Notes from presentation by Tom Gideon, GM Race Satefy Eng.

924Guy

New member
Here's my recap from the presentation I attended last night.

I just attended, last night, a presentation by Tom Gideon, a GM Race Safety Engineer, to our local road racing group, Waterford Hills Road Racing. Tom is one of those guys who is working regularly with crash-testing the latest gear at Delphi and Wayne State. He has worked on crash safety for all the GM race projects, notably (for us) the C5R, CTS-V, and Cavalier Drag car, as well as of course NASCAR and IRL. The presentation he gave was a version of what he presents to the pro drivers, and was, for me, essentially a recap of safety info presented by Dr. John Melvin in 2000 to the Detrot SCCA Region, with the latest updates in crash safety.

It was extremely timely, given all the discussions going on here and elsewhere online about H+N devices, side impact protection, and the like. He actually focused more on lateral and oblique impact protection, as I was hoping; the head-on impact is fairly well understood now and protected against, not to mention the least likely kind of impact to be experienced in our type of racing (IMO).

To recap on the straight-line stuff, you need (for best protection) a 6- or 7-point harness (properly secured, of course), H+N restraint (of which the HANS is the best for this impact, according to their data and tests - note at this point that I have an ISAAC, not a HANS), and the proper SFI padding on cage bars (though this comes into play more on lateral hits). The 5-pt harness is NFG - no good - compared to the 6- and 7-point; the added movement allowed more than doubles chest compression, from an average of 20mm (with a 6-pt) to about 50mm avg with a 5-point. This is about 2 inches. This also happens to be where the sternum will break. The solution to preventing the sternum breaking is the 6-point harness, not the sternum strap. Actually, in their tests, the sternum strap shows potential to injure the neck. Don't go there, kids!

The ISAAC apparently suffers from the same limitations as the Hutchens, D-Cel, et al in the full frontal impact; where the force is applied from is less-than-optimal, reducing the effectiveness of the device. The HANS, because of the collar, is applying force from a much better direction, and this is why it is more effective. To put numbers to it, the threshold for basal skull fracture or other injury is 4000N (tensile force on the neck). The HANS reduces this to 2000N in their benchmark frontal impact test (sorry, don't remember for sure the numbers, but I think that was 40G, 35mph). By contrast, the ISAAC, Hutchens, etc all apparently end up at around 3000N - enough to save you, but less effective. But the HANS does have its limitations - in lateral. It only contributes in a 45 degree angle; beyond this angle of impact, it will not help control head motion. This was why I selected to go with the ISAAC; again, while not as effective in straight-line, it appears to (based on analysis of design and my personal experiences) provide support and motion control in all up to 90 degree impacts. More on my personal testing of the ISAAC later.

For lateral impact, it was VERY clear that the BEST thing you can do, the most important step - was not to buy the $2000 seat! It was to buy the $75 NASCAR interior side impact net and mount it properly! It catches the shoulders and head and controls motion to the other side of the car (to make it PC for anyone driving a RHD car . The window net and cage provide the same protection on the outer side (LHS) of the driver. Even in the case of a very fancy seat, the net is necessary to back up the support of the seat. The net he had there, to show, happens to be the same one I just bought, from BSR Racing ($75 as mentioned), and that is what they test with. He had numerous test videos shown (from the sled, along with one actual in-car from a hit by Johnny Benstead) showing performance with and without the net. Even with a HANS, as mentioned, in a lateral or 45deg hit, the test dummy is bouncing or coming close to bouncing off the cage bars, and the motion of the dummy is very poorly controlled (really, not at all). Even the fanciest aluminum seats are less than 100% effective without the net. Here's the BSR webpage:
http://www.bsrproducts.com/homepage.cfm

The net, to speak of its installation, straps to the members of the main hoop of the cage to position it vertically to catch the shoulder and helmet. It should be positioned next to the shoulder, and continue straight forward to the dash bar. There is a quick release up by the dash bar, and a ratchet will tension it as required. Since my cage is a little less complete than a NASCAR car, I will need to call BSR back and clarify some fine points on installation. However, their tests have shown that even without a perfect installation, it's better than nothing. Just like a H+N device - something's better than nothing, even if it's not the very best.

