StephenB
New member
Sorry I haven't replied in a few days... lots of work and no time.
We definetly have different view points and we should leave it at that rather than bicker. I completly see your view points and I was one that viewed it exactly as most of you do. I waited to make a purchase until this year so that I wasn't making a poor investment which in retrospec I was lucky I was never killed and really was the least safest thing to do of all! If you really want my response on the wheels and rollcage let me know and I can PM you.
I do wish to repsond to the following links attached at the bottom in hopes that I can further explain my viewpoint without getting kicked off this forum. I know I said I didn't want to bicker as I started to type this Post so please understand that I welcome your comments back but I probably will not defend myself. I just wanted to respond to your questions and try and explain my viewpoint. If you don't agree with me no harm no foul and we are each entitled to our own opinion.
First I COMPLETLY agree and wish we adopted another testing company like SNELL or anything else for that matter. BUT I feel like we cannot control that now and the decision has been made. Like it or not (Which BTW I do not like the decision)
SECOND I also think that It is not up to Issac to decide on what we as consumers purchase. However it is up to them on what they decide to sell. As stated below they can provide both units and allow for us to purchase what we want within our needs as a consumer. YES one is less safe and performs worse BUT this happens ALL THE TIME in the marketplace. Not just in safety but it still happens in the safety of us as Racers. A perfect example of this is the seat market. Some come with side impact head protection, others do not. One is safer and one is not depending on the situation and needs of the consumer. In this situation with H&N support Issac has a product that performas worse BUT meets the SFI standard. If they decided to produce ithis product we could purchase an Issac product so that we don't feel the need to purchase a HANS or Safety solutions product. If this product is as safe as the HANS and Safety Solutions would you support Issac or them? So many people say they are not going to purchase a HANS no matter what so they will most likely get a Safety Solutions brand. Is the Issac safer than those, I don't know but at least we would have options. If Issac has a customer base that supports the business model they have AND they feel a less performing product isn't an option based on the reputation and or ethical values as a company then I give them kudos and wish them well. BUT we as consumers could always send them a letter requesting they build the product and you never know... maybe they will.
I REALLY REALLY wish Issac had an SFI product and advertised that a safer option is available for sale and included a form to every person that purchased their product to write in to SFI. Imagine if Issac could sell to Nascar, NHRA, Grand-am, ALMS, etc and promoted that safer options ARE available? That is the way I see this changing for the future. At this point we need a bigger "movement" and building awarness is the only thing I think that will change it but bickering on the internet or boycotting racing isn't going to change a thing. I really think this is bigger than us or SCCA.
Stephen Blethen
PS: I only used BOLD below just to differenciate what I was typing, I screwed up the quote thing and didn't want to re-type stuff.
Stephen, think about Greggs case. He modified his product, tested it, and got inferior results to what he had, and was selling.
You DO see that a jury, in a case against him, would look at that information, and rip him a new one, as he chose to sell a product that he KNEW was inferior to the one he already sold. You have to admit, if it was YOUR life on the line in that courtroom, you'd think VERY hard before making and selling something you KNEW had issues, irregardless of the actual drivers and in field performance.
I DONT SEE IT THIS WAY AT ALL, ESPECIALLY IF THE TEST RESULTS ARE PUBLISHED AND PROVIDED WITH EACH SALE.
Bigger picture here, Stephen, if the HANS people had written the spec in a more open manner, this issue would be less likely to exist at all. But they wrote it with clear market limiting intentions, just as SFI empowers, and encourages them to do. And we, the HANS buying SCCA driver, pumps money and makes that relationship and system work, all the way to the bank, or in Arnies case, his Newport Beach CA home.
OUT OF OUR CONTROL, I CAN'T EVER CHANGE THIS. BUT I CAN PURCHASE OTHER PRODUCTS OTHER THAN A HANS IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE.
SFI acts like the white knight, parading around telling us how we are all safe, thanks to the charity of Arnie, yet, in reality, acts in ways to to limit our safety.
AGREED BUT OUT OF MY CONTOL.
It's a shame Snell isn't a broader organization, they seem to have a better model.
AGREE
08-15-2011 10:14 AM
gsbaker Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenB
So none of you think that the manufacture could have spent sometime and redesigned the product to meet the specs. This has been going on for nearly a half decade, I really think they could have done something to meet the specs if they wanted to.
Stephen
Duh.
4 May 2005, Wayne State University crash lab, Test #NC149, NASCAR offset protocol.
29 September 2005, Delphi Safety Systems crash lab, Test #IS59F010, SFI 38.1 offset protocol.
The Isaac design modified to meet the SFI spec worked rather well at the WSU lab, but not at the Delphi lab where the belts came off -- just like a HANS device.
You wouldn't detune a Ferrari to meet a Yugo spec. Why would you detune an Isaac to meet an SFI spec? What good thing happens? We sell more stuff and kill drivers? Sorry, SFI needs us more than we need SFI.
I GIVE YOUR COMPANY A LOT OF CREDIT FOR STICKING TO YOUR VALUES. I UNDERSTAND YOUR VIEW AND WISH YOU LUCK IN THE FUTURE. I WISH SFI AND OTHERS VIEWED IT THIS WAY. I ALSO WISH THAT I COULD SUPPORT YOUR COMPANY RATHER THAN HANS OR SAFETY SOULUTIONS. AT THIS TIME YOUR COMPANY DOES NOT MAKE A PRODUCT THAT MEETS MY NEEDS.
