SFI Head & Neck mandatory for NASA in June 08

[FlyingDog]

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

It's not that I don't believe you, I'm just surprised. The manufacturer has posted in this thread. Maybe Gregg will respond to this.

[Mike Hurst]

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=78009&highlight=#78009

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=5791&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12748144#post12748144

[FlyingDog]

After rereading the SFI requirements, I agree with Gregg. It's kind of pointless unless SFI is going to actually certify the device. The requirement for the two frontal tests is 3200 (unless you fail, then it's 4000, wtf?) and for the offset test it's 4000. The Isaac was 1300-something in the offset test. Do you really think the frontal measurement will be 3x the offset measurement?

 

BTW, it's obvious that you have a personal problem with Gregg from the threads you linked.

[Bruce L.]

I recall that Gregg justified the lack of frontal testing by saying that the offset test is much more difficult to pass.

 

On the flip side, people from H-D have been challenged by Gregg to show sled test videos where the device does not come out from under the belts - and AFAIK, they have never been able to (wanted to) show such video. I'd like my device to stay under the belts for multiple impacts.

 

Mike appears to be the technical director of Rally America (formerly SCCA Pro Rally) so he more than likely knows his stuff, but it is unclear why he doesn't like the Isaac as I expect that it would be much more effective in what I imagine would be typical rally accidents compared to, say, a Hans.

bruce

 

 

After rereading the SFI requirements, I agree with Gregg. It's kind of pointless unless SFI is going to actually certify the device. The requirement for the two frontal tests is 3200 (unless you fail, then it's 4000, wtf?) and for the offset test it's 4000. The Isaac was 1300-something in the offset test. Do you really think the frontal measurement will be 3x the offset measurement?

 

BTW, it's obvious that you have a personal problem with Gregg from the threads you linked.

[Mike Hurst]

No personal problem...only this:

 

Originally Posted by gbaker (Nasioc 2/18/06):

"We have not crashed the Isaac system in a head-on sled test. Those are for girly men."

 

and from the website:..

 

"The Isaac® head and neck restraint system meets or exceeds the performance requirements of SFI Specification 38.1."

 

If everybody else is fine with this then I should be to?....but I would still like to see it frontal tested. The dashpot idea could work great, but you can't expect a sanctioning body to get behind it without complete testing , and not (I believe) in it's current form. I'd like to see the dashpots on a "SARKA" type belt mount...maybe I'll do it and call it the "Newton"?

 

Uncomfortable with the belt issue? There's always the hybrid.

 

BTW, our latest "typical rally accident" (wreck at the very end):

[vpnwiz]

BTW, it's obvious that you have a personal problem with Gregg from the threads you linked.

 

I'll tell you what's obvious... you are an ISAAC fanboy who can't handle someone someone posting negative, but truthful facts about ISAAC. You have to resort to personal attacks.

 

First I'm bitter and confused (see pg 9) and now Mike has a "personal problem" because he brings up the FACT that it hasn't been offset frontal tested.

 

As I posted before, Gregg could actually TRY to make this all go away but he chooses to keep debating about it on Internet forums. If he has so much experience in court testifying about safety devices it should be an easy win for him.

 

Oops, I said something negative about Gregg and ISAAC. I'll expect your personal shot soon.

 

Patrick

[FlyingDog]

BTW, it's obvious that you have a personal problem with Gregg from the threads you linked.

 

I'll tell you what's obvious... you are an ISAAC fanboy who can't handle someone someone posting negative, but truthful facts about ISAAC. You have to resort to personal attacks.

 

First I'm bitter and confused (see pg 9) and now Mike has a "personal problem" because he brings up the FACT that it hasn't been offset frontal tested.

 

As I posted before, Gregg could actually TRY to make this all go away but he chooses to keep debating about it on Internet forums. If he has so much experience in court testifying about safety devices it should be an easy win for him.

 

Oops, I said something negative about Gregg and ISAAC. I'll expect your personal shot soon.

 

Patrick

That is just plain funny. Can you get any more holier than thou?

 

Mike does appear to have a personal problem with Gregg. That is not a personal attack, it is a simple observation from his posts that he linked. Read the threads he linked and try again.