But it was clear that the 100% solution was to also have a seat that will provide some degree of shoulder support, to help, in combination with the net, to support and control the driver laterally. I did ask him, specifically, if these big bad aluminum stock car seats were necessary to get all the lateral protection, and much to my surprise he did say NO. Basically any decent sort of seat with some form of support in the shoulders, when backed up with a right-hand-side net, was OK, though I still get the impression that the more stout construction and design of these aluminum seats with shoulder and head supports are still just a bit better than some of the really light-duty composite seats with very minimal shoulder support. However, if choosing between shoulder and head support, clearly the shoulder must be stopped before the head - or you get compression loading of the neck, instead of tension loads! Restraining the shoulders is the key.

Back to the padding - it's been expressed well before, but again, anywhere your helmet can hit MUST have the SFI-approved padding - the stuff that's hard. The pipe insulation stuff doesn't cut it, and can split or send you rebounding. Neither is a desireable result. This tends to be an issue more in lateral than longitudinal hits.

As to my personal experiences; as mentioned, I have an ISAAC device, which I started wearing last year. No issues with head movement, time to connect/disconnect, etc. I also crash-tested it in a lateral impact last year. I went sideways into the armco at maybe 60mph (in my 924). The back hatch was blown out, the right rear fender caved in, and the rim and right rear trailing arm bent - the hit was also slightly rearward, as I was going backwards and hit the wall that was driver's side left when normally driving on the track with the right side of the car. For my protection, I had only 6-point belts, a bottom of the line Kirkey Economy seat, and my ISAAC. My head bounced off the petty bar (unpadded) and cracked the helmet (Bell M3). I felt a little woozy, had a little tunnel vision shortly after, but oxygen cleared that out. I had mild headaches for the week following, and that was it. No other injuries. I'm glad I had the ISAAC, for the lateral support it gave (verified later by ISAAC LLC as I sent it in to them for evaluation). I also did a lot of stupid things, and got really lucky and got away with all of them! Cheap seat, unpadded bars on the cage, no interior lateral support, and driving hard on an untested chassis going for a last-lap pass. The seat will be upgraded or replaced, the petty bar is coming out (not worth the hazard), the interior net goes in, SFI padding for everything else, and I will never tell myself (while on track) - the motor's blown, you're not racing this car again this weekend, you've got nothing to lose by trying for the pass! Boy was I wrong - you can always demolish your car and put yourself in the hospital!

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com
 
Originally posted by 924Guy:
...To put numbers to it, the threshold for basal skull fracture or other injury is 4000N (tensile force on the neck). The HANS reduces this to 2000N in their benchmark frontal impact test (sorry, don't remember for sure the numbers, but I think that was 40G, 35mph). By contrast, the ISAAC, Hutchens, etc all apparently end up at around 3000N - enough to save you, but less effective. But the HANS does have its limitations - in lateral. It only contributes in a 45 degree angle; beyond this angle of impact, it will not help control head motion. This was why I selected to go with the ISAAC; again, while not as effective in straight-line, it appears to (based on analysis of design and my personal experiences) provide support and motion control in all up to 90 degree impacts. More on my personal testing of the ISAAC later....

Vaughan,

Thanks for passing on the information. It is consistent with everything we know with one exception, the head loads in frontal impacts for the devices mentioned.

Both the Isaac system and the HANS device come in at about 1,000N:

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

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
And I thought Dr. Hubbard told me the HANS was really only effective at +/- 15 degree impact?

Perhaps best at +/- 15, effective to +/- 45?

Or past 15 is when some other means of side load support is required?
 
To clarify (thanks for responding Gregg), the numbers referencing the relative performance of the Hutchens and ISAAC to the HANS were what Mr. Gideon gave as strictly for frontal impact, not oblique. This is exactly the #1 reason I chose to go for the ISAAC over the HANS (and would probably still do so, if I were shopping now) - I don't plan to crash head-on into any walls!
smile.gif
I don't plan to crash, and when (not if) I do, I have no idea what direction I'll be pointing. I want to make sure I have all-around coverage. Seeing the dummy bouncing off of internal bars with a HANS but no side net was confirmation enough for me. The HANS may be optimized for frontal impact, but that seems to limit its effectiveness in other directions.

Gregg, do you guys have any crash videos?