We definetly have different view points and we should leave it at that rather than bicker. I completly see your view points and I was one that viewed it exactly as most of you do. I waited to make a purchase until this year so that I wasn't making a poor investment which in retrospec I was lucky I was never killed and really was the least safest thing to do of all! If you really want my response on the wheels and rollcage let me know and I can PM you.
I do wish to repsond to the following links attached at the bottom in hopes that I can further explain my viewpoint without getting kicked off this forum. I know I said I didn't want to bicker as I started to type this Post so please understand that I welcome your comments back but I probably will not defend myself. I just wanted to respond to your questions and try and explain my viewpoint. If you don't agree with me no harm no foul and we are each entitled to our own opinion.
First I COMPLETLY agree and wish we adopted another testing company like SNELL or anything else for that matter. BUT I feel like we cannot control that now and the decision has been made. Like it or not (Which BTW I do not like the decision)
SECOND I also think that It is not up to Issac to decide on what we as consumers purchase. However it is up to them on what they decide to sell. As stated below they can provide both units and allow for us to purchase what we want within our needs as a consumer. YES one is less safe and performs worse BUT this happens ALL THE TIME in the marketplace. Not just in safety but it still happens in the safety of us as Racers. A perfect example of this is the seat market. Some come with side impact head protection, others do not. One is safer and one is not depending on the situation and needs of the consumer. In this situation with H&N support Issac has a product that performas worse BUT meets the SFI standard. If they decided to produce ithis product we could purchase an Issac product so that we don't feel the need to purchase a HANS or Safety solutions product. If this product is as safe as the HANS and Safety Solutions would you support Issac or them? So many people say they are not going to purchase a HANS no matter what so they will most likely get a Safety Solutions brand. Is the Issac safer than those, I don't know but at least we would have options. If Issac has a customer base that supports the business model they have AND they feel a less performing product isn't an option based on the reputation and or ethical values as a company then I give them kudos and wish them well. BUT we as consumers could always send them a letter requesting they build the product and you never know... maybe they will.
I REALLY REALLY wish Issac had an SFI product and advertised that a safer option is available for sale and included a form to every person that purchased their product to write in to SFI. Imagine if Issac could sell to Nascar, NHRA, Grand-am, ALMS, etc and promoted that safer options ARE available? That is the way I see this changing for the future. At this point we need a bigger "movement" and building awarness is the only thing I think that will change it but bickering on the internet or boycotting racing isn't going to change a thing. I really think this is bigger than us or SCCA.
Stephen Blethen
PS: I only used BOLD below just to differenciate what I was typing, I screwed up the quote thing and didn't want to re-type stuff.
Stephen, think about Greggs case. He modified his product, tested it, and got inferior results to what he had, and was selling.
You DO see that a jury, in a case against him, would look at that information, and rip him a new one, as he chose to sell a product that he KNEW was inferior to the one he already sold. You have to admit, if it was YOUR life on the line in that courtroom, you'd think VERY hard before making and selling something you KNEW had issues, irregardless of the actual drivers and in field performance.
I DONT SEE IT THIS WAY AT ALL, ESPECIALLY IF THE TEST RESULTS ARE PUBLISHED AND PROVIDED WITH EACH SALE.
Bigger picture here, Stephen, if the HANS people had written the spec in a more open manner, this issue would be less likely to exist at all. But they wrote it with clear market limiting intentions, just as SFI empowers, and encourages them to do. And we, the HANS buying SCCA driver, pumps money and makes that relationship and system work, all the way to the bank, or in Arnies case, his Newport Beach CA home.
OUT OF OUR CONTROL, I CAN'T EVER CHANGE THIS. BUT I CAN PURCHASE OTHER PRODUCTS OTHER THAN A HANS IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE.
SFI acts like the white knight, parading around telling us how we are all safe, thanks to the charity of Arnie, yet, in reality, acts in ways to to limit our safety.
AGREED BUT OUT OF MY CONTOL.
It's a shame Snell isn't a broader organization, they seem to have a better model.
AGREE
08-15-2011 10:14 AM
gsbaker Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenB
So none of you think that the manufacture could have spent sometime and redesigned the product to meet the specs. This has been going on for nearly a half decade, I really think they could have done something to meet the specs if they wanted to.
Stephen
Duh.
4 May 2005, Wayne State University crash lab, Test #NC149, NASCAR offset protocol.
29 September 2005, Delphi Safety Systems crash lab, Test #IS59F010, SFI 38.1 offset protocol.
The Isaac design modified to meet the SFI spec worked rather well at the WSU lab, but not at the Delphi lab where the belts came off -- just like a HANS device.
You wouldn't detune a Ferrari to meet a Yugo spec. Why would you detune an Isaac to meet an SFI spec? What good thing happens? We sell more stuff and kill drivers? Sorry, SFI needs us more than we need SFI.
I GIVE YOUR COMPANY A LOT OF CREDIT FOR STICKING TO YOUR VALUES. I UNDERSTAND YOUR VIEW AND WISH YOU LUCK IN THE FUTURE. I WISH SFI AND OTHERS VIEWED IT THIS WAY. I ALSO WISH THAT I COULD SUPPORT YOUR COMPANY RATHER THAN HANS OR SAFETY SOULUTIONS. AT THIS TIME YOUR COMPANY DOES NOT MAKE A PRODUCT THAT MEETS MY NEEDS.
Of course, my SFI certified, er stickered, Isaac shouldn't have any problems.
