SFI Head & Neck mandatory for NASA in June 08

[JSirota]

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.

 

Where do you get this stuff?

 

It's just not true. Go read 38.1 and explain why you think that.

[Bruce L.]

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.

 

Where do you get this stuff?

 

It's just not true. Go read 38.1 and explain why you think that.

 

 

ok, I'll give you that 38.1 says no additional motion over that required for release of the belts. So, 16.1 allows me to make two motions to release a sternum strap equipped belt set but if I don't have a sternum strap, it is not adequate to make two motions to release the belts and an HNR. That's logical.

 

As it happens, I subsequently determined that a sternum strap isn't even allowed in NASA - 15.5.5 requires a common release for all belts - two motions aren't acceptable.

bruce

[Bruce L.]

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.

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

 

"adequate" does not mean sub-standard. Items are engineered to achieve a particular cost/benefit all the time. If I could have a device that reduces the neck tension to what I would encounter in a street car crash, that would be adequate. My main point is that if these devices were less expensive they would be adopted faster and they would have more net benefit. For several years a 4000N limit was considered "adequate" for 38.1 and now it has been changed to 3200N with no explanation. That is not adequate.

thanks,

bruce

[FlyingDog]

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.

Is this out of date?

5.1.3 PROCEDURE

A.

The Head and Neck Restraint System shall be assembled per the

manufacturer's instructions to the 50

th

percentile male Hybrid III test

device (ATD) and the ATD then shall be seated and restrained in the

seat and mounting frame with the full face helmet fitted, all as

described in paragraph 5.1.2.A of this specification. This complete

assembly shall be mounted on the test sled.

B.

The test sled shall be propelled to produce the racing acceleration

pulse (Figures 2A and 2B) at a nominal 68G peak, 70 KPH (43.5 mph)

velocity change. A minimum of two (2) frontal tests and one (1) 30°

right frontal test will be required. To be considered valid tests, the

results of each of the frontal tests must be 3,200 N or less. If the

frontal results fail to meet the above requirement, then a third frontal

test will be required and none of the three values shall be above the

maximum requirements per paragraph 6.1.1. The 30° right frontal test

must meet the requirements of paragraph 6.1.1.

C.

The data recorded in the test shall be analyzed for the first 120

milliseconds of the test.

6.1.1 IMPACT PERFORMANCE FOR EACH TEST (procured from Hybrid

III test device).

Maximum Upper Neck Tension

4,000 N (899 lbs.)

Maximum Upper Neck Compression

4,000 N (899 lbs.)

Maximum Value of NIJ

1.0

[Bruce L.]

yes, it is out of date. The spec was revised last July to require 3200N.

 

5.1.3 PROCEDURE

A. The Head and Neck Restraint System shall be assembled per the

manufacturer's instructions to the 50th percentile male Hybrid III test

device (ATD) and the ATD then shall be seated and restrained in the

seat and mounting frame with the full face helmet fitted, all as

described in paragraph 5.1.2.A of this specification. This complete

assembly shall be mounted on the test sled.

B. The test sled shall be propelled to produce the racing acceleration

pulse (Figures 2A and 2B) at a nominal 68G peak, 70 KPH (43.5 mph)

velocity change. Two (2) frontal tests and one (1) 30° right frontal test

will be required. The results of both frontal tests and the 30° right

frontal test must meet the requirements of paragraph 6.1.1.

C. The data recorded in the test shall be analyzed for the first 120

milliseconds of the test.

6.0 PROOF OF COMPLIANCE

Head and Neck Restraint System certifying manufacturers are required to provide the

following information to enroll in this program:

6.1 TEST RESULTS

Test results shall be documented in a test report.

6.1.1 IMPACT PERFORMANCE FOR EACH TEST (procured from Hybrid

III test device).

Maximum Upper Neck Tension 3,200N (719lbs)

Maximum Upper Neck Compression 3,200N (719lbs)

Maximum Value of NIJ 1.0

[gbaker]

If someone looks at the video closely, you can see the differences.

What are they?

 

It's a certified SFI 38.1 test run by Delphi Safety Systems in Vandalia, OH, just like all the others you guys have on file. Call the lab and tell them we have authorized the release of the test.

 

This is the same video shown at the SAE meeting to a room full of experts, and no one objected, including Bob Hubbard.

 

Do you have a video of the belts staying on?

[HBennett]

What are they?

 

It's a certified SFI 38.1 test run by Delphi Safety Systems in Vandalia, OH, just like all the others you guys have on file. Call the lab and tell them we have authorized the release of the test.

 

That's not the same test sled I see at Delphi. Maybe they have upgraded since then. I know the shoulder straps are not mounted correctly, or even the same as yours in your other video.

 

This is the same video shown at the SAE meeting to a room full of experts, and no one objected, including Bob Hubbard.

