gbaker

Of the pool of non-SFI certified designs the worst injuries are three cervical spine fractures, only one of which required surgical intervention. These involved the Hutchens device, which has also had some problems with testicular injuries. We are not aware of any fatalities among non-SFI certified designs.

Among SFI certified designs we are aware of several rumors and one well documented case of a HANS driver having died of head injuries when the belts slipped off.

There is more information out there, of course, but this is what we are aware of.

mitch236

So your statistics are based on one fatality in total? And that fatality was documented as being attributed to the belts slipping off which raises the question about whether it was properly installed. Even if the death was attributed to a failure of the device (and not the installation), one death is not statistically significant.

I agree that we need more information but I don't see headrestraint.org as doing that. Money is needed to test these devices properly and that money will come from professional racing. For me, the fact that what I see in F1 and NASCAR is HANS means alot. Maybe other forms of H&N will start showing up in the pro ranks. Maybe the professionals will form the committie that does the testing. But until there is more scientific data to determine which devices work and how well they work, my head will be restrained by the device that the pros use.

Geo

Gregg, you missed my point. It's not Isaac vs. HANS. It's the fact that Snell will only stand behind a cert on a helmet as tested. They have already come out and stated that. So drill holes, glue things to them, etc. and it's not the same. My other point is that this is all moot because ALL of the pros paint and attach stuff to their helmets. Snell's response is purely CYA because nobody is going to tell Michael Schumacher he can't race with his helmet because it's been painted and had stuff attached that wasn't there when the helmet was tested.

Geo

That would be headrestraint.org

While Gregg was helpful in setting this up, it came as a result of drivers dissatisfied with SFI AND it is independent. Gregg is just supporting this effort because it's worthwhile.

Geo

Unless of course you are the one.

As it stands right now, headrestraint.org is not what we want. But it's a first step in the right direction - an independent organization helping people evaluate H&N restraints. Money for testing ultimately will NOT from from racing series although it did for a while after some very well publicized deaths. But, as with Snell and SFI, testing is and should be paid for by the manufacturers.

What would be very cool is if headrestraint.org could grow to the point of being the important certifying organization like Snell is with helmets. The major problem with SFI is that it's a company by and for the manufacturers. It is NOT independent.

gbaker

Safety products should work every time. A risky safety product is an oxymoron.

You are free to use any product you wish--unless you are a pro.

gbaker

Nah, I heard you George. I just tend to get annoyed whenever people try to stuff a new idea into an old set of rules.

"Gee, I don't know guys. Sure, it burns bright, doesn't smoke, never has to be refilled and can't cause a fire, but it doesn't meet the specs laid down by the kerosene lamp committee." - Thomas Edison (Just kidding.)

M758

I am an Engineer too. I have been watching the Head and Neck device evolution for a few years now. From and Engineering Stand point I have always liked the ISAAC. Do a search on my posts over the past couple years and you will see this.

The reason I got the HANS instead is due to the SFI. Sadly for the forseeable future my main Sanctioning body is tied to SFI. It is very likely that by some time next year they will requiring a H&N Device. They have told me in very legal type terms that the H&N device will need to be SFI38.1 approved. Why?
Well to prevent "homemade" devices. Now I don't consider ISAAC to be homemade, but once everyone is required to have something then some cheap idiots WILL try to make a H&N device at home and most likely is a POS.

It just is the way people do things. So it seems clear that there MUST be some recognized standard that these devices must meet.


So the SFI comes along with the 38.1 spec. Nice idea, but clearly it is a flawed spec. So a device that passes the 38.1 is not perfect, but a very good device should pass it. The notable exception is the ISAAC. This of course has nothing to do with test results, but other things. It is similar to the rules staying your lights must be kerosene powered. Yep leaves no room for the electric light bulb.

Now with all this floating around you would think the clear solution is for ISAAC to push like mad on the SFI to adjust their spec or to revise the ISAAC. This were I have been waiting for months. I have been hoping to see some evidence that the original ISAAC might by SFI certed or that revised version is created. Sadly I have not seen sufficent evidence to convince me and have been seeing more and more telling me to get SOMETHING sooner rather that later.


So... while can wait around for the SFI ISAAC or hope my org does not require SFI cert all for the ISAAC, I can also just buy the HANS and be done with it.

Sure it may be more of a pain to install, wear, and even get out of the car, but while it may not be "perfect" there is enough use of it to show that it a very good device and just may save my neck in crash.

I still think this ISAAC vs HANS thing is similar to VHS vs Beta in the early 80's.

Everything we hear says Beta was simply a better system. However VHS for what ever reason won out. If you have a Beta VCR it is now just a nice archive piece. Sadly unless the ISAAC gets SFI certed I think it will go the way of Beta. May be better, but if you have no place to use it...


BTW... NO it is not FAIR nor RIGHT or ISAAC to get the SFI shaft. However there are plenty of things in this world that are not FAIR.

gbaker

I believe it will go the way of Snell, i.e. completely separate from SFI, probably via something like headrestraint.org.

Do you know that SFI certifies helmets? Do you care? Does your sanctioning body care? Of course not. Markets resist monopolies. Nothing good comes of them.

DJF1

So let me understand something. I thought that it was a money issue for the ISAAC to get certified, something like 10K to do the test? Is this the issue or SFI simply refuses to test it? If its the later why is it so?

gbaker

Danny,

It has nothing to do with money. In fact, we've already paid for and passed the "SFI" test--with flying colors I might add. Probably set a world's record in head load reduction.

We've been written out of the spec.

The specs are written to support SFI member manufacturers. HANS is a member and we are not.

ltc

Enter the 800# gorilla..........

DJF1

Pardon me for my ignorance and thank you for the answer. Can you please elaborate on the fact that you were written out of spec? In what way? What is out of spec on the ISAAC????
I know I'm missing a lot here and yes I know about the #800 gorilla

gbaker

Section 2.5 of SFI Specification 38.1 applies only to Isaac systems, and it is the only section in 38.1 that relates to design rather than performance. It states that the design must not require any additional disconnect for release.

While presented as a "safety" issue regarding emergency egress, it is actually an old wives tale left over from the last millennium. We decided against this years ago. The fact is that the only H&N restraints that have ever trapped drivers in cars are those that meet Section 2.5.

(We have done extensive testing on this subject over the past year. The results will be available soon.)

This is the only reason Isaac systems are not SFI certified. It has nothing to do with crash sled performance, where, BTW, we kick massive quantities of posterior.

RedlineMan

Go, Gregg!

Let the truth be heard far and wide.