Keith Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 I am not sure where to even look for this information so I will ask here. Will there be any date/age requirements for head and neck devices? For instance, will an SFI tag be less and X years old or is the device a one-shot deal (unlike, say, harnesses, window nets, etc.). Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBennett Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Currently, there is not expiration day on SFI-cert HNR's. There are some maintenance issues with most. The HANS Device needs to have the tethers replaced after a crash or every 2 years. I'm not sure about Safety Solutions products. In the FAQ's for the Leatt-Brace, they mention it needs to be replaced every 3 years. Howard Bennett HANS Performance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted December 17, 2007 Author Share Posted December 17, 2007 Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lateapex911 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I noticed the other H&N thread was locked, although i don't know why, so I'll post my comment here. This was the year I had plans to try some NASA racing, which is hard to do in the NE. now, that is completely out of the question. It's not that I don't feel that H&NRs are a good idea. To the contrary, I have had one for years. It's that NASA has chosen a requirement that forces me to go backwards in my protection, at a very large cost. I know the PTB feel this is a good move, but I find it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Have fun without me. (Further, I see the HANS "Needs it's tehters replaced every two years". if thats the case, why aren't they dated, and inspected at tech inspection? if they need replacement, they obviously have issues that can render them unable to meet spec...right?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snk Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 I was planning on joining and racing with NASA's new Spec 3 series next year after an approximately 2 year hiatus, but hearing about the SFI HNR requirement has turned me off completely. FYI, I don't own an HNR (wasn't required 2 years ago when I put my racing gloves down), but I don't like the idea of having to make so many changes to my race car to accommodate for the HANS's lack of side impact protection. As a budget racer, every $$ counts and IMHO, a device like the ISAAC doesn't warrant the need for a right side net, brand new racing seat and harness that's made for a specific HNR. After I heard about NASA and the SFI 38.1 rule, I'm now seriously debating selling my race car and going karting instead. I guess there's also the SCCA... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renntag Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 Sorry you guys feel this way. I would imagine that racing is not a priority for you then. I have seen rules change in many forms of racing and those that truly wish to stay in the game, play by the rules. As for carting...isnt that a little more dangerous than racing a fully caged sedan with the required safety gear? Best of luck gents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snk Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 Sorry you guys feel this way. I would imagine that racing is not a priority for you then. I have seen rules change in many forms of racing and those that truly wish to stay in the game, play by the rules. Racing is still a priority for me, but I would rather use a HNR that is superior and provides more protection in more types of crash conditions than a solution that requires all kinds of accessories to overcome its weakness. (Special seats, right side net, special harnesses.) The ISAAC HNR is what I'm referring to. From what I understand the SFI 38.1 specifications were written specifically to exclude the device I would sink my hard earned money into, so that means I won't be racing with any organization that requires the standard and doesn't allow for any exceptions. The only reason why I'm posting in this form to begin with is that I was really looking forward to joining the new Spec3 series, but as long as the ISAAC isn't allowed, I'll be going elsewhere. I'm definitely disappointed though. I'm in the process of getting my act together for racing in 2008 after a 2 year hiatus and the ISAAC is on my list of things to buy because I realize that an HNR is a good safety device. FYI, I'm currently not a member of NASA nor SCCA (the latter lapsed not too long ago) and was looking into obtaining membership/racing license with either/or (all licenses lapsed during the hiatus). I discovered the SFI 38.1 thing during my research phase. Is there a movement to make an exception for the ISAAC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce L. Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 note that you don't **have** to change those other pieces to work with the available HNR's. A right-side net is required by NASA already but it is inexpensive and a good idea even with an Isaac. From comments I've seen, it doesn't appear that NASA will make an exception for the Isaac, but the implementation date is 6 months away, so who knows. bruce As a budget racer, every $$ counts and IMHO, a device like the ISAAC doesn't warrant the need for a right side net, brand new racing seat and harness that's made for a specific HNR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snk Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 note that you don't **have** to change those other pieces to work with the available HNR's. A right-side net is required by NASA already but it is inexpensive and a good idea even with an Isaac. From comments I've seen, it doesn't appear that NASA will make an exception for the Isaac, but the implementation date is 6 months away, so who knows. bruce WRT special seats and belts, I guess I'm always thinking of the HANS when I think of SFI 38.1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBennett Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 snk, what are you talking about? Special seats, belts, ???. Use a good racing seat. If the seat is not good for the HD, it's probably not good for you. What I mean is, if the pass-thru's for the shoulder straps force the shoulder straps apart, down or up, it's probably not good for you with a HNR. Any SFI/FIA harness works with the HD. What are you using? Side impact protection? What do you mean by side impact protection? 90-degree? Your not even restrained for that type of impact. Howard Bennett HANS Performance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snk Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 snk, what are you talking about? Special seats, belts, ???. Use a good racing seat. If the seat is not good for the HD, it's probably not good for you. What I mean is, if the pass-thru's for the shoulder straps force the shoulder straps apart, down or up, it's probably not good for you with a HNR. Any SFI/FIA harness works with the HD. What are you using? Side impact protection? What do you mean by side impact protection? 