NASAs H&NR rule

With all due respect Jim, it was cursory at best. NASA said, "Hey, we need insurance," and went to a carrier(s) who asked, "Do you subscribe to the industry standard?" NASA said, "Sure. We're even members of SFI." The carrier looked around, saw a bunch of SFI labels and cashes the premium check.
The carrier did not ask, "You guys wouldn't be engaging in gross negligence by way of ignoring safer products just so you could CYA with a label, would you?" Why did they not ask this question? Because gross negligence leads to punitive damages and, in most states, insurance carriers are not allowed, by law, to cover punitives--it won't cost them a dime extra.

A jury comes back with $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and the carrier says, "Here's your check." The jury then adds $20,000,000 punitive and the carrier says, "Good luck, and have a nice day."

And heaven help any NASA officers/agents/stockholders/franchisees who may also be HANS/R3 dealers.

Someone needs to get their head in the game.
[/b]

I can't believe you are posting what NASA said, not knowing what NASA said. I find this totally unprofessional. Your scare tactics are worse. I don't mind debating this with you but this is ridiculous.

Say what you want about this. I am done.
 
I can't believe you are posting what NASA said, not knowing what NASA said. I find this totally unprofessional. Your scare tactics are worse. I don't mind debating this with you but this is ridiculous.

Say what you want about this. I am done.
[/b]
Don't shoot the messenger. Do you want to hear it from me or someone else?
 
Actually, I just looked up the actual wording. It doesnt' say that there must be a single point of release. All it says is that the H&N restraint must not ADD any additional points of release.

"Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations."
[/b]

Here's a dirty little secret...If I release my belts wearing an ISSAC or a HANS Device, I have disengaged the HaNRS in a manner satisfying the requirements given above. The SYSTEM is disengaged. It is inoperative. It is NFG.

So, either ISSAC is crying foul for no reason other than not wanting to pay the per unit fee or SFI is certifying devices in an arbitrary and capricious manner. BOTH systems are disengaged when the belts are released.
 
Does anyone really believe that NASA did this without consulting their "risk management" people. You may not like what they have come up with but I think they thought this out.
[/b]

I think the odds are not as low as you would like to believe. I've worked NASA events as a flagger and if their "risk management" people saw what happens on track and how the folks in the tower deal with it, their "risk management" people would have heart attacks.

No enforcement of the no passing under a yellow rule.
About 10 cars blowing 2 flag stations displaying red and spinning into the grass at Summit Point's Turn 8 to avoid the traffic stopped there, yet not one of those drivers were punished for endangering workers or fellow drivers.
 
Here's a dirty little secret...If I release my belts wearing an ISSAC or a HANS Device, I have disengaged the HaNRS in a manner satisfying the requirements given above. The SYSTEM is disengaged. It is inoperative. It is NFG.

So, either ISSAC is crying foul for no reason other than not wanting to pay the per unit fee or SFI is certifying devices in an arbitrary and capricious manner. BOTH systems are disengaged when the belts are released.

[/b]

I'll bite. I know you have some legal chops, but...

let's say I am Isaac. I've paid my SFI membership fee. (presuming they accept me)
I submit my product. Do you think it will pass?? Really? Do you think the SFI is going to agree with your definition of their rule? I seem to recall that, somewhere in their specs, they reserve the right to refuse "certification", and they don't need to justify that refusal to anyone.

Further, the specs go on to use the term "main unit" when describing the design architecture of the device. Perhaps I'm being simple, but to my eye, the Isaac doesn't have a "main unit" ...

Don't you think Isaac would have submitted the device if it thought there was a snowballs chance in hell it would pass? Gregg might be a bit boisterous in his online presentation, but I've never thought he was an idiot.

I also seem to recall somewhere in the hundred threads on this over almost 5 years, the Gregg has stated that he has had discussions with SFI, and they have told him not to bother, the Isaac will not be considered in it's current design. Gregg please correct me, as I would not want to speak out of place.
 
Oh, I know where the blame lies - SFI. I only included all options to forestall people providing them for me.

The language is very clear - the system (not the driver) must be disengaged. It is in the ISAAC. That means SFI is being arbitrary. That's a serious no-no and, having had my annual anti-trust lecture, smells of a trade organization (SFI) boycotting a particular company. The "reserve the right" language doesn't get them out of the pickle, especially since sanctioning bodies are using SFI as a standard.

It means that the standard isn't a standard. It is what SFI wants to certify as passing the specification and there goes the legal cover for the sanctioning bodies.
 
It means that the standard isn't a standard. It is what SFI wants to certify as passing the specification and there goes the legal cover for the sanctioning bodies.[/b]
Thank you.


Gregg might be a bit boisterous in his online presentation...[/b]
I should tone that down. But it's hard to resist pounding the table when you hear the whistle blowing--that would be the whistle of the oncoming train, which has a headlight that is being mistaken for the light at the end of the tunnel.

I also seem to recall somewhere in the hundred threads on this over almost 5 years, the Gregg has stated that he has had discussions with SFI, and they have told him not to bother, the Isaac will not be considered in it's current design. Gregg please correct me, as I would not want to speak out of place.[/b]
Correct.
 
"Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations."[/b]

I haven't looked it up, but Josh posted ^^^this^^^ language as from the spec.

So...now somebody is trying to craft an argument that Isaac actually does meets this requirement, because the spec requires just the "system" to be released, and that system "release" does not necessarily include actually letting a driver get out of the car. Let's see...belts are released, your head is still screwed inside a helmet, which is still attached to the belts...but it shouldn't be a problem cuz DAMMIT, YOU'RE RELEASED.

Wow. Stay away from court rooms. In fact, stay away from sharp objects. Maybe stick to finger paints.

