head and neck safety
10-11-2010, 02:25 PM
#46
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
>>The baseline problem with the HANS concerning its performance is that you can't necessarily keep it under the belts. To adopt that design platform is to defeat the bedrock performance advantage of the Isaac. I would guess this is a compromise that Isaac is not willing to make. To some extent, that might be a shame, as the Isaac certainly has many other advantages in performance beyond that.
I don't want to start a pissing contest here but the "facts" quoted above are not the truth. Mr. Baker likes to quote his own test results from years ago and ignore scientific, third party results. In 4,000 NASCAR impacts NOT ONCE has the HANS Device come out from under the belts. Mr. Baker posts 8-year old video on his website of the HANS Device "slipping out from the belts". The test video he plays is from a dummy with a solid aluminum chest - is your chest solid metal? If so, Mr. Baker's video may have some relevance. If not you should consider NASCAR's experience base.
Regarding ultimate performance I think it's enough to say over 110,000 people choose HANS. Perhaps Mr. Baker has sold a few hundred units and I congratulate him on this achievment. But there is a reason his product is not SFI or FIA approved, and that's because it does not meet the minimum standards required by these tests. Perhaps Mr. Baker will tell you his product meets other standards, you can decide if they are important to your safety. The top safety experts in the world, including those in Formula 1, WRC, NASCAR, USAC, NHRA, V8 Supercars, IHRA and many others recommend you use an SFI or FIA certified device as part of your safety package. We think that's good advice. If you can't get comfortable in a HANS Device consider another SFI approved device, but don't consider something that's not proven. Thank you.
I don't want to start a pissing contest here but the "facts" quoted above are not the truth. Mr. Baker likes to quote his own test results from years ago and ignore scientific, third party results. In 4,000 NASCAR impacts NOT ONCE has the HANS Device come out from under the belts. Mr. Baker posts 8-year old video on his website of the HANS Device "slipping out from the belts". The test video he plays is from a dummy with a solid aluminum chest - is your chest solid metal? If so, Mr. Baker's video may have some relevance. If not you should consider NASCAR's experience base.
Regarding ultimate performance I think it's enough to say over 110,000 people choose HANS. Perhaps Mr. Baker has sold a few hundred units and I congratulate him on this achievment. But there is a reason his product is not SFI or FIA approved, and that's because it does not meet the minimum standards required by these tests. Perhaps Mr. Baker will tell you his product meets other standards, you can decide if they are important to your safety. The top safety experts in the world, including those in Formula 1, WRC, NASCAR, USAC, NHRA, V8 Supercars, IHRA and many others recommend you use an SFI or FIA certified device as part of your safety package. We think that's good advice. If you can't get comfortable in a HANS Device consider another SFI approved device, but don't consider something that's not proven. Thank you.
WARNING. I'm not a moderator, so I don't have to be as civil or PC as Lew. I admire his wit, for sure, but I'll tell it a bit straighter.
We always welcome a newbie to our ranks. Glad you have found us here on Rennlist. Our H&N discussions have always been so one-sided, for low these many years, and it's always a bonus to have info straight from the other horse's mouth... regardless of how late to the party it might arrive.
Regarding "Mr. Baker"; he has been a long time contributor here, and while not everyone has liked what he had to say, or how he said it, he is responsible for offering more information to the members here than they've likely known what to do with, including me. I will not say that he has not been a partisan at times, but his support of his product is quite understandable in my mind, and has always seemed to me to be based on real experience. He feels he has a superior product, but beyond that, he has offered a plethora of general information on the subject that we had no access to otherwise. No one else in the industry can lay claim to that status.
Regarding the NASCAR connection, it is an unquestionable fact that they have been the driving force behind a lot of what has been discovered about safety in the last decade, and HANS has been a large part of their improvements therein. They needed the help! However, it cannot be argued that - within the very narrow type of usage that they see (going around in endless circles) - NASCAR has created a perfect (highly restrictive) cockpit environment for the HANS to function in; a cockpit that you will not find in many door slammers out there. Therefore, the use of NASCAR, or F1, or any other enclosed cockpit vehicle information to prove any point in this world dominated by road course enthusiasts predominantly driving passenger cars falls flat. At least equally as flat as the SFI protocol.
