Head & Neck device in 2008?

[944-Spec#94]

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.

 

No specific equipment, but play close attention to the harness mounting and resulting angles when you start using the HANS. In the materials you get with the HANS it lists distances from the shoulders to the cross bar and spacing of the shoulder straps as well as some angles. I advise reading all that carefully and making adustments if needed to ensure optimal effectiveness and comfort of the HANS.

 

In my car I also needed to add in a large Wink mirror and adjustment my window net mouting as I found my old way of doing things did not work well with the limited side to side motion of the HANS. No major changes, but be prepared for some minor ones.

[raffaelli]

I am new to this...but...

 

I am going to purchase my first restraint this winter. It will be the ISAAC because I believe it is a safer product. I think the ISAAC, Hans, then R3 is the safety order.

 

Additionally, I tried on a Hans. They didn't fit me. It did not fit around my 21" neck. So...if I 'have' to 'have' a certified product...I have to stay home or use a product I would rank last, just above not wearing one?

 

 

So when I crash (that is when, not if) and I get hurt...you can count on it that my family attorney will be all over the question "what do you mean he could not use the safest product". You will quickly see that sanctioning body selling its assests to the janitor.

 

Am I missing something?

[944-Spec#94]

Additionally, I tried on a Hans. They didn't fit me. It did not fit around my 21" neck. So...if I 'have' to 'have' a certified product...I have to stay home or use a product I would rank last, just above not wearing one?

...

Am I missing something?

 

There are different size HANS devices. Maybe a larger one will fit your neck.

[raffaelli]

nah...tried the large.

[ianacole]

No specific equipment, but play close attention to the harness mounting and resulting angles when you start using the HANS. In the materials you get with the HANS it lists distances from the shoulders to the cross bar and spacing of the shoulder straps as well as some angles. I advise reading all that carefully and making adustments if needed to ensure optimal effectiveness and comfort of the HANS.

 

In my car I also needed to add in a large Wink mirror and adjustment my window net mouting as I found my old way of doing things did not work well with the limited side to side motion of the HANS. No major changes, but be prepared for some minor ones.

 

Cool, thanks! I just keep seeing tags on seats and harnesses that they are or are not HANS compatible.

[dsullinger]

It did not fit around my 21" neck.

 

And you have a CRX race car? Do you carry it in your pocket? I don't think my whole head is 21".

 

Just for reference, the winner of this year's World's Strongest Man competition has a 21" neck...

 

I guess that would be another reason you wouldn't want something that stayed with you during your emergency egress. It sounds like it's already a tight fit on the way out.

 

You are practicing your egress procedure, right?

 

(I can do mine in well under 10 seconds - even with my H&N and cool shirt)

 

I just keep seeing tags on seats and harnesses that they are or are not HANS compatible.

 

Just keep in mind that in some cases when a harness says "HANS" that it cannot be used without the HANS device (Schroth is that way). Someone without a HANS will not be able to use the harness.

[raffaelli]

It did not fit around my 21" neck.

 

And you have a CRX race car? Do you carry it in your pocket? I don't think my whole head is 21".

 

Just for reference, the winner of this year's World's Strongest Man competition has a 21" neck...

 

I guess that would be another reason you wouldn't want something that stayed with you during your emergency egress. It sounds like it's already a tight fit on the way out.

 

You are practicing your egress procedure, right?

 

(I can do mine in well under 10 seconds - even with my H&N and cool shirt)

 

I just keep seeing tags on seats and harnesses that they are or are not HANS compatible.

 

Just keep in mind that in some cases when a harness says "HANS" that it cannot be used without the HANS device (Schroth is that way). Someone without a HANS will not be able to use the harness.

 

 

 

I feel like Mr Incredible in the CRX! I guess I should try out for the strong man. I have practiced getting out of the car. I am not very found of the bumps and bruises but I can get out in about 11 seconds after I stop the car. I think if I was not afraid to break something on the dash on the way out during practicing, I could cut a few seconds out. Back to the topic...

 

 

 

I wonder if SFI took into account the hinderance that the Hans adds when you are trying to egress the car in a hurry.

[FBody383]

So when I crash (that is when, not if) and I get hurt...you can count on it that my family attorney will be all over the question "what do you mean he could not use the safest product". You will quickly see that sanctioning body selling its assests to the janitor.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Are you using the safest car, rollcage, suit, helmet, visor, mirror, fuel, shifter, driveshaft, wheels, tires, fire system, shoes, gloves, brake fluid, wiring, etc...

 

Do you take any personally liability for knowingly engaging in motorsports?

 

If NASA promulgates an SFI 38.1 standard in the Club Codes and Regulations, you can either comply or not compete.

 

Have you ever seen a "Management reserves the right to refuse service to any customer" sign? If you came into my business with this attitude, that is the last thing you would see on the way out.