Mr. Baker - didn't you previously (a few years ago...) engage in racing web-board discussions about how you had a fix "in the works" for this "single release" issue ? What became of that ?
 
... having had my annual anti-trust lecture, smells of a trade organization (SFI) boycotting a particular company. The "reserve the right" language doesn't get them out of the pickle, especially since sanctioning bodies are using SFI as a standard.

It means that the standard isn't a standard. It is what SFI wants to certify as passing the specification and there goes the legal cover for the sanctioning bodies.[/b]
"Quoted for truthiness" - S. Giles

This whole issue spins around the word "standard" like an axis. We need to be a LOT more clear - regardless of which side of the various issues we fall on - about how we are defining this term. "Design, performance, and licensing terms agreed to by a portion of the suppliers in a market" defines a very different axis, than does "maximum acceptable neck load under a defined test protocol."

K
 
So...now somebody is trying to craft an argument that Isaac actually does meets this requirement, because the spec requires just the "system" to be released, and that system "release" does not necessarily include actually letting a driver get out of the car. Let's see...belts are released, your head is still screwed inside a helmet, which is still attached to the belts...but it shouldn't be a problem cuz DAMMIT, YOU'RE RELEASED.

Wow. Stay away from court rooms. In fact, stay away from sharp objects. Maybe stick to finger paints.[/b]

My apologies if the exact wording in what is required to pass the test offends you. The spec clearly says "system". It does not say "driver". The SYSTEM is only engaged when the belts are fastened.

When you are acting like the safety police and setting testable, reproducable requirements for devices that meet the requirements you set, the exact wording of what you require is the ONLY thing that matters because the wording of the standard is GOSPEL.

If SFI wanted the driver's head/neck to no longer be attached to the vehicle upon release of the safety belts, then THAT is exactly what they should require. Requiring disengagment of the "system" is an entirely different kettle of fish.

The certification process is arbitrary, unscientific and non-reproducable. It smells of FTC violations.
 
I got a huge kick out of the suggestion that RICO might apply. :P Lots of legal chutes and ladders but 3x damages...?

K
 
Mr. Baker - didn't you previously (a few years ago...) engage in racing web-board discussions about how you had a fix "in the works" for this "single release" issue ? What became of that ?
[/b]
Yes, in 2005. We built two versions of an SFI-compliant Isaac system and tested at Wayne State and Delphi. We had the same results you get with any SFI design: Lateral load reduction is terrible, and the belts come off at Delphi.

It has been thoroughly documented that the SFI design is a lightweight concept from the last millennium. Please, no more e-mails suggesting how we can meet SFI specs. You'll have better luck contacting Ferrari with suggestions on how they can meet the Yugo spec.


I got a huge kick out of the suggestion that RICO might apply. :P Lots of legal chutes and ladders but 3x damages...?

K
[/b]
A civil filing will claim conspiracy. Whether the combination of bodies and money is sufficient to attract a politically ambitious federal prosecutor is another matter.

Now, back to sharp objects and finger paint. ;)
 
as long as we're talking about imprecision in the spec leading to arbitrary decisions...


2.2 Separate Restraining Devices:
...
B. The main device shall be a mechanism held tightly to the driver's torso by
seat belts or other strap systems such that the reactive load carrying
components move directly with the torso and controls head, neck, and
torso relative positions during forward or off-center impact situations.[/b]
the hans does not technically move "directly" with the torso - the mechanism of action is to allow the shoulders to slide down the front arms a bit and the device stays back with the belts and the tethers tighten. Something like the R3 does move directly with the torso.



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.[/b]
does anybody seriously think that the Hans and R3 etc allow freedom of movement of the head under ALL race and associated conditions? e.g. entering the track at an angle and having to look over your shoulder, looking both ways in the paddock, etc. You can partially make up for those things with mirror placement and flaggers, but the device itself does not really pass this provision.
 
<blockquote> A stunned Brad Jones was trapped in the stricken car for several minutes. Rescue teams rushed to his aid as petrol poured out of the battered car. "You are just stuck in there," he said. "You feel absolutely helpless. You can't get out and I felt that if it burst into flames I just would have died." Jones said the compulsory Head And Neck Support (HANS®) safety device, a neck brace that limits the movement of a driver's head, had made it difficult for him to escape the car. "I unbolted myself and undid everything and I was standing on the door, but with the HANS® device you can't reach up to get out," he said. "It is a very claustrophobic thing and you can see liquid (petrol) coming out all over the place. I shut the engine down straight away, but of course everything is still pretty hot. I had to wait for someone to come and open the door for me." - Brad Jones, V8 Supercar driver, New Zealand, 2005</blockquote>
 
Yes, in 2005. We built two versions of an SFI-compliant Isaac system and tested at Wayne State and Delphi. We had the same results you get with any SFI design: Lateral load reduction is terrible, and the belts come off at Delphi. [/b]

Is this a failure of the SFI spec, or a failure of your design ? Other systems have passed these tests...how can that be "the same results you get with any SFI design" ? When you designed that system, what was your position on the system being "released" ? It certainly seems to have changed today.

It has been thoroughly documented that the SFI design is a lightweight concept from the last millennium. [/b]

Can you direct us to that documentation ? We would all like to see it.
 
JohnRW,

i interpreted his reply that the numbers achieved were similar to what the HANS and other current SFI approved achieved and had substantially higher side loads, etc. than the Isaac.

and i am not an Isaac owner (or any other H&NR), etc., just an interested observer.

i have to admit that each design seems to have major pros and cons but that is why i think the driver should be able to choose based on the whatever device has demonstrated to achieve certain loads using accepted testing methods. and based on the rest of the system they have in their car.

Kirk, you said it much better earlier.

"maximum acceptable neck load under a defined test protocol."[/b]

Tom
 
Back
Top