shows what Dr. Melvin refers to as Shape Change, which is quite a good descriptor. The shoulder belts are like a large loop, and the body rolls and deforms under that loop (Also note the change in belt angles). The accompanying photo is of a sled test done at a measly 36mph!

This deformation of the body has been found to be a phenomenon quite apart from belt stretch. In fact, Dr. Melvin states that belt stretch - while not to be discounted - actually is responsible for only a small part of torso travel. The vast majority is from Shape Change.

Further Karl Schroth states that in any given impact, the upper torso can move between 12-18" away from the seat. Schroth has measured the effect, and Melvin has qualified the reason for this travel. Interesting.

So, apply this to your theories about how the R3 works as a lever (which I agree with), and I could theorize that this indeed may be why the R3 does not test as highly as the HANS or Isaac. Indeed, the theory of the lever against the seat does not seem to hold water if the driver moves away from said seat quite a ways. It then is down to the strap against the body, which as far as I know has been proven to be a less time efficient means of controlling head motion.

The HANS has a very unique action. Because of the friction material working against the belt, it largely stays back where the driver came from, back where he was seated in static position. Because the driver moves, but the HANS essentially does not, the slack is taken out of the tethers quite quickly, which never allow the head to project too far away from it proper position over the shoulders. Looks bizarre when you see the pics, but it works!

Isaac is the KING of rapid response time. The hydraulics take up almost instantaneously, and limit head loads more than any other device, as I am aware of it. If you can rely on the belts, and in your body not to take off too wildly, the Isaac is a speed demon!

EDIT - FWIW, My offerings on this subject are the result of studying the writings, lectures, and other published material of the people responsible for the research behind these findings, not my own surmize. If you dig and scratch and claw long enough, as I have, and have the mind to coordinate and put it all together, you can and will learn the same things!

gbaker

I love it.

The part about the driver or sanctioning body being able to assess the relative performance of different designs in different crash scenarios is the real value. Oval racing is different than road racing which is different than drag racing. To suggest that all racers are subject to the same level of risk and only one crash scenario is grossly simplistic. Granted, one must start somewhere, but a ton of safety data for these products exists and is not being used in evaluations. That will change soon.

It also puts a stop to all of this Our-product-is-the-only-one-that-works nonsense. That insults the intelligence--and potentially puts drivers in dangerous environments.

That said, I don't believe headrestraint.org will endorse any designs, or set any minimum performance level. That would create a liability problem. However, it's prefectly suited to collect and disseminate test data.

gbaker

Oops. Sorry, but this was a last minute thing. We didn't know if it would go until the day before.

Dayton, Ohio must be the smallest city in the country that actually has named suburbs.

Geo

Oh man....

I know and understand why. However.... I think the opportunity is NOW. Nobody else will step up to the plate though and if HR.org does not, I think we will be stuck with SFI.

I know it's a outside the scope of the mission that was initially settled on for HR.org, but I wonder if something can be done to set it up. It would be nice to have a independent certification for H&N restraints similar to Snell for helmets. Perhaps Snell could be talked into believing H&N restraints are so closely related to their mission that THEY should become the de-facto certifying organization if HR.org isn't interested.

gbaker

Too bad we couldn't get together. It was a great first show in Orlando.

gbaker

Snell would be great, but I doubt they want to expand in H&N restraints. Could be wrong though.

PRI was in Orlando last week and we had the occasion to meet with several sanctioning bodies. I can tell you that, without exception, they know exactly what's going on. They "get it" and no one is drinking the Kool Aid. They very much like the idea of mandating the use of a design that meets specific performance standards, with or without the SFI certification.

One approach that is gaining favor in racing circles is to treat the subject the same way certifications are treated in other critical applications, i.e. it is certified by the manufacturer to meet certain performance standards. My background is aerospace and medical so let's use a medical example:

Materials used for implants must be "FDA approved". Our choice for structural applications (hip implants, spinal constructs, etc.) is refered to in industry jargon as "64ELI", which is short for Ti-6Al-4V ELI, which is short for Titanium alloyed with 6% aluminum and 4% Vanadium extra low interstitial. There is a standard for this: ASTM F136. When we purchase this alloy the mill provides a certification that it meets ASTM F136 and supplies the chemical and mechanical testing documentation to back it up. We then send a sample to an independent testing lab which is paid by us to rerun the chemical and physical tests and confirm that it meets ASTM F136 specs.

