Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

Was there a Fastrack breif on a potential date that a H & N restraint per the SIF spec is a shall ? Which Fastrack ?
[/b]
Click to expand...
Dave,

There is no "shall", yet. I believe it was in March that the Fastrack reported that the CRB requested the BOD mandate SFI 38.1 effective sometime this November. They'll vote thumbs down, thumbs up, something in between or just pass.

I expect some members of the safety committee will push for the mandate, especially if they are HANS dealers.
 
I'll bite...WHO has a vote in this deal that also is a HANS dealer? Talk about a conflict of interest. I hope they abstain the actual vote, even though it is quite likely they will have influence on others who do get to vote.


HANS egress issues: yeah don't blame the device...stick your head in the sand and say he didn't get stuck or he'd still be in there. He didn't get out on his own!!! What if the coroner extracted him? Would you still say he wasn't stuck because he's not still in there, his progress was only slowed? Guess I have never got my Jeep stuck in the mud either...
Or blame the window net. That's it, ban all window nets and make the HANS mandatory. :(
 
I'll bite...WHO has a vote in this deal that also is a HANS dealer? Talk about a conflict of interest. I hope they abstain the actual vote, even though it is quite likely they will have influence on others who do get to vote.
[/b]
Click to expand...
We haven't confirmed anything, so I won't name names. And it's the Board that will be voting, assuming they take up the issue, not the safety committee. The subject party is not on the Board.
 
Slight thread drift here. What is the status of the right-side net requirement? Is it still just a recommendation also?
 
He is quoted as saying:
So it's not true that "he couldn't get out because of his SFI certified HANS device", because if it was he'd still be in there. A more accurate statement would be "couldn't get out as quickly because of his SFI certified HANS device"

Later in that artical, he is quoted again:
[/b]
Click to expand...
Well lets just say irrespective of how you want to interperet and come away from the article, on video and not subject to interpretation, from the time that the car came to a rest until the time he was out of the car was greater than 60 seconds. This was a driver who said he was awake and aware throughout. That is a heck of a long time to be on the roof of a car filled with fuel and oil in a driver suit soaked in fuel and oil. He wasn't in there for aroma therapy he was in there trying to get out and the HANS interferred with full egress.
 
Slight thread drift here. What is the status of the right-side net requirement? Is it still just a recommendation also?
[/b]
Click to expand...
I believe it is a recommendation only.

That also needs to be thought through. The SAE conference in 2004 was very positive with respect to test results of nets, but all the testing had been performed with high end "containment" seats that provide excellent lateral support of the upper body. To my knowledge, there has been no testing of nets with the typical road racing seat, i.e. one having less lateral support. My personal concern is that the net may hold the head while the torso takes off, resulting in an injury in the other direction. That said, the conventional wisdom is that you're probably better off with a net than without. There may be an update on this subject at this year's SAE.

If we keep going down this path, the only way you'll can get decent lateral support of the head with an SFI device is to drop another grand (at least) on a serious seat upgrade. Members are just gonna love that.
 
My next seat is definitely going to have significantly more lateral support - but I don't think it does any favors dropping a $3000 bill all at once on members.

I believe properly installed the RH net will work quite well. I am sure there is more stretch in them than in a harness and that it should capture the shoulder and the head not just the head.
 
Slight thread drift here. What is the status of the right-side net requirement? Is it still just a recommendation also?
[/b]
Click to expand...
The latest information would be what has been published in the July Fastrack. Effective 11/1/06, they will be recommending a right side net. Quoting:

Item 3. In order to clarify the intent of item 13 from the March Fastrack the CRB is recommending the following language. Effective 11/1/06:
Add new section 39 to section 17 as follows:

39. INSIDE NET (Commonly referred to as a Right Side Net)
A inside net running between the main roll hoop and the dash is recommended for all production-based cars and two-seater sports racers (see
figure 5). It is recommended that the lower strand of the net pass the shoulder and run horizontally from the cage to the dash. The upper
strand should pass the Cg of the helmet in the side view. The net should run parallel to the center of the car in plan view and be as close to the
seat as possible. It is recommended that the net be tensioned tightly and have a way to quickly disconnect it in case the driver needs to exit
through the car in an emergency. Metal collars, or some other equivalent method, should be used to keep the strands of the net from moving
from where they are positioned on the roll cage. If possible, the recommended mounting method is to wrap the net strands around the back of
the seat and attach them to the main hoop upright. However, teams should consult the net manufacturer to verify their recommended method of
mounting.
[/b]
Click to expand...
 
He wasn't in there for aroma therapy he was in there trying to get out and the HANS interferred with full egress.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Oh man, you love to twist reality to suit your needs in the worst way, don't you? I forgot, you were inside the car with him documenting the whole thing.

Listen dude, there will ALWAYS be that one percent of all accidents where a certain piece of safety equipment will end up killing somebody rather than saving them, yet you continue to press the issue that the hans is a death trap (yet you also continue to deny that you are badmouthing the hans, only trying to expose the hans dealers conspiracy that exists in yours and GBakers head).

