SFI Head & Neck mandatory for NASA in June 08

[FlyingDog]

Who verifies exceeding SFI-38.1 performance? Nobody has answered that. You have to have some kind of verification or anyone can publish test specs that exceed the spec. I don't have a problem with any of the other devices. Whose word are you willing to stake your life or livelihood on? I am really not trying to tout the HANS Device here but there are a couple of SFI certified devices that third party organizations have tested and accepted. I don't think Isaac is one of the devices. The HANS Device and the Hybrid from Safety Solutions have been tested and accepted by third party organizations, not SFI. I'm not even saying the Isaac is not a good product but every manufacturer has a chance to market a certified device that will be accepted by sanctioning bodies.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

from page 2

SFI is funded by the manufacturers and some granting bodies. Manufacturers pay the SFI for each unit they sell. One failing of the SFI is that they don't publish the actual test results - they claim they can't do that because the test results are the property of the manufacturers (manufacturers have the tests done by certified labs and then submit them to SFI for certification). If, for whatever reason, you believe that certain test results are more important for your type of racing, you have to rely on the manufacturers to release that data instead of having SFI provide it. Some of the data is gathered and published at http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org

Also, the SAE paper linked on Isaac's site indicates the testing groups they used. (I have not read the full paper.)

http://www.isaacdirect.com/html/OtherPages/CrashTesting.html

[Bruce L.]

at this point it is not clear who is behind racingsafetyinstitute.org

The testing labs are not set up to monitor that the manufacturers don't change the product after the testing.

bruce

Who verifies exceeding SFI-38.1 performance? Nobody has answered that. You have to have some kind of verification or anyone can publish test specs that exceed the spec. I don't have a problem with any of the other devices. Whose word are you willing to stake your life or livelihood on? I am really not trying to tout the HANS Device here but there are a couple of SFI certified devices that third party organizations have tested and accepted. I don't think Isaac is one of the devices. The HANS Device and the Hybrid from Safety Solutions have been tested and accepted by third party organizations, not SFI. I'm not even saying the Isaac is not a good product but every manufacturer has a chance to market a certified device that will be accepted by sanctioning bodies.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

from page 2

SFI is funded by the manufacturers and some granting bodies. Manufacturers pay the SFI for each unit they sell. One failing of the SFI is that they don't publish the actual test results - they claim they can't do that because the test results are the property of the manufacturers (manufacturers have the tests done by certified labs and then submit them to SFI for certification). If, for whatever reason, you believe that certain test results are more important for your type of racing, you have to rely on the manufacturers to release that data instead of having SFI provide it. Some of the data is gathered and published at http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org

Also, the SAE paper linked on Isaac's site indicates the testing groups they used. (I have not read the full paper.)

http://www.isaacdirect.com/html/OtherPages/CrashTesting.html

[FlyingDog]

at this point it is not clear who is behind racingsafetyinstitute.org

It doesn't matter who racingsafetyinstitute.org is, unless it is SFI. I should have deleted that last line out because it didn't relate to my point that SFI uses independent lab data provided by and owned by the manufacturers. NASA or any other group can get the same data from the labs with the manufacturer's permission. If NASA or another group adopts the same performance specs without the design specs, the problem is solved.

The testing labs are not set up to monitor that the manufacturers don't change the product after the testing.

bruce

If the testing labs do not track changes and SFI uses the testing labs data, the SFI 38.1 certification is worthless.

[Bruce L.]

The testing labs are not set up to monitor that the manufacturers don't change the product after the testing.

bruce

If the testing labs do not track changes and SFI uses the testing labs data, the SFI 38.1 certification is worthless.

 

It is SFI who monitors the manufacturers currently.

bruce

[gbaker]

Who verifies exceeding SFI-38.1 performance?

SAE has. Anyone can. Just verify the test results with the lab.

[vpnwiz]

Who verifies exceeding SFI-38.1 performance?

SAE has. Anyone can. Just verify the test results with the lab.

 

"Anyone can."

 

Right, and that puts NASA right back in the drivers seat wrt managing test results. But, you and your device STILL wouldn't pass because you don't meet ALL the SFI specs. ISAAC would still fail.

 

Sorry Gregg. I was actually on your side as the "little guy" against the big corporations for a while. But I don't buy into it any more. Trying to scare people into accepting your device, and spreading FUD about what will happen if they don't really turned me off.

 

IMO you should be spending time getting ISAAC SFI or FIA certified instead of b!tching about why ISAAC lacks it - or pony up to the plate with some lawyers and sue people to make it happen. If you are as right as you believe then all of us will be in a better place because of it. But I don't think any of us need links to injury lawyers for race drivers any more.

 

Patrick

[xr4racer1]

I have no idea if this is true, but could the SFI 38.1 requirement have been dictated by NASA's insurance company? If an insurance company was going to make the organizations drivers wear a device I would think they would specify some type of industry requirement.

