Head & Shoulder Restraint Kit

to gsbaker

The object of a good head restraint is to keep the head in contact with the BODY, not the seat belts. If the driver ever slips out of a shoulder belt your device would cause almost certain catastrophe. The reason the Hutchens device is no-longer allowed in Nascar is that it attaches the driver's head to the seatbelts instead of trying to tie it in with body position. This causes compression fractures in the spine. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it's not possible. Your device has better numbers in testing because it attaches the head to the car and not the body holding it more in place, but that doesn't make it better. I'm not going to slam a device I've never used because 2 drivers I have worked with have died of the basilar skull fracture injury. Had they been wearing your device might they still be alive today? Quite possibly. But that doesn't mean your device has all of the benefits of the other devices. Single release for a quick exit isn't the only advantage even if that is the "technicality" they can use to make your device illegal. But dangers to the spine are FAR less by spending more money on a device that keeps the head positioned with the BODY instead of the SEAT BELTS. But I'm sure you know this. I hope you DO continue to find cost-effective means to keep all racers safe, but I believe your device is flawed and I wish you would be more up-front on all of the message boards you post on with the potential for spine injuries.

Jonathan McIntire
 
Jonathan said:
The object of a good head restraint is to keep the head in contact with the BODY, not the seat belts. If the driver ever slips out of a shoulder belt your device would cause almost certain catastrophe. The reason the Hutchens device is no-longer allowed in Nascar is that it attaches the driver's head to the seatbelts instead of trying to tie it in with body position. This causes compression fractures in the spine. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it's not possible. Your device has better numbers in testing because it attaches the head to the car and not the body holding it more in place, but that doesn't make it better. I'm not going to slam a device I've never used because 2 drivers I have worked with have died of the basilar skull fracture injury. Had they been wearing your device might they still be alive today? Quite possibly. But that doesn't mean your device has all of the benefits of the other devices. Single release for a quick exit isn't the only advantage even if that is the "technicality" they can use to make your device illegal. But dangers to the spine are FAR less by spending more money on a device that keeps the head positioned with the BODY instead of the SEAT BELTS. But I'm sure you know this. I hope you DO continue to find cost-effective means to keep all racers safe, but I believe your device is flawed and I wish you would be more up-front on all of the message boards you post on with the potential for spine injuries.

Jonathan McIntire
Click to expand...
In 20+ years dealing with biomechanics I don't believe I've ever seen so many misconceptions compressed into one paragraph.

Please read Melvin, Hubbard, Trammel et al.
 
Jonathan said:
The object of a good head restraint is to keep the head in contact with the BODY, not the seat belts. If the driver ever slips out of a shoulder belt your device would cause almost certain catastrophe. The reason the Hutchens device is no-longer allowed in Nascar is that it attaches the driver's head to the seatbelts instead of trying to tie it in with body position. This causes compression fractures in the spine. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it's not possible. Your device has better numbers in testing because it attaches the head to the car and not the body holding it more in place, but that doesn't make it better. I'm not going to slam a device I've never used because 2 drivers I have worked with have died of the basilar skull fracture injury. Had they been wearing your device might they still be alive today? Quite possibly. But that doesn't mean your device has all of the benefits of the other devices. Single release for a quick exit isn't the only advantage even if that is the "technicality" they can use to make your device illegal. But dangers to the spine are FAR less by spending more money on a device that keeps the head positioned with the BODY instead of the SEAT BELTS. But I'm sure you know this. I hope you DO continue to find cost-effective means to keep all racers safe, but I believe your device is flawed and I wish you would be more up-front on all of the message boards you post on with the potential for spine injuries.

Jonathan McIntire
Click to expand...
I love people who worry about a theoretically possible event that "may" happen .000001% of the time, and overlook the advantage of a device that in almost all situations be more effective.

I am guessing this guy doesn't have a roll protection in his street car because his car "may" roll over in an accident. ID 10 T

I will say no more...
 
EV said:
I love people who worry about a theoretically possible event that "may" happen .000001% of the time, and overlook the advantage of a device that in almost all situations be more effective.
Click to expand...


Tell that to the Feds regarding Toyotas :p
 
See, this is what I've seen you do on other forums. Instead of coming back with an actual rebutal, you tell people you have the experience and the answer and it is the "evil sanctioning bodies" that are keeping you down. Then you tell me to read something written by the person who invented the HANS device.....um, that's why I'm buying his device, not yours.