 

At least try to get the "FACT" correct. The Isaac is 30 degree offset tested, not direct frontal tested.

 

I don't care what you say about Gregg or Isaac. Maybe Gregg could do more to fix the problem, but he really shouldn't have to do more.

 

"fanboy"? What are you 12? You are still confused and apparently getting more bitter by the post.

Edited December 27, 2007 by Guest

[Tom A]

I'll tell you what's obvious... you are an ISAAC fanboy who can't handle someone someone posting negative, but truthful facts about ISAAC. You have to resort to personal attacks.

Actually I have seen the back and forth between Mike and Greg several times on a couple different forums, I kind of got the same impression.

 

First I'm bitter and confused (see pg 9) and now Mike has a "personal problem" because he brings up the FACT that it hasn't been offset frontal tested.

It has been offset tested. It hasn't been full frontal tested, for reasons that are well covered in the NASIOC thread.

 

As I posted before, Gregg could actually TRY to make this all go away but he chooses to keep debating about it on Internet forums. If he has so much experience in court testifying about safety devices it should be an easy win for him.

How exactly could he do that? As has been covered at great length, Isaac will never be SFI certified under the current SFI 38.1. How do you think Gregg could "make this all go away"?

[JSirota]

As has been covered at great length, Isaac will never be SFI certified under the current SFI 38.1. How do you think Gregg could "make this all go away"?

 

Due to the increasingly-widespread SFI 38.1 requirements, he's looking at very low sales for his existing device.

 

He said (in the last couple of days on another forum) that he could make an SFI-compliant device, but that it would only be as effective as other devices.

 

Well, if he were to do that, he'd have SOME opportunity for product sales. Certainly his fans would buy one. I might even buy one (although I'm happy with my Hans -- it's plenty safe.)

 

So, what do you do? Take the high road until you go out of business? Or do the right thing to actually conduct business? I know what I would do if it were my company ...

[gbaker]

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.

Won't happen.

Edited December 27, 2007 by Guest

[Bruce L.]

that was a sarcastic quip in a thread where he and others had already explained three or four times why it was pointless to bear the expense of the frontal impact testing when other aspects of the sfi 38.1 standard preclude his device anyway. Recognized safety experts had told him to just show that they could pass the more difficult offset impact test ...

And do you really think that if Isaac runs all the tests and then takes them to the SFI 38.1 committee that the manufacturer reps present would even listen to him? SFI, for at least the 38.1 standard, has compromised itself by allowing so much manufacturer influence on the evolution of the standard. Can you tell me what the scientific reason was for lowering the allowable neck tension to 3200N this past year when a street car only has to achieve 4170N?

bruce

 

p.s. you rally drivers are CRAZY!!!!!

 

No personal problem...only this:

 

Originally Posted by gbaker (Nasioc 2/18/06):

"We have not crashed the Isaac system in a head-on sled test. Those are for girly men."

 

and from the website:..

 

"The Isaac® head and neck restraint system meets or exceeds the performance requirements of SFI Specification 38.1."

 

If everybody else is fine with this then I should be to?....but I would still like to see it frontal tested. The dashpot idea could work great, but you can't expect a sanctioning body to get behind it without complete testing , and not (I believe) in it's current form. I'd like to see the dashpots on a "SARKA" type belt mount...maybe I'll do it and call it the "Newton"?

 

Uncomfortable with the belt issue? There's always the hybrid.

 

BTW, our latest "typical rally accident" (wreck at the very end):

[gbaker]

So, what do you do? Take the high road until you go out of business?

Road racers are <7% of the motorsports market, and have nothing to do with military applications--where they have no idea what SFI stands for.

 

We have this really weird idea that we will design products that minimize bone stresses associated with head and neck injuries. We do that better than anyone else in the solar system. If some folks don't under that it is their problem, not ours.

Edited December 28, 2007 by Guest

[vpnwiz]

How exactly could he do that? As has been covered at great length, Isaac will never be SFI certified under the current SFI 38.1. How do you think Gregg could "make this all go away"?