 

Matt

[FlyingDog]

Who verifies exceeding SFI-38.1 performance?

SAE has. Anyone can. Just verify the test results with the lab.

 

"Anyone can."

 

Right, and that puts NASA right back in the drivers seat wrt managing test results. But, you and your device STILL wouldn't pass because you don't meet ALL the SFI specs. ISAAC would still fail.

Read again, the discussion is about meeting the SFI performance specs which it does, not the arbitrary design spec which prevents certification.

Sorry Gregg. I was actually on your side as the "little guy" against the big corporations for a while. But I don't buy into it any more. Trying to scare people into accepting your device, and spreading FUD about what will happen if they don't really turned me off.

 

IMO you should be spending time getting ISAAC SFI or FIA certified instead of b!tching about why ISAAC lacks it - or pony up to the plate with some lawyers and sue people to make it happen. If you are as right as you believe then all of us will be in a better place because of it. But I don't think any of us need links to injury lawyers for race drivers any more.

 

Patrick

You sound bitter and confused. If you have something personal against Gregg take it up with him elsewhere. We're talking about NASA making a ruling that eliminates the safest device in which many have already invested.

[FlyingDog]

The testing labs are not set up to monitor that the manufacturers don't change the product after the testing.

bruce

If the testing labs do not track changes and SFI uses the testing labs data, the SFI 38.1 certification is worthless.

 

It is SFI who monitors the manufacturers currently.

bruce

No, SFI does not. SFI goes strictly on lab data, what the manufacturers say, and fees. A manufacturer could submit a device for testing then produce a completely different device. They would be opening themselves up to a huge lawsuit, but they could do it and SFI wouldn't know.

 

NASA could accept the same data from the same labs requiring the same performance specs. There would be no difference except a fee and a 'certification'.

[Bruce L.]

Not sure where you're getting your information Matt. Here is a snippet from the About SFI page of http://www.sfifoundation.com

What About Enforcement?

Typically, there are policing provisions through contractual or licensing agreements whereby SFI may inspect the records and/or equipment of a manufacturer in order to ascertain that the product involved meets SFI Specs. Once a manufacturer has voluntarily committed to participating in the program, it must comply with the specifications in all respects.

 

and here is section 9.0 of the 38.1 spec (2004 version) that puts the onus on the manufacturers and SFI for continuing revalidation:

9.0 PERIODIC REVALIDATION

Test reports with successful test results must be submitted to SFI at least once every 12

month period following the date of the initial design validation test for each model of Head

and Neck Restraint System manufactured by the participant. If multiple test reports are

required to obtain all test results, then the earliest test date shall be used to determine

when the periodic revalidation reports are due. Also, SFI shall retain the option to conduct

random audit reviews. SFI shall purchase the product on a commercial basis and test for

compliance to the specification. The submitting manufacturer shall reimburse SFI for all

audit costs.

 

 

The testing labs are not set up to monitor that the manufacturers don't change the product after the testing.

bruce

If the testing labs do not track changes and SFI uses the testing labs data, the SFI 38.1 certification is worthless.

 

It is SFI who monitors the manufacturers currently.

bruce

No, SFI does not. SFI goes strictly on lab data, what the manufacturers say, and fees. A manufacturer could submit a device for testing then produce a completely different device. They would be opening themselves up to a huge lawsuit, but they could do it and SFI wouldn't know.

 

NASA could accept the same data from the same labs requiring the same performance specs. There would be no difference except a fee and a 'certification'.

[FlyingDog]

None of that contradicts what I said. It just limits the time to 12 months before another proper device needs to be tested. SFI reserves the right to randomly test. We all know how well that works for MLB.

 

This still does not eliminate the sensible and realistic option of NASA requiring devices that meet SFI performance specs without requiring certification.

 

BTW, I finally received a reply from the National Competition Manager. His reply was exactly what I expected. Still no reply from NASA-MA.

[granracing]

Matt,

 

Yeah I know, this goes off topic again (lightens the conversation up a bit?) and your avatar isn't about beer but...I saw beer at the package store made by Flying Dog and couldn't help but try out the variety pack. Yummy!

 

 

I was (still am?) against requiring a H&N, but if that's going to happen I do think it should be opened up to include many other types. Why not include a basic and inexpensive G-Force H&N too?

[vpnwiz]

... Read again, the discussion is about meeting the SFI performance specs which it does, not the arbitrary design spec which prevents certification....

 

...This still does not eliminate the sensible and realistic option of NASA requiring devices that meet SFI performance specs without requiring certification...

 

That argument is far from sensible and hardly realistic.

