Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

[shwah]

Jake, There's no conspiricy here. It's a stretch to say that SFI is biased toward Hans. SFI 38.1 allows many types of devices, as is evidenced by the certification of Hans, R3, and Huthcens II. Other devices like the original Hutchens, G-Force, D-Cell, Wright, etc. would also be allowed if/once their performance is good enough. The only device that does not seem to conform to SFI is Isaac. The reasons for that are well documented.[/b]

For a guy with a reputation for liking to argue, I am surpised that you could not even acknowledge the facts in your own post...in the same paragraph

As you state the original Hutchens, the D-Cell and the Wright device do not conform to the SFI specification. So the ISAAC is not the only device that does not conform. It is however the only device in that group which has theroetical, empirical lab test and empircal track test performance on par with or better than the HANS.

If you like to drag this argument around the internet, that's your deal. I like the ISAAC. I bought one after researching what works best for me. I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express, but I do have a BS Physics and BSME and pay my bills as an R&D Engineering Manager. I am qualified to decide what I want to use to protect my neck. In the most basic sense a device that controls accelleration (the dangerous part of f=ma when it comes to our bodies and crashes) is one that truely addresses the root of the issue. That is the one that I chose, rather than one that controls position.

Having said all that, as noted in my previous post, I plan to budget for a HANS in the next season or two. I am disappointed with the lack of proactive response to this issue by Mr. Baker et al. The writing has been on the wall for months. It sucks that my club won't let me make this choice. It also sucks that this has been a very likely scenario for the past year or so and my equipment manufacturer has chosen to wait for the requirement to magically change.

 

[lateapex911]

Chris, your background will allow you to read the spec better than most of us normal civilians. Have you read it? If not, here it is: http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1...ecification.pdf

When I read it, I scratch my head trying to come up with an Isaac solution, but it's a tough one.

 

[turboICE]

Juan the facts are simple. The day SFI 38.1 was issued only one product could meet their requirements - HANS. Every other product had to be redesigned - all were redesigned with yokes.

There are no coincidences.

 

[ddewhurst]

Will someone please help me understand the following from the SFI Specification 38.1

2.0 Definitions

2.1 Head and Neck Restraint: An active Head and Neck Restraint System is a protection ensemble providing an alternative load path which decreases both neck stress and head excursion during a vehicle impact without reliance on helmet impact into structures or nets.

This is the issue I need to understand. "without reliance on helmet impact into structures or nets." How can lateral loads be reduced with a HANS without helmet impact into structures or nets ? It's known that the HANS by it's self will not reduce lateral loads.

 

[gsbaker]

Will someone please help me understand the following from the SFI Specification 38.1

2.0 Definitions

2.1 Head and Neck Restraint: An active Head and Neck Restraint System is a protection ensemble providing an alternative load path which decreases both neck stress and head excursion during a vehicle impact without reliance on helmet impact into structures or nets.

This is the issue I need to understand. "without reliance on helmet impact into structures or nets." How can lateral loads be reduced with a HANS without helmet impact into structures or nets ? It's known that the HANS by it's self will not reduce lateral loads.
[/b]

They are ignoring lateral loads.

...I am disappointed with the lack of proactive response to this issue by Mr. Baker et al. The writing has been on the wall for months. It sucks that my club won't let me make this choice. It also sucks that this has been a very likely scenario for the past year or so and my equipment manufacturer has chosen to wait for the requirement to magically change.
[/b]

You are probably not aware that we first recommended a quantitative performance measure to SFI in 2002. You are also probably not aware that over the past year we have tested an SFI version of the Isaac system using multiple protocols in multiple crash labs, in each case comparing the test results to those of the HANS device and the Isaac system. We discovered that we could pass the load tests, but the resulting design changes would lose the belts on a simple 30 degree offset test, just like the HANS device.