While gut feelings and reactions do not always play out in the complicated realm of crash biomechanics, it is intuitively obvious to anyone of even passing interest that the HANS device may indeed have a problem staying under the harnesses. If the test you refer to above is the one I am thinking of (I have the video clip), and is not valid, then it is Delphi and the SFI you will have to seek redress from, as I recall it being their test, run on their equipment, using their protocol. If I remember correctly, this was on the occasion of Isaac running their device under the SFI protocol to see how they fared, concurrently running the HANS through the same test as a baseline from which to gather data for comparison.
Finally (for this round), stating that 110,000 people have chosen a HANS stretches reality a bit thin. If the SFI spec is written in such a way that it virtually eliminates much of your competition, I hardly see that as choice. I see that as mandate. If one wants to pick at the margins of the single release clause that voids the use of the Isaac Device in racing, then my HANS device also fails that statute. I cannot get out of my car with my HANS device on, and I am not alone in that regard. This is another phenomenon that gets swept under the advertising rug. I have to take it off first to have any chance of getting out in a reasonable fashion, and so it does not meet the single point release mandate for me. Everyone knows that this spec is a bit of a joke, so you will do well to not try and float that boat here. For what it's worth, I installed the "Vision Advantage" system only so I could get the tether quick releases that would allow me the fighting chance of getting out of my car if something went terribly wrong. That makes two release point, if you and the SFI were counting along with me.
Regardless of my tone, I am not a HANS basher. I own one and it has worked quite well for me, the fact that I have never "needed" it notwithstanding. More importantly, it has worked for many hundreds who HAVE needed it, and for that we are all grateful. The product is a tremendous achievement in driver safety, but it is not a panacea, and everyone who follows this topic knows that. I am glad you joined in. Just don't expect it to be an easy ride out here in the real world.
10-11-2010, 03:14 PM
#47
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>The baseline problem with the HANS concerning its performance is that you can't necessarily keep it under the belts. To adopt that design platform is to defeat the bedrock performance advantage of the Isaac. I would guess this is a compromise that Isaac is not willing to make. To some extent, that might be a shame, as the Isaac certainly has many other advantages in performance beyond that.
I don't want to start a pissing contest here but the "facts" quoted above are not the truth. Mr. Baker likes to quote his own test results from years ago and ignore scientific, third party results. In 4,000 NASCAR impacts NOT ONCE has the HANS Device come out from under the belts. Mr. Baker posts 8-year old video on his website of the HANS Device "slipping out from the belts". The test video he plays is from a dummy with a solid aluminum chest - is your chest solid metal? If so, Mr. Baker's video may have some relevance. If not you should consider NASCAR's experience base.
Regarding ultimate performance I think it's enough to say over 110,000 people choose HANS. Perhaps Mr. Baker has sold a few hundred units and I congratulate him on this achievment. But there is a reason his product is not SFI or FIA approved, and that's because it does not meet the minimum standards required by these tests. Perhaps Mr. Baker will tell you his product meets other standards, you can decide if they are important to your safety. The top safety experts in the world, including those in Formula 1, WRC, NASCAR, USAC, NHRA, V8 Supercars, IHRA and many others recommend you use an SFI or FIA certified device as part of your safety package. We think that's good advice. If you can't get comfortable in a HANS Device consider another SFI approved device, but don't consider something that's not proven. Thank you.
I don't want to start a pissing contest here but the "facts" quoted above are not the truth. Mr. Baker likes to quote his own test results from years ago and ignore scientific, third party results. In 4,000 NASCAR impacts NOT ONCE has the HANS Device come out from under the belts. Mr. Baker posts 8-year old video on his website of the HANS Device "slipping out from the belts". The test video he plays is from a dummy with a solid aluminum chest - is your chest solid metal? If so, Mr. Baker's video may have some relevance. If not you should consider NASCAR's experience base.
Regarding ultimate performance I think it's enough to say over 110,000 people choose HANS. Perhaps Mr. Baker has sold a few hundred units and I congratulate him on this achievment. But there is a reason his product is not SFI or FIA approved, and that's because it does not meet the minimum standards required by these tests. Perhaps Mr. Baker will tell you his product meets other standards, you can decide if they are important to your safety. The top safety experts in the world, including those in Formula 1, WRC, NASCAR, USAC, NHRA, V8 Supercars, IHRA and many others recommend you use an SFI or FIA certified device as part of your safety package. We think that's good advice. If you can't get comfortable in a HANS Device consider another SFI approved device, but don't consider something that's not proven. Thank you.