 

Well, what I wrote was he could TRY to make it go away. JSirota just summarized the options, but I added another one earlier which is - he could always sue SFI directly so they accept his device. Or back up his veiled threats to NASA (and I'm sure to BMWCCA too) and do the same. He does love to mention his court experience. It seems like a viable alternative, especially since his testing results are so "incredible".

 

Gregg seems to be on just about every message board there is complaining left and right instead of actually doing anything about it. Is he too busy trying to scare people into accepting his device? It just reeks of being totally pointless. He could at least TRY.

 

Patrick

[granracing]

Gregg should be on various racing forums providing his background. What, no complaints about the HANS rep being on these same forums?

 

For me, this isn't about Gregg and what he says / doesn't say. Isn't this discussion about what devices are out on the market that do an effective job of saving lives through a H&N system?

 

And Patrick, I have yet to see personal attacks here although Mike seems to really have an affinity toward Gregg.

[vpnwiz]

Gregg should be on various racing forums providing his background. What, no complaints about the HANS rep being on these same forums?

 

And Patrick, I have yet to see personal attacks here...

 

Dave, the personal attacks are there even if you haven't seen them.

 

More power to you and Gregg both if you think that spending time on internet message boards complaining about why the ISAAC isn't certified is an effective business strategy! I think it's very cool that manufacturers are on the boards answering questions. From my own personal reading so far on this topic (all 10 days of it), the HANS rep has actually answered questions instead of dodging them or posting links to ambulance chasing lawyers specialing in racing injuries (link). Perhaps things were very different prior to when I began reading, but there's a difference between helpful answers and just stoking the fire.

 

To be honest I really don't care enough about it to go any further, talking about it here is totally pointless. I've made my points already and I'm not interested in repetitive debate. I'm going to buy whatever is on the certified list a few days before the NASA deadline. End of story.

[snk]

I'm a new guy looking for a series, but here are my 2 cents on this topic:

 

The ISAAC provides more protection than the HANS, based on my research.

 

If the ISAAC provides more protection than the HANS in the kinds of crashes I hopefully won't be getting into, then I'll buy an ISAAC.

 

If any given racing organization refuses to listen to its existing and potential members, then I don't want to be a member of that organization. Now if it turns out they *do* have an ear to listen and is willing to make changes, then I'm on board.

 

I own a BMW but I decided not to race in BMW Club Racing because they require SFI 38.1 only. They even made a series specifically for my car (E36 325).

 

There's going to be a NASA Spec3 series in the same vein as above but unless NASA doesn't accept the ISAAC, I won't be partaking.

 

If SCCA ever begins requiring SFI 38.1, then I won't have anything to do with them.

 

If I ever run out of a series to race in, I'll go karting!

 

p.s. - I don't own an HNR at the moment because I haven't raced in 2 years (not required 2 years ago).

[Bruce L.]

being a member of BMWCCA CR, SCCA and NASA, IMHO NASA listens and responds to its members the best. They know there is a backlash about not allowing the Isaac, so they must feel it is justified for their business interests.

 

You do realize that there are HNR's for karters, don't you. Ultimately, resistance is futile... (and foolish)

bruce

 

 

I'm a new guy looking for a series, but here are my 2 cents on this topic:

 

The ISAAC provides more protection than the HANS, based on my research.

 

If the ISAAC provides more protection than the HANS in the kinds of crashes I hopefully won't be getting into, then I'll buy an ISAAC.

 

If any given racing organization refuses to listen to its existing and potential members, then I don't want to be a member of that organization. Now if it turns out they *do* have an ear to listen and is willing to make changes, then I'm on board.

 

I own a BMW but I decided not to race in BMW Club Racing because they require SFI 38.1 only. They even made a series specifically for my car (E36 325).

 

There's going to be a NASA Spec3 series in the same vein as above but unless NASA doesn't accept the ISAAC, I won't be partaking.

 

If SCCA ever begins requiring SFI 38.1, then I won't have anything to do with them.

 

If I ever run out of a series to race in, I'll go karting!

 

p.s. - I don't own an HNR at the moment because I haven't raced in 2 years (not required 2 years ago).

[FlyingDog]

being a member of BMWCCA CR, SCCA and NASA, IMHO NASA listens and responds to its members the best. They know there is a backlash about not allowing the Isaac, so they must feel it is justified for their business interests.