 

Hey here's an idea - make racing equipment that only meets part of a "spec". How about a seat that meets SFI performance specs but faces backwards? 6 point belts with all the straps on the left side? A collapsible helmet? 3-layer Nomex shorts? I'm sure those would meet performance but not design specs.

 

Specifications have design AND performance requirements for a reason. If you don't meet them all, you don't pass. It's that simple.

 

Patrick

[Sterling Doc]

None of that contradicts what I said. It just limits the time to 12 months before another proper device needs to be tested. SFI reserves the right to randomly test. We all know how well that works for MLB.

 

This still does not eliminate the sensible and realistic option of NASA requiring devices that meet SFI performance specs without requiring certification.

 

BTW, I finally received a reply from the National Competition Manager. His reply was exactly what I expected. Still no reply from NASA-MA.

 

If you don't use the standard as it is laid down (the full SFI standard), then you are inventing your own, with all the legal ramifications that entails. NASA would be foolish to expose itself to that risk. People get hurt in racing, and they or their family sue. A wrongful death lawsuit could bury NASA. From a legal perspective, "meeting specs" is not a realisitic option.

[JCraven]

Come on, get realistic Patrick - you are using a strawman argument which is completely absurd.

 

To use another example, NASA has TT which uses HPDE rules, and they are out there, running the same speeds, actually drive way faster than I do although technically not wheel to wheel.

 

They use seat belts that meet different specifications, DOT, while race car in NASA meet SFI so race car belts are good for 2 years while TT belts are good for eternity or until deemed unsafe by a NASA safety inspector. Hmmm, see some similarity to some arguments in this thread. HANS won't be required in TT, although they will be "free" to choose alternative and perhaps safer choices in HNR systems for the type of seat belt system their car employs. They have a choice, I don't believe NASA is forcing them to use an SFI 38.1 HNR system at the moment.

 

Anyways, no one is going to win this argument, NASA made their decision for good or bad, they hitched their cart to SFI and I don't see anyone making them change their minds through argument, short of .....some larger bigger forces that I won't even start to theorize about here. Accept it or move on.

[FlyingDog]

If you don't use the standard as it is laid down (the full SFI standard), then you are inventing your own, with all the legal ramifications that entails. NASA would be foolish to expose itself to that risk. People get hurt in racing, and they or their family sue. A wrongful death lawsuit could bury NASA. From a legal perspective, "meeting specs" is not a realisitic option.

SCCA has been around a lot longer and has ~6x as many members. I'm sure they are well aware of the liability, yet they have not mandated SFI 38.1 certified devices.

Anyways' date=' no one is going to win this argument, NASA made their decision for good or bad, they hitched their cart to SFI and I don't see anyone making them change their minds through argument, short of .....some larger bigger forces that I won't even start to theorize about here. Accept it or move on.[/quote']The reply I received today was basicly "If you don't like it, go race with another organization."

[vpnwiz]

I know those ideas are absurd. So is the idea that you can require meeting a published spec and then pick and choose which parts of it you want to follow.

 

You're right, no is going to win, this is an endless debate. To paraphrase a quote from Top Gear, this is like arguing over why they put the jam in jelly donuts.

 

Patrick

[Tom A]

I was (still am?) against requiring a H&N, but if that's going to happen I do think it should be opened up to include many other types. Why not include a basic and inexpensive G-Force H&N too?

Because the G-Force did not meet the performance spec. From a past discussion, it did not miss by much, but it did miss.

 

The Isaac did meet the performance spec, but is excluded by the design spec, mandating a single point of release.

 

If single point of release is that important, they better outlaw radios, cool suits, drink tubes, and anything else that may be connected. The rules say I have to be able to get out of the car in 10 seconds, as long as I can demonstrate that, the number of things connecting me to the car is my problem. The pins on a Isaac can be connected by a strap, so one yank will release both pins. The added time to egress is negligible.

 

Specifications have design AND performance requirements for a reason. If you don't meet them all, you don't pass. It's that simple.

Yes, but you are blindly accepting the reason, without knowing what that reason is. There has been no explanation for why the single point of release is included in the spec, as far as I am concerned no rational basis for it's necessity. The story we are hearing is NASCAR wrote the spec with no input from the HANS guys, there is no reason to believe that NASCAR wrote the spec in a vacuum. The HANS was the market leader at the time (and still is) there is no reason to think that NASCAR wouldn't write the spec with that device in mind. I don't think that the safety needs of cars that regularly go 200 MPH surrounded by concrete walls are the same as a ~120HP Spec Miata on a road course.

 

Crash crew will cut you out, so that argument is a red herring.

 

Frankly, the spec stifles innovation. The way the spec is written, any device that can be certified has to function essentially the same way as a HANS. Guess what, all the certified devices work pretty much the same way as a HANS. There is a yoke attached to your helmet that is either held in place by the belts, or strapped to you.