90-degree? Your not even restrained for that type of impact. Howard Bennett HANS Performance I'm using a Sparco Pro 2000. Is that "good enough" for the HANS? I'm also using a G-Force 5-point cam lock harness with 3 inch shoulder straps. From what I understand, the HANS doesn't work optimally with shoulder straps that wide - i.e. slippage. By side impact, I mean crashes that are not head on. Somebody set me straight on the passenger side net thing, but the fact is I would be uncomfortable wearing a HANS in case I'm involved in a crash that's not "head on". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBennett Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 Have you tried a HD? There is nothing wrong with the Sparco seat that I know of. I've seen racers use the cheapest aluminum seat just fine. I've used the GF harnesses for a couple of years. Like I said SFI or FIA certified harnesses. We test almost exclusively with 3" belts. The key is proper harness mounting. We recommend the exact same instructions as any of the harness manufacturers recommend. Shoulder straps should be mounted 4-6" apart, measured at the center line of each strap. We say 3" apart, measured at the inside edge of each strap (we also add "closer is better"). Same difference. The mounting points should be 1-2" below the top of the device. Some manufacturers give this measurement in inches, some in degrees. I've seen harness mounting that would be dangerous even without a HNR. The SFI test is 0-degree and 30-degree offset tests. If the HD didn't pass the 30-degree offset test, guess what, it wouldn't pass SFI. If you want protection for side impacts, FIA, NASCAR, GM and others recommend this be handled with things like seats and nets. Take a look at yourself when strapped into the car. It's not a function of the HNR. You are not restrained for a side impact. You are restrained for frontal impacts. Some of the BS you have read about shoulder straps coming off the HD is just that, BS. NASCAR made a statement earlier this year that in over 3,600 crashes they have investigated since requiring HNR's, they have NEVER had a shoulder strap come off the HD. GM will not let one of their racers get into one of their race cars without the HD. If there was as issue, do you think they would take that stance? Listen, if you want to use any other HNR, go ahead, use what you are confident in but don't knock one because of something you read on a forum. I'm not knocking any other HNR's. There are some good ones and some not so good. We've (not me personally) been building the HD since the mid-80's. I know a lot of people claim conspiracy theory and see the black helicopters but don't you think there is a reason why so many organizations, like NASCAR, FIA and others, recommend the HD. These organizations certainly have the power to approve any other device they want. They are always looking for ways to make their drivers safer. NASCAR recently allowed the Hybrid to be used because of its performance. Believe me, there is no back door agreements in place to lock out any competition. I'll get off my soapbox now. It just gets a little frustrating reading some of the stuff that comes out on forums, and most racers will not even pick up the phone to ask. Anybody here can contact me at HANS. Our toll free number is on our website and my email address is hbennett at hansdevice.com. Howard Bennett HANS Performance Products. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling Doc Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 Well said. As a physician I hear all the "internet stories" as well. It does get old, but like you I need to set the record straight on a daily basis. The HD is the most proven, field tested device out there. There are other good devices, some likely very good, but the fact that the Hans device has such a good track record in real world use means a lot. In another parallel to my world, there are many drugs that look great in a lab, and even through initial testing, but have some fatal flaw that only becomes apparent through a year or so of post-marketing experience. I feel much more comfortable prescribing a drug thats been out for a while, and a HNR that's been widely used in the real world means something as well. P.S. Colon cleansing really won't magically remove 15lbs of waste from your colon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snk Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 So why don't these sanctioning bodies test the ISAAC and allow them to be included in the spec (rather than keep it out due to a minor technicality) so that its real world effectiveness can be documented and "proven"? What I want to know is why ISAAC's method of attachment to the harness is such a big road block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBennett Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Because they can't/won't take on the additional expense/liability of testing the devices themselves. It is easy and safe for them to specify an industry standard that has been accepted by major racing sanctions in the U.S. Howard Bennett HANS Performance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renntag Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 ....P.S. Colon cleansing really won't magically remove 15lbs of waste from your colon. Well so much for the 2008 "pre-race enema" weight loss program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 A quote from Jerry before the SFI mandate. Hello All, Please allow me to explain an important point here. We (NASA) have discussed the idea of mandating head and neck restraint systems for a while now. The problem is that if we mandate use of a system (any), then it leaves the door open for any homemade contraption that may arise; thus putting the onus our tech inspectors. If we specified certain models, we would be 1) lobbied by other manufactures to include their devices and 2) lobbied by competitors to allow use of other devices not on the list or have their choice added to the list. In the latter case, the disallowance of a particular personal safety device is not a smart move and could even be a liability. The answer is the use of standards, such as SFI. Before SFI came out with 38.1, we were in a real bind. Now all we have to do is refer to that standard, when we go to a mandate. That takes a lot of the liability off of NASA and the onus off the inspectors. Most importantly, it should also give the racers some level of comfort knowing that at