Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

A lot is written here and on Isaac's web site about single point of release being the reason for its not meeting SFI requirements. However, that is not the only reason. Another more serious issue, from SFI 38.1:

Direct attachment to react loads to a fixed point or points on a vehicle structure or restraint webbing will not be acceptable because of the potential for torso displacements with respect to these points.

With Isaac, the critical case would be a side impact, or multiple impact (roll/endo), where harness slips off the shoulder and pulls the driver's head sideways, potentially causing injury where none would have occured otherwise. Hans, Hutchens and R3 are all attached to the torso, and don't have that problem.

-Juan
[/b]
Click to expand...


Juan-

Interesting observation. However I have NEVER had my belts even come close to slipping off my sholders. I do see how it is possible... Has ANYONE ever experienced this in an accident? If the belt were to slip off the sholder are you a gonner anyhow? Maybe the Isaac actually would ensure that the belt couldn't slip of the sholder, making both the H&N system safer as well as the belts?

If that was the major concern (belts slipping) I would also think that Isaac could make a strap behind the head that would/could keep the belts from coming apart.

Ayway good observation, and probably an easily convinsable one to those who "jump to conclusions" without investigating (you first fooled me until I thought about it).
 
A lot is written here and on Isaac's web site about single point of release being the reason for its not meeting SFI requirements. However, that is not the only reason. Another more serious issue, from SFI 38.1:

Direct attachment to react loads to a fixed point or points on a vehicle structure or restraint webbing will not be acceptable because of the potential for torso displacements with respect to these points.

With Isaac, the critical case would be a side impact, or multiple impact (roll/endo), where harness slips off the shoulder and pulls the driver's head sideways, potentially causing injury where none would have occured otherwise. Hans, Hutchens and R3 are all attached to the torso, and don't have that problem.

-Juan
[/b]
Click to expand...

Interesting point Juan. I believe the issue has been raised before about the belts slipping off a HANS device. To the best of my knowledge, and from what I've seen, the HANS depends on being 'captured' by the belts to provide protection. If you were wearing a HANS, and it was not 'captured' by the belts, I don't believe it would do anything to reduce the load on the neck. I'm sure Mr. Baker can comment more on this.
 
Well, a HANS not captured under the belts is useless...actually less than useless, it's a big old hunk flailing about.

If we're going to discuss why the Isaac isn't SFI certified/able, lets not stop there. How about the mandate that requres a yoke? Umm..there's no "yoke" in the Isaac Ive ever noticed. And as tests have shown, retaining the yoke so that it remains effective through the crash event remains problematic. And there are more.

When you read the standard, you are struck with the impression that it was seemingly written to exclude any device that isn't a HANS or a HANS clone.

Yet, the best innovations and inventions in history have come about in standard free environments. The problem with THIS standard, and there are many, is that it is excessively restrictive, and allows limited solutions to the problem.

The single biggest detriment to the pursuit of better saftey in this areana is the standard that all devices need to meet...(for apparent snactioning body inclusion) but the madated architecture precludes exceeding.

The Isaac doesn't need fixing...test results have shown that...it's the antiquated and self serving standard that's broken.
 
RSTperformance, I think you have to be careful drawing conclusions from theorizing. Belts stretch a great deal, and the torso shifts a lot in a big crash. Look at times 6:10 and 10:25 in this video just to see belt stretch:

> http://www.logician.com/Videos/NASCAR_2003_Safety_Update.wmv

Fact of the matter is that SFI consider the Isaac practice of tethering the head to the shoulder strap unsafe because it can cause large forces on the neck, and that is another reason why Isaac cannot pass SFI. I would trust the experts on this point.

Bill. regarding the argument of Hans slipping out of the harnesses, there is a huge body of emperical evidence that Hans is highly effective despite this argument. Perhaps the argument is flawed?

-Juan
 
...and just like that, we are back to the point where someone is telling me that I can't make a choice - that the Hans is just better - based on all kinds of factors beyond noggin control test data.

Pardon the potentially sensitive comparison but it's a lot like religion. One point of view says, "you can have whatever faith you want, leave me to make my own choices." Another says, "my faith is right, the rest of you are wrong." If the Hutchens is best for you, in your car, in your circumstances I would NEVER suggest that you shouldn't be allowed to use it.

OF COURSE the SFI likes the Hans. It wrote the 38.1 around its design. The specification should define performance, NOT how that performance is achieved. If egress is an issue, write an egress performance standard (like F1 uses).

And it's disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that shoulder harnesses slipping off of the body poses a huge threat to Isaac users, when so much energy has been expended arguing that shoulder harnesses slipping off of yoke-type systems either doesn't happen or isn't a risk if it does.