 

I'll just say there is a difference in these experts paying attention and not taking something seriously. I don't know, I wasn't there. Was anyone else on these boards there?

 

I'm sure you do. You could also buy a HD and have more, especially those from a third party.

 

Like I said before, I don't doubt your device is not any good but you have an avenue through SFI that I have mentioned before. Are you a member of SFI?

 

If anyone has a question about the HANS Device, I am here to help. You can call me at work or email me at [email protected]. Thanks.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

[HBennett]

"adequate" does not mean sub-standard. Items are engineered to achieve a particular cost/benefit all the time. If I could have a device that reduces the neck tension to what I would encounter in a street car crash, that would be adequate. My main point is that if these devices were less expensive they would be adopted faster and they would have more net benefit. For several years a 4000N limit was considered "adequate" for 38.1 and now it has been changed to 3200N with no explanation. That is not adequate.

 

Manufacturers are trying to bring prices down. Yes, even the new models available from a couple of manufacturers are still expensive at $695. Our goal is a sub $500 device with the same level of performance. Will we be able to get to that point? I don't know. As far as the lower priced devices, they typically have more maintenance costs. Take the SRS-1, the straps and reaction rod need to be replaced once in a while. What about when GF clears up their remaining stock, where will you get replacement parts. They have already dropped the SRS-1 mounting points in their new line of helmets and adopted HD mounting points. How about the original Hutchens Device. It was low priced and afforded some protection. What most people didn't know was that it had to be replaced every 3 years. Take a new product like the Leatt-Brace, read the small print in their FAQ's. They recommend it be replaced every 3 years. Yes, the higher end HNR's are more expensive but where is the true cost?

 

Comparing a race crash with a highway crash is not accurate. Yes, they are all very violent and death or injury can result, but you would never be able to get the family strapped in with a harness, HNR, helmet, suit and seat. They would not stand for it. The car manufacturers limit a lot of that through their government lobbies. There is definitely a manufacturer driven spec with an eye to make the government happy and give everyone bragging rights.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

[pgipson]

This discussion is going nowhere and is so full of marketing bullshit and "he said -- she said" finger pointing that it serves no useful purpose and certainly provides no useful information.

 

Perhaps someone from NASA (who has the responsibility for including the rule in the CCR) would like to explain their rationale for excluding non-SFI accepted devices from their list?

 

Does NASA as an organization, or do NASA owners, think that alternative devices, such as the ISSAC, are unsafe?

[Grumpy]

I was not part of the rule making, but Jerry at NASA was asked this question by a member of another forum and this is the answer he received.

 

NASA wants to require H&N restraints but does not want to set their own standards. The only "industry" standards available are SFI. So they were chosen.

 

It is just that simple. I do not want to get into debate about standards organizations, or who is better, or whatever.

[FocusTed]

I was not part of the rule making, but Jerry at NASA was asked this question by a member of another forum and this is the answer he received.

 

NASA wants to require H&N restraints but does not want to set their own standards. The only "industry" standards available are SFI. So they were chosen.

 

It is just that simple. I do not want to get into debate about standards organizations, or who is better, or whatever.

That is what I was told as well.

[IkeF]

Has NASA considered, or will NASA consider accepting devices that meet all of the performance specs (neck tensions in various impacts) but does not require the single motion for release?

[HBennett]

Has NASA considered, or will NASA consider accepting devices that meet all of the performance specs (neck tensions in various impacts) but does not require the single motion for release?

 

Probably not. It is safer for them to specify an industry standard that has been accepted by other major racing sanctioning bodies.

 

pgipson, you are correct. These typically turn into pi**ing contests. I don't think anyone intends them to turn out that way but sometimes they do. For myself, I am out of it. I will continue to monitor but I do not have the will or desire to open that stuff up again.

 

I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas/Happy Holiday and wish everyone a happy new year... no matter which HNR racers chose to use. Got to go, SFI is on the phone looking for another deal! Sorry 'bout that.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

[IkeF]

Has NASA considered, or will NASA consider accepting devices that meet all of the performance specs (neck tensions in various impacts) but does not require the single motion for release?

 

Probably not. It is safer for them to specify an industry standard that has been accepted by other major racing sanctioning bodies.

 

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

 

Can anyone provide a more definitive answer, i.e., someone from NASA? I understand the explanation provided, but it seems silly to eliminate devices that are arguably safer during a crash due to what I would consider a minor technicality.

[JCraven]

Are we really safer with the new safety requirements?

 

http://forum.specmiata.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/2/3779.html#000022

 

Read this, especially where multiple miata drivers explain about the various options about the quick release tethers, short or long, and where one driver has to remove his helmet and HNR to get out of his car another got stuck upside down in his car after a crash because of his SFI 38.1 HNR and multitude of cords and belts due to the HNR system.

 

I am now have serious 2nd thoughts again.