Gregg S. Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
10-11-2010, 06:57 PM
#48
Super Moderator
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
There is a new head restraint standard from the FIA
http://www.safetysolutionsracing.com...-from-fia.html
Safety Solutions Hybrid is the latest FIA rated device.
http://www.safetysolutionsracing.com...-from-fia.html
Safety Solutions Hybrid is the latest FIA rated device.
I look forward to the latest version of 8858 to my bookshelf when it is released.
The Hutchens has come a very long way since it's initial design introduction.
10-11-2010, 07:02 PM
#49
Super Moderator
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
https://rennlist.com/forums/racing-a...ml#post7628816
Dear All,
I am employed by HANS Performance Products as the Chief Operating Officer. We have bots that look for questions about our product so we may reply personally.
The OP is correct that the HANS works by interaction of the friction material on top of the HANS legs and the harness webbing so anything that interferes with this must be removed. This interaction is critical to the performance of the HANS. It is this interaction that allows slack tethers and freedom of movement when driving but automatically takes up the tether slack during an impact.
There's lots of good advice here about making any kind of head and neck restraint part of your safety gear and using either 2" or 3" belts. The HANS Device works with any SFI or FIA approved harness system.
Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions about the HANS Device or head and neck restraints. Thank you for the opportunity of posting in this forum.
Gary Milgrom
HANS Performance Products
770-457-1046
gmilgrom (at) hansdevice (dot) com
Last edited by ltc; 10-12-2010 at 11:00 AM. Reason: added post # 20 content ... didn't "paste" the first time
10-12-2010, 10:50 AM
#50
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you. At least we know who he is. He has published no peer-reviewed technical papers and has no patents listed at uspto.gov. He does have a cute photo on Facebook, though.
Dear "Professor,"
Since you are a sales hack, I will give you some sales advice: You would be wise to not insult the intelligence of this forum. This is not a bunch of Bubbas swilling Billy Beer at the dirt track. (Grey Goose at the Glen perhaps...) If you tell them you are the fastest guy at the track they will want to see your lap times.
I won't address the factual errors of your post. You have, apparently, no understanding of the dynamic loading of the cancellous and cortical bone at the occipital condyle joint, so why bother. On the other hand, since you claim your product outperforms all others and there are no belt retention problems in offset impacts, why have you never, in 22 years, produced any information sustantiating those claims? Do you have even one video of the belts staying on the dummy in the SFI offset test? One?
You have, in my opinion, a tired design from the last millenium with expiring patents, poor field performance, poor usability, poor value and a tendency to trap drivers in burning cars. You may sell more units than we do (perhaps I should say you license), but our customers are still alive. This explains why many of them are former HANS users. It also explain why your CEO is looking for a job.
SFI doesn't measure side loads, and FIA (where the head safety guy is an electrical engineer who once told me, "I don't know anything about the anatomy") doesn't measure anything. Of the loads that are measured, we certify our product to meet or exceed all industry standards and generally outperform your product. You do have the honor of doubling lateral shear, however. Congratulations.
We make the most advanced product of its type, and we have no intention of waiting around for SFI to catch up. 38.1 needs to be upgraded. It's like saying a jet engine doesn't meet spec because it lacks a propeller. The longer it takes the greater the risk to everyone. Except us.
10-12-2010, 11:27 AM
#51
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Regarding ultimate performance I think it's enough to say over 110,000 people choose HANS. Perhaps Mr. Baker has sold a few hundred units and I congratulate him on this achievment. But there is a reason his product is not SFI or FIA approved, and that's because it does not meet the minimum standards required by these tests. Perhaps Mr. Baker will tell you his product meets other standards, you can decide if they are important to your safety. The top safety experts in the world, including those in Formula 1, WRC, NASCAR, USAC, NHRA, V8 Supercars, IHRA and many others recommend you use an SFI or FIA certified device as part of your safety package. We think that's good advice. If you can't get comfortable in a HANS Device consider another SFI approved device, but don't consider something that's not proven. Thank you.
