SFI Head & Neck mandatory for NASA in June 08

[Greg G.]

The POC requires SFI 38.1 by Feb '08.

[HBennett]

HANS is excited about their budget ($695) model being released soon... which costs as much as a standard Isaac and more than double the price of the budget Isaac. It must be nice to have ruling bodies block the major competition while you're making several hundred percent profit on all your overpriced products.

 

Block the competition??? I believe there are 2 other manufacturers with SFI certified device. We've done a pretty poor job.

 

As long as we're talking conspiracy theories, how's this for a timeline of events...

- in 2006, Leatt Brace gets SFI 38.1 certification and announce a $395 "club model" HNR - (wow, I thought, that should help spur adoption and some price competition...)

- at PRI 2006 meeting, the SFI 38.1 committee (which, IINM, includes manufacturer reps) discuss lowering the allowable neck tension to 2500N from 4000N (Leatt is about 2600N, NHTSA mandates 4170N for passenger vehicles )

- mid 2007, Leatt announces that they won't be offering the club model for road racers but only the Sport at $695 (but they still offer the $395 club model in their motorcycle neck brace line)

- at PRI 2007 meeting, SFI 38.1 committee lowers the allowable neck tension to 3200N (I haven't heard the scientific justification for that yet)

- also at PRI 2007, Hubbard-Downing and Safety Solutions both announce $695 versions of their HNRs (well, at least we got some price competition)

 

I think maybe it was more like Leatt realized they couldn't do one for $395. The manufacturers, SFI and sanctioning bodies have discussed lowering the allowable neck tension to 2500 for a while. Why? To build safer products, thats why. They lowered it to 3200 in early summer, not at PRI (not a big point though). By the way, the SFI is not only funded by the manufacturers, but by sanctioning bodies and others.

 

So you can have a HANS that requires 5 releases (6-point belt) to get free and you still have to climb out with a fiber reinforced plastic anchor on your neck vs 3 releases to get you out of a seatbelt and Isaac without anything to prevent your escape. Brilliant.

 

5 releases??? Explain? By the way, just a point of clarification, all the models of the HD, except the new Sport Series, are carbon fiber.

 

Carry on.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

[Grumpy]

NASA already recommended SFI38.1 devices in 2007 and may be even 2006 (I forget). Again it was time to move on to the next step.

Are you a politician? What have you done (not) for me lately?

PCA Club racing Rules Changes for 2008 include the following.

 

4. After June 1' date=' 2008, a head and neck restraint meeting either the standards of either SFI 38.1 [b']or FIA 8858[/b] will be required.

 

That is document is located here.

http://www.pca.org/clubrace/docs/2008%20Rules%20Adopted.pdf

Wow, PCA did something right.

 

Don't credit PCA too soon. The only device meeting FIA spec is the HANS.

[LMan]

is there a legal (ie, real) difference between the wording,

 

"meeting the standards of SFI 38.1"

 

 

and

 

"SFI 38.1 certified" ?

 

 

 

Serious, 100% agenda-free question.

[Driver]

is there a legal (ie, real) difference between the wording:

"meeting the standards of SFI 38.1"

and

"SFI 38.1 certified" ?

There is no real difference.

There is a legal difference.

 

Confused yet?

 

The certification is a sticker and a knod of approval from SFI. Technically, you can make a device that "meets the standards", and it won't be certified unless you submit it for certification.

[LMan]

So, then the position "PCA has gone and done the same thing" doesnt hold water.

 

NASA is requiring a SFI 38.1 certified device.

PCA is requiring a device that meets SFI 38.1 (and FIA) standards.

 

 

 

Just wanted to make sure in my own mind what the situation was here.

[Driver]

Some of those things can be discretionary. Most Tech folk have the athority to toss out anything that they don't see as safe.

If you're going before a judge, then the "gnats ass" details of the wording matters more.

[Sterling Doc]

So, then the position "PCA has gone and done the same thing" doesnt hold water.

 

NASA is requiring a SFI 38.1 certified device.

PCA is requiring a device that meets SFI 38.1 (and FIA) standards.

 

 

 

Just wanted to make sure in my own mind what the situation was here.

 

Which, in pratical terms, makes no difference, as the FIA is even more restrictive then SFI. Short of NASA doing it's own independant testing, and creating it's own certification, what "standard" should they reference?

 

Explain what other organization has done something better, and how that helps you, then there can be constructive discussion. Doing nothing is not a viable option any more. There's too much data that SFI devices are necessary to *not* do something about this.