As far as th qoute-unqoute .000001% chance time that something bad happens, the first race I ever worked in Cup was the race at Michigan where Ernie Irvan slipped out of his belts when he crashed in practice because they weren't tight enough and spent the next year learning to walk again. So I've seen it. And compared to my road car? I think pushing a vehicle to it's limits and putting it in places that is questionable is what racing is all about, so I think your chances of an accident are more than slightly increased from a road car. That was a rediculous comparison.
 
quote from Dr. Hubbard

You said read Hubbard, so I did.

excerpt from The History Of The HANS Device As Told By Dr. Bob Hubbard
By Marty Tyler

http://www.catchfence.com/2006/pers...of-the-hans-device-as-told-by-dr-bob-hubbard/

“Then in about 1981, Jim Downing, who is my wife’s brother, had a friend of his, Patrick Jacquemart, go off the track at Mid-Ohio and run into an embankment with the front of his car. His torso was restrained, but, his head was unrestrained and he had a fracture of the base of his skull or the basilar skull fracture. Jim knew how Patrick was injured and he asked me what could be done about that. I had this background in head injury and injury assessment and had pit crewed for Jim having been interested in racing for some years and I came up with the idea of the HANS Device to restrain the head relative to the torso in a way that wouldn’t add injurious loads to the neck. My thinking was if I could keep the head on the shoulders then it wouldn’t stretch the neck, a pretty simple concept. I also thought of other ideas with straps, and so on, and didn’t pursue those because I didn’t think they would be as effective as the HANS.”

....it's the "restrain the head relative to the torso in a way that wouldn’t add injurious loads to the neck" that I refer to. Your device does not accomplish this.
 
Jonathan said:
See, this is what I've seen you do on other forums. Instead of coming back with an actual rebutal, you tell people you have the experience and the answer and it is the "evil sanctioning bodies" that are keeping you down. Then you tell me to read something written by the person who invented the HANS device.....um, that's why I'm buying his device, not yours.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the impending ban of the device in SCCA...

which, by their own admission is based solely on a CYA approach as opposed to a stance that they are drawing a line in the sand regarding safety.
 
Jonathan said:
....it's the "restrain the head relative to the torso in a way that wouldn’t add injurious loads to the neck" that I refer to. Your device does not accomplish this.
Click to expand...

I can't believe I'm wading into this, but Gregg's system *does* accomplish it as long as the torso and head are both restrained relative to the seat belts.

In other words, as long as the belts constrain the body, using the belts to also constrain the head accomplishes the same purpose.

I think Gregg would say that this assumption is totally valid and in fact the only way to approach it, because if the belts fail to constrain the body, then neither system succeeds.
 
Jonathan, being that YOUR CONNECTED how's the law suite HANS versus Defnder going?

Or anyone else with info.

EDIT:

Forgot, with our production based cars after procuring the HANS then we can procure a hallo seat to cover the lateral load which the HANS does rather POORLY.
 
Last edited:
halo seat

.....as far as the lawsuit goes the only thing I've heard is on other boards. From those, the lawsuit has been dropped but dropped in a way that can be brought again.

....as far as the halo seat goes, ABSOLUTELY! The devices are best served when the body is restrained to it's fullest extent. HANS HAS added lips on the side to help keep the belts in place, and Schroth has taken it a step further by patenting their own non-slip surface under the belts of their HANS. I'm sure a lot of us have seen the video of Delphi testing where the HANS slips out of the belts, but if not it is [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkB9D8eFLLg[/ame]
But what you will notice is how far the body slips inside the belts even though it stays "relatively" in them. Just think how far the Isaac device would be pulled out of sync with your head attached. This isn't good for the HANS, but it isn't good for ANY system that is unsupported with a halo system, the Isaac included. So if I'm going to have the much-needed halo system and a net installed, I'd rather have an sfi-rated device that will be legal for my money, as well as single-release capability AND presents no danger to my neck.

Here's how it should work in frontal crashes only;
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PXWpmSH-ao&NR=1[/ame]

And here's the side with a proper halo seat;
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1gLMXmdjfg&feature=related[/ame]

......and again to address how safe we are in road cars compared to racing cars, an SFI device is more effective than an airbag, but your road car DOES utilize them to restrain the passengers.

I know all of this safety stuff is expensive and a pain in the rear, but racing is supposed to be the coolest thing you do in your life, not the LAST thing you do in your life. I've been unfortunate enough to be around a lot of pain and suffering of those affected and left behind by major racing crashes in my pro career, but I've also been fortunate enough to be around during a major safety awakening and been to seminars held by NASCAR with some of the best info available in the business. I'm just trying to pass on the info I was fortunate enough to learn to help everyone race as safely as we know how right now.
 
JoshS said:
I can't believe I'm wading into this, but Gregg's system *does* accomplish it as long as the torso and head are both restrained relative to the seat belts.

In other words, as long as the belts constrain the body, using the belts to also constrain the head accomplishes the same purpose.

I think Gregg would say that this assumption is totally valid and in fact the only way to approach it, because if the belts fail to constrain the body, then neither system succeeds.
Click to expand...

