Geo

Anybody who doesn't care for this discussion shouldn't be racing. What we are discussing is quite simply life and death. The discussion needs to be frank here.

David K.

FYI

I was able to get the latest R3 brochure, take a look.

http://members.rennlist.com/davidk/lft1.jpg
http://members.rennlist.com/davidk/lft2%20charts.jpg
http://members.rennlist.com/davidk/lft3pdf.jpg
http://members.rennlist.com/davidk/lft4.jpg

The side impact test is a real eye opener.

David

hatchback

Definitely get the HANS. It's the only H&N restraint that has been tested to death by everyone and their mother and it has passed all the tests. Every racing organization with money to burn including Formula 1 has chosen the HANS. The ISAAC has a good story on their web site but it is a low budget operation with the same guy talking up his own product on every bulletin board and there are no independent tests that I'm aware of. Safety is about risk minimization, and it would be foolish for a non-expert to pick anything other than the HANS.

Geo

Wow.

Just for the sake of disclosure, I am a HANS owner. I bought it at Hubbard-Downing when I was in Atlanta last year. I bought it over the Isaac for my own reasons. Hey, it's literally my neck on the line so I'm entitled to make the decision for any reason I'd like. That said...

I've met Gregg Baker. He's a stand-up guy and I chafe at the portrayal above. Gregg may be getting the word out about his product, but he's also available to everyone and as far as I've ever seen, he's patiently answered everyone's questions and has never lied to or snowed anyone that I've ever seen. He's also getting the word out about H&N restraints in general as well as specifically. Even better, he is out there at amateur events and taking care of his drivers. At the SCCA ARRC last year I saw Gregg give his clients the latest brand new components. Free. No fanfare.

As for low budget, you don't know that. Besides, ol' Doc Porsche started out building rather pedestrian cars for Der Furher. I assume you think highly of his later products.

Gregg has been a splendid contributor here longer than you have. I'd suggest being careful how you choose to portray him.

Super D

What are you referring to? Did someone dis gbaker?

Geo

Post 78 sure looked like it to me.

38D

100% agree. I still need to make my H&N purchase decision, but I really appreciate the info that Gregg posts.

RedlineMan

Very Diplomatically put, Geo;

Are you feeling OK?

OK Hatchback. You obviously have your own axe to grind. I don't know what your goal is, but you are an army of one here. Maybe you have a good reason? Maybe you have good info? Until we see otherwise, it's just smoke. Gregg is not smoke here. He's the fan, blowing surprisingly unbiased and even-handed info out for everyone to benefit from. Nowhere else can we in the enthusiast community get so close to this info.

I would be interested in hearing your story, privately if need be, so I can make an informed decision. Smokes need to be outed for the benfit of all, no matter WHO they are. What else do YOU have to offer us, whomever YOU are?

David K.

OK, let's see a chart like this from Mr. Baker!

http://members.rennlist.com/davidk/lft2%20charts.jpg

RedlineMan

All;

It has been shown in testing, by both Schroth & Dr. Melvin, that shape change is universal, and responsible for most of the body motion you see in crash tests. Dr. Melvin has discovered that at least one key to limiting Shape Change is hip control. The best way known at this point to control that is a 6-point harness arranged in some form of cradle layout. By stopping hip motion as early as possible, shape change has been shown to be minimized greatly.

As I have mentioned many times, and everyone involved with this professionally would surely concur, the key factor in load reduction is time. Unlike the old paradigm of controlling motion slowly and gradually, it has been discovered that this is absolutely backwards. Reducing the length of time objects are in motion reduces kinetic energy and load. Dr. Melvin reports that he has measured as much as a 50% reduction is chest loading using a cradle type sub arrangement -vs- a single sub. What is even more shocking and fascinating to me is that he also reports up to a 15% reduction in NECK LOAD in the same situations!

Same hit. Same setup. Change the Sub. Bam... >50/15% reductions in loads. This proves the validity of the full containment model, and the worth of cradle subs, to me. It has been clearly demonstrated that the body can take abuse to quite a savage degree. Stop body movement quickly, and reduce the load substantially. Then, all you need to do is manage that most critical, tiny junction of neck-to-head, and you stand a good chance.

sjanes

Do you mean like this one: http://www.isaacdirect.com/html/chart.html

RedlineMan

Hmmm...

I can't read the chart because it comes into my screen too small. Have they posted this to their website yet? If so, then that might be the first "useful" info I've found there.

IF Isaac had the opportunity to participate in an SFI test - to the extent that this test is valid (which is a bone of serious contention, apparently) - then I too would like to see the numbers.

Because someone has not... or cannot post such info does not render them smoke. Only if they have it and DO not, or WILL not submit to equal testing. It is my experience that Isaac is not prone to rope-a-dope (like some in this game), but more likely to say "bring it on."

Whatever the case, further proof that independant multi-disciplinary testing is sorely needed. The truth will never be known otherwise.

RedlineMan

Hmmmm...

DavidK and SJanes have unwittingly highlighted the problem here. Great numbers from both manufacturers in the charts they publish. Unfrotunately, the tests are not the same.

Parsing info by picking and choosing results to divulge is NOT helpful to us.

David K.

Not really, that only show a 45G test.

The R3 charts are at 70G, as required by SFI 38.1.

sjanes

Oh yeah, missed that.