 

As I see the results of what happens to people in accidents in my day job, I got a H&N restraint long ago. The new models cost less than one track day -if you add up all the consumables, gas/travel etc. Stay home *one* weekend if you need to, and live to race another day.

[FlyingDog]

Block the competition??? I believe there are 2 other manufacturers with SFI certified device. We've done a pretty poor job.

I said "major" competition. I'm sure you've noticed that the discussions are almost always HANS vs Isaac. The other two manufacturers are rarely mentioned other than in the context of 'HANS is not the only SFI 38.1 device'.

 

You've done a great job of marketing and I'm sure your product is excellent. I (and many others) would prefer to use a different product that we feel is safer both in a collision and when escaping a vehicle. That (superior in our minds) product costs a fair amount less than your product.

I think maybe it was more like Leatt realized they couldn't do one for $395.

Isaac has no problem doing one for $295 and the estimates I have seen of what your carbon fiber versions cost to manufacture is lower than that.

Carry on.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

Thank you for responding. Most manufacturers would ignore threads like this or just blast everybody who did not agree with them.

[FlyingDog]

As I see the results of what happens to people in accidents in my day job, I got a H&N restraint long ago. The new models cost less than one track day -if you add up all the consumables, gas/travel etc. Stay home *one* weekend if you need to, and live to race another day.

I don't see anybody complaining that an H&N restraint is required. The problem is the one manufacturer that is not allowed.

[Driver]

I think maybe it was more like Leatt realized they couldn't do one for $395.

Isaac has no problem doing one for $295 and the estimates I have seen of what your carbon fiber versions cost to manufacture is lower than that.

Though I don;t plan on buying a HANS, I must defend them on this front. Background: I've been involved in some aspect of manufacturing for the last 10 years, essentially my whole professional life. From the bottom as a factory goon all the way up to engineer, I've learned a bit.

The comparison you've made is not a fair one, as there is MUCH MUCH more that goes into producing an item than material cost. Carbon Fiber, when done properly, is a very expensive proccess. When you buy it, you're paying for a peice of the mould, autoclave, mixing systems, electric bils, etc etc.

 

Case 2: Titanium is one of the most abundant elements on planet earth (Top 3 I beleive), why is it so expensive?

[LMan]

Which, in pratical terms, makes no difference,

 

has nothing to do with it.

 

 

If you're going before a judge, then the "gnats ass" details of the wording matters more.

 

has everything to do with it.

 

Im trying to ascertain the liability aspects of this issue, and in the legal world words have meaning. "Its all the same thing, brah" doesn't cut it.

[LMan]

Case 2: Titanium is one of the most abundant elements on planet earth (Top 3 I beleive), why is it so expensive?

 

 

Too many friggin' golfers.

[JCraven]

You guys forget that SFI 38.1 doesn't specify side impact so NASA had to implement last years side impact safety net on the passenger side with it's single point of release so there is yet another point of release.

 

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=18831&start=70

 

In regards Howard Bennetts' comment that "racers can choose whatever device is best for them" was tongue in cheek - he probably already knew what was coming down the pike in NASA's CCR.

 

Anyways, the HANs HNR is a nice product, personally I am not familiar with the competition and I regret that my opportunity to make a personal choice has been taken away from me. I might have chosen Hans' upcoming HNR but.... maybe not and maybe I might not ever just because....

[Sterling Doc]

OK,

 

Need to clarify a few things. My post was intended to clarify why it's hard to allow something outside of a recognized standard that *would* hold up in court. I fully agree that legal wording *is* important. Also, the post that indicated that the PCA had it right by allowing FIA as well, does not help the issue with the Isaac restraint.

[HBennett]

In regards Howard Bennetts' comment that "racers can choose whatever device is best for them" was tongue in cheek - he probably already knew what was coming down the pike in NASA's CCR.

 

Nope. You guys have the same access to the rules as I do. It's been in the NASA rule book for at least the last 3 years that they were going to it. It doesn't take a math wiz to figure it was coming.

 

Driver is correct. There is a lot more that goes into the price of something other than materials. Try R&D, labor, fee's, shipping, salaries and a multitude of other things that goes into manufacturing a product. I'm not saying we don't make a profit but then I don't do what I do for free and I sure can make more somewhere else but I love you guys too much.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

[ianacole]

Nope. You guys have the same access to the rules as I do. It's been in the NASA rule book for at least the last 3 years that they were going to it. It doesn't take a math wiz to figure it was coming.

 

Not quite, the rules specified that Head and Neck restraints may become mandatory - no mention of a specific rating requirement.