It's rather ludicrous, if not insulting to our intelligence, to imply that the largest number of buyers indicates the best product. Ever look at the best-selling cars in the US?
This argument is further watered down by the influence of safety regulations on buying patterns. Given that FIA's test, at least until recently, was little more than a quality-control procedure for the HANS device, the significance of its stamp of approval means little-to-nothing.
More hospitals use Tylenol than any other brand.
Does that mean it's the best pain-reliever? No, it just means its the cheapest.
Do get back to us if you have any technical input to the discussion, will you...
10-12-2010, 02:06 PM
#52
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
>>The baseline problem with the HANS concerning its performance is that you can't necessarily keep it under the belts. To adopt that design platform is to defeat the bedrock performance advantage of the Isaac. I would guess this is a compromise that Isaac is not willing to make. To some extent, that might be a shame, as the Isaac certainly has many other advantages in performance beyond that.
I don't want to start a pissing contest here but the "facts" quoted above are not the truth. Mr. Baker likes to quote his own test results from years ago and ignore scientific, third party results. In 4,000 NASCAR impacts NOT ONCE has the HANS Device come out from under the belts. Mr. Baker posts 8-year old video on his website of the HANS Device "slipping out from the belts". The test video he plays is from a dummy with a solid aluminum chest - is your chest solid metal? If so, Mr. Baker's video may have some relevance. If not you should consider NASCAR's experience base.
Regarding ultimate performance I think it's enough to say over 110,000 people choose HANS. Perhaps Mr. Baker has sold a few hundred units and I congratulate him on this achievment. But there is a reason his product is not SFI or FIA approved, and that's because it does not meet the minimum standards required by these tests. Perhaps Mr. Baker will tell you his product meets other standards, you can decide if they are important to your safety. The top safety experts in the world, including those in Formula 1, WRC, NASCAR, USAC, NHRA, V8 Supercars, IHRA and many others recommend you use an SFI or FIA certified device as part of your safety package. We think that's good advice. If you can't get comfortable in a HANS Device consider another SFI approved device, but don't consider something that's not proven. Thank you.
I don't want to start a pissing contest here but the "facts" quoted above are not the truth. Mr. Baker likes to quote his own test results from years ago and ignore scientific, third party results. In 4,000 NASCAR impacts NOT ONCE has the HANS Device come out from under the belts. Mr. Baker posts 8-year old video on his website of the HANS Device "slipping out from the belts". The test video he plays is from a dummy with a solid aluminum chest - is your chest solid metal? If so, Mr. Baker's video may have some relevance. If not you should consider NASCAR's experience base.
Regarding ultimate performance I think it's enough to say over 110,000 people choose HANS. Perhaps Mr. Baker has sold a few hundred units and I congratulate him on this achievment. But there is a reason his product is not SFI or FIA approved, and that's because it does not meet the minimum standards required by these tests. Perhaps Mr. Baker will tell you his product meets other standards, you can decide if they are important to your safety. The top safety experts in the world, including those in Formula 1, WRC, NASCAR, USAC, NHRA, V8 Supercars, IHRA and many others recommend you use an SFI or FIA certified device as part of your safety package. We think that's good advice. If you can't get comfortable in a HANS Device consider another SFI approved device, but don't consider something that's not proven. Thank you.
Welcome to the Big Leagues.
There's something that I have been wondering about since he brought it up. I can only come up with scenarios in my head, so I need some expert counsel to critique my seat-of-the-pants theorizing. "The Professor" complains of the use of a dummy with a solid aluminum chest plate, and questions its relevance to a real human form and accurate testing results. If that is true, then I would agree, as far as that goes. However, understanding what Dr. Melvin refers to as "shape change" - the change in form of what becomes in reality a highly elastic human frame under the extreme loads of a crash - and understanding how this shape change allows occupants to slip out from between shoulder straps if they are too far apart (sternum projects forward, shoulders bend back, creating "belt slip ramps"), it seems to me that this solid chest plate would offer abnormally high retention rates by default because it did not allow this shape change to occur.
Applying this to the offset SFI test, my gut tells me that this solid alloy chest plate might actually "help" the situation where a HANS is concerned. I can create a theory where the solid chest plate would act like a lever when belt force was applied to the shoulder nearest the impact, forcing the far shoulder more solidly into the HANS/belt than would be the case with a highly elastic human torso. If this were the case, I might not wonder if it increased the pressure on the far shoulder, increasing potential retention at the same time. Assuming he is correct about this artificial dummy, has anyone ever thought of my theory before, if it is even relevant?