Agreed, Tim, perhaps best at +/- 15 deg, effective to up to 45 degrees. Either way, and even without a H+N device, the net is a Good Thing.

Sometimes it's frustrating to have to wait for the technology to come out, when you know you need it now! Who knows what's going to be available/state-of-the-art in 5 years. I'm just thankful that such a cheap, simple piece of equipment as the side net is so effective - to me, it's almost as dramatic and as cheap as adding seatbelts (as opposed to having none).

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com
 
Vaughn, thanks for the synopsis. I'm a little surprise about the 6pt vs. 5pt harness. Maybe you can help clarify the mounting of the 6pt. I currently have a 5pt, but a 6pt is on order. The lap belt and the shoulder belts obviously should mount/attach the same. Currently the crotch belt goes through a single hole in the seat. I was assuming the 6pt would do the same, but with the attaching points spaced apart to form a 'V'. Based on what was presented, does this sound right, or is there a different manner in which these two points should be attatched? It seems with them going through the same hole in the seat, my forward motion would be about the same.

[This message has been edited by John Herman (edited April 08, 2004).]
 
Vaughan,

Originally posted by 924Guy:
...the numbers referencing the relative performance of the Hutchens and ISAAC to the HANS were what Mr. Gideon gave as strictly for frontal impact, not oblique.

Really?! To our knowledge, no one has ever crashed an Isaac system head on. That was what we intended to do, but Wayne State recommended the 30 degree offset crash test for comparison purposes. The Isaac and HANS were virtually identical (we won, but who's counting).

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...This is exactly the #1 reason I chose to go for the ISAAC over the HANS... The HANS may be optimized for frontal impact, but that seems to limit its effectiveness in other directions.</font>

This is tough to quantify. Any lateral crash tests are very dependent on the seat design. If you test all products with one seat, you can't conclude with any confidence how they will function with other seats.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Gregg, do you guys have any crash videos?</font>

Sure, lots of them. We have a really good one that demonstrates why you do not want to attach any kind of helmet mount with rivets. Remember that scene from "The Exorcist" where what's-her-name twists her head around? It's amazing we didn't kill the dummy.

The only problem with videos is that they do not provide any load data. For that matter, some people still believe head loads are related to head position. Wrong.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...the net is a Good Thing.</font>

Yup. Personally, I believe there are better ways to solve this problem, but in the meantime get a passenger-side net!

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
John - correct, coming through the hole in front wouldn't help. You want them coming in from the side. I run mine in holes in the side of my Kirkey, then up through the hole in the padding.

Gregg - perhaps the numbers he mentioned were oblique, not head-on. The comment was made after the main presentation, during discussion, and so no data shown on the video presentation - just approx numbers off the cuff. It wasn't a prime area of focus to me, since I already have made my choice, and for more than just frontal impact.

I do also wish there were more data at the different angles, with the different restraints, combinations with nets, etc. - we're only seeing chosen bits and pieces of a proper comprehensive matrix of results. At least we were shown videos of no H+N, HANS frontal, lateral and oblique, and HANS lateral and oblique with net. I would like to concurrently have seen the videos with the other restraint devices. More to the point, I'd like to see this stuff available online! It's always sequestered on a laptop, rarely on a website... and, like I said, never enough different configurations to satisfy the scientist of a complete experiment.

Does ISAAC LLC plan to put any of their crash videos on their site?

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com
 
So basically, I want to sit on the straps before they come up through my legs. If the straps are long enough, is there any reason not to attach them to the same point as the lap belt? With a composite seat, it doesn't look like I'll be cutting additional holes. I gues I'll have to investigate the option of going through the lap belt hole.
 
John--The preferred six point sub strap mounting is at the same points as the lap belts and, yes, you "sit" on the sub belt.
(actully it comes around the side of each of your thighs and up your crotch.

I had one on my rally car and really liked it. The reason I went with it was that my driver seat did not have the hole for the traditional sub-strap of a 5 point system.

The only draw back is to find the correct length for that puppy. Us "weight-disadavantaged" types will need extra-long.

The seven point system that SCCA now recommends uses both the six point and 5 point sub-straps, I suppose.
 