Did Mr. Hand die? No. Did he suffer a head or neck injury? No. Was he quoted as saying his life was saved (in this accident and one other) by the hans? YES.

Lets say, for example, he was wearing an Isaac. Same crash. The Isaac saves him from deadly H&N injuries. He unbuckles his seatbelts and falls to the roof (which is now the floor).... but in his post crash daze (which he MUST have been in because if he wasn't, he could've simply pulled the hans quick releases that were on his helmet, or at the very least just unbuckled the hans posts which takes all of 1 second per side, rather than "trying to take his helmet off"), he forgets to release the Isaac tethers. Gas and oil are pouring on him as he is climing out (face first) through the door opening..... But, uh-oh... he can't get out because his helmet is holding him back! He backs into the car to either "take off his helmet" or to relieve the tension on his isaac tethers to therefore release them......

Is that not a totally plausible scenario? If it had happened that way, would you and Mr. Baker be blasting the SFI spec that legalized the Isaac?
 
Did Mr. Hand die? No. Did he suffer a head or neck injury? No. Was he quoted as saying his life was saved (in this accident and one other) by the hans? YES.[/b]
Click to expand...
Who is being selective to twist reality here? I guess it was crowded since you were you in the car documenting the forces and what transpired. Did you measure the forces? How do you know his life was saved by HANS? How do you know injury was prevent by HANS? Your basis for your selected conclusions is no different than anyone elses - supposition based on what was obseverd and said so lets go with everything he said and everything that was seen.

Was he quoted as saying he was not able to exit the vehicle on his own because his H&N restraint prevented full egress from the vehicle? Yes.

Did the time in the video from full rest of the car to full exit from vehicle take in excess of 60 seconds while soaked in fuel and oil? Yes.

Will I be allowed to choose a product that both will prevent H&N injury, save my life and allow full egress from the vehicle? Not as things stand now.

I am not telling you not to use the H&N restraint of your choice - you are telling me not to use the one of my choice. In history which role is one that is always wrong the one preventing choice or the one seeking choice? We know which role you wish to play in your reality.

I don't care what you use - but you have no right to restrict what I use.
 
Lets say, for example, he was wearing an Isaac. Same crash. The Isaac saves him from deadly H&N injuries. He unbuckles his seatbelts and falls to the roof (which is now the floor).... but in his post crash daze (which he MUST have been in because if he wasn't, he could've simply pulled the hans quick releases that were on his helmet, or at the very least just unbuckled the hans posts which takes all of 1 second per side, rather than "trying to take his helmet off"), he forgets to release the Isaac tethers. Gas and oil are pouring on him as he is climing out (face first) through the door opening..... But, uh-oh... he can't get out because his helmet is holding him back! He backs into the car to either "take off his helmet" or to relieve the tension on his isaac tethers to therefore release them......

Is that not a totally plausible scenario?[/b]
Click to expand...
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.

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.

But it sounds like you are saying full egress with HANS requires multiple points of release.... Hmmm.
 
I have read this thread with interest for a number of days contemplating whether to comment or not. The manufacturer ofthe restraint is, in this instance not a material issue. Any quality restraint, if worn properly would have probably performed the same function.

By the way, everyone who placed a gloved hand on the car, please raise your hand(raises hand). The issue here that scares me most is the possibility of fire, and Joey Hand is SO fortunate that there was no fire. I would also have to say that PTG has much to be proud about in the quality of race cars that they build. When the team was salvaging the car, the doors looked like they could be bolted up to another car and look almost as good as new. The integrity of the driving compartment was near amazing.

As a driver and worker, I am thankful for all the safety equipment that is in use today, and use all that I can get.

All of the discussion has caused me to reflect on a conversation that I had with Dr. Melvin at the Delphi Lab during a test of a H&N system not being discussed here. I was then and am today still convinced that the SFI issue is not something that is in the best interest of the driver.

Of course, these thoughts are only my opinion...........
 
Any quality restraint, if worn properly would have probably performed the same function.[/b]
Click to expand...
I agree 100%, the HANS likely contributed significantly to his being able to even have an interview - but so would other quality products.

The issue here that scares me most is the possibility of fire, and Joey Hand is SO fortunate that there was no fire.[/b]
Click to expand...
Which worries me as a driver that may not be allowed to choose a quality H&N restraint that I believe would allow ME to achieve full egress with more success.

I would also have to say that PTG has much to be proud about in the quality of race cars that they build. When the team was salvaging the car, the doors looked like they could be bolted up to another car and look almost as good as new. The integrity of the driving compartment was near amazing.[/b]
Click to expand...
Amazing and interesting as elsewhere there was comment that there was a reduction in the window opening that was a contributing factor.

By the way, everyone who placed a gloved hand on the car, please raise your hand(raises hand). ... As a driver and worker, I am thankful for all the safety equipment that is in use today, and use all that I can get. [/b]
Click to expand...
Ditto and as a driver I am equally thankful for people like you out there ensuring we have a fighting chance after an incident.