The FDA mandates that the manufacturer produce a product that meets a performance standard, and the manufacturer has the responsibility to document that performance. The FDA doesn't certify it, the manufacturer does.

Same in aerospace. In fact, most of the real world operates this way.

What is the racing analogy? The ABC sanctioning body mandates the use of H&N restraints that are certified to meet an accepted performance standard. Who certifes them? The manufacturer (and they had damn well better be able to prove it). What standard? It could be the numbers SFI uses on the Delphi sled, or it could be the 2,000 Newton limit on the Wayne State sled. Either one would get you a design good for 70Gs+.

When you have this discussion in racing circles, lightbulbs begin to go off in peoples' heads. Sanctioning bodies like this a lot. It's a proven way to ensure standards compliance with no conflict of interest.

gbaker

For something more light-hearted, try this real time video of the Delphi sled. Too bad there is no audio.

8MB AVI file. Please right click and "save as".

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/Video/DelphiSled.avi

Geo

To a certain extent, that is how SFI is theoretically supposed to work.

The problem with SFI of course is that it's an organization that is set up by the manufacturers and supports the member manufacturers. My problem (and I'm sure yours and probably a lot of others) is that SFI has a conflict of interest due to the fact it was created by and is supported by the member manufacturers.

Perhaps HR.org could contact the sanctioning bodies to help create an independent corporation that would manage the H&N requirements and testing. This should limit manufacturer involvement to what they can best contribute (data).

Let's say someone dropped a couple million in my lap to do this. I'd set up a board consisting of people of various disiplines (drivers pro and amateur, people from the sanctioning bodies, manufacturer reps, scientists) to consider the issues and determine:

Required tests
Required passing scores on which tests
Rating system for each test

Sanctioning bodies could decide they need certain levels of rating for certain tests due to the environment of their types of racing.

In addition to setting up the board, then I'd set up independent testing. Devices would be acquired independently to ensure no ringers. Manufacturers would be invited to the tests to advice regarding the set-up of their device and to observe the tests. Whatever tests are required would be run and each device's results would be recorded and scored in that test. All tests would be paid for by the manufacturer but administered by the testing organization. Devices would be certified if they pass whatever pre-determined minimum results are requred and then graded on their actual performance in the test.

I can dream, right? But perhaps the various sanctioning bodies could be solicited to support this idea or something close.

Super D

Actually, you've just detailed why I had doubts about the R3 when a few friends brought it to my attention (because at its introduction, it was cheaper than the HANS, so they were telling me "see, this is better AND cheaper"). Before choosing the HANS over Hutchens and the Simpson version at that time, I read the SAE white papers and also spoke w/H-D and some pro racer friends, and some people who were involved w/the side HR seat testing as well (because the deeper I dug, the more evident it became that there was more crucial information to become aware of). The HANS, while not perfect, seemed to be the only device at the time that could provide consistent head motion limitation in a short distance/time (provided, of course, that belts stayed put), so I bought it.

I think the R3 actually has much potential. The challenge is to counteract the shape change you describe, the body movement and belt stretch under impact, and retain the convenience, comfort and versatility it currently offers--which are the only features that are superior selling points over HANS in my opinion, and not as important to me as the protective qualities. I'd rather be inconvenienced and live.

gbaker

George,

You are adding two things to HR.org: a pass/fail endorsement (read liability) and in-house testing (read $).

What you are describing would work of course--and has the appeal of a stand alone organization--but we are very close to this now without spending time or money. HR.org can act as a clearing house for existing test data. The only part missing is for the sanctioning bodies to get together and adopt a minimum performance level.

What you are suggesting may be preferred, but a manufacturer certified requirement can be implemented immediately.

gbaker

This is the part I don't get. The R3 has never tested better than the HANS. Not even close.