Super D

Ah well, I missed the discussion, but I've been mounting my subs anchored under/behind me and forming a cradle for a few years it turns out; even slotting my seat farther back than I'd seen--to make sure I wasn't introducing an extra variable by allowing the seat to take up belt slack and be subject to seat material compression factors before the belt would become effective on impact. It just made good sense. I'd seen that most people mounted their subs in such a way that it appeared they would slide forward a few inches before the belts would become tensioned, and they were fighting against seat materials to tighten the sub belt(s). Looking forward to seeing your "How to Correctly Mount and Position Harnesses for Maximum Safety" booklet. IMO, there are too many assumptions made, too many personal preferences imposed, and too many variables left unabated; all of these lead to drivers in danger and preventable injury scenarios. Glad to see some sharp guys looking out for those of us who prefer to "fly by the seat of our pants" only figuratively. Thank you.

mitch236

can existing 6 point systems that use a sub bar be retrofitted to the "cradle" system?

Geo

But here is the disconnect as I see it....

SFI has mandated the specific test and the pass/fail. You really wouldn't HR.org to use an SFI specified test would you?

I really think if HR.org is going to have any hope to supplant SFI in H&N restraint decisions, standards and pass/fail will need to be set.

If all it does is educate consumers, that is worthwhile in and of itself for sure, but SFI will still be the big dog.

M758

In my mind the problem is not the SFI test, but single release point wording in the SFI rules.

The ISAAC will pass the SFI testing all day long, but neither it nor the ISAAC link can ever meet the single release requirement wording in the SFI spec as currently designed.

It is that wording that is final word on why the ISAAC does not have an SFI stamp. Now this has been discussed many times here that inspite of lacking a "single release" as do the HANS and R3 (Single release implies as you pop the main harness you are "free") the ISAAC is arguably safer and easier interms of a rapid egress situtation. This is where the 800lbs Gorilla came in and "wrote the SFI spec"

gbaker

George,

I agree. If sanctioning bodies are looking for a pass/fail what you describe will be necessary, but most of them want a graduated scale. If HR.org simply compares a product's head loads to a baseline (no protection) head load and generates a percentage head load reduction (HLR), it works.

Both the Isaac system and the HANS device are producing HLRs of about 60% on the Delphi sled and about 80% at WSU, in 30 degree offset testing. If the sanctioning bodies want that much protection they can mandate only products certified by the manufacturer to meet those numbers.

The key is the sanctioning body drawing the line.

gbaker

Correct. Not only does that section of the spec have nothing to do with head loads, it turns out to be backwards. But that's another topic.

M758

Well Really I consider that to be a HUGE issue.

As you know I feel I NEED my device to have the SFI tag to be ok by my org for many years to come. So while just passing the test is good enough for me It won't get me the tag I really need to be in good standing.

So those few words sent me to the HANS. Take out those words and am sure ISAAC would have an SFI tag or be in the paper work process to get one.

So from my stand poing I would be happy with SFI 38.1 if it would dump those words. Of course now having gone down the HANS route my interest is less, but really the pressure should not be SFI yes or no, but changing the single release wording. Honestly I fully expect when sanctioning bodies require a H&N device they will require it to be approved by some recognized body. That could be Snell, FIA, or SFI or all 3. Seems that SFI has taken the lead on writing a spec even if it is flawed.

gbaker

That's not what they are telling us. Remember, they were all here in Orlando last week for PRI and we were very busy.

The number one issue for them is liability and the lawyers are advising, among other things, to avoid products having documented safety problems, especially in amateur settings. A jury doesn't know the difference between the FIA and the CIA, nor care. If they find out the sanctioning body would not let a driver use an Isaac system, forced them into a HANS device, the belt slipped off and the driver died of a head injury, things will get ugly beyond description.

No one is drinking the Kool Aid. Without exception the sanctioning bodies are looking to mandate products that are certified to meet minimum performance standards, period. They know the numbers, they know the players and they know the body count.

I understand what you are saying, but it will not end that way.

chrisp

I haven't read the entire thread so I apologize if this was discussed in the earliest pages....

The one thing that bothersome with HANS is the new four point shoulder belts that sandwich the HANS unit. It's great at retaining the driver and ensuring the HANS is retained but the way I look at it, the HANS is a big horseshoe. When I unlatch to get out in an emergency the last thing I want is the HANS to become entangled between those two straps. It's hard to explain but if you think about ways to get entangled you'll quickly realize that the four belt shoulder harness has high possibility of this.

RedlineMan

Hmmm...

I think it would definitely behoove one using the dual belt setup to also employ quick release tethers. Wonder what SFI thinks about such entrapment possibilities relative to their "one release" edict?

Super D

Whatever setup you decide upon, get QR straps, practice emergency egress and be prepared to exit the vehicle on fire with no vision. Any setup you go with has potential for challenging egress, that's what practicing is for. In between run groups on practice days, in your garage, whatever. Goal should be egress in less time than the burn rating on your suit (no explanation needed there) . A little practice can be a large factor in your safety. And, if your race shop that sets up your car didn't mention you should do this, let them know they should from now on, and maybe suggest a customer safety clinic night to cover all safety issues, this included.

chrisp

I don't own a HANS and don't plan on buying one but I second your recommedation that people practice quick egress. My point (albeit subtle) is that requiring QR latches at the helmet interface flies in the face of the SFI single point release standard. On paper the HANS is single point release but in practice it could often be a dual point release. Lastly, unless you have this as part of your regular routine, pulling the QR clips would be an unexpected extra step at a time when you don't want surprises...just efficient release from the car.

Super D

That's my point, practice eliminates surprises, unexpected extra steps, etc. Call it your own personal fire drill.

I realize we're talking about two different points here...but no matter what certification any of your safety equipment has received, if you're surprised, it means you don't have mastery over using it, and that's not a good thing. Being a safety dog I've done my job and I don't have anything to add, so now I'll get out of the way and you can get back to the certification standards, your original intention.

gbaker

Super D,

Before we get back to boring stuff like paperwork () I'd like to echo the comments about practicing rapid exits. This is a big plus for safety and costs absolutely nothing.

We have a customer who practices four exit scenarios: driver's and passenger's side with and without his fire bottle. He assumes the car is on fire so he practices each with his eyes closed while holding his breath. He has full safety gear in an SCCA IT car--including 6 pt. harness, Isaac system, window net, radio connector, etc.--and can do a "panic mode bail" out the driver's side in about 10 secs.

This is something everyone should practice occasionally, at least to the point where you don't have to think about the sequence. It becomes second nature.

mitch236

I don't mean to start a flame war, but why not?