What happens when you lose the belts in anything other than a head-on impact? Well, we could ask Dr. Adam Zimmerman, a 39 year old physician and father of two. Oops I forgot, we can't do that. Dr. Zimmerman died of head injuries last fall while using a SFI 38.1 certified H&N restraint (HANS). Corner workers said he "came through the belts."

Or we could ask Chad McQueen. In January, Chad had a side impact while practicing for the Rolex at Daytona and broke his neck in two places. Another SFI 38.1 certified device, of course (HANS). Fortunately, in Chad's case we may be able to talk to him soon. He should be getting out of the hospital any day now. Yeah, he'll exit in a wheelchair and may still be wearing one of those halo things screwed into his skull, but physical therapy can do wonders these days.

If your H&N restraint positively captures the belts (thereby violating section 2.5 of SFI Spec 38.1), two very good things happen:

1. Your belts stay where they belong, helping keep your body in the seat

<div align="center">

</div>

, and

2. There is a massive reduction in lateral head torque, helping keep your head on top of your neck

<div align="center">

</div>

I'm sorry that we cannot help you with the rule makers, but we are not going to produce a product that kills drivers--we don't care how many stickers we can get.

 

[turboICE]

dd, Remember that 2.1 is a qualitative manufacturer representation - lateral loads are not measured quantitatively for 38.1.

It isn't the only qualitative manufacturer representation in 38.1 that is questionable with HANS.

2.4 The Head and Neck Restraint System must be designed and manufactured to allow freedom of movement of head, torso, arms, etc., commensurate with operating a race vehicle under all race and associated conditions.

Try and look towards turn out on any tight turn in HANS - it aint happening when installed with the minimum slack that produces the maximum reduction in H&N loads. At least for me my passenger side mirror could only be seen by turning my eyes because my head couldn't turn far enough to get a proper look anywhere near my passenger A pillar.

It is pretty clear that when HANS wasn't confident they asked SFI for qualitative standards to be held to - not quantitative ones. You know things like being about to get out of the car with a single point of release - qualitative for HANS because apparently in actual practice QR are not convenience they are necessary.

 

[Bill Miller]

Not even worth it.

 

[Darryl Pritchett]

Man this is one long thread. I have skimmed through most of it and the two H&N systems talked about are the Hans & the Isaac. I currently have no H&N restraint system and have been considering the G-Force one mainly because I have a G-Force helmet. I have not read any comments about this system and if it is any good at all. My concerns with it are the fact it only rest behind your shoulders and in a violent crash with roll overs I could see this coming out from behind your shoulders a doing nothing at all for protection after that. Is there any commits on this system.

 

[Doc Bro]

I really think it is unfair for a sanctioning body to determine what is right for an individuals health and welfare. Look at roll cages. The SCCA mandates some of the basics but allows freedom in many other aspects. This piece of equipment is arguably more important than an HNR.

This HNR issue reminds me of the recent ban on Foie Gras by the city of Chicago. Are you kidding me? The alderman feels goose liver is bad for you so you can't have any? What happened to caveat emptor?

I like the ISAAC. I use one. I served on the head and neck trauma team at a Level 1 trauma hospital. I watched Dr. Adam Zimmerman die in front of me at LRP last year. (He was wearing a HANS). I made my decision...I have to live with it.

Societal laws dictate minimal levels of behavior not maximal...ie Don't beat your wife...it doesn't say you have to treat her well, you just can't beat her!

Why then does the SCCA feel the need to dictate a maximum by which all will adhere? (SFI 38.1 is not a minimum in this case because it is qualitative and not quantitative) Why dictate this and not a spec roll cage design. Oh sure I know there will be naysayers like all cars are different, buy I think all people are different and should be allowed freedom of choice.

I think this was cowardly by the SCCA. I understand why but I still think it was cowardly.

R

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

This HNR issue reminds me of the recent ban on Foie Gras by the city of Chicago. Are you kidding me? The alderman feels goose liver is bad for you so you can't have any? What happened to caveat emptor? [/b]

Except in this example, the alderman isn't providing an insurance policy on you after you partake...