Kirk (who's always extra-skeptical when someone's second post, on their first day of board membership, is taking a strong stand on a commercial position)
 
If we're going to discuss why the Isaac isn't SFI certified/able, lets not stop there. How about the mandate that requres a yoke? Umm..there's no "yoke" in the Isaac Ive ever noticed. And as tests have shown, retaining the yoke so that it remains effective through the crash event remains problematic. And there are more.[/b]
Click to expand...

There is nothing in SFI 38.1 that mandates a yoke.

When you read the standard, you are struck with the impression that it was seemingly written to exclude any device that isn't a HANS or a HANS clone.[/b]
Click to expand...

Clearly untrue. The R3 and Hutchens II are also SFI certified. They operate much differently than Hans.

The Isaac doesn't need fixing...test results have shown that...[/b]
Click to expand...

Jake, have you read Baker's SAE report presenting the test data, or are you just getting this from the Isaac marketing pitch? The test report is not very convincing. I think that's why Isaac has no support among Baker's peers in the motorsports safety community.

-Juan
 
TOPIC WARNING!!!

I don't usually do this, but I'm calling Juan out to everyone. Note that Juan just signed up for this forum today. Juan is notorious on the Spec Miata forum (and others) on this topic, and he and Gregg Baker have had some drag-out arguments over this topic. He trolls looking for Gregg simply to argue with him. In the end they usually devolve into Juan getting nasty and Gregg dropping out of the discussion.

DO NOT FEED THIS GUY!!! Beware that he is *ADAMANT* about his positions on this topic and HE WILL NOT BE DISSUADED! You will NOT be able to change his mind and you are WASTING your time, energy, and brain cells to even try.

If you still feel the need to do this, then read the following in full; that'll give you a good idea of what's coming:

http://forum.specmiata.com/cgi-bin/ultimat...=1;t=001114;p=0

If you still feel the need to argue with him, well, you have mental issues.

DO NOT FEED THIS GUY; Bill Miller that means you, too!
 
There is nothing in SFI 38.1 that mandates a yoke.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Wrong...although the term "yoke" isn't specified. Splitting hairs here..they mandate a "Main unit. (section 2.2)B:"The main device shall be a mechanism held tightly to the drivers torso by seat belts or other strap systems..."

Clearly untrue. The R3 and Hutchens II are also SFI certified. They operate much differently than Hans.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Again, splitting hairs...the basic methodology of those devices is worlds apart than that of the Isaac. "Much differently"? No.

Jake, have you read Baker's SAE report presenting the test data, or are you just getting this from the Isaac marketing pitch? The test report is not very convincing. I think that's why Isaac has no support among Baker's peers in the motorsports safety community.

-Juan
[/b]
Click to expand...

I don't have the SAE report in front of me, but my memory from reading it's excerpts led me to a different conclusion than you.

My conclusion was holistic one, taking more factors into account then mere numbers. I chose a device that is arguabley as good or better than most on the market, and I chose it for MY situation. If my situation was different, I might have chosen differently. Standards aren't capable of choosing the best product for my situation..they seek to boil all situations into the same pot.

Your comment on Mr. Bakers standing is laughable...why do I care if Melvin is buddy buddy with Gregg? This aint about much more than lawyers, guns and money........



On edit:

LOL Greg..I thought I remembered the name and the tone....fair enough, you're right..but we were writing at the same time. Nuf said...it's all about choice.
 
But Mr. Amy...
The more batshit crazy and unswayable a person is, the more fun it is to argue with them.

Don't go fun stealing. Damned cajun bassard.
 
Greg or others... not to keep this going but I do have a question... I watched the video's Juan posted and thought about his comments on belts stretching... While I see his point I would also argu that if my belts stretched that much my nugan would be implanted on my windshield and my chest would be through the stearing wheel so this might all be a moot question but...

1. The Isaac attaches to the belts correct?
2. If the belts were to stretch so that your sholders moved forward say 6" (no idea if that is realistic or not), would the atachment point also move on the belts?
2a. If it does move on the belts does the friction of its movement also infact work as a positive coushining the load on your nogin?
2b. If it does not move on the belts than is your head pulled back?


Greg- sorry about all the questions, I applaud your continued efforts in this area. I think it all helps people like me (who have been hit in the head to much) fully understand how your system works, and why it should be a legal option.

Raymond

PS: Where is the Hans, Hutchinson, White, etc. reps and why are then not ever chiming in on things? Anyone know specific e-mail addresses to people in each of those companies whome we can write to and get thier input?
 
If the belts loosen, the Isaac attachment point will move along the belt.

