NASCAR Bans Hutchens Device

At this juncture there are three options:

1) Continue trying to get the SFI Spec changed so it does not expressly exclude the Isaac system. Since no one at SFI has replied to our correspondence, it would be reasonable to assign a low probability of success to this action. Expended resources with no results, so why bother?

2) Build an SFI version of the Isaac system. It wouldn’t work as well, but who cares?

3) Wait for a driver who was refused the use of an Isaac system by his SFI-friendly sanctioning body to get turned into a crispy critter when the HANS device traps him in a burning car. This gets ugly, especially if it occurs on national TV. Also, it may take some time until the grand event--even though the problem has happened several times recently, the drivers weren’t killed, just singed. It’s just a matter of time. Probability of success? High. Plus it’s easy. We just sit and wait. I like it.

What do you guys think? Let’s take a poll. 1, 2, or 3?

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
I'd like to see option #1

A) I'd like to continue to use my ISAAC. I think the trend is more and more organizations are relying on some outside agency to set their safety standards/mandate their use. Thankfully, VARA has continued to allow us drivers to make our own choices.

B) A "SFI" stamp of approval will sell more devices to those who believe the certification process is the end of the story.

C) Most importantly, I don't want to become the driver in your scenario #3.

What would have to change in the design of the ISAAC, to allow #2. How would this affect its' performance in a negative way?



------------------
Daryl DeArman
ex ITA and EProd 1st gen Rx7 and ITA Mk1 MR2
current owner of a FV, who still visits this site because the Vee forums aren't near as fun.--and no there isn't anything to do on my Vee right now or I'd be doing it ;)
 
I'd like to see #1 as well and would even volunteer to help.

I will continue to wear my Isaac until a) someone shows me conclusive evidence that doing so will cause me serious injury, B) on grid, they look at all H&N restraints and don't let me out on track, or c) I stop racing.

Even if the SCCA bans the Isaac, I'm still wearing mine. I'll gladly be protested and finish last. It's better than being dead!

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
 
I hear ya Daryl, and I agree that #1 is the cleanest way to go.

I had a chance to chat with Arnie Kuhns of SFI at the SAE conference and mentioned some of the concerns expressed in our letter to them. Arnie's a good guy. He was very receptive and noted more than once that the specs can change as new information is collected.

SFI hasn't ruled anything out. I strongly believe they are between a rock and a hard place. On one side are the sanctioning bodies that want a standard, on the other side are consultants/manufacturers offering advice. I don't want that job.

An SFI version of the Isaac system would generate slightly higher compression loads in the early portion of the crash sequence. These loads are already low, so a small increase is not an issue. If you or I hit the wall head-on we could not tell the difference between the real Isaac and the SFI Isaac, but a crash dummy load sensor would pick up a small spike--maybe 15% (I'm guessing).

We just hate to waste time screwing around with a fresh design and test cycle only to produce something with predictably lower results. We developed this product line because we wanted to help drivers, not because we wanted to have something "certified" by an organization that needs consultants to write a spec.

Then there's the "certified" thing. Passing the test does not mean the product is certified by SFI. In order to become certified the manufacturer needs to sign the SFI agreement--and that's another story.

This injury is rather straightforward. It's been happening since someone invented the hangman's noose. In the racing environment, however, the solution gets a bit tricky. Perhaps it's time for a specialized sanctioning body.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
I'd no question prefer #1, but would deal with #2 and a retrofit if it's what I had to do to keep my ISAAC over a HANS. I would not race sans H+N device.

An excerpt from my post on the NASA forums:

But when I, as an engineer (in automotive safety systems, BTW), am faced with a spec that makes no sense, I will fight like hell to have it fixed! Specs are written with a purpose in mind, but they don't always get there -not unlike much correspondence. I view a large part of my job as making sense of the spec, not just blind obedience to written word that may not be justifiable. I'm sure Gregg Baker is in a similar situation; there are a number of points, large and small, in this spec that do not make sense with respect to providing optimal protection for the driver, and he's doing his dammedest to fix the problem at the source. However it does appear that his efforts are being met with less than genuine interest.

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITB/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com
 
Two more things I forgot to add. The SFI site does now list the LFT R3 as an approved device/manufacturer. Presumably this was a matter of paperwork not catching up with the website?

Another is that NASA does state now, in their CCR (GCR equiv.) that they expect they may well require H+N devices in compliance with SFI 38.1 as of 2006. That's as in devices are _required_ for competition, not that any devices used must meet 38.1.

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITB/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com
 
Originally posted by 924Guy:
I'd no question prefer #1, but would deal with #2 and a retrofit if it's what I had to do to keep my ISAAC over a HANS.
Click to expand...