 

 

Not sure if I will be road racing in June if these issues aren't fully resolved soon.

 

So much crap to deal with to race, 2 year belts, 2 year straps on the soon to be required SFI 38.1 Hans, passenger side net, etc. etc. etc.

[Grumpy]

Has NASA considered, or will NASA consider accepting devices that meet all of the performance specs (neck tensions in various impacts) but does not require the single motion for release?

 

Probably not. It is safer for them to specify an industry standard that has been accepted by other major racing sanctioning bodies.

 

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

 

Can anyone provide a more definitive answer, i.e., someone from NASA? I understand the explanation provided, but it seems silly to eliminate devices that are arguably safer during a crash due to what I would consider a minor technicality.

 

I'll try it again. NASA (or SCCA for that matter) is not the business of setting specifications. They choose the SFI for their specs.

 

Could it be that simple??

[Renntag]

...Could it be that simple?...

 

Sadly it isnt. I understand the contention here....but simply put, every aspect of racing is going to have elements we dont agree with or like for that matter. I decided that I enjoy racing with my peers more than I dislike certain rules and procedures.

[Tom A]

This is what Jerry wrote when the subject first came up, a couple years ago. Oddly enough, this was quoted by Howard in another forum, back when he worked for Racer Wholesale (Jan 2006).

 

 

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. “Whenâ€

[Bruce L.]

for this quote from that Miata link, I would have to wonder about how well prepped the guys car was - I mean, where did "all of the wires and other crap that got dislodged" come from? - all my crap is screwed down

bruce

 

I would not wear a HANS w/o the quick release. I have had the displeasure of flipping a car and ending up upside down when i was wearing a HANS that didn't have the orange cords. The HANS got hung up on all of the wires and other crap that got dislodged and it made it impossible to get out of the window until i removed my helmet. If you are concerned about the cords getting hung up in the belts just cut them shorter, like someone else suggested earlier.

 

Are we really safer with the new safety requirements?

 

http://forum.specmiata.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/2/3779.html#000022

 

Read this, especially where multiple miata drivers explain about the various options about the quick release tethers, short or long, and where one driver has to remove his helmet and HNR to get out of his car another got stuck upside down in his car after a crash because of his SFI 38.1 HNR and multitude of cords and belts due to the HNR system.

 

I am now have serious 2nd thoughts again.

 

 

Not sure if I will be road racing in June if these issues aren't fully resolved soon.

 

So much crap to deal with to race, 2 year belts, 2 year straps on the soon to be required SFI 38.1 Hans, passenger side net, etc. etc. etc.

[Renntag]

... how well prepped the ...car was ....where did "all of the wires and other crap that got dislodged" come from? ...

 

I'd have to agree. I cant possibly think of anything but the window net that could interfere. If items in a car are dislodging, then perhaps one needs to take a closer look at car prep standards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

comment on a post from above: The last thing I want is an addtional tax on semi precious metals.

[JCraven]

Here are some pictures or some neck restraints out there, I'm sure the HANs is SFI 38.1 certified, not sure of the others but there are definitely some extra cords and stuff that could get tangled in a roll over.

 

http://www.racingjunk.com/post/819211/Hans-Device-with-Quick-Disconnects.html

 

http://www.speedbrigade.com/forums/showthread.php?t=468

 

http://www.rx7club.com/attachment.php?s=a5e3fdb61c6cb53edeb2c7ea43f28a46&attachmentid=82352&d=1100752927

 

 

I think the Isaac one looks cleaner actually even if it doesn't meet the extra release requirement.

 

http://www.isaacdirect.com/

 

GF too but it is getting pulled off the market.

 

http://www.rx7club.com/attachment.php?s=a5e3fdb61c6cb53edeb2c7ea43f28a46&attachmentid=82362&d=1100755663

[FlyingDog]

Joe, RX7club doesn't allow hotlinking.

[gbaker]

What are they?

 

It's a certified SFI 38.1 test run by Delphi Safety Systems in Vandalia, OH, just like all the others you guys have on file. Call the lab and tell them we have authorized the release of the test.

 

That's not the same test sled I see at Delphi. Maybe they have upgraded since then. I know the shoulder straps are not mounted correctly, or even the same as yours in your other video.

They are identical, Howard. You know that.

 

Let's keep this simple: Please provide a video--any video-- of the belts staying on the HANS device during the offset SFI test.

[FlyingDog]

I'll try it again. NASA (or SCCA for that matter) is not the business of setting specifications. They choose the SFI for their specs.

 

Could it be that simple??

It could be more simple.

A device

commonly knows as a “HANS deviceâ€

[ker]

I'll try it again. NASA (or SCCA for that matter) is not the business of setting specifications. They choose the SFI for their specs.

 

Could it be that simple??

It could be more simple.

A device

commonly knows as a “HANS deviceâ€