[raffaelli]

So when I crash (that is when, not if) and I get hurt...you can count on it that my family attorney will be all over the question "what do you mean he could not use the safest product". You will quickly see that sanctioning body selling its assests to the janitor.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Are you using the safest car, rollcage, suit, helmet, visor, mirror, fuel, shifter, driveshaft, wheels, tires, fire system, shoes, gloves, brake fluid, wiring, etc...

 

Do you take any personally liability for knowingly engaging in motorsports?

 

If NASA promulgates an SFI 38.1 standard in the Club Codes and Regulations, you can either comply or not compete.

 

Have you ever seen a "Management reserves the right to refuse service to any customer" sign? If you came into my business with this attitude, that is the last thing you would see on the way out.

 

Thanks, guess I won't shop at your store.

 

 

I did speak with my attorney today about this, purely out of curiosity. The opinion was that regardless of my acknowledged and/or assumed risk with signature or not if the sanctioning body does not allow 'state of the art' equipment, then the liability could possibly fall with the sanctioning body. I am sure I have seen testing results that device A exceeds that of device B. If indeed that is the case, then device A is 'the state of the art'. If the sanctioning body ignores the test results and denies the use of the best available, they inherent the problems which could arise from forcing the use of a product which may not be 'state of the art'.

 

Interseting topic.

[ianacole]

Are you using the safest car, rollcage, suit, helmet, visor, mirror, fuel, shifter, driveshaft, wheels, tires, fire system, shoes, gloves, brake fluid, wiring, etc...

 

Do you take any personally liability for knowingly engaging in motorsports?

 

If NASA promulgates an SFI 38.1 standard in the Club Codes and Regulations, you can either comply or not compete.

 

Have you ever seen a "Management reserves the right to refuse service to any customer" sign? If you came into my business with this attitude, that is the last thing you would see on the way out.

 

You did see this, right? http://www.sportscarmarket.com/content/carrera

[Bruce L.]

Hi Ian,

some sanctioning bodies allow you to use 2" shoulder belts for Hans that are thought to stay on the device better than 3" (but that may have been more for the hans version several years ago - now it has a lip to better hold the belts on). Seats that say they are hans compatible are generally more sculpted behind the head/neck area so that the extra bit of stuff back there doesn't push your head forward.

cheers,

bruce

 

No specific equipment, but play close attention to the harness mounting and resulting angles when you start using the HANS. In the materials you get with the HANS it lists distances from the shoulders to the cross bar and spacing of the shoulder straps as well as some angles. I advise reading all that carefully and making adustments if needed to ensure optimal effectiveness and comfort of the HANS.

 

In my car I also needed to add in a large Wink mirror and adjustment my window net mouting as I found my old way of doing things did not work well with the limited side to side motion of the HANS. No major changes, but be prepared for some minor ones.

 

Cool, thanks! I just keep seeing tags on seats and harnesses that they are or are not HANS compatible.

[ianacole]

Thanks Bruce! I prefer to use a 3" for load dispersion when I bounce off bunkers

[HBennett]

I did speak with my attorney today about this, purely out of curiosity. The opinion was that regardless of my acknowledged and/or assumed risk with signature or not if the sanctioning body does not allow 'state of the art' equipment, then the liability could possibly fall with the sanctioning body. I am sure I have seen testing results that device A exceeds that of device B. If indeed that is the case, then device A is 'the state of the art'. If the sanctioning body ignores the test results and denies the use of the best available, they inherent the problems which could arise from forcing the use of a product which may not be 'state of the art'.

 

Are you/is he basing your/his decision on an accepted industry standard or advertising claims? I'm not saying another device is not a good device. Just the legalities. I don't want to start a flame-a-thon.

 

2" shoulder straps can only be used with the HANS Device (I believe that is still the rule). No HANS Device, use 3" shoulder straps. We test with 3" belts for the same reason ianacole mentioned. For the most part, use of the 2" belts masks some improper belt mounting such as the width the shoulder straps are mounted. I've used both 3" and 2" because I'm the type that if I discuss it, I have to have some experience with it. I have never had an issue with 3" straps.

 

There is no such thing as a HANS compatible device. It's a corporate thing. We have a program called HANS Friendly that encompasses products that are easy to use with the HANS Device, such as helmets with the anchor positions marked/drilled, harnesses, seats and accessories such as cool shirts.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

[944-Spec#94]

 

I did speak with my attorney today ... if the sanctioning body does not allow 'state of the art' equipment, then the liability could possibly fall with the sanctioning body. ..

 

That makes complete sense. However who defines "state of the art"? One test parameter alone does not define state of the art. I would contend that for Head & Neck restraints "state of the art" would be defined as devices with SFI & FIA ratings. Reason being that both those orgs have the experience needed to determine state of the art safety gear.

