Daryl DeArman
New member
James, you have a private message--don't want to hijack thread.
Mark,"Raymond....BTW is that how you debate things, call people names and yell at them to stop presenting their side because you don't agree w/it "
Absolutely the funniest line you've ever typed...
Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot here...Two words for you..You're black!
On a more serious note, I have no preference here, however has anyone considered the fact that Mr. Hand had just rolled 8 times end over end, and 1 1/2 times sideways? Could we all agree that the "shaken and stirred" factor could have contributed to why he had a problem getting himself out, and may have gotten him caught up in the window net? (Knocking on wood now..) I have only had one hard impact, fell out the door of my car, and walked away like a drunken soldier. I believe that the impact affected the (very ungracefully) way I exited my car. I personally believe we should have a choice, but not that this one instance should cause us to make a final decision of one device over another. We all know that each wreck is completely different, with all sorts of variables.
I'm with Raymond, and others, write letters to change the written rules, and try to get them affordable for all of us!
Carry on, this is an extremely informative post! Thanks to all with the pertinent info!
With apologies to Raymond,
Mark " learning something new every day" Larson
CFR #164010
[/b]
"Raymond....BTW is that how you debate things, call people names and yell at them to stop presenting their side because you don't agree w/it "
Absolutely the funniest line you've ever typed...
Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot here...Two words for you..You're black!
Mark " learning something new every day" Larson
CFR #164010
[/b]
No it isn't - because what says he had QR? There is no mention of that it isn't like they are standard HANS requires you to pay more to have their product be safe to reach full egress. And with gloves on unbuckling the HANS posts is not simple or one second per side. He had to try and remove his helmet.[/b]
My Isaac QR are second nature - I wouldn't forget to release them anymore than forgeting to release the harness and open the window net.
[/b]
Oh, thats right, I forgot... Only the Isaac releases are second nature. Nobody could EVER learn to use the hans quick releases or standard post release as second nature.
You claim that the Isaac is second nature (which it probably IS), yet the HANS can't possibly be second nature... Please. .....
Is it possible that a HANS can impede a driver's exit from a burning car? You bet. Is the same true for an Isaac? If your answer is anything other than YES, then you are delusional....
[/b]
At this time, the Hans is something I can not afford without it seriously impacting whether or not I can meet the requirements to keep my National license. I REALLY want to buy a system, but alot of us simply don't have $900 lying around.
[/b]
Bill, don't think for a second that you'll be alone in doing so. If it ever comes to that, I think that's a story that will become quite common.If the SCCA goes that route, and will only let you wear an SFI-certified H&N device, or none at all, they'll have to DQ me at every race, or lose a member.[/b]
Again with the selectiveness of what you want to read and respond to. As long as I am being forced to defend my desire to use ISAAC and to not use HANS - I am forced to point out the differences that concern me. As I said before if anyone wants to take that as bashing then so be it. Stop making me defend my desire and I will stop talking about HANS. (It is funny how you can use the observation of selected statements as proof, but somehow observation of drivers being inhibitted by HANS to exit a vehicle as not being proof of similar strength.)You continue to say that you're not "bashing" the HANS, but here is more proof.[/b]
Greg covered this, could HANS release be second nature - sure. Is it - not in my observation, drivers aren't releasing they are trying to exit with HANS installed it isn't second nature for them. Release is second nature to EVERY ISAAC user.You claim that the Isaac is second nature (which it probably IS), yet the HANS can't possibly be second nature... Please. At least there are other Isaac supporters who can plainly admit that there isn't much difference between the two releases. They even admit that vehicle exit without touching the device is possible with a HANS, while it is NOT possible with the Isaac...[/b]
It has been observed with HANS. I can neither see any way for ISAAC to interfer, nor has it ever been observed. Does that mean it isn't possible at all I suppose not - but I would love to see what the little helmet mounts would catch on to prevent egress. If ISAAC could ever interfer with egress once released then so could the HANS posts.Is it possible that a HANS can impede a driver's exit from a burning car? You bet. Is the same true for an Isaac? If your answer is anything other than YES, then you are delusional....[/b]
Mark,
If the SCCA goes that route, and will only let you wear an SFI-certified H&N device, or none at all, they'll have to DQ me at every race, or lose a member. They do not want the liability exposure that not letting someone make their own choice will give them, especially on an optional device.
[/b]
James - have you checked out the ISAAC yet? If not, make sure to come by and try mine out at the next MARRS.anything is better then nothing, you and every other vender has already proved that on the sled.
Due to the current rule set to go in effect I have to narrow my focus to SFI stickered, sorry thats the breaks, I dont want to show up and have an official rule otherwise.
I just would love to hear from users other then ISAAC and HANS so I can try to make an informed decision. But I might have to make a few small road trips or see if resellers can at least let me purchash, try the device on an strap into my car and return it if its not going to work for me. [/b]
Item 18. Effective 11/1/06: Add new section 11 to section 20 as follows:
11. Head and Neck Restraint
The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck
restraint devices must be certified by the SFI Foundation and bear the SFI 38.1 label.[/b]