bnewport

It's two clicks for the R3 also. One pull to release the helmet although you can try not doing this and another to release the harness. Getting in and out of the car with the R3 clipped to the helmet is hard in my opinion. I always attach the tether when seated and the belts are on. Hans should be the same although the Hans will flop about on you while an R3 won't givens it's strapped to you.

Billy
http://www.trackpedia.com

ltc

No more dangerous than wearing a HANS in an impact if/when the belts slip off the device.

sjanes

The R3 is the easiest to move to a students car since it attaches to body. The Isaac (which I have) requires a harness, and takes about 20-30 seconds to install. The hans would only work if the passenger seat/harness of the students car were setup properly for a Hans device.

Geo

That's not what I said. I said that F1 (FIA) does not. I don't know about other sanctioning bodies.

kary993

Gregg,
Many clubs at the moment ( or have already done so ) are evaluating H&N rules for 2006 and 2007. Most are struggling with how to write the rule. For example, any head and neck device on the market or a head and neck device that meets some sort of standard. Most that I have seen are following a standard while I have heard but not seen some clubs that are thinking about mandating a specific device. This is a serious mistake for reasons I mentioned in this and other threads. So I think the real issue for clubs is how to write the policy for H&N. They seem to be following the SFI rating because they do not have any other standard of measure.

While I do not agree with this and find the Isaac to work very well in all conditions, even practicing getting out of the car, I think the standard needs to be changed or a standard for the recreational driver needs to be had because the pro specifications are difficult and do not suit the common driver. I noticed that the tests were developed based upon a known G load of a specific incident. This seems extreme since in F1 I think there was a higher G load incident so why not use an even higher one? My point being that we cannot protect against all possibilities but something reasonable will save lives and be effective for most if not all.

Alan C.

I decided to go ahead with Hans since it looks like that is the way the wind is blowing. However, there are certain things I like better about the Isaac.

After I received the Hans I decided to put it to a limited visibility test. I got in the car in my garage and buckled in. I then had the lights turned off and practiced exiting the car in the dark, bad smoke situation. It's easy to release the belts from the Hans. Getting the Hans off the helmet is not as easy. Exiting the car with the Hans on was problematic. The back of the Hans hung a couple of times until I figured out how to place my body on exit. What bothers me is what happens when the situation is truly critical.

ltc

I would imagine H&D would never let this happen, as currently they are the Microsoft of the H&N world.....ISAAC is Linux.

The only people who get hurt in this mess is the individual driver/owner, basically an innocent bystander in a marketing/financial/legal battle.

As stated previously, the fear of litigation will force clubs and sanctioning bodies to follow whatever standard seems to be the best form of CYA.
I still do not understand why an individual simply can't take personal responsibility for his personal safety devices/choices, especially since his decisions will affect no one else (on track) other than himself...

Also, where does it stop? Mandated H&N restraints, mandated harness manufacturer/type, mandated seats, mandated suits, basically mandated whatever wears the correct 'certification logo'.

I must admit, the whole evolution of the H&N 'business' has been fascinating to watch since Daytona 2001; although I must admit it has been extremely predictable.

38D

I had also been considering the Isaac for some time, but just finally got the HANS. I did't want to own a $100 doorstop if PCA puts in a 38.1 rule.

4master

I still don't understand why any organization, especially an amatuer based one, would want to specify a specific H&N restraint as required equipment to race. I'm no lawyer but it seems that instead of CYA, it just opens that organization to litigation in the case of injury or fatality with the argument being that the required unit did not prevent the injury or fatality when perhaps another could.

It was said earlier that there should/must be a certain level of personal responsibility involved when it comes to safety equipment. Once past the cage, belts, helmet, suit, etc... what the driver wears or does not wear should be left to the driver.

There will never be a guarantee against injury or death in auto racing, regardless of the safety equipment used. If you are participating in track events (DE or race), a driver needs to be aware of that and make the decision whether to participate or not.

I will be PO'd if PCA makes one H&N restraint mandatory over another. I have heard of some of the other organizations doing just that and I believe that is a mistake. Besides, how could PCA (for instance) require the use of a H&N restraint when they still allow cars in stock class to run with a roll bar and not a full cage (sorry, that's another thread).