A retrofit is no problem. Already designed.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I would not race sans H+N device.</font>
Click to expand...

Smart guy, but we already knew that.
wink.gif


As an aside, I am frequently struck by the difference in attitudes between drivers who have never crashed (and think they never will) and those who have, like Vaughan.



------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Lets see lasts years convention was pimping these things hard so i would guess there is probably something to that rumor....
Click to expand...

Wait 'til this year's convention, Joe. Bigger and better. Just look for the guys who have the product logos on their shirts and laptop lids.



------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
Greg, I won't be there. I have a hard time justifying the expense to value ratio. I look at this as another big tadoo that costs me money...
 
Originally posted by gsbaker:
I had a chance to chat with Arnie Kuhns of SFI at the SAE conference and mentioned some of the concerns expressed in our letter to them. Arnie's a good guy. He was very receptive and noted more than once that the specs can change as new information is collected.
Click to expand...

And as vendors become new members of SFI I'm sure.

Originally posted by gsbaker:
Then there's the "certified" thing. Passing the test does not mean the product is certified by SFI. In order to become certified the manufacturer needs to sign the SFI agreement--and that's another story.
Click to expand...

I know you are not saying it, but I will.... This is the rub.

I sure wish a truly independent safety agency would be set up. Sadly I don't think it will every happen.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Oh, #1, for sure.

And I agree with the others. The day they tell me my Isaac isn't allowed on the track is the exact day, to the moment, that I turn my car around, put a "For Sale" sign on it, and give the collective SCCA, and SFI the proverbial finger.

Sorry, while I have a respect for authority, I have NO respect for greedy "Unbiased" agencies, nor organizations that are run by lawyers.

We are too close to that point as it is.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Originally posted by Geo:
I sure wish a truly independent safety agency would be set up. Sadly I don't think it will every happen.
Click to expand...

I don't know, George. It would be tough for all racing safety products, but I can see an independent agency for this issue.

How does this sound?...

The Institute for Blah Blah rates head and neck restraints based on percentage head load reduction (HLR). Period. It does not "certify" anything. It simply collects test data and assigns a number between 0 and 100 based on an established pool of knowledge.

There is no requirement that anyone become a member and there is no charge to the manufacturer. The cost is zero; no money changes hands. Donations to maintain a Web site would be accepted from individual racers only.

The only requirement for a product to be "Institute Rated" is for the manufacturer to submit all test information ever collected on that product. By "all" I mean ALL. No more of this showing just the good stuff. Full disclosure and it all goes on the Web.

Racers and sanctioning bodies can decide for themselves what level of protection is appropriate for them.

Everything has already been tested at Wayne State. If we had the data this could be online in a week.

What's missing (except for a name, the Blah Blah thing doesn't cut it)?

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
I'll host the site gratis so there's no suggestion that it's being funded by any one manufacturer.

I've got a really expensive piece of paper that says that I'm a perfessional evaluator and researcher, too.
smile.gif


K
 
Sounds great. It's EXACTLY what's needed. How can you assure the data is indeed 100% complete (all) and accuate?



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Originally posted by Dave Zaslow:
Gregg,

Come on up to the Philly area and pose a few questions at the safety seminar found at:

http://www.aarn.com/ms-seminars.html

Dave Z
Click to expand...

Dave,

Thanks. We were aware of that one and offered to present, but it didn't come together.

We know what's going to be said because John presented at SAE last month--although this will probably be more overview material.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
I'll host the site gratis so there's no suggestion that it's being funded by any one manufacturer.

I've got a really expensive piece of paper that says that I'm a perfessional evaluator and researcher, too.
smile.gif


K
Click to expand...

That's generous Kirk. Thanks. Be aware that there may be bandwidth problems. You'll need 400MB storage per crash per product. The videos alone are about 120MB each and there are three per crash.

And that's just Wayne State; there are also Delphi and FIA labs.

You could easily start with a one-page site using WSU data only. Show a summary chart and list some tabular data.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Sounds great. It's EXACTLY what's needed. How can you assure the data is indeed 100% complete (all) and accuate?
Click to expand...

The best approach is to get the data directly from the lab. If any manufacturer had a confidentiality agreement in place with the lab, the product would not get an Institute Rating.

One should anticipate some odd situations where, say, someone was testing in Australia unbeknownst to the manufacturer, so revoking a rating may be a bit harsh if the manufacturer can't cough up all the data. I don't think zero tolerance works, but you do need full disclosure from the manufacturer, at least.

One could just go with WSU data. It's a mother lode. They've hit everything over 15+ years.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
Ooch. I hadn't thought about video - I don't have the capacity at this point - but if I can help out with static content to get started, I'd love to.

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