 

Now you could argue that SFI and FIA have it wrong and did not properly define "state of the art", but I don't see how you can fault any organiztion for conforming to SFI and FIA specs. The reason the Isaac fails the SFI spec is the single point release requrirement in SFI. The reason for having a single point release is quite clear and logical. With a single point release the driver only needs to pop the main harness to get out. Now clearly the situation is entirely more complex than that when you are looking at rapid egress, but the need to get out quick is a valid one. That need will not be proven in a sled test. So there are many Hean and Neck restraints that could be devised to do very well in sled tests, but have no provision or limit provision for rapid egress. The Isaac is not like that, but this is why test numbers alone are not sufficient to determine the total safety of a H&N restraint. So again what is "state of the art" in terms of neck load reduction and rapid egress allowance. It is not a simple answer and therefore defaulting to SFI or FIA standards is a very safe position. Again any arguement should be with respect to the validity of the SFI requirements. It is not NASA's job to overrule SFI issues like this.

 

Ultimately Isaac needs to work on SFI or work to develop a competing standard that will be recognized like SNELL when it comes to helmets. SNELL defines the state of the art for helmets and the recognized industry standard, not SFI or FIA these days.

[gbaker]

I did speak with my attorney today about this, purely out of curiosity. The opinion was that regardless of my acknowledged and/or assumed risk with signature or not if the sanctioning body does not allow 'state of the art' equipment, then the liability could possibly fall with the sanctioning body. I am sure I have seen testing results that device A exceeds that of device B. If indeed that is the case, then device A is 'the state of the art'. If the sanctioning body ignores the test results and denies the use of the best available, they inherent the problems which could arise from forcing the use of a product which may not be 'state of the art'.

 

Are you/is he basing your/his decision on an accepted industry standard or advertising claims? I'm not saying another device is not a good device. Just the legalities. I don't want to start a flame-a-thon.

Probably peer-reviewed scientific papers, Howard. Just a guess.

[gbaker]

Now you could argue that SFI and FIA have it wrong and did not properly define "state of the art", but I don't see how you can fault any organiztion for conforming to SFI and FIA specs.

That's like joining the Flat Earth Society. You can fault them because they have it wrong. That's usually a pretty good reason.

 

So again what is "state of the art" in terms of neck load reduction and rapid egress allowance.

It is not the SFI design, which is a concept from the last millennium that traps drivers in cars and does not consider total head loads. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in test labs and on the track. Everybody knows it.

 

Jurors don't know the difference between the SFI and the FBI. They will only look at the evidence, which paints the SFI design as a second-raked performer, and then want to know why NASA did not allow a safer product.

 

Ultimately Isaac needs to work on SFI or work to develop a competing standard that will be recognized like SNELL when it comes to helmets.

Sanctioning bodies are already doing that.

[944-Spec#94]

Jurors don't know the difference between the SFI and the FBI. They will only look at the evidence, which paints the SFI design as a second-raked performer, and then want to know why NASA did not allow a safer product.

 

Gregg,

Who says the Isaac is safer. Isaac? or an independant body? What pro organizations allow use of the Isaac? Before you tout sled test remember they don't evaluate the entire picture, but just test one aspect? The SFI standard attempts to evaluate the entire picture. NASA has no engineering knowledge or long established indusrtry standard practice (like on roll cages) to determine what is safe and what is not. NASA can choose to adopt SFI & FIA standards, but deviating from these standards puts responsiblity on NASA for determining the saftey of these devices.

[FBody383]

You did see this, right? http://www.sportscarmarket.com/content/carrera

 

Thank you; I had seen it earlier and re-read the settlement breakdown with some interest. Article states the settlement broke down: 49% from the estate of the driver, 41% from the track owners and the event organizers, 8% from Porsche, and 2% from the driver of the Ferrari that was claimed to have triggered the crash.

 

Plantiff attorney Craig McClellan, a former racer is quoted in part, "When a 'race car for the streets' is sold to anyone with enough money, regardless of his ability to drive it, and it doesn’t even incorporate modern electronic safety devices that correct driver errors, then maybe the manufacturer should accept some responsibility for the foreseeable deaths that will result." Emphasis mine. The technology certainly exists to prevent a car from reaching high terminal velocities. Even ABS and airbags are ineffective in certain circumstances. Does this mean that I should not be allowed to drive my 1969 Camaro on public roads? Where does the line get drawn and who draws it?

 

I agree it's useful reading that highlights the seriousness of the activities we engage in, the potential cost of life, limb and bank account and the potential to lose access to the activity. I do not believe it is entirely relevant to this discussion. A better comparison would have been a solo driver crashing the car under the same track conditions. I was talking about the neccessity of a racing car driver in a racing event to take responsibility for engaging in a risky activity.

 

Interesting topic.