From the replies I received from NASA, they don't care. "We made the rule. If you don't like it, race elsewhere." (paraphrased from a few paragraphs)

 

I still have not received a reply from NASA-MA.

[Bruce L.]

they care - they just value their business interests higher in this instance.

 

being a member of BMWCCA CR, SCCA and NASA, IMHO NASA listens and responds to its members the best. They know there is a backlash about not allowing the Isaac, so they must feel it is justified for their business interests.

From the replies I received from NASA, they don't care. "We made the rule. If you don't like it, race elsewhere." (paraphrased from a few paragraphs)

 

I still have not received a reply from NASA-MA.

[HBennett]

Just a few corrections of statements that I have read in the past 3 or 4 pages. I try to take a look at some of the forums but have been very busy.

 

On the flip side, people from H-D have been challenged by Gregg to show sled test videos where the device does not come out from under the belts - and AFAIK, they have never been able to (wanted to) show such video. I'd like my device to stay under the belts for multiple impacts.

 

Only true in the fact that we don't have sled tests on our website. We really are a small company and don't have an IT department. We hope to correct this. BUT everyone who has purchased a HANS Devise in the past several years has the afforementioned videos. There is a cd included with every device that includes the owners manual and video from a NASCAR safety presentation showing crash tests. The video on Isaac's website is incorrect and I have discussed it with him in the past but...

 

Hopefully, we will be making changes to our website so that we can post more videos. I am pushing the fact that any videos posted will be honest (with everything being equal like mounting belts) and give real results instead of marketing hype and untruths found on other sites.

 

The requirement for the two frontal tests is 3200 (unless you fail, then it's 4000, wtf?) and for the offset test it's 4000. The Isaac was 1300-something in the offset test. Do you really think the frontal measurement will be 3x the offset measurement?

 

No. The spec is 2 frontal impacts and a single 30-degree impacts ALL under 3200N.

 

Can you tell me what the scientific reason was for lowering the allowable neck tension to 3200N?

 

To help make the driver safer. I thought this would be self evident. I don't mean to sound sarcastic.

 

The ISAAC provides more protection than the HANS, based on my research.

 

What research? Have you tried the different devices? Have you talked with a wide array of users? Or have you looked at websites?

 

Carry on.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

[gbaker]

Just a few corrections of statements that I have read in the past 3 or 4 pages. I try to take a look at some of the forums but have been very busy.

 

On the flip side, people from H-D have been challenged by Gregg to show sled test videos where the device does not come out from under the belts - and AFAIK, they have never been able to (wanted to) show such video. I'd like my device to stay under the belts for multiple impacts.

 

Only true in the fact that we don't have sled tests on our website. We really are a small company and don't have an IT department.

 

We'd be more than happy to post those for you, Howard. Just make sure you send all the videos.

 

The video on Isaac's website is incorrect and I have discussed it with him in the past but...

No, you have not. What did Delphi Safety Systems do wrong when they ran the SFI test?

 

Hopefully, we will be making changes to our website so that we can post more videos. I am pushing the fact that any videos posted will be honest (with everything being equal like mounting belts) and give real results instead of marketing hype and untruths found on other sites.

What sites would those be?

 

Can you tell me what the scientific reason was for lowering the allowable neck tension to 3200N?

To help make the driver safer. I thought this would be self evident. I don't mean to sound sarcastic.

 

Great idea. Let's lower it to 1,300N on the WSU sled. Bye, bye HANS.

 

The ISAAC provides more protection than the HANS, based on my research.

 

What research? Have you tried the different devices? Have you talked with a wide array of users? Or have you looked at websites?

 

Carry on.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

He read peer-reviewed scientific publications, and probably talked to ISAAC users.

[snk]

 

What research? Have you tried the different devices? Have you talked with a wide array of users? Or have you looked at websites?

 

Carry on.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

 

My "research" consists of doing what any connected individual does nowadays. Spend many hours reading testimonials, checking the poster's background to make sure I'm not reading BS and just general good sense.

 

I place a lot of weight on comments from users who are legit. Although there's no discounting the fact that many of those "legit" users own and use HANS, my verdict thus far is that the ISAAC is the superior device.

 

The problem I have with this whole deal is the fact that one device that has so much more to offer is excluded due to what I consider as a technicality.

 

I shouldn't have to try all the options out there. I should be able to make an educated decision based on the published figures and testimonials, the latter of which I do place great emphasis on when making a technology decision.

[Bruce L.]

Just a few corrections of statements that I have read in the past 3 or 4 pages. I try to take a look at some of the forums but have been very busy.

 

On the flip side, people from H-D have been challenged by Gregg to show sled test videos where the device does not come out from under the belts - and AFAIK, they have never been able to (wanted to) show such video. I'd like my device to stay under the belts for multiple impacts.

 

Only true in the fact that we don't have sled tests on our website. We really are a small company and don't have an IT department. We hope to correct this. BUT everyone who has purchased a HANS Devise in the past several years has the afforementioned videos. There is a cd included with every device that includes the owners manual and video from a NASCAR safety presentation showing crash tests. The video on Isaac's website is incorrect and I have discussed it with him in the past but...

 

Hopefully, we will be making changes to our website so that we can post more videos. I am pushing the fact that any videos posted will be honest (with everything being equal like mounting belts) and give real results instead of marketing hype and untruths found on other sites.

 

if the videos are like this one, don't bother - they are too small to see anything:

http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/Crash_Test_With_and_Without_HANS.wmv

 

 

The requirement for the two frontal tests is 3200 (unless you fail, then it's 4000, wtf?) and for the offset test it's 4000. The Isaac was 1300-something in the offset test. Do you really think the frontal measurement will be 3x the offset measurement?

 

No. The spec is 2 frontal impacts and a single 30-degree impacts ALL under 3200N.

 

Can you tell me what the scientific reason was for lowering the allowable neck tension to 3200N?

 

To help make the driver safer. I thought this would be self evident. I don't mean to sound sarcastic.

"Making the driver safer" also has the effect of excluding "adequate" solutions which are potentially less expensive and could spur adoption. FMVSS 208 specifies a maximum neck tension of 4170N for street car accidents. Why do we need a lower neck tension for race track use? If the committee is really trying to say that the current 68G impact isn't representative of expected accidents, then they should have boosted the 68G impact requirement. Oh wait, the SFI 16.1 belts likely won't restrain you in one of those accidents.

I realize that you're not a representative of the SFI 38.1 committee, but there doesn't seem to be an easy way to get answers.

Another good one is that SFI 16.1, the standard for harnesses allows for two separate motions to release the entire restraint assembly. However, when you put on a 38.1 HNR you're then only allowed to require one motion for complete release. So, anybody with a harness with a sternum strap - you have to get new belts.

 

The ISAAC provides more protection than the HANS, based on my research.

 

What research? Have you tried the different devices? Have you talked with a wide array of users? Or have you looked at websites?

 

Carry on.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

 

thanks,

bruce

[HBennett]

gbaker, we've hashed this out before in a forum, then you accused us of lying to everyone for years and I'm not even going to get into a stupid discussion like that. If someone looks at the video closely, you can see the differences.

 

leggwork, what is an "adequate" solution? Do you really want just an "adequate" solution, in anything? Is the SRS-1 or the original Hutchens Device adequate? I assume you use either a HD, Isaac or similar device. I'm assuming you don't consider these adequate? Also, sternum straps have fallen out of favor with a lot of sanctioning bodies and most manufacturers have stopped building them. Reason, soft tissue in front of the neck.

 

I don't want to get into some of the heated discussion as in the past. If someone has a question on the HANS Device or HNR's in general, I'll be glad to help in whatever way I can.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

[IkeF]

I still don't understand the one motion/one release ruling. Time is the determining factor, so "number of releases" seems to be an indirect means of measuring the ability to egress. As long as you can demonstrate your ability to get out of a vehicle in X amount of time, or even demonstrate that someone else can get you out in X amount of time, why should the path taken to get there matter?

 

One release is obviously better, but there are plenty of advantages to the ISAAC that I feel outweigh this minor shortcoming.