Well seeing as how we IT guys are driving considerably slower cars than those w/ the Big Money, what G's should we expect to see in a typical incident? We won't have 180mph impact w/ a fixed concrete wall (well maybe in ITR??)
[/b]
THis is a relevant point....
A recent helmet study showed that helmet specs that required protection to the skull in super high impacts were actually imparting higher loads on the skulls in lesser load crashes that were the statistical majority, than helmets designed for lesser specs.
In other words, certain helmets that were designed to pass the super slam test, did. But, the loads on the heads in those same helmets were much higher in lesser hits, than the loads on heads in helmets designed for other, less stringent specs.
As statistics show that most crashes were significantly less that the stricter spec prepared for, the conclusion is that that higher standard would actually cause more injuries than a lesser standard in most cases.
Helmet-wise, it would be good to have a helmet that could do both...be compliant enough to cushion the blow in lesser hits, yet resilient enough to protect in the huge hits.
The larger lesson here is that the basic thinking that "more is better" isn't always the case.
On of the reasons I like the Isaac is the "auto adjust" nature of it. The fluid dampers respond to the force present...more damping when needed, less when not. I think that for guys like us, in closed cockpit cars, it has several important advantages.
I am saddened by the relative blindness of the spec writing system.........