100% bingo for my view as well.

And while some will speak lovingly of halo seats, it's not like there aren't prices to pay with them as well. One, unlike NASCAR, we don't have numerous spotters around the course to inform us of cars in our now numerous blind spots. And again, unlike stock cars designed expressyl for halo seats, we race small sportscars with small windows that require us to climb out of on occasion, and when we have to go out the window, it's often when we're in a hurry. Dragging a HANS (or even not) through a much reduced (thanks to the big old wings) becomes quite a pain for people of larger than jockey size. I know I know, get a bigger car, ...it's safer...

it's all about balancing the different equipment choices with what our personal risk situation is. I'm NOT thrilled that I will hurt my visibility, AND significantly make it harder to get out of the car in a situation when I need to, when I've had a system that has protected me in incidents in the past, and is known to NEVER slip off the belts, AND tests WAY better than all others in lateral hits......

But, some lawyer someplace, or some "Foundation" knows better.
 
Halo seats: I've been using one since 2004. The egress is more difficult, no doubt, but I honestly have never felt any change in visibility. I think you're kidding yourself if you think you turn your head that far.
 
yea, I'm looking at his picture of a "Proper halo seat"...there ARE other seats like the momos and Recaros that are sized more conservatively, but at some point i wonder, when I hear teh reports of how far the belts stretch in an impact, if those more minimal seats are properly effective. And if they aren't, then why pay the egress price? I know, it's not black and white, but then again, it's not black and white. ;)
 
lateapex911 said:
yea, I'm looking at his picture of a "Proper halo seat"...there ARE other seats like the momos and Recaros that are sized more conservatively, but at some point i wonder, when I hear teh reports of how far the belts stretch in an impact, if those more minimal seats are properly effective. And if they aren't, then why pay the egress price? I know, it's not black and white, but then again, it's not black and white. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you're looking at a 'containment' seat which is more like what you see in the Sprint Cup. Extremely long right side halo that blocks vision to the right but as you said earlier, with spotters helping it's a non-issue for them.
 
Jonathan said:
See, this is what I've seen you do on other forums. Instead of coming back with an actual rebutal, you tell people you have the experience and the answer and it is the "evil sanctioning bodies" that are keeping you down. Then you tell me to read something written by the person who invented the HANS device.....um, that's why I'm buying his device, not yours.

As far as th qoute-unqoute .000001% chance time that something bad happens, the first race I ever worked in Cup was the race at Michigan where Ernie Irvan slipped out of his belts when he crashed in practice because they weren't tight enough and spent the next year learning to walk again. So I've seen it. And compared to my road car? I think pushing a vehicle to it's limits and putting it in places that is questionable is what racing is all about, so I think your chances of an accident are more than slightly increased from a road car. That was a rediculous comparison.
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight, you have seen one person who misused their belts ("weren't tight enough"), and slipped out, to damn the design of a device that's proven to be the most effective design, in all but one exceedingly rare instance (slipping out of belts), and call my comparison "ridiculous"? :shrug:

If the sanctioning bodies I run with permittted it, I would be using the device that give me the best protection. Sadly, some lawyer somewhere has made me choose to be less protected than I could be. I hate warning labels too...
 
Jonathan said:
....it's the "restrain the head relative to the torso in a way that wouldn’t add injurious loads to the neck" that I refer to. Your device does not accomplish this.
Click to expand...
If you don't like ours you're gonna hate the HANS (it has higher loads to the neck, i.e. adds loads).

Any driver safety "system" is a collection of building blocks. Once a cage and seat are in place, the next step is the belts. If you cannot keep the belts on the shoulders everything goes downhill. The H&N restraint performance is compromised, and the seat head surrounds and side nets are only needed because everything has then become disconnected. It's a Keystone Cops exercise in trapping the driver in the car, all because the H&N restraint failed to hold the belts in place. We know this because we have tested designs that do not engage the belt, and designs that do engage the belt both rigidly and loosely -- at both Wayne State University and Delphi Safety Systems -- and published the results in peer-reviewed papers. We actually know what we're talking about.

Guess which approach works better?

Look, I think your concern for driver safety is laudable, but if there is something you know about belt interaction that the rest of the world is missing, please publish it.
 
Well...

Slightly OT...but...Gregg are there any efforts being made in regards to ISAAC use in he future or are we (ISAAC users) simply all screwed next year.

???
 
buldogge said:
Slightly OT...but...Gregg are there any efforts being made in regards to ISAAC use in he future or are we (ISAAC users) simply all screwed next year.

???
Click to expand...
The SCCA made two completely opposite rulings on the subject in 2009 (same people, same issue, different outcomes), with the latest not going into effect until 2012. It's a pretty good guess that things will change at least once between now and then.

Everyone play safe this weekend! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top