SundayDriver

Interesting install but I am getting more confused. As I recalled, Schroth was very specific about both belts mounting on the save vertical axis - requiring two levels of bar to mount to. I went to their site and can find any of the mounting instructions but looked at the new double belt where the hans belt is sewed to the main shoulder belt. That one looks very interesting as it seems that it does not require additional mount points. Does your mount match their instructions or did you improvise?

fatbillybob

I believe I have followed the instructions as best as I interpret words and the few pictures given in the FIA/HANS 2005 bulliten. They are not specific of how you achieve but are specific on how you mount the hans belt above the body belt. You can use two bars or a plate with two cutouts or in my case iI did one 1 3/4" bar with hand mounted on top of the bar and body mounted below on D rings which gave me the correct angles and spacing as best I could determine. HMS saw my set-up and was O.K. with it eventhough I had hans belt slipping issues in early on use that appear to be unrelated to how my belts are connected to the harness bar.

SundayDriver

Cool, though that does not help me. My mount is a round bar that is pretty narrow.

BTW - I used the two bar adjuster. It is really sweet as it sits almost flush with the bar so there is no interference. I also bought from Joe at HMS - he really knows his stuff.

ltc

That is probably the single most disturbing statement I've yet seen regarding the HANS.

fatbillybob

I don't think it is all that disturbing. people use all kinds of compromised things in their cars. Dual use cars rarely are as safe in set-up as race cars. Lots of guys have bolt in cages. many have seats mounted to the floors vs roll cages. Many have no sidenets. The list goes on. The "safest" is a moving target relative to one's level of compromise.

fatbillybob

Well if you had the fore aft clearance you could weld a plate onto the narrow bar. The plate would be at the right vertical spacing and right hortizontal spacing for the 2x belts. Joe could show you a design and Scroth has one on their website somewhere.

kurt M

Print that out and keep it. This is what I deal with in DE all the time. From DE to Club Race to Pro setups there is compromise.

I am surprised that the 4 belt system can be setup with the belt sets out of vertical alignment with each other. From what I recall in the European style pictorial instructions that came with a set I worked with they were to be mounted one above the other with a set vertical gap. Was there a change or am I remembering things wrong? (the latter is entirely posable)

ltc

Sorry, but I still have to disagree.

Compromises in a purpose built vs dual purpose car aside for the moment, if the (co)inventor of a device says that if he were racing, he would wear the dual belt system, even though he/his company says for everyone else that the 3" single belt (with or without wings.....that's another story) is OK to use, then, strictly from an engineering point of view, I see a problem.

Substitute single/dual layer body armor (or vests) for single/dual belts and ask yourself which you would prefer wearing.
Bill Simpson would set himself on fire to prove that his suit worked, the same suit that he would sell you.

Again, sorry to disagree, but I guess I'm just overly sensitive to things like this....occupational hazard I'm afraid. IMHO, the business of the HANS device has gone a seperate way from the development of the HANS device.

fatbillybob

The most current data I have is the 2005 FIA/HANS install guide in a pdf file. If you would like it I can email to you. I do not know how to post it here. There is probably a new way to mount the belts but I am not aware of it.

fatbillybob

Sure I see your point but you are still biasing your personal compromise. The military guy who has to walk around in Iraq is using the heavy body armour. The cop in South LA is wearing the light armour and experiencing the similar bullet dynamics. The difference is the compromises they make for other aspects of their job they need to do too. Lets say you have 1.5"x 0.95wall DOM tube for your cage. 1.75 x 0.120wall is only a little bit heavier per foot and definately stronger as is 2" etc... So when do you stop?

gbaker

Good design does not require compromise, it minimizes it. Great design eliminates it.

SundayDriver

FWIW, I agree. Safety always seems to involve compromise. If I choose to wear a HANS, Isaac or R3, in most cases it will help me survive. But there is that oddball accident where the device would kill me and that I would survive without it. I wear belts, but there can be a crash where getting thrown from the car would save my life, but 999/1000+ times, it will save my life. I can continue to add safety and weight until my car is not competitive, etc, etc. There are always trade-offs.

As far as the comment on the double belts, how can anyone call that damaging or not, without knowing exactly what was said and in what context. It is too easy to read whatever we want to hear into such statements.

ltc

SD,
I am not trying to read into something in order to hear what I want.
FWIW, I bought an ISAAC and a HANS, simply because I was intrigued by the papers I had read and wanted to make a personal comparison. I'll likely buy the Leatt brace as well and see what it is like.

I was merely taking 'fatbillybob' at his word when he said:
"A couple yrs ago I was at a seminar with Dr. Hubbard and he said if he raced he would use the 2x shoulder strap eventhough hans position is 3" is all you need and was the hans reccomended set-up at the time. For that reason alone I have stuck with these 2x shoulders"
Clearly, these words had an impact on 'fatbillybob', as he chose to go with the double shoulder belt setup.

When you are designing man rated/mission critical items, before you send someone out, the key question is always "would you strap yourself in?"
This is a fundamental guiding tenet to designing such things. If you answer no, then you haven't done your job to the full extent necessary.

With regards to Dr Hubbard, the question is simple:
"Why would you CHOSE not to run a single shoulder strap attachment?"
It's your (man rated) device, why do you not feel comfortable using it in the manner you recommend to the end user?

Again, I have no vested interest in any H&N restraint, but I am a bit disappointed at the path that H&D has chosen to follow in the marketing of the HANS and the influence in the H&N restraint market.
IMHO, the HANS has a fundamental/operational achilles heel, based on simple mechanics; the belt/HANS interface in a lateral impact. It's like trying to squeeze your hands tight enough to prevent someone from pulling a piece of paper out from between them. You simply can't strap in tight enough to keep the HANS under the belts. PERIOD. Once the HANS is freed from the belts, its usefulness is highly suspect, especially in a secondary/tertiary impact scenario (impact with other cars or barriers post primary impact)

IMHO, this is why there has been such flip flopping on the recommendations, wings vs no wings, HANS specific vs standard harnesses, single vs dual belt harnesses. Once you deploy a product in the field, now you have to deal with liabilities (technical and legal/financial).

Yes, the HANS is a very competent H&N restraint, as are some of the other devices. They are all clearly MUCH better than wearing nothing at all and would likely many lives. However, I am still somewhat confused as to what the 'best' HANS setup should be.

In the end, it doesn't matter. I'm just a putz who enjoys driving on the track to unwind and clear my head.

RedlineMan

And when you finally stop surfing and finish your dang seat with integral harnesses...

gbaker

Fact.

Only crash head on?

Seriously, the product should only be allowed in settings which completely eliminate lateral motion of the upper body. Even then, lateral head torque remains high.