Head and Neck Restraints in 2006

[Simon]

I see in the CCR:

IMPORTANT NOTICE: It is expected that use of a head and neck restraint system or device, meeting SFI 38.1 will become mandatory for all road race series as of January 1st, 2006.

 

While I can't argue with the extra safety measures - are (cheaper) products like the isaac link and gforce SRS1 likely to receive the SFI rating?

 

Simon

[HBennett]

While I can't speak with authority on the Isaac device, the last info I had from them was that the current version does not pass SFI, not because it couldn't, but the current version does not meet the requirements for a single point of release. They are looking a developing a lower priced unit to pass SFI but they say it will not provide as much protection. The G-Force SRS-1 did not pass SFI testing but supposedly not as badly as the Hutchens device which is not SFI-rated either. The SRS-1, as well as the others, are still a viable solution to prevent H&N injuries. I still use the SRS-1 myself, as do hundreds of others.

 

This brings up another question. If someone pulls into grid for a race and they are not wearing one of the only two that are approved, will they be acutally turned away and not allowed to race?

 

Howard Bennett

Racer Wholesale

[Tims]

This is very likely as insurance policies and such will require full compliance. The SFI test may or may not be the end all, but the SFI is a respected group that alot of sanctioning bodies use to certify equipment. So products will have to pass and the racer will have to purchase products that do pass. This is why I waited to see what was going to happen before I bought my HANS. this was actually the least expensive part of my recent safety upgrades. the seat and floor strengthening were more than triple the cost of the HANS. people be safe and don't cut corners with safety gear it can be deadly. I lost a good friend because he refused to buy a HANS or upgrade his seat, and since it was not required he wouldn't do it. He lost his life because he didn't want to spend $3000-$4000.

[Simon]

While I understand you shouldn't cut costs on safety - to put the cost into some perspective - my entire car - from the used car lot to tires for the season cost a hair over $3000.....

 

Simon

[turboice]

H&N restraints are needed and I definitely need to take it upon myself to do so no matter the requirements.

 

However, I would be cautious with SFI on this one since they specifically wrote the standard around the Hans rather than developing an independent standard intended to achieve a level of safety. Other than Hans you would almost have to violate patents to pass the current SFI standard as written. To be expedient they did it backwards this time and let Hans buy the standard.

 

I think at a minimum the basic Isaac should be permitted, and in small bore run groups the Isaac link.

 

Maybe someone could get them to be a NASA sponsor and offer NASA racers discounts!

[turboice]

Might be of interest:

 

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/Forum10/HTML/001664.html

 

I wanted to share this here first, since much of the concept was developed out of conversations on this board.

I've started headrestraint.org to share information about motorsports head and neck restraint systems. This effort is based on belief that...

 

"...head and neck restraint systems offer valuable, measurable protection from injuries commonly associated with impacts resulting from racing incidents, to the degree that all racers should choose to use such a system. However, we believe that considerations are too complex - and consequences too important - to undermine personal choice through simple mandates imposed by sanctioning bodies or insurers. That ultimately, the long term best interests of racing consumers, the motorsports community, and the head and neck restraint market are best served by the dissemination of information that allows individuals to exercise informed control over their own safety decisions."

 

There is lots more at http://www.headrestraint.org but there are a few things you might consider doing if you are interested in issues relating to head and neck restraint systems, different solutions offered in the marketplace, or rules pertaining to their use:

 

** Consider applying for a position on the charter advisory commmittee

 

** If you have a friendly relationship with an H&N system manufacturer, encourage them to provide us with product information - particularly test data

 

** Support headrestraint.org with a financial contribution - by PayPal to [email protected] or email that same address for more info

 

** Most importantly, share the headrestraint.org link at other motorsports boards and with people who share your interests in these issues

 

Kirk

[mitchntx]

http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1

[Tom H.]

Here is a link to another alternative device that is SFI approved.

http://www.lfttech.com/moreonr3.html

[turboice]

After needing to make a quick exit from the car with billows of smoke coming out of the engine compartment, I would want something that isn't going to hang up on the cage while I am trying to get out of the car.

 

http://www.isaacdirect.com/html/product.html

 

To gain any useful head motion with fixed length straps they have to be left with slack and anything less than minimal slack reduces their injury reduction effectiveness based on their tests.

 

I like the idea of range of motion during normal head movements with resistance to motion when velocity is increased.

[mtm68]

Anyone have any updates on whether the H & N restraints will be mandatory and require SFI certification for next year?

[turboice]

Also where can we find the rule making process and method on which to comment on proposed rules?

[Greg G.]