10-12-2010, 03:35 PM
#53
Burning Brakes
Just taking a quick look at the videos on the ISAAC site, I noticed that the shoulder belts mount point on the ISAAC are closer together than those on the HANS. HANS does require the belts to be mounted as close together as possible with a max of 3" separation of the inner edges. This does not appear to be the case in these test.
10-12-2010, 06:00 PM
#54
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just taking a quick look at the videos on the ISAAC site, I noticed that the shoulder belts mount point on the ISAAC are closer together than those on the HANS. HANS does require the belts to be mounted as close together as possible with a max of 3" separation of the inner edges. This does not appear to be the case in these test.
10-12-2010, 06:01 PM
#55
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disingenuous Drive-by, it would seem?
Welcome to the Big Leagues.
There's something that I have been wondering about since he brought it up. I can only come up with scenarios in my head, so I need some expert counsel to critique my seat-of-the-pants theorizing. "The Professor" complains of the use of a dummy with a solid aluminum chest plate, and questions its relevance to a real human form and accurate testing results. If that is true, then I would agree, as far as that goes. However, understanding what Dr. Melvin refers to as "shape change" - the change in form of what becomes in reality a highly elastic human frame under the extreme loads of a crash - and understanding how this shape change allows occupants to slip out from between shoulder straps if they are too far apart (sternum projects forward, shoulders bend back, creating "belt slip ramps"), it seems to me that this solid chest plate would offer abnormally high retention rates by default because it did not allow this shape change to occur.
Applying this to the offset SFI test, my gut tells me that this solid alloy chest plate might actually "help" the situation where a HANS is concerned. I can create a theory where the solid chest plate would act like a lever when belt force was applied to the shoulder nearest the impact, forcing the far shoulder more solidly into the HANS/belt than would be the case with a highly elastic human torso. If this were the case, I might not wonder if it increased the pressure on the far shoulder, increasing potential retention at the same time. Assuming he is correct about this artificial dummy, has anyone ever thought of my theory before, if it is even relevant?
Welcome to the Big Leagues.
There's something that I have been wondering about since he brought it up. I can only come up with scenarios in my head, so I need some expert counsel to critique my seat-of-the-pants theorizing. "The Professor" complains of the use of a dummy with a solid aluminum chest plate, and questions its relevance to a real human form and accurate testing results. If that is true, then I would agree, as far as that goes. However, understanding what Dr. Melvin refers to as "shape change" - the change in form of what becomes in reality a highly elastic human frame under the extreme loads of a crash - and understanding how this shape change allows occupants to slip out from between shoulder straps if they are too far apart (sternum projects forward, shoulders bend back, creating "belt slip ramps"), it seems to me that this solid chest plate would offer abnormally high retention rates by default because it did not allow this shape change to occur.
Applying this to the offset SFI test, my gut tells me that this solid alloy chest plate might actually "help" the situation where a HANS is concerned. I can create a theory where the solid chest plate would act like a lever when belt force was applied to the shoulder nearest the impact, forcing the far shoulder more solidly into the HANS/belt than would be the case with a highly elastic human torso. If this were the case, I might not wonder if it increased the pressure on the far shoulder, increasing potential retention at the same time. Assuming he is correct about this artificial dummy, has anyone ever thought of my theory before, if it is even relevant?
10-12-2010, 06:15 PM
#56
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no set spacing for hans belts, it's dependent on how far back the harness bar is. I don't know the equation off hand, but it's online.
10-12-2010, 08:05 PM
#57
Burning Brakes
Well, 3" is the max and it looks like more than than that to me. The ISAAC looks about 1.5" apart. And shouldn't a race seat be part of equation in any test for these devices, which I don't see present on the sled in that video.
10-12-2010, 10:08 PM
#58
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
That would certainly represent a more real world scenario, but it also enters other variables into the mix that cannot necessarily be factored out, and probably would color the outcome of the data and performance of the product in question to some degree. I'd guess they use a "church pew" to get a very clear idea of the exact performance of the device being tested, and only that.