I have the Isaac and am thrilled with it. It works for me. You should be allowed to use/not use whatever you want.

See you in Sebring.

Scott Foremaster/1985.5 I class 944/#909/Partridge Family Racing

gbaker

Good point. I was being overly general and should have made a distinction--although several posters have already covered some of this territory.

First, there are two sides to the egress coin. One side involves the conscious driver, the other side the unconscious driver. In the case of the conscious driver you are absolutely correct, i.e. assuming both the Isaac user and the HANS user are skilled in the products' use, the HANS user can disconnect slightly faster--call it a second, more or less. However, there is a big difference between getting out of the seat and getting out of the car. There are multiple documented cases, some televised, of SFI compliant (read HANS & Hutchens) devices trapping drivers in cars, burning or otherwise.

This has, to our knowledge, never happened to an Isaac user. Going into our fourth season with a full product refund policy, we have never had an Isaac system returned because of a concern about egress. The only people who complain are people who have never used it.

So, the net result is that the Isaac user invests about a second in egress time for the guarantee that it will not trap them in the car. Is this a benefit to all drivers? Of course not. It means nothing to open cockpit drivers. They may choose an Isaac system for other reasons, but probably not this one.

Which gets us to the real question: What is the problem with giving the driver a choice? Then again, if you are going to ban a design because of egress concerns, ban the HANS device.

On the second side of the coin, dealing with extraction by professional EMT crews, see the second-to-last paragraph here.

gbaker

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, George. Sorry.

It nets to about the same, though. The biggest Gorilla outside the US is F1 and they don't care about SFI; the biggest Gorilla inside the US is NASCAR and they don't care about SFI. Both keep track of SFI specs, of course, but they don't subordinate decision making to SFI. It's just a point of reference.

The only groups that have invoked SFI as a mandate can be counted on one hand, and they are all pro/semi-pro groups that feel pressure to "do something" but don't have the inhouse capabilities necessary for an objective evaluation.

mitch236

Here's the problem as I see it and I've said it before. I think everyone who races should be required to wear a H&N device. Now, which ones does the sanctioning body endorse? That's the problem. There needs to be a minimum standard and most of the folks on the club level are not experts. They rely on the standards of the professional organizations for standards and always have. Ok, so you want to use a product that is not certified and are arguing for it but what are you using for evidence? It's very easy to say that PCA etc.. is worried about CYA when they adopt the standard but maybe they are being cautious.

Z-man

Ok - that compares Isaac with HANS. How does this compare with the ingress/egress of a driver wearing an R3 device? A Hutchins device? G-Force's SRS?

And - is creating a link to the harness release from the Isaac device so that the Isaac device would be SFI 38.1 compliant possible? If so, is something like this in the works?

-Z-man.

gbaker

Mitch,

Agreed. Well put.


Z-man,

- We are not familiar with any of those other devices in terms of egress times. It would make for an interesting study, though.
- Yes, we have looked at that, but it won't be happening soon. There is no simple way to do it.

kurt M

At least with the R3 there is nothing going front to back and around the neck. It could be released just same as the Issac by pulling the clips on the helmet or cutting the straps and then the chest strap could be released or cut. The R3 would fall away from you a HANS cut away in the same way will not. An EMT could reach in with only a web cutter and no idea of how the system or clips work and release a driver from an R3. It looks to me that if worn during an exit a HANS could be a hamper point in many exit conditions unless you release it from the helmet and then you are back to the hang up with 2 release points AND have to clear it from around your neck. (I have NO experence with any of them other than looking all 3 over and trying on a HANS) An issac can be released by pulling the clips or cutting the straps the dampers and roller remains on the helmet but from an EMT stand point does not interfere with the neck and immobilizing a driver.

I was a wreck diver for a time and anything behind you that sticks out is a catch point that is hard to deal with. You don’t see and can’t easily clear what is fouling up you movement. Your do not have “the see what is wrong and fix it fast” option. You have to reach back and feel what is going on and do things in mirror image.

What fun!