All of the discussion has caused me to reflect on a conversation that I had with Dr. Melvin at the Delphi Lab during a test of a H&N system not being discussed here. I was then and am today still convinced that the SFI issue is not something that is in the best interest of the driver.

Of course, these thoughts are only my opinion...........[/b]
Click to expand...
Would you describe Dr. Melvin as being supportive of a change in 38.1 or to remain in its current state? Several (who much as myself have never met him) claim that 38.1 has his unqualified blessing.

Thanks for the post, huge contribution.
 
It would be my opinion that the window opening was reduced by the cage structure that was rather substantial. To the best of my memory, the panels around the cage, including the roof panel were not deformed to the point that would hinder escape.

Regarding the good doctor, I will just say that being offered by a respected official, I was first somewhat offended by the flip manner of comments and later concerned. I have contemplated the manner in which the comments were offered and have personal opinions, which probably should be kept that way; personal.

This whole issue has forgotten the intended purpose, and that is the safety of the driver. Since it has become a competetion, the safety of the driver has become secondary, which is unfortunate.
 
Just a reminder, Bill, amidst all the conspiracy accusations, that the HANS does indeed save lives. You have a problem with that?

And what exactly are you trying to point out w/ this Peter? Do Hans devices save lives? Yes they do. I don't think anyone is disputing that fact.
[/b]
Click to expand...
 
It would be my opinion that the window opening was reduced by the cage structure that was rather substantial. To the best of my memory, the panels around the cage, including the roof panel were not deformed to the point that would hinder escape.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Not that it is of any importance or not... Take a look at the crash video's again, if possible on a HD TV so that you can really see the detail of the car. The Windshield was never even damaged and the roof never once touched the ground till the last very very soft roll where the car finally stoped. I would be amaizingly suprised if the cage had any sort of deformity considering:

A: Very well built car
B: The "roof" never took a hit


I am not sure I understand what is wrong with all you people and all the complaining and/or argueing so much about Hans vs. Isaac. They are both great products from what I am aware of. We have witnessed on TVor in real life plenty of reasons why they both have saved lives. If you are a Hans or Isaac wearer then support the overall cause for safety, not the product. One might be safer than the other but that is personal preference. We can all admit that both are safer than nothing.

Work on a bigger cause:

a: Make Head & Neck restraints affordable for the average or lower end club racer.
b: Help the process determine the best "restrictions" on what products actually do function to a specefic level (SFI or other). - Maybe their should be an a test that requires an exit to be made in X number of seconds.

Raymond "work together already :dead_horse: " Blethen
 
Just a reminder, Bill, amidst all the conspiracy accusations, that the HANS does indeed save lives. You have a problem with that?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Like I said Peter, I don't think that anyone is disputing that a HANS saves lives. Is it the best product out there? I don't have the answer to that question, but some have raised some significant design issues (lack of lateral support, device slipping out from under the belts).

The gist of the 'conspiracy theory' has little (or nothing) to do w/ the way the HANS functions. It centers mostly around the SFI requirement of a single point of release. Something also that has nothing to do w/ the way the HANS functions (it's interesting that Roy talks about the quick releaseses on the HANS, and then talks about someone forgetting to pull the release pins on the ISSAC).

For people to not be able to use a H&N device that's been proven to work, because it doesn't meet a standard that has requiremtnts that don't relate to performance of the device, certainly makes one wonder why the standard was written that way, or why it was adopted.
 
Like I said Peter, I don't think that anyone is disputing that a HANS saves lives. Is it the best product out there? I don't have the answer to that question, but some have raised some significant design issues (lack of lateral support, device slipping out from under the belts).

The gist of the 'conspiracy theory' has little (or nothing) to do w/ the way the HANS functions. It centers mostly around the SFI requirement of a single point of release. Something also that has nothing to do w/ the way the HANS functions (it's interesting that Roy talks about the quick releaseses on the HANS, and then talks about someone forgetting to pull the release pins on the ISSAC).

For people to not be able to use a H&N device that's been proven to work, because it doesn't meet a standard that has requiremtnts that don't relate to performance of the device, certainly makes one wonder why the standard was written that way, or why it was adopted.
[/b]
Click to expand...


Bill-

I am a huge supporter of Isaac, but excuse my argument but... HAVING A SINGLE POINT RELEASE IS A SAFETY FEATURE that HANS has figured out. IT IS A GOOD/IMPORTANT FEATURE as it helps a driver get out faster. This is very important, but your question should be is this one feature more important than making it so the driver can attempt to get out in the first place? STOP arguing that HANS only concentrates on the single release exit, it is a lousy argument. The problem you and every other friggen person that argues about this crap needs to figure out is that yes, Hans does this right, BUT their are also other alternatives that can be as safe and most importantly will help when most people get injured/hurt- That is in the accident not getting out of the car. Lets save the people first and just have a requirement that they need to be able to get out in X number of seconds and be done with it.

Raymond "Ok done with my rant... I woke up to early" Blethen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top