least the device they have chosen meets with some known standards. This is the same with belts, helmets, and other safety equipment. Now, down to brass tax: when and what. “When†Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snk Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Because they can't/won't take on the additional expense/liability of testing the devices themselves. It is easy and safe for them to specify an industry standard that has been accepted by major racing sanctions in the U.S. Howard Bennett HANS Performance I thought that the Delphi test was paid for by ISAAC? From an outsider's point of view, it appears the biggest sticking point is the attachment method. Why can't this issue be resolved? It seems like the only road block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgipson Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 From an outsider's point of view, it appears the biggest sticking point is the attachment method. Why can't this issue be resolved? It seems like the only road block. It can't be resolved since it is not officially "an issue". I don't think you will find any proposal by an SFI member to modify the existing standard or to create an alternate standard. If a sanctioning body that is an SFI member and that has also decided to mandate H&NR systems were to request SFI create a committee to review such an alternative, that might be a first step to resolve their members' issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce L. Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 yes, it is not really an "issue" - it was a conscious decision by the SFI 38.1 committee. Somebody would have to lobby to get it changed. I know that the BMWCCA CR rep on the committee (Joe Marko of HMS Motorsport) characterizes it as "very important" to not require any more actions to release the HNR. bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgipson Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 yes, it is not really an "issue" - it was a conscious decision by the SFI 38.1 committee. Somebody would have to lobby to get it changed. I know that the BMWCCA CR rep on the committee (Joe Marko of HMS Motorsport) characterizes it as "very important" to not require any more actions to release the HNR.bruce That comment presupposes that there was a "committee" that drafted a standard. In most (all?) activities related to the creation of standards (irregardless of the industry) someone with an idea (in this case H-D) approaches an appropriate standards setting body with a sort of "Look what I found" attitude. At that point a committee can be formed (I wonder who was on the 38.1 committee -- has that ever been made public?) that will include interested people, including manufacturer(s?) to essentially turn the "good idea" and it's associated documentation into the standard. So, while it is comforting to believe that someone with a higher understanding that the rest of us, looked critically at the committee work product and said "Verily, there shall be no additional actions required for the driver to unleash himself -- make it so", I'd be willing to bet an insignificant sum that the original design incorporated a self release feature as a way to save costs. (We'll just lay the belts on top of it and when you cinch them down tight it won't move much. That'll work".) While I'm sure that "very important" means something to Mr. Marko, unfortunately "very important" means nothing to anyone else, especially in the context of safety gear. Now if someone could quantify that into some sort of analysis that could show safety is compromised with a system that relies on belt attachment (as opposed to belt friction) then we could have a discussion. The problem I have is that this statement in bold above (and the corresponding requirements in the standard) have essentially slammed the door shut on other good ideas while offering no justification for such exclusion. By closing off the advancement of the "state of the art" in such a way you and I may be prevented from enjoying the fruits of the labor of other talented safety gear designers. And sanctioning bodies, by adopting without sufficient forethought, such arbitrary opinions as "it's important" have become complicit in denying to the racing community the benefits of improved technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snk Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 From an outsider's point of view, it appears the biggest sticking point is the attachment method. Why can't this issue be resolved? It seems like the only road block. It can't be resolved since it is not officially "an issue". I don't think you will find any proposal by an SFI member to modify the existing standard or to create an alternate standard. If a sanctioning body that is an SFI member and that has also decided to mandate H&NR systems were to request SFI create a committee to review such an alternative, that might be a first step to resolve their members' issues. Understood. I'm not sure if NASA or SCCA is a member of SFI but I think it would be in their best interests to join, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raffaelli Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 ...Lobbying sanctioning bodies, such as NASA to allow the use of other devices without SFI tags (after a mandate takes place) is pointless... Jerry Kunzman Executive Director National Auto Sport Association WOW! I thought my membership entitled me to a voice and an audience to hear it...how foolish of me to think so. I guess I should let my membership run out. So much for racing with NASA this year and all the track dates I started to pencil in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandam08 Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 ...Lobbying sanctioning bodies, such as NASA to allow the use of other devices without SFI tags (after a mandate takes place) is pointless... Jerry Kunzman Executive Director National Auto Sport Association Nice job of taking out of context ^^^ See Bold print below I am sorry that this is long, but I am hoping that it will explain our position. This may be posted elsewhere and/ or forwarded; however I ask that nothing be taken out of context (please publish the whole section or message). Jerry Kunzman Executive Director National Auto Sport Association WOW! I thought my membership entitled me to a voice and an audience to hear it...how foolish of me to think so. I guess I should let my membership run out. So much for racing with NASA this year and all the track dates I started to pencil in. I'm sure you'll be missed Damien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renntag Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 nice first post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.