It is interesting and scary at the same time because our collective ability to engage in activity we know carries some risk, may be restricted by some who think it's too risky; like having that burger and shake for lunch. Also, make sure you take time to serve on a jury when called; we may disagree some but I think you have a better appreciation for risk than many - or you wouldn't be concerned about HNR.

 

Be careful on the streets; the next guy to bump you may sue you since you didn't have the latest collision avoidance technology.

 

FWIW - I generally "enjoy" the Bennet/Baker battle. I'm getting convinced that both these guys simply want the market to have a choice in an effective HNR device.

[gbaker]

Who says the Isaac is safer?

The crash dummy--and Drs. Begeman, Knox, Muzzy, Kazarian, Hubbard, Melvin, Gideon, Trammel, Gramling and Olvey all acknowledge superior sled performance, and every driver who has used both a HANS and an Isaac in a tin top tells us they prefer Isaac for egress.

 

There is no evidence anywhere suggesting the SFI design is safer. Who is telling you the SFI design is safer? SFI?

 

NASA can choose to adopt SFI & FIA standards, but deviating from these standards puts responsiblity on NASA for determining the saftey of these devices.

Well, as Raffaeli's attorney noted, you do have some responsibility for your drivers' safety whether you like it or not.

 

You are missing the point. No one is suggesting you exclude FIA or SFI as a reference, simply that including the RSI reference puts you in the clear. Do you really want to find yourself on the witness stand telling a jury that you were more interested in covering your own butt than your driver's?

[ianacole]

I do not believe it is entirely relevant to this discussion. ... I was talking about the neccessity of a racing car driver in a racing event to take responsibility for engaging in a risky activity.

 

And this is where I think this article is relevant to this discussion. You asked the question in response to the lawyer's position by asking "Do you take any personal liability for knowingly engaging in motorsports?" The passenger of the Porsche in the above article knew full well the consequences of his agreeing to ride along - did he take personal liability, or did his family? The point of the matter is this: it doesn't matter to the jury that the track and club had appropriately signed and legal waivers (synonymous with a certification), yet was found to be grossly negligent contributing to the cause of death.

 

Do you think a court system is truly going to care about a certification IF it can be demonstrated that the sanctioning body was aware of a device that offered superior protection and expressly excluded it's participants from using it?

Edited December 12, 2007 by Guest

[HBennett]

Who says the Isaac is safer?

The crash dummy--and Drs. Begeman, Knox, Muzzy, Kazarian, Hubbard, Melvin, Gideon, Trammel, Gramling and Olvey all acknowledge superior sled performance, and every driver who has used both a HANS and an Isaac in a tin top tells us they prefer Isaac for egress.

 

There is no evidence anywhere suggesting the SFI design is safer. Who is telling you the SFI design is safer? SFI?

 

Could you elaborate on the statement that most of the principle people involved with racing safety say the Isaac is safer? Do you have these in print somewhere or did any of these people actually make that statement to you? I know several of them and I have never heard them make that statement.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

[gbaker]

Who says the Isaac is safer?

The crash dummy--and Drs. Begeman, Knox, Muzzy, Kazarian, Hubbard, Melvin, Gideon, Trammel, Gramling and Olvey all acknowledge superior sled performance, and every driver who has used both a HANS and an Isaac in a tin top tells us they prefer Isaac for egress.

 

There is no evidence anywhere suggesting the SFI design is safer. Who is telling you the SFI design is safer? SFI?

 

Could you elaborate on the statement that most of the principle people involved with racing safety say the Isaac is safer?

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

I'm saying they will acknowledge the fact that the majority of head loads are lower with an Isaac than a HANS. That is issue has been settled; it's a published fact.

 

Any "expert" who contends that the disconnect issue should make the Isaac system less safe is not only wrong, but backwards. They are espousing a theory they have not tested and which, when tested, has been proven wrong. That is a very dangerous way to design safety products; it should not be in a spec.

[HBennett]

So, you are saying they have tested or monitored testing showing the Isaac has better performance than the HANS Device and you have it in writing. Can you reference a publication where this is published? Or are you saying, if they look at your performance charts, they will admit the Isaac is better?

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

[RSCoupe]

This thread is like deja vue. I wonder why? Oh yeah, now I know:

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=11200

 

I hope this one doesn't go 19 pages, and spiral out of control...

 

Has anything changed in 15 months? Doesn't seem like it.

[HBennett]

Yea, I hope not. Not from me anyway. Quite honestly, racers can choose whatever device is best for them. They will have to take into consideration what requirements the sanctioning bodies place. I hope nobody wastes a good sum of money.

 

Now that I read gbaker's statement that they "will" acknowledge meaning they really haven't. The rest of that sentence it the issue being settled and that it's a published fact counteracted the previous sentence.

 

If anyone needs answers on HNR's in general or the HANS Device specifically, please email me at hbennett at hansdevice.com.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance