NASCAR Bans Hutchens Device

Wow, now that is surprising. While I wouldn't use one (I do want to have kids some day!), I'm surprised that these would be banned given the "something is better than nothing" terms of head and neck systems.

Maybe they are just clearing the way for the Isaac device!!
smile.gif


------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
 
Gregg...we are waiting for a comment from the most informed individual we know about this stuff.

I wonder why things can never be taken for face value.

Jim
 
I read in Sports Car that Hans received 'SFI' certification acording to a new standard that SFI created. Following that announcement, NASCAR ruled that since the HANS was the only device to receive SFI certification, it will be the only device allowed.

I would be really interested in how the standard was developed and by whom and with whose help. Really strange when only one manufacturer's device gets certified! But, it could just be that other devices have not been tested yet!
 
I read in Sports Car that Hans received 'SFI' certification acording to a new standard that SFI created. Following that announcement, NASCAR ruled that since the HANS was the only device to receive SFI certification, it will be the only device allowed.

I would be really interested in how the standard was developed and by whom and with whose help. Really strange when only one manufacturer's device gets certified! But, it could just be that other devices have not been tested yet!
 
Don't know how I got the double post but sorry.

The plot thickens - a visit to the SFI website (www.sfifoundation.com)reveals no announcement of the Head and Neck Restraint standard (38.1) but if you drill down in the 'Manufacturers' section, under Specification 38.1, there are two new members - Hubbard-Downing HANS Device, and LFT Technologies R3 Device (????). Jumping over to the LFT website, they advertise that their H&N device has been aproved by NASCAR!!!! BTW, both Speed channel and NASCAR websites announce that the HANS device is the only approved H&N restraint.

Following this logic, the only helmets that NASCAR should approve are Bell and G-Force, since they are the only manufacturers listed on the SFI website. (Simpson Performance Products is listed under other specifications). Very strange.
 
"A head and neck restraint needs to compliment the system that it is working in. Early testing on HANS Devices show an increase in both neck tension and HIC when used in an entire system with a head rest. (SAE Motorsports: Melvin / Hubert Gramling). This has also been shown to be the case in independent testing done on stock car set-ups with the HANS device. In back to back tests run on the same safety cell, have shown that the differences between carbon devices and strap harnesses is greatly reduced. The strap device systems normally decrease neck tension vs the baseline, while the HANS device neck tension has been shown to increase because of the interaction with the entire system."


Simple. Strap on your HANS device guys. Better chance of breaking your neck. But SFI will stay in business and HANS will make $75,000,000 based on mandated usage. What's SFI's cut?
 
I'll be just like SFI. I'll set my own standard and not tell you what it is and then I'll tell you that you have a greater risk of breaking your neck if you wear a HANS. If SFI wants to be the authority, disclose the test data. Instead they say nothing and issue certifications that only benefit certain parties. The belts deal is no different. It provided huge support to the companies that pay SFI's bills and the test data at best shady. Nothing has changed in twenty years on belts and all the sudden they're unsafe? What's that tell you about SFI? They let us use unsafe belts for twenty years? SFI is a schlock organization and a front for manufacturers. Add in the insurance company and they have the best gimmick in the world.
 
One thousand one, one thousand two...

You guys are pretty fast. This hit the AP wire about 24 hours ago.

Because I am short on time at the moment, and because I post here over my signature as a representative of the company, I will refer everyone to the official company position on this matter:

http://www.isaacdirect.com/SFI.html

I'll try to check in later.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
Mark this date in your calenders: I agree (kinda) with Mattberg.

If it says NASCAR, we all know that it smells of greed and dishonesty.

Gregg, nice letter...too bad somebody big doesn't seem to care, and the BS continues.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Who knows maybe there could be a silver lining around that cloud....?

Isn't the Hutchens device patent held by a member of the Richard Childress organization? Maybe they'll get pissed off enough with this whole "force a HANS down your throat" BS approach that something will get done. Some of these tactics by HANS, while effective, ought to be illegal--assuming that they are not. That is coming from a pretty strong capitalist who is anti sue happy.

I'd like to know what the SFI specs are and when ISAAC is going to submit theirs for testing? Is the spec written in such a manner that it purposely excludes the only device on the market that could meet/exceed the performance of the HANS? (read the FIA specs)
 
In retrospect, I probably should not have offered the initial reference. The letter is overly detailed and makes further reference to documents not presented. Plus, it sounds a bit testy, probably because the author (me) was disappointed at what should have been a first draft of the Spec. Let me try again, beginning with an historical perspective...

