Head & Neck device in 2008?

[Greg G.]

well i think im just going to buy the isaac and hope i dont get screwed when an official ruling is made

 

Chris, somewhere on these forums, maybe a year ago or more, Jerry said that when and if NASA requires a head and neck restraint, it will likely have to be SFI certified. He listed a bunch of reasons for this. As more devices are getting SFI approval, I would say that the likelihood of having a rule that requires one goes up. At the very least you should probably wait until the 2008 CCR comes out. And no, I do not know what the '08 CCR says about this issue--sorry.

[gbaker]

The obvious solution is to mandate products that meet either FIA, SFI or RSI performance specs. The drivers get a choice of tested, certified high performance products, and NASA keeps everybody happy while minimizing its risk exposure.

[Izzy's Cages]

^^^^There he is!!!!

[philstireservice]

Please don't tell me that I can't wear the H & N device of my choice ??

 

I've been wearing the Isaac for 4 years. It's superior H & N device, IMO at least.

 

All the data I've ever seen or heard points to the Isaac as the safest......

 

check the data, compare...but don't just go by the SFI . I'm hoping NASA will use their respective noggins on this one......

[philstireservice]

"lack of yoke" ? AFAIK (I've read the spec), the only non-compliant thing about the Isaac is that it doesn't meet the single-point-of-release requirement.

thanks,

bruce

 

 

 

 

As far as a single release.....I beg to differ. We use a strap attached to each pin that is on the right and left of the helmet ...it then hangs down right in front on my chest.......before I exit the car ....I pull down on the strap.....voila !! both pins come out and I'm free. It's easier then most window nets. Not to mention it doesn't slip off your shoulder.....ooooo that's the scary part........when I saw that ....it was the Isaac all the way !!!

[944-Spec#94]

well i think im just going to buy the isaac and hope i dont get screwed when an official ruling is made

 

Chris...

 

The simple fact is that if you buy a HANS it does not matter what NASA chooses to do. A HANS will be legal. So there is no need to worry about anything.

 

Buy an Isaac and there is a chance that it may not be legal. Sure we can argue from here to next week about if it is fair or not, but at the end of the day the risk is still there.

 

Remember the cost of an Isaac or HANS is roughly the same.

 

I consider each one to be excellent in terms of protection. The HANS does come with the need to possible make some minor changes to your routine getting in and out of the car.

 

Still the big issue is as follow.

 

Buy an Isaac and you will worry about it being legal or not in the future.

Buy the HANS and forget all about this jibber jabber about SFI & mandated H&N restraints.

 

I was on the fence in 2005 (HANS or Isaac) and got a HANS since it did not make any difference what any sacntioning body did as my HANS would still be accepted. I would prefer it that Isaac would be accepted under SFI38.1 as it would make it a much more viable alternative. I however don't have the money to gamble that it either will be SFI certed or the sanctioning bodies might make an allowance for it.

[chris_venturini]

Well, i was actually looking into the isaac link, since it seems to be the best option under 500 dollars. Im still working on my education so for me money is a BIG thing. I cant afford to dish out 900 dollars on really anything at this time. maybe ill wait for the new hans to come out.

[Renntag]

There are frequently group buys on the Hans saving you a bunch of money without having to switch to Geico.

[getfast]

That new $695 sport model HANS was officially announced earlier this week, for early 2008 availability. Same safety, but a little bit heavier:

 

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=276443

 

 

Jon

[Keith]

To return to the original point/question. It would be extremely helpful to some of us to get any rule change earlier rather than later.

 

...and to follow on a previous post. Yes, I am one of those people that have bought nothing and will continue to do so until the device parameters are clarified.

[gbaker]

To return to the original point/question. It would be extremely helpful to some of us to get any rule change earlier rather than later.

Agreed. But don't encourage a rule change that limits the driver's choice. Doing so only increases risks and raises costs.

 

If NASA wants to protect drivers as much as possible, and minimize its chance of getting sued, it should require products which carry certification labels from FIA, SFI or RSI--or any other entity that confirms certification of test results by an independent testing laboratory. (Isaac products are RSI certified.)

 

If NASA refuses to allow a driver to use an Isaac system and that driver is injured, NASA will be sued into the next dimension. That NASA knew the Isaac system was superior to SFI products (see multiple SAE papers) would constitute gross negligence, meaning the waiver is useless and insurance probably won't provide coverage. NASA will cease to exist. The same applies to any other sanctioning body, which is why none have adopted this policy since the SAE comparison paper was published last December.

 

No, I am not a lawyer, but a medical device organization I have been associated with was sued over 100 times, so I have a rough idea how this works. One would think NASA attorneys have figured this out.

 

The simple solution is to expand the certification list to include SFI, FIA and RSI. There is no downside to NASA in doing so. It ain't rocket surgery.

[dsullinger]

If NASA refuses to allow a driver to use an Isaac system and that driver is injured, NASA will be sued into the next dimension. That NASA knew the Isaac system was superior to SFI products (see multiple SAE papers) would constitute gross negligence, meaning the waiver is useless and insurance probably won't provide coverage. NASA will cease to exist. The same applies to any other sanctioning body, which is why none have adopted this policy since the SAE comparison paper was published last December.

 

OK, this thread was started before the PCA released their rule changes for 2008. Since then, they have added this to their rules (http://www.pca.org/clubrace/docs/2008%20Rules%20Adopted.pdf):

 

After June 1, 2008, a head and neck restraint meeting either the standards of either

SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858 will be required.

 

Gregg, are you saying that the PCA is being grossly negligent?

[gbaker]

Gregg, are you saying that the PCA is being grossly negligent?

That would be for a jury to determine. From Law.com:

 

gross negligence

n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety...

 

You tell me.