Juan's point to me is totally bogus. If I have come out of the shoulder belts, I've got way bigger problems than the Isaac being attached to them.
 
If the belts loosen, the Isaac attachment point will move along the belt.

Juan's point to me is totally bogus. If I have come out of the shoulder belts, I've got way bigger problems than the Isaac being attached to them.
[/b]
Click to expand...


Thats what I thought... Thanks Jeff!!!

so stretching belts has either has no effect or may actually help the performance of the Isaac?


Raymond
 
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.

About the SAE report on Isaac, I suppose you also remember that Isaac actually broke in two of the three tests, and further that the report was a feasibility study? No testing was done on side or rear impacts, or for sensitivity to conditions, like belt tightness, neck length, etc. That is not what I would consider sufficient testing for human use. The lack of support for Isaac by the expert community only reinforces this conclusion. You should read the full SAE report, not just excerpts. Has anyone else here actually read the report?

Jeff, Raymond, Consider a side impact. There is nothing that holds the belt opposite the impact side to your shoulder. The Isaac anchor cannot slide perpendicular to the strap. This is probably the case you have to worry about. Maybe there are other situations too. There are sound reasons for the SFI spec.

Knestis, The difference between belt slippage in Hans vs. Isaac is that in Isaac it can potentially cause injury due to the displacement of the torso relative to the anchor point. Hans won't cause an injury in that case. Whether Hans is ineffective in that case has not been shown. There is a lot emperical evidence that Hans is highly effective, regardless of any belt slippage argument.

GregAmy, I recall that you got pretty animated in that thread on specmiata.com. Here's a quote from someone else's point of view in that thread: "At what point has Juan called anybody a liar or defamed gbaker? The only one that seems to be throwing those terms out is you greg amy. You have just as much right to post your opinions here as anybody else, but YOU crossed the threshold." Let's try to keep to the subject this time.

For those of you that don't know me, I usually post on specmiata.com, even though I also race my my Miata in ITA, as well as SM. I race in SCCA, SFR region, SM/ITA91. I have no economic interest in H&N restraints. Just trying to add some perspective on a sometimes poorly understood subject. Thanks for listening.

-Juan
 
Thanks for the warning Greg, I am not mentally ill...just too lazy to read the other thread.

A couple of flaws in Juan's argument.

1) The ISAAC does not have a "Direct attachment to react loads to a fixed point or points on a vehicle structure or restraint webbing will not be acceptable"...the end of the Isaac that captures the harness is not a fixed point or points, nor is it a direct attachment.

2) In any endo/multiple barrel roll or whatever scenario you invision where the harnesses come off of the shoulder, how is the HANS continuing to offer protection? In my mind, the only SFI approved device that may be of some use in load reduction at this point would be the R3. Further, the ISAAC design should help reduce whatever likelyhood there is of the belts coming off in the first place.

Use your HANS, sleep with your HANS, do whatever you wish with your HANS, just allow me the choice to protect my own ass with the best equipment I believe I can get.
 
OK, for the hell of it lets look at a belt stretching Oh-My-God-I'm-Gonna-Die crash and tumble...

1. I hit something really hard. My belts stretch far enough to come off my shouders (thus making them slack... Right?) as the car starts rolling.
2. OK, with an Isaac my head is now attached to loose belts, thus rendering it useless, and I have no shoulder harnesses on. I'm obviously in big trouble and my Isaac isn't going to help me. But I don't see how having it attached to now loose and ineffective belts is going to hurt me any worse.
3. Now imagine the same situation with the HANS. My belts are off my shoulders meaning they are now off the HANS as well. This means that it is no longer any more effective in helping me survive than any other device.

It seems to me that neither device helps nor hurts if you get yourself in this situation. They both likely did their jobs in the initial impact and then were rendered useless by the loss of the shoulder harnesses shortly after that impact.
So I can't picture how this argument is in any way valid at all.

Look, we've crash tested an Isaac device in our family and we aren't at all happy with the idea of someone telling us we can't use it. Not only that, but Mr. Baker happened to be at that race and knew the driver was wearing his device. Instead of heading for the gates after seeing the car do a high speed offset frontal into a concrete wall, he was one of the first on the scene to make sure Renee was OK and inspect his device. How often have you seen a representative from another HN manufacturer do that???
If you like your HANS, great, but stay away from my choices in this area.
 
Juan, for a rear impact, the ISAAC seems equally effective as for front. The shocks are supposed to be mounted near the mid point in their range of travel, giving (in my very limited view of the matter) protection against the head snapping backward in the event of a rear end collision.

For side impacts, if the belts stay on, and like others I have a hard time envisioning situations where they would not, I believe rigidity of the upper torso/neck would be a good thing, no?