 

No device can get certified that doesn't work like that. Which means that nobody is going to bother to try to design anything better, because it can't possibly succeed. That is BAD for racers.

 

SCCA has been around a lot longer and has ~6x as many members. I'm sure they are well aware of the liability, yet they have not mandated SFI 38.1 certified devices.

IIRC They mentioned in a FastTrack that they were planning on it, and were flooded by angry letters from the members, so they backed off.

 

What is really sad is I expect that if the Isaac guys cave in to the extor...er..Licensing and joined SFI, there would be a SFI 38.1.1 spec that excludes the single point of release.

 

I honestly believe the purpose of SFI has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with sanctioning body CYA and selling more SFI certified crap (and collecting the fees that go along with it).

 

OH NO!, if you use those belts that are 731 days old YOU WILL DIE!, the fact that the same belts, made of the same materials with a different tag will last 5 years is irrelevant. That will be $200 please. Thanks, see you in 2 years.

 

Damn I have become a cynical bastard.

[JSirota]

The Isaac did meet the performance spec, but is excluded by the design spec, mandating a single point of release.

 

If single point of release is that important, they better outlaw radios, cool suits, drink tubes, and anything else that may be connected.

 

Oh sheesh.

 

As I posted earlier in this thread, the spec DOES NOT REQUIRE a single point of release. What it does require is that the H&N restraint does not add any additional releases than would otherwise be there to free the driver from the vehicle. Does that really sound so unreasonable? As you pointed out, every additional release, in theory, compromises safety.

 

Nowhere does SFI say (other than in threads like this all over the internet) that they require a single point of release.

[Tom A]

As I posted earlier in this thread, the spec DOES NOT REQUIRE a single point of release. What it does require is that the H&N restraint does not add any additional releases than would otherwise be there to free the driver from the vehicle. Does that really sound so unreasonable? As you pointed out, every additional release, in theory, compromises safety.

 

Nowhere does SFI say (other than in threads like this all over the internet) that they require a single point of release.

To me, yes it is unreasonable. If I as a driver (you know, the one at risk) am willing to accept that additional risk. I don't use a cool suit, or a drink tube, so If I were to use an Isaac I would be attached to the car by fewer points than someone following the mandated spec. And this makes sense because.......?

 

2.5 Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations.

 

BFD, it is semantics. The Single point of release is the belts. People referring to it a "Single point of release" is a good summary of the above statement, and the reason that I can't buy a better product than specified by the Marketing Organization we are forced to rely on for safety rules.

[Bruce L.]

this is in the "Definitions" section of 38.1 (not sure why they have design requirements in a Definitions section...)

2.5 Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user

and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other

than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint

System during emergency situations.

I could easily paraphrase that to "a single point of release is required". The spec does not say that the single motion is on top of releasing radios and cool suit tubes, etc.

In theory, a single point of release is a good idea, but in practice the corner workers carry knives and scissors to cut belts (I have had corner worker training)

bruce

 

 

The Isaac did meet the performance spec, but is excluded by the design spec, mandating a single point of release.

 

If single point of release is that important, they better outlaw radios, cool suits, drink tubes, and anything else that may be connected.

 

Oh sheesh.

 

As I posted earlier in this thread, the spec DOES NOT REQUIRE a single point of release. What it does require is that the H&N restraint does not add any additional releases than would otherwise be there to free the driver from the vehicle. Does that really sound so unreasonable? As you pointed out, every additional release, in theory, compromises safety.

 

Nowhere does SFI say (other than in threads like this all over the internet) that they require a single point of release.

Edited December 27, 2007 by Guest

[Mike Hurst]

.... the reason that I can't buy a better product than specified by the Marketing Organization we are forced to rely on for safety rules.

 

Did you know that this "better product" that claims to meet the "performance specifications of 38.1" has, according to it's maker, never been tested in a frontal impact, at least 2 of which are required by 38.1?

 

If you accept the argument that frontal impact tests are unecessary, you're not much of a cynic!

[FlyingDog]

You mean other than this part of their test presentation? "Delphi Safety Systems Test Center execution of SFI Specification 38.1"

[JCraven]

I was partially misquoted in this thread but ....

 

correctly quoted in that it SFI is what it is..

 

Here is a link to an interesting and intelligent discussion of another groups take on the SFI organizations influence on safety and the other racing organization and some rough background on the 38.1 development.

 

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13925

[Mike Hurst]

You mean other than this part of their test presentation? "Delphi Safety Systems Test Center execution of SFI Specification 38.1"

 

That's a 30deg offset test. SFI requires at least 2 frontal tests, and 1 offset test.

 

Don't believe me?...ask the manufacturer.

 

If you accept that the frontal tests where the seat belts and anchorage are roughly parallel to a path your head is trying to travel are unnecessary, OK.