Consider, if you will, a phenomenon that we are all subjected to but not always aware of:

A brand name or acronym becomes the accepted term for any process or device relating to a given item. For example: if you have a photocopied sheet in your hands, it is more often than not refered to as a "Xerox" copy, regardless of the manufacturer of the machine that created it. Was it dumb luck or brilliant marketing strategy that one of the first developed head restraints was named with an acronym HANS? And as a result, every time any device that performs this function is mentioned, automatically everyone considers the acronym.

There seems to be great reluctance to look favorably upon anything outside the initial product, and that is really unfortunate. From reading Vaughn's comprehensive report, I get the impression that anything other than the HANS is discounted even before the test data was examined. It is far too easy to pidgenhole everything other than the HANS as being also-rans, which, in this case, seems to be the case.

This follows the same line of thinking as the officials of the pro series that I have shared my ISAAC with. "Oh that's nice" and then on to another subject.

Happy Easter everyone.
 
I bought a set of Crow (I know SFI, not FIA) Formula style 6pt belts. These utilize the d-rings through the lap belts. The leg straps are plenty long. Thus my reason for posting the info here. The "camlock"--oops release mechanism
biggrin.gif
is smaller sized than the regular non-formula model and only the left side lap belt is adjustable. These belts are very comfortable.
 
Vaughn-

Great report!

I too, am suspicious of the numbers and the lack of complete apples to apples and pears to pears data sets.

Thanks for the well written info.

(It was my understanding that the HANS and the Isaac were clearly better than the rest numbers-wise, but I must have misunderstood....)

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Originally posted by Dave Burchfield:
There seems to be great reluctance to look favorably upon anything outside the initial product, and that is really unfortunate. From reading Vaughn's comprehensive report, I get the impression that anything other than the HANS is discounted even before the test data was examined. It is far too easy to pidgenhole everything other than the HANS as being also-rans, which, in this case, seems to be the case.

.

Yes, there is something fishy going on....

The Isaac is a solid product, but for some reason, it seems to get little credit. I know a lot of guys who went out and bought a HANS, guys who were exposed to the Isaac, but still went that way, and I don't understand the reasons. One guy has to have "the Best", (whether it is or not is unimportant as long as those who see him in it thinks its the best. Dress to impress....) But the others...I can't explain.

I am aware that there is some financial involvement between the F1 boys and the HANS boys, so thats an obvious (but very distasteful) reason that the HANS is the ONLY approved product.

I love these sanctioning bodies who toot the "Best for the saftey of our divers" line when it's best for the grand poobahs pocketbooks!
rolleyes.gif



As an aside, I recently read out own magazines (Sportscar) report on Head and Neck restraints and was very disappointed in it. Lame.


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Agreed, Jake, and thanks! Yes, there was a bit of a sense of "pooh-pooing" the ISAAC, lumping it with the cheap webbing stuff... seems like they've bought into the HANS and don't wish to be proven wrong - that point was already tested, and not open to be revisited. My intent of course was to relay as accurately as I could the material that was presented.

As an aside, I have added to my website with pics of this safety net in my car. It's not fully installed yet; among other things, I still need to put loops on the cage bars to keep the webbing from sliding to the right in an impact. But it gives a basic idea of how the unit fits in.
http://vaughanscott.com/construction/safety.htm

It could also be noted that GM has bought HANS devices for all their development drivers that drive on the racetrack and require their use. It could be a liability/financial concern if the ISAAC were later proven to be better...

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com
 
Guys,

smile.gif


I don't know where to start. Actually, I just popped in and don't have time to comment at the moment, but will later.

You have all made some very good points, and I would like to thank Vaughan again for his excellent contribution.

In the meantime, don't forget that this has never changed and remains, to our knowledge, the only place in the solar system to present apples-to-apples, pears-to-pears performance values: http://isaacdirect.com/html/chart.html

biggrin.gif


------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
Almost forgot...

I don't want to sound like a cheerleader, but you "A-Team" guys need to know that things are trending the Isaac way very rapidly.

Just ask the drivers who are dumping their HANS devices for Isaac systems. Our two-week backlog went to five weeks (we will fix that on Monday). This is the kind of thing that does not make the media, but that too will change as soon as NASCAR barbeques a driver on national TV.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
Well Gregg, that is great news regrding the sales increase! I hope that by "backlog" you don't mean that your Grandmother in the back room with the arthritis is putting them together as fast as her feeble fingers will let her! Sometimes at the alarming rate of...ooooo..ahhh TWO a WEEK! kidding, kidding!