Ed,

"Big Brother" is always watching these forums, so I'm sure your comments are getting noted. However, if you want more direct input, I would send an e-mail to John Lindsey at [email protected]

[Tom A]

Here is another vote for advanced notice on the H & N requirements for next year. At the moment the only 3 that meet the certification are:

 

Hubbard-Downing HANS Device

LFT Technologies R3 Device

Safety Solutions Hutch-II Device

 

Background info from the "Hutchens device" site

 

3. What is the SFI 38.1 Standard and how does it relate?

The new standard is set very high by NASCAR’s SFI 38.1 Head and Neck restraint specification. In order to pass the specification, the restraint now has to pass a 70 G, 30 degree angular frontal impact, as before, and three straight frontal 70G impacts below 4000 N neck Tension. (The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for passenger cars allows 4170 N) The Hutchens Device passed the 30 degree angular frontal portion of the test with a best ever score of 3800 N. This is compared to 4375 N in the 2002 NASCAR tests. The Hutchens Device missed passing the NEW straight frontal impact specification by only 7%.

 

The majority of crashes a driver will potentially experience are well below the stringent SFI 38.1 impact spec of 70Gs. As a reference, Dale Earnhardt’s fatal impact was estimated at 42 G’s. NASCAR has reported that since the soft walls were added last year, that data recorders highest impact to date, was not over 50 G’s.

 

The SFI 38.1 Specification uses none of the normal cockpit surroundings that help guide and control occupant motion during an impact. It also uses a pulse from a side impact with a NASCAR Bush series car that is very stiff.

 

In FACT: In the actual on track impact that the SFI test pulse was taken from, the driver suffered a broken collar bone as a result of the crash. The driver was wearing our competitor’s head and neck restraint.

 

As a comparison:

 

The SFI 16.1 Seat Belt specification is based on a 55-60 G impact according to SFI. SFI 16.1 certified Seat Belts routinely break in the SFI 38.1 Head and Neck Restraint test. A special seat system, firewall and highly modified seat belt system are used in the SFI 38.1 test.

 

Seats, a vital part of the safety system, are currently not tested by NASCAR. A new SFI spec. introduced by NASCAR for seats is based on a 40 G impact. ( 30 G’s below the Head & Neck Restraint spec. of 70 G )

 

The original Hutchens failed a test 10-15G greater than that required for belts by 7%, and the G-Force SRS-1 missed it by only 2%. I remember reading that the ISAAC passed the test, but wasn't submitted to SFI as it would be impossible to get certified because of the mandated single point of release.

 

There was some concern from a helmet manufacturer a couple years ago (Bell, IIRC) who warned that drilling holes in your helmet would void the SNELL certification. I don't know if this is accurate or not.

 

A 70G frontal impact also seems unrealistic/unlikely for most club racers.

 

Mandating SFI 38.1 will leave racers already using a Isaac or G-Force stuck with a device they will not be able to use.

 

I am still a rookie, but my vote (for what it's worth) is to have racers responsable for their own safety. Mandate a H&N, but leave it up to the racers to decide what is right for them.

[mtm68]

you're not a rookie anymore

 

and I agree...

 

Marcus, who will likely miss the first portion of next year if an sfi device is required, since I have budget for either the 25 hour, or a h & n device; the 25 hour is a scheduled sure thing, while the h&n seems to be open to interpretation.

[turboice]

29.1.2 lists "Approved Models"

 

It would be disappointing that 12 months after being recommended to use a system that is listed as "Approved" that it not be permitted any longer. Especially after being given these instructions:

 

Some devices carry an SFI 38.1 certification, however not all devices have yet been tested. It is strongly recommended that the driver personally research the choices available and choose the best one for them.

 

Of course we are talking safety devices - so I could understand limiting equipment determined either to be unsafe or ineffective.

 

One concern I have is that I have been told by one party that:

 

H&N devices are beginning to receive SFI certifications which means that sanctioning body mandates are not far behind (many bodies are already mandating the HANS Device ONLY within their events.) The SFI refuses to test the Isaac device – they refuse to test anything that bolts directly to the harnesses (whether it be a H&N device or not.) Since the SFI is responsible for testing and approving harnesses, a device that bolts to the harness effectively compromises those tests when used together as a system.

 

One thing this could be used to imply is that a new focused stress on the belt (Isaac's belt riders) could invalidate the belt as being used per SFI certification...

 

Ughh, I hate Hans and the new breed Hutchens, I really hope those aren't going to be my only choices. Also using the Hans would recommend most of us to replace our belts before we would have otherwise needed to.

[HBennett]

"There was some concern from a helmet manufacturer a couple years ago (Bell, IIRC) who warned that drilling holes in your helmet would void the SNELL certification. I don't know if this is accurate or not."