10-13-2010, 12:19 AM
#59
Disingenuous Drive-by, it would seem?
Welcome to the Big Leagues.
There's something that I have been wondering about since he brought it up. I can only come up with scenarios in my head, so I need some expert counsel to critique my seat-of-the-pants theorizing. "The Professor" complains of the use of a dummy with a solid aluminum chest plate, and questions its relevance to a real human form and accurate testing results. If that is true, then I would agree, as far as that goes. However, understanding what Dr. Melvin refers to as "shape change" - the change in form of what becomes in reality a highly elastic human frame under the extreme loads of a crash - and understanding how this shape change allows occupants to slip out from between shoulder straps if they are too far apart (sternum projects forward, shoulders bend back, creating "belt slip ramps"), it seems to me that this solid chest plate would offer abnormally high retention rates by default because it did not allow this shape change to occur.
Applying this to the offset SFI test, my gut tells me that this solid alloy chest plate might actually "help" the situation where a HANS is concerned. I can create a theory where the solid chest plate would act like a lever when belt force was applied to the shoulder nearest the impact, forcing the far shoulder more solidly into the HANS/belt than would be the case with a highly elastic human torso. If this were the case, I might not wonder if it increased the pressure on the far shoulder, increasing potential retention at the same time. Assuming he is correct about this artificial dummy, has anyone ever thought of my theory before, if it is even relevant?
Welcome to the Big Leagues.
There's something that I have been wondering about since he brought it up. I can only come up with scenarios in my head, so I need some expert counsel to critique my seat-of-the-pants theorizing. "The Professor" complains of the use of a dummy with a solid aluminum chest plate, and questions its relevance to a real human form and accurate testing results. If that is true, then I would agree, as far as that goes. However, understanding what Dr. Melvin refers to as "shape change" - the change in form of what becomes in reality a highly elastic human frame under the extreme loads of a crash - and understanding how this shape change allows occupants to slip out from between shoulder straps if they are too far apart (sternum projects forward, shoulders bend back, creating "belt slip ramps"), it seems to me that this solid chest plate would offer abnormally high retention rates by default because it did not allow this shape change to occur.
Applying this to the offset SFI test, my gut tells me that this solid alloy chest plate might actually "help" the situation where a HANS is concerned. I can create a theory where the solid chest plate would act like a lever when belt force was applied to the shoulder nearest the impact, forcing the far shoulder more solidly into the HANS/belt than would be the case with a highly elastic human torso. If this were the case, I might not wonder if it increased the pressure on the far shoulder, increasing potential retention at the same time. Assuming he is correct about this artificial dummy, has anyone ever thought of my theory before, if it is even relevant?
You would have made a great engineer. What you illude to is part of the engineering and testing process. I hope I don't offend GBaker who has been a great resource helpping us to understand this scinece. I personally really appreciate your willingness to teach us non-scientists. There is no doubt that the math that GBaker and HANS throws around is sound. There is no doubt that both their engineering are sound. My understanding of science is that you engineer based on "approriote" assumptions, then you test, then you see what happens in real life, then you modify/improve until the end of the product lifecycle. When they get to the point that they are changing the colors of the device and customizing with your name and sponsors the device have reached the top of its development. There are always things we did not think of or account for and sometimes even beancounters screw up the science. My understanding is The tacoma narrows bridge was perfectly engineered but it failed not because of the engineering but lack of taking other factors into account that were not deemed significant but obviously were extremely important. I only see one problem with the Isaac which is the only reason I don't use one anymore. I don't know of any professional level datalogging that shows real world crashes and surviveability. We have dozens of HANS crashes with data from the pros like the indy guy that hit the catch fence over 100g's about 4 years ago and the schumacher 100+G crash at indy are 2 HANS crashes I can think of. Those kinds of crashes prove the device and proves the theory. So even if the newtons on the head are higher with the HANS than the Isaac we know that the HANS is working under the conditions that it needs to work. Unfortunately, no pros are going to use the Isaac because the sanctioning bodies want SFI38.1 and FIA for what that is worth, so we are never going to get beyond Isaacs perfect engineering to see what happens in real life with real data. Unfortunately, me still being alive flipping my Ferrari into a wall wearing a HANS with sketchy data does not support the product.
10-13-2010, 08:59 AM
#60
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Hybrid USracegear