I like the ISAAC. I use one. I served on the head and neck trauma team at a Level 1 trauma hospital. I watched Dr. Adam Zimmerman die in front of me at LRP last year. (He was wearing a HANS). I made my decision...I have to live with it.

Societal laws dictate minimal levels of behavior not maximal...ie Don't beat your wife...it doesn't say you have to treat her well, you just can't beat her!

Why then does the SCCA feel the need to dictate a maximum by which all will adhere? (SFI 38.1 is not a minimum in this case because it is qualitative and not quantitative) Why dictate this and not a spec roll cage design. Oh sure I know there will be naysayers like all cars are different, buy I think all people are different and should be allowed freedom of choice.

I think this was cowardly by the SCCA. I understand why but I still think it was cowardly.

R [/b]

The SCCA needs something to hang it's hat on for insurance purposes. The only place right now is the SFI spec. The beef isn't with the SCCA so much as the spec they have to work with. THAT is what needs to get changed - and the mfg's need to do that, no?

Greg Amy made a great point to me yesterday. The SCCA (IMHO) did fall down in a big respect - either spec the requirment to were a H&N and the spec or just remain silent on the issue. Don't dictate something that is just 'recommended'. If it's so important to legislate, then make it manditory or stay out of it until you want to. We are just in a holding patter until they become maditory. Hopefully the spec will be better thought out - or a different spec we can build and buy to will be available.

 

[gsbaker]

...Don't dictate something that is just 'recommended'. If it's so important to legislate, then make it manditory or stay out of it until you want to. We are just in a holding patter until they become maditory. Hopefully the spec will be better thought out - or a different spec we can build and buy to will be available.
[/b]

We could not agree more. One of those cases where the best thing to do is nothing.

I like the ISAAC. I use one. I served on the head and neck trauma team at a Level 1 trauma hospital. I watched Dr. Adam Zimmerman die in front of me at LRP last year. (He was wearing a HANS). I made my decision...I have to live with it.
[/b]

Guess which product is used by one of Chad McQueen's docs?

Man this is one long thread. I have skimmed through most of it and the two H&N systems talked about are the Hans & the Isaac. I currently have no H&N restraint system and have been considering the G-Force one mainly because I have a G-Force helmet. I have not read any comments about this system and if it is any good at all. My concerns with it are the fact it only rest behind your shoulders and in a violent crash with roll overs I could see this coming out from behind your shoulders a doing nothing at all for protection after that. Is there any commits on this system.
[/b]

It works fairly well on the crash sled. Frankly, I'm puzzled why it doesn't work better. The company will not release test results, so I can't comment further.

 

[Doc Bro]

Except in this example, the alderman isn't providing an insurance policy on you after you partake...

While I agree with that statement...it is still a case of "protecting us from ourselves"The SCCA needs something to hang it's hat on for insurance purposes. The only place right now is the SFI spec. The beef isn't with the SCCA so much as the spec they have to work with. THAT is what needs to get changed - and the mfg's need to do that, no?


Totally depends on how you look at it. I believe the SCCA is just as vulnerable by holding to the "yet to be entirely agreed upon" SFI mandate. If I were to die using a HANS, Vic and my family know EXACTLY what to do and where to go for the "real story".
Greg Amy made a great point to me yesterday. The SCCA (IMHO) did fall down in a big respect - either spec the requirment to were a H&N and the spec or just remain silent on the issue. Don't dictate something that is just 'recommended'. If it's so important to legislate, then make it manditory or stay out of it until you want to. We are just in a holding patter until they become maditory. Hopefully the spec will be better thought out - or a different spec we can build and buy to will be available.
[/b]

I think Greg's point has been made many times before and is the best possible approach to the situation. The fact of the matter is that noone knows for sure what is best. The SCCA should just leave it alone.

Remember Andy,
First butter was BAD for you, and margarine was king. Then they told you trans fats were deadly and you should avoid them or else you would die. Now, butter doesn't look so bad except for the fact that it is loaded with saturated fat problems. Now they play side by side in the dairy department both of them eagerly awaiting our demise.