Lets hope that NASCAR doesn't succeed in frying anyone!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Arrgh... it starts to get annoying... Plenty of wiggle room in these discussions now, which starts to pi$$ me off. First of all, the response from HANS/Hubbard-Downing is not from Hubbard or Downing, but a sales guy. Screw that, lemme talk to the engineer! Plenty here are engineers, and I happen to believe (based on previous discussions) that those who are not are perfectly capable of reviewing numbers and summary data to verify conclusions. Don't try to simplify things for me - you're insulting my intelligence!

Amusing to note that Gregg's response to my request for video was the observation at how meaningless position is vs. force data (true) - in contrast, the pretty little sheet from Hubbard-Downing (linked in the other thread, here it is:
http://www.logician.com/Stuff/ComparisonSheet06.pdf) is pictures from the crash tests, not even video, with some numbers to the side.

Hell, let's tear the HANS sales rep's response apart point by point, for consistency.

0) The HANS is currently FIA certified. I should damn well hope so, given that it's being used in F1! Of course, as I think we all well know, impact considerations in a single-seat formula car are a little different than a sedan. But that's besides the point. Is the HANS the _only_ FIA certified device? He claims ignorance here, which is correct and valid depending on when he makes this statement. But we must also examine exactly what the FIA is certifying here - as examined on rennlist, their seat certification is less than impressive (though better than nothing) and sometimes "FIA-certified" is taken (in discussion as a blessing from the hand of God, far more than I think even the FIA consciously wishes it to be. BTW, anyone else note that the FIA H+N testing procedure seems to be nothing more than a quality test for the HANS device? I don't even know how you could test and ISAAC, Hutchens, et al on that rig. Read the test procedure. We LOVE the FIA! </sarcasm>

2) Sounds like behavioural modification to get over limitations of the system. I regret that I am unable to work with Porsche to have them redesign the window opening of my '79 924 to ease my egress with a HANS device. I don't think it'd be IT-legal.
wink.gif
Of course, I've chosen a device which requires that I release it myself when I exit. It was the first thing I popped, reflexively, after the last time I crashed; then I thought to myself and made a conscious decision to NOT unbuckle, since I was still in an impact zone. Only the Hutchens and D-Cel may have an advantage in this area, but I'm willing to make a tradeoff on ease of egress before I compromise on performance. No big deal here, IMO.

2) The link earlier in the thread to RSI Safety would seem to contrast sharply with this statement: http://www.rsisafety.com/ Perhaps, while the Philly collar works well with the HANS, it's not so readily available at the lower levels? I know Hubbard-Downing has not come out to Waterford, or to meet with our local F+C and safety crews, to address this. Heck, we rent our ambulance! Again, a HANS-specific issue here, and not well addressed for the everyday club racer, IMO.

3, 4) This sounds more like an appeal to "common-sense" rather than test results. As an engineer, I can appreciate how sometimes common-sense is wrong. They're appealing to the emotions of simplicity and fear. They make a vague statement which appears to implicate the ISAAC, but during a mode which sounds like complete failure, and without a direct statement of which device speared the dummy's helmet. I've always wondered why it seems like the helmets nearly come off the dummy anyway, in these impacts - as an issue separate of H+N restraint. I do agree with his statement that an internal net is even more critical, in a lateral impact, than a H+N restraint, having seen the video Mr. Gideon presented.

He further disparages the ISAAC bar graph comparison, while providing even LESS data, but more pretty pictures, to sell ihs product (noting no comparison data shown by him for the ISAAC).

And one last appeal to the emotions - hey, all the big boys are wearing the HANS - don't you want one? Yeah, well, except that a whole helluva lot of NASCAR guys are wearing Hutchens, and frankly, I REALLY don't think that's better than a HANS! I doubt Gregg would disagree with me on that one! When there's SO much data out there showing that the HANS is better than the Hutchens and D-Cel, why does anybody wear the latter?

I'm still not satisfied with the limited amount of data out there, even if I have put my money where my mouth is.

I hate salesmen, but I guess that's just the engineer in me.

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com
 
Hey, Jake, would you cross-post that for me? I;m not registered on that forum, and don't feel much like signing up for yet another board...

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com
 
Back
Top