 

BTW, PCA will rescind or modify that rule.

[LMan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "meeting the standards of" and "certified" are/can be two different concepts, yes?

[944-Spec#94]

If NASA refuses to allow a driver to use an Isaac system and that driver is injured, NASA will be sued into the next dimension. That NASA knew the Isaac system was superior to SFI products (see multiple SAE papers) would constitute gross negligence, meaning the waiver is useless and insurance probably won't provide coverage. NASA will cease to exist. The same applies to any other sanctioning body, which is why none have adopted this policy since the SAE comparison paper was published last December.

 

Greg I hate to say this, but you are wrong and this is just wishfull thinking on the part of ISAAC. (I don't mean you wish to have death or anything let me be clear).

 

NASA is not an authority on head and neck restraints. It is not their job or business. Add to that lack of any standard industry practice on these new safety devices and futher mean NASA along is not in a position to determine what restraints are safe and what are not. So rather then try to do that the ONLY PRUDENT LEGAL thing to do is to adopt a standard from a Recognized body. SFI and FIA are both well recognized bodies and accepted as industry standards when it comes to safety. Frankly what a driver may feel has little bearing in this. Now you can show good test numbers, but for whatever reason the SFI choses not I cert the Isaac. Now you and I both know it is over the single release clause in 38.1 and we can debate that need for that till the cows come home. It however does not change the fact that NASA and PCA are protected by adopting standards set forth by recognized industry bodies like SFI and FIA. There position is completely defenseable in any court room and sets them up for LESS Liablilty that if they did not institute either SFI or FIA standards.

 

I honestly feel sorry for Isaac as lack of SFI cert puts it out of the market, but it has been this way for over 2 years now.

[gbaker]

...It however does not change the fact that NASA and PCA are protected by adopting standards set forth by recognized industry bodies like SFI and FIA. There position is completely defenseable in any court room and sets them up for LESS Liablilty that if they did not institute either SFI or FIA standards.

I understand your point, but you are missing the fact that RSI specs reference SFI test data. In fact, RSI does not test anything, it simply reports the same established test standards we all know and love.

 

Every H&N restraint with an RSI label meets the performance specs of SFI 38.1 (3 years old) and/or the WSU NASCAR test (20+ years old). If you knowingly exclude products that have performance benefits beyond those specs, side impacts for example, your risk increases.

 

I'm in the middle of PRI now, where an increasing number of sanctioning bodies are recognizing that SFI affiliation is not always an asset.

 

But why worry about it? If RSI certification is at worst redundant, just solve the problem by adding it to a list of acronyms. There is no trade off; everyone wins.

[Keith]

I am still more interested in the rules than debating different opinions in that could be a consequence of the rules. They are different topics.

 

Racing is dangerous. Accept it or get off the track. This thread is not about people's opinions regarding the different options for head and neck protection, it is simply about a request to know what requirements might be placed on us.

 

I hope there aren't a bunch of lawyers waiting in the weeds to pounce on my hobby. While I understand that some of the litigation out there actually forces better products and situations, THIS IS RACING FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

[gbaker]

...I hope there aren't a bunch of lawyers waiting in the weeds to pounce on my hobby...

I guess you haven't heard: http://www.fortheracer.com/

[Bruce L.]

Hi Gregg,

Can you post a link to the RSI spec?

thanks,

bruce

 

...It however does not change the fact that NASA and PCA are protected by adopting standards set forth by recognized industry bodies like SFI and FIA. There position is completely defenseable in any court room and sets them up for LESS Liablilty that if they did not institute either SFI or FIA standards.

I understand your point, but you are missing the fact that RSI specs reference SFI test data. In fact, RSI does not test anything, it simply reports the same established test standards we all know and love.

 

Every H&N restraint with an RSI label meets the performance specs of SFI 38.1 (3 years old) and/or the WSU NASCAR test (20+ years old). If you knowingly exclude products that have performance benefits beyond those specs, side impacts for example, your risk increases.

 

I'm in the middle of PRI now, where an increasing number of sanctioning bodies are recognizing that SFI affiliation is not always an asset.

 

But why worry about it? If RSI certification is at worst redundant, just solve the problem by adding it to a list of acronyms. There is no trade off; everyone wins.

[gbaker]

http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/

[HBennett]

http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/

 

They might want to update that site since the new threshold is 3,200 instead of 4,000, and there are several more "real" HNR's on the market now.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

[gbaker]

http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/

 

They might want to update that site since the new threshold is 3,200 instead of 4,000, and there are several more "real" HNR's on the market now.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

There are "unreal" ones?

[ianacole]

Born of ignorance: what are the harness requirements for a HANS device? Are standard harnesses sufficient (3")? How about the other devices out there - do they all require special or specific harnesses? If so, another thing I need to add to off season cost as well.

[HBennett]

Greg, yes. Several of those are not realistic options. Is a White or Wright even available? G-Force is just trying to empty stock of the SRS-1 and the original Hutchens Device was proven not to work by NASCAR, but I guess as far as the Hutchens and SRS-1 go, anything is better than nothing. Besides, that's not a complete list of what is available. What about the others that have been available for the past couple of years or so, like the R3, Hutchens II Pro and Hybrid? Not that I am a fan of them but they are SFI certified and realistic options. Some work better than others.

 

ianacole, no special requirements for the HANS Device. None for any of the other devices that I know of either. You need to use either SFI or FIA certified harnesses... and mount them correctly.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

[gbaker]

...What about the others that have been available for the past couple of years or so, like the R3, Hutchens II Pro and Hybrid?

I have never seen anywhere any data from any sled test suggesting that those products work. They haven't even been tested at WSU, to my knowledge. The company advertising looks good, but I don't think anyone is going to consider a brochure on par with certified lab results.