[vpnwiz]

Nope. You guys have the same access to the rules as I do. It's been in the NASA rule book for at least the last 3 years that they were going to it. It doesn't take a math wiz to figure it was coming.

 

Not quite, the rules specified that Head and Neck restraints may become mandatory - no mention of a specific rating requirement.

 

That's just not true. Here is direct cut/paste from the 2007 CCR:

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Use of a head and neck restraint system or device, meeting SFI specifications, may become mandatory for all road race series as of  (strikeout)July 1, 2007(/strikeout). January 1, 2008

 

"Meeting SFI Specifications" is pretty clear. There was a lot of warning to this.

 

Patrick

[Weston]

Nope. You guys have the same access to the rules as I do. It's been in the NASA rule book for at least the last 3 years that they were going to it. It doesn't take a math wiz to figure it was coming.

 

Not quite, the rules specified that Head and Neck restraints may become mandatory - no mention of a specific rating requirement.

 

That's just not true. Here is direct cut/paste from the 2007 CCR:

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Use of a head and neck restraint system or device, meeting SFI specifications, may become mandatory for all road race series as of  (strikeout)July 1, 2007(/strikeout). January 1, 2008

 

"Meeting SFI Specifications" is pretty clear. There was a lot of warning to this.

 

Patrick

 

Being that the word "may" was involved and there was so little info about it for so long, not many people were under the impression that the SFI 38.1 part was set in stone. It didn't even say SFI 38.1 certified, it just said meeting SFI specifications, so I think it's fair to say that it was a bit vague.

[vpnwiz]

Hang on, don't change the subject yet - there was, indeed, a spec mentioned with the notice. Which was the entire point of my post. This did not come out of left field.

 

And I disagree - I don't think it's fair to say it was vague. It's clear. At least it was to me when I picked up the CCR for the first time last August and figured out on my own which SFI spec it was referring to, and what devices were covered under that. Do you know of any other HNR specs in SFI? I think that part is pretty self explanatory. Which is why an extra $800 for a HANS device has been in my 2008 budget since last year.

 

Patrick

[Weston]

Hang on, don't change the subject yet - there was, indeed, a spec mentioned with the notice. Which was the entire point of my post. This did not come out of left field.

 

And I disagree - I don't think it's fair to say it was vague. It's clear. At least it was to me when I picked up the CCR for the first time last August and figured out on my own which SFI spec it was referring to, and what devices were covered under that. Do you know of any other HNR specs in SFI? I think that part is pretty self explanatory. Which is why an extra $800 for a HANS device has been in my 2008 budget since last year.

 

Patrick

 

We all knew it was 38.1, but what I'm saying is that when they don't give a lot of detail and use words like "may" and "meeting specifications" (not "certified"), things are pretty up in the air. Especially when this has been going on for so long. A good number of people wanted to use an Isaac, which outperforms SFI devices in tests, but does not meet the SFI spec because of the type of release (which is just silly). Until just recently, it was completely unclear if that would be allowed or not. I'm disappointed that it's not allowed now, but I am glad that they finally clarified things... there were people who had been holding off on buying a head & neck device just because they didn't want to risk buying something that would become illegal.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Guest

[JCraven]

To be fair, I've heard about it, didn't read it in detail but recall the warning and recall that there were plans to implement it earlier.

 

My preference is for there to be a strong recommendation to wear one, not a requirement. The requirement from NASA still doesn't sit right with me but I'll keep thinking about it.

 

Sorry for my insinuation that there might have been any collusion between HANs and NASA - I am probably totally incorrect. I was correct in my assessment that the HANS is a fine product although I would have like to see improved side impact protection but so far it is the best product that I am aware off.

[Driver]

Driver is correct. There is a lot more that goes into the price of something other than materials. Try R&D, labor, fee's, shipping, salaries and a multitude of other things that goes into manufacturing a product. I'm not saying we don't make a profit but then I don't do what I do for free and I sure can make more somewhere else but I love you guys too much.

You just love us for our necks!

[vpnwiz]

I am not buying my HNR until right before the rule date is supposed to take effect - why? Because who knows what could change up to then. $800 is not an insignificant amount of money and I'm not going to spend it twice on the same thing. Come end of June, if this rule is still going to be taking effect without modification I will be buying the HANS. That and a new seat to accommodate the HANS. So this rule will now cost me about $1800-$2000.

 

Patrick

[ianacole]

Yes, you are correct, there is that statement of meeting SFI specifications in the rules. My mistake was that I searched for "SFI 38.1" and it didn't return anything.