I have to go now... I've got the radio blasting near the tub and my cigarrettes are getting wet, and my heavily butterd toast is getting cold ....I forgot to mention I have no GFI outlets near my tub!!!

 

[mgyip]

Edited to keep controversy to a minimum.

 

[gsbaker]

Edited to keep controversy to a minimum.
[/b]

Don't do it on my account, please. The post reflects a certain perspective, which is probably shared by others.

 

[lateapex911]

The internet is an interesting place. In life, you can't take back what you say. It appears on the internet, you can. Sorta. I read it. It was very critical, and at times acerbic. But, it appears he wishes it to not be discussed. OK.

But I will add a comment or two.

I think Gregg Baker is passionate about his business and racing.

I think that in product development worlds, certain products become the defacto standards. Kleenex, Xerox copies, etc. Are there better tissues than Kleenex? Probably.

I think Gregg is aware that there are many sides to the issue, and seeks to remind us that all is not always as it seems. The big name isn't always the only or best choice. The first post I read from him was: "I recommend you get a system...any legitimate system. Nearly any system is better than NO system."

Finally, remember that roadracing represents a fraction of the racers in America. And IT racers?? LOL...we're a drop in that small bucket. I hear it asked why the HANS or R3 makers never post here. Why would they?? It's not worth their time, to be honest. And I suspect Gregg doesn't do it for business reasons either. If he did the math and ananyzed his time spent here vs his profits from units sold to us, I doubt he could make a case.

He's here, I think, because he likes us, racing in general, and is passionate.

 

[Eagle7]

...The beef isn't with the SCCA so much as the spec they have to work with. THAT is what needs to get changed - and the mfg's need to do that, no?[/b]

Why in the world would they do that? Change a spec that excludes your most competent competitor so he can kick your butt in the marketplace? Seems like the only way to fix this is to have a spec written by an independent body AND critiqued by the open market. SFI has lost all credibility in my mind.

 

[Doc Bro]

Why in the world would they do that? Change a spec that excludes your most competent competitor so he can kick your butt in the marketplace? Seems like the only way to fix this is to have a spec written by an independent body AND critiqued by the open market. SFI has lost all credibility in my mind.
[/b]

Exactly!!

This is evidence based not hard science based. There is a very big difference.

Hard science involoves repeating a theory...not only by the theorist but by others... in the same fashion with the same results being returned.

The nature of this (ie market interests and exclusivity, and profits) shifts it dramatically to evidence based. Which is why the SCCA should have refrained.

Evidence based science goes sorta like this (exaggeration) ; We can cure your appendicitis with our new magic pill. We know this because we've done it a number of times....(that number is zero....)but it is a number. And we can prove it!


R

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

What I meant was that the OTHER manufacturers need to lean on the SFI to allow a spec that better serves the potential market. The more H&N's sold with the SFI label, the more money they make.

HANS doesn't want it to happen, but Issac and the reast of the great unwashed need to fight. The SCCA needs a spec. Is this not the only one?

 

[lateapex911]

Andy, remember that HANS essentially wrote the spec...and is a large financial buddy to the SFI. It's not in the best interest of the SFI to rewrite the spec. I'm guessing here, but I doubt seriously if the SFI would entertain for a second any mods to the specs. They might go so far as to solicit the opinions of the experts in the field, but remember, they are the guys who largely designed the HANS.

Maybe I'm naive, but it appears like a pretty tight knit bunch to me.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Then Jake, we are in a lose-lose spot. There is no solution.

The SCCA can't help get a new spec written because it's next-to-impossible - but they need a spec to satisfy the insurance liabilities all our families could benefit from should the worst happen.

What is the next step? Buy a H&NR that meets the spec - or wait until the spec changes and you have the ability to buy 'brand I".

What is the solution we as members can recommend? Not just 'this sucks'.