We first discussed this subject with Arnie Kuhns of SFI in 2002 in Indy at the PRI show, which immediately followed the SAE’s Motorsports Engineering Conference where several good papers were presented on the subject of head and neck restraints. Arnie is a good guy, and he commented to Brian Butler and me that there was a lot of interest from sanctioning bodies for a standard for H&N restraints post Earnhardt, but that interest had dropped off. We speculated that this was probably because there was not an established measure of performance.

I mentioned that several thoughtful folks were drifting toward the concept of head load reduction (HLR), i.e. the percentage of head load that is reduced by a particular product. A simple concept, it ranges from 0-100% for a given crash protocol (direct frontal, offset frontal, lateral, etc.) and the higher the number the better. Using it drivers don’t need to bother deciphering ads containing copy such as “Our product reduced Fz loads to 3850 Newtons on the 50G, 35mph delta V sled at XYZ labs utilizing a male Hybrid III anthropometric test device! Buy now and get free shipping!!!” Who needs that nonsense? Drivers deserve to know how well something works—preferably in 25 words or less.

We completed testing in August of 2002, so when we were invited by NASCAR to test on the Delphi sled four months later we declined. It was the same setup with a slightly higher impact. The results were predictable (2,000N-2,500N upper neck Fz), so why bother? In hindsight, we probably should have tested there as the SFI Spec calls for testing on that sled, which generates about 70Gs.

To summarize SFI Spec 38.1 sections regarding crash testing, you need to conduct three tests at a nominal 68G peak load: two frontal yielding 3,200N or less load and one 30 degree offset at 4,000N or less load. These are easy numbers for an Isaac system. Honestly, after seeing 15+ years of data in which researchers have hit dummies at offset frontal/frontal impacts, this bores me to tears. Doing this stuff again is a waste of time. Dr. John Melvin, a big HANS proponent and all around good guy, has roughed up equations-—similar to ours-—that predict head loads in impacts beyond 100+Gs. So why do we ignore all the data from the 50G sled at Wayne State and go with a recent ~70G sled on which few devices have been tested? And what about the big honkers, the new 100G sleds? If we test the Isaac on a 100G sled and kick butt do we not receive SFI certification because the Isaac is too good? Let’s get real.

But I digress. Our problem is not with the crash-test sections of the Spec-—that’s easy--it is with other sections.

So, which products meet the performance requirements called for in 38.1? The Isaac system, the HANS device, the White device and the R3. The Hutchens device, apparently, does not. (I’m taking bets on this, BTW. I’m good for a beer.)

The interest thing to watch is the recently "SFI certified" R3 device developed by Trevor Ashline (another all around good guy), who developed the Hutchens device. If NASCAR says the Hutchens is out because it failed to pass the SFI test, must the R3 be in because it passed? According to NASAR, no. They want to think about it.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
Originally posted by gsbaker:
... If we test the Isaac on a 100G sled and kick butt do we not receive SFI certification because the Isaac is too good?
Click to expand...

Not specifically because it's too good but, yup - that's the system, isn't it?

I had a little exposure to Mr. Kuhns and the SFI when I worked with a suit manufacturer years ago. When we would submit quilt samples for testing, SFI approval was granted for that exact make-up - and ONLY that make-up - including the color of the NomexIII on the outside.

They didn't actually do SFI cert until I was on my way to a different career but if their simple two-layer suit had been tested and received SFI 32a/5 approval, my custom suit would not. For the record, it's made of (inside to outside)...

3.5 oz. Nomex tricot lining
Nomex batting
PBI/Kevlar
Nomex III

For those who haven't looked into this business, SFI ratings are NOT minimum performance standards. They are certification that something has passed a very specific testing protocol, whether it results in generalizable findings or not.

Further, the SFI foundation charges an additional fee for each of the tags that manufacturers affix to their products, in addition to charging for the actual testing.

Unlike some, I don't adhere to a conspiracy theory on this stuff. It's simple capitalism, taking advantage of tort-happy US customers and masquerading as a benevolent "foundation."

It's no different than SportsCar allocating space in the annual safety equipment "buyers' guide" based on how much we paid for advertising.

K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top