Last, I've seen the videos of the HANS slipping out from under the belts. I did not like it. After watching that, reading some, and talking to folks using both, I determined that for me, in most cases, it appeared the ISAAC offered the most protection. The HANS is good, not taking away from it, but I'm unsure as to the reasons for your apparent crusade against the ISAAC and Gregg. Gregg has been (for me anyway) very forthcoming with information, support and advice, and seems incredibly knowledgeable about the issues in play here. NO ONE in their right mind would wade into the business of trying to develop new and somewhat untested safety devices for club racers, given the potential liability, without fully looking at the issues. That I am sure of.

I'm comfortable with my decision to go ISAAC. I'm still getting comfortable putting it on and wearing it, but I am convinced it is at least marginally better than HANS from a safety perspective.
 
OK, I normally steer clear of this kind of "stuff", fun to read at times, but it can get overly heated, strained, etc. But this time it's different. This is dangerous territory for us as individuals and for our club as a group. This important issue needs more time and study, and then a properly crafted requirement with the input from the club members, manufacturers, testing agencies or facilities, and (I hate to say it) legal counsel. Not enough of ANY of the above has been put into the current proposal up for vote IMHO.


Today, this is a bad, poorly constructed, poorly written and potentially catastrophic (to the SCCA and its Board - for so many of the litigation-possible scenarios already portrayed in previous posts) requirement. So, it is incumbent upon ALL of us us to write to our SCCA representative and let them know that we feel that they should vote NO on this. Plain and simple. If we do this one thing - send an email to our regional and/or national representative of OUR CLUB then they will get the message.
It is for all our own good!! It is OUR CLUB!!. A "no" vote will simply give our Board the time that they need to put all of the feedback to good use. It won't mean that the SCCA mandating the use of an H&N system is going to go away in the future, only that they can go "back to the drawing board" and get a better requirement put together.

I wrote an email and sent it to Bob Introne last night. I found his email address on the SCCA website.

Took about 10 minutes total.

This is too important to let go. It deserves everyone's attention. Please send an email!!

Thanks for listening.

Tim Mullen
 
Emails to your BoD are definitely being read. I got a nice reply from my BoD member, he forwarded it to the entire BoD, and I got a reply from Jeremy Thoennes. Sounds like Jeremy needs a little more convincing, so keep those cards and letters coming.
 
Emails to your BoD are definitely being read. I got a nice reply from my BoD member, he forwarded it to the entire BoD, and I got a reply from Jeremy Thoennes.[/b]
Click to expand...

I haven't recieved a reply yet from either the CRB or from either Board member I copied. Maybe a repeat to all Board members is in order? Is the Board meeting next week?
 
It's already too late for anyone racing BMW club, it's SFI approved or sitting it out and not running. If for no other reason Gregg, you should have already developed the link to access that market. Since you've not got the product that is approved and stamped by you with the SFI sticker, I'll have to go elsewhere. The reason I don't like the HANS is that it bares down on one of the weakest most vulnerable bone in the human body, right in the middle. Has anyone looked at what would happen and how effective the HANS would be on a driver with a broken coller-bone? Also, it's not like I want to run the full BMW season, but there are a few events that I'd like to run, plus it'll give me more opportunities to schedual races. It's almost inevitable that the club will require the SFI sticker, they're already required in the Pro series, and the longer you go without the fewer people that you'll reach. Sure the design criteria is constrained by requirements that seen unneccessary, but just like when you develop anything else, those are the constraints and if you design outside of it then be prepared for rejection, no matter how good your design is. Maybe they should have put in a provision that the restraint work even if or when the belts break. From what I'd heard this is a very real possibility as the H&N restraint's are tested to 100g's where as the belts are only tested to 70g's. Isn't that right?


Note, Edited to add BMWCCA racing rules clarification:

Is the Isaac device an approved head and neck restraint? 1/23/06

Request: With regard to the Isaac device, it specifies it meets SFI 3.8 (http://www.isaacdirect.com/index.html ). So, is it reasonable for me to plan on using an Isaac?

Clarification: As stated in Safety 10. Head and Neck Restraints:
“Effective April 1, 2006, all racers must use a Head and Neck Restraint meeting standards SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858-2002. The SFI standard can be found at:
http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1. ”
The Isaac device does not have an SFI 38.1 certification. While their website claims that their device "meets or exceeds the performance requirements of SFI Specification 38.1" it has not actually passed the tests, and is therefore not currently SFI 38.1 certified. Once this device (or any other device, for that matter) is actually certified by the SFI as meeting 38.1 it is automatically approved for BMW Club Racing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top