 

According to Snell, if a helmet is modified, the Snell certification is voided. I just hope the instructions sent with the H&N systems are SO simple that anyone could follow them. If installed incorrectly, you run the expensive risk of voiding the Snell certification AND having a H&N system that does not work properly. If installed correctly, there will probably be no problem with Snell. I have never installed any of the systems except for my SRS-1, so I don't know what is required. I just know that I wouldn't trust some of the customers that I have talked with to install a system correctly. These might be products better left up to the different companies to install.

 

Howard Bennett

Racer Wholesale

[944-Spec#94]

Why has there been no official word on H&N for next year.

 

More specifally will the currnet ISAAC be legal if a device is required next year.

 

 

I will buy a HANS if I must, but perfer the ISAAC. I can't however afford to buy the ISAAC and not have it be legal.

[turboice]

Why has there been no official word on H&N for next year.

 

More specifally will the currnet ISAAC be legal if a device is required next year.

 

 

I will buy a HANS if I must, but perfer the ISAAC. I can't however afford to buy the ISAAC and not have it be legal.

 

Well it wouldn't be effective until 1/1 so why not let us know on 12/15?

 

For a required ticket item like this we should have been given at least 12 months of certainty regarding the requirement instead of uncertainty that is for sure.

[mtm68]

Ed- agreed.

 

 

Marcus, whose budget is not wtg around.

[Shortcutsleeping]

If the powers-that-be are indeed reading this, please register this as a NO for _required_ head and neck restraint devices.

 

 

Costas

[avu3]

Actually, I don't mind them being required, I think we should probably all wear them, but I dispute the need to mandate one over the other.

 

As I think Tom A said, mandate their usage and let us pick the device as long as its a national recognized producer who has done safety testing at some level. I'd buy the SRS-1 right now (it is good enough for me and would fit my helmet) but I'm reluctant because it seems it would be a waste of money come 1/1.

 

Unfortunately, as also pointed out, Insurance companies are driving this as much as sanctioning bodies, and NASA is an SFI member which means they are predisposed to adhering to SFI specifications. Its not NASA's fault, its just a fact of the litigious society we live in

 

Scott, who will probably be sitting out most of 06 saving up for a HANS (unless they suddenly appear sub $300)

[mtm68]

All, please see below, reposted with permission from an email between Jerry Kunzman, Ryan Flaherty and Myself:

 

Marcus,

 

 

Please post the following quote from me.

 

 

 

The mandating use of a head and neck restraint system (HNS) is very complex from our position. When the mandate comes into affect it will be based on SFI’s rating system. To do so other wise would open the door for things like home made devices, etc.

 

 

 

I added wording to the 2005 rules with anticipation of the possibility of mandating the use a of a HNS device as soon as January 2006. This was meant simply as a courtesy warning to the competitors of this possibility. The mandate will likely happen eventually. The question now becomes when. We plan on mandating it when we feel it is “industry standard” for what we do. Right now a few sanctioning bodies have already mandated use of some type of device meeting SFI 38.1, with Nextel Cup drivers specifically required to where the HANS®.

 

 

 

As I mentioned before, this is complex issue. When the 2005 rules were published it was my expectation that:

 

1) SCCA and other clubs may make such mandate as early as 2006. This would indicate to us that it’s pretty much “industry standard,” and time for NASA to do the same.

 

2) More devices would pass the SFI test, thus offering more choices by 2006.

 

3) The prices of devices would drop because of #2 above.

 

 

 

I am still working with this issue. However, at this time, I don’t expect to see NASA making a mandate until July 2006 or possibly later. Again, the notation in the rules was meant as a courtesy to our drivers so that they would have the soonest possible notification. The day is coming; it’s just a matter of when. That day will be at a time when most, or all, things considered are in balance.

 

 

 

Jerry Kunzman

 

Marcus

[turboice]

Helpful - thanks for taking the time to make contact. Unfortunately I wouldn't have known who to contact as I am not aware of the rule making structure or contacts for NASA.

[mtm68]

Now, one can say a lot of things about NASA, but they definitely make themsleves open for communciation. ( http://www.nasaproracing.com/aboutnasa/regions.html ) Or, go to nasaproracing.com, click on regions nad scroll down...

 

It certianly helps that Jerry founded NASA in my region, and is stil lvery active at the local events. (I said hello Sunday when looking athe mangled wreckage of a GTi Cup car destroyed by a careless Miata, not that Jerry knwos who I am . (Event pics here: http://images.miller-motorsports.com/Default.asp?fldr=thill091205 )

 

Marcus, who is a supporter of both organizations, because I like to race and they give me the chance.

[turboice]

Now, one can say a lot of things about NASA, but they definitely make themsleves open for communciation. ( http://www.nasaproracing.com/aboutnasa/regions.html ) Or, go to nasaproracing.com, click on regions nad scroll down...

I know how to get a hold of the regions I participate in but didn't know who to contact regarding rule development.

 

Knowing now is helpful for the future.