mtm68 Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 ahh, I misunderstood. I grabbed Ryan and Jerry as the heads of my regions I run with .... sorry! Marcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
944-Spec#94 Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Thanks for the updates! ... Still Sad to see the SFI requirement, however I can fully understand and appericate NASA's situation related to SFI. The nice thing is that this does potential give me a bit more time to scrape together the $800-$1000 needed for an SFI device. 2006 will be expensive... remember that SA2005 helmets are coming out which means those with SA95's will need to upgrade. Again... another cost. At least my FIA belts are still good for 3 more years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboice Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 I understand and appreciate the situation NASA is put in and having to go with SFI if they decided to make a requirement. My bigger issue is with SFI and their inability to apply actual independent thought in this matter. Hans went and said - Look H&N needs to be homolgated. SFI was not prepared to come up with a standard so they just wrote it to the Hans system and testing - without independent consideration as to whether or not there were other valid or preferred methods for limiting stresses applied to the neck during impacts. As a member organization my hope would have been the various race sanctioning bodies would have criticized SFI for their shotgun approach to the standard and request that it be reviewed for improvement with a focus towards independent decisions regarding how the objective of the standard is achieved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
944-Spec#94 Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 I understand and appreciate the situation NASA is put in and having to go with SFI if they decided to make a requirement. My bigger issue is with SFI and their inability to apply actual independent thought in this matter. I completely agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 NASA responsiveness ... I wrote a letter to Mr. Kunzman explaing my views on this issue, which are captured throughout this tread. Mr. Kunzman personally called me a few days after I mailed the letter and we had a very nice chat. I thought that EXTREMELY responsive ... The issue ... The e-mail quote above is very much how our conversation went. Let me hi-light a point, both in the e-mail quoted above and the conversation I had with Mr. Kunzman, is that the reason that the SFI rating is being used is because that's 1) the racing community standard and 2) what else is there that would compare apples to apples. Granted, there are Washington State, Granny Smith and Horse apples, but they are apples, none-the-less. Mr. Kunzman and NASA had to find something or someone who has a reputable way of testing and certifying these and other devices. It seemed to me like a logical place to put the collective fath in. I have no qualms about safety. I have issue with a driver feeling a HnN restraint is necessary. I have no beef with NASA approving whatever device they approve, through whichever governing body they deem fit. Safety is a very PERSONAL thing, though. While I appreciate NASA, the Government and my Mom looking out for my best interest, ultimately, I am responsible for my own safety. Just like mandatory vs voluntary helmet laws for motorcyclists ... let those who ride, decide. Just another opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboice Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 I agree with all the above. I never have said that NASA was nonresponsive (quite the opposite if you contact the right person) - only that I wouldn't have known who to contact. There is no published information on how rules are set or by whom at NASA or at least not that I have been able to find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
944-Spec#94 Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Safety is a very PERSONAL thing, though. While I appreciate NASA, the Government and my Mom looking out for my best interest, ultimately, I am responsible for my own safety. Just like mandatory vs voluntary helmet laws for motorcyclists ... let those who ride, decide. Just another opinion I think part of the issue NASA and other Sanctioning bodies get into are insurance. NASA must obtain insurance for each event. I can very easily see a case where it becomes hard or impossible to obtain event insurance without mandating saftey devices. I can also see how in a litigius society a tragic incident can put NASA on the wrong end of legal action. Frankly they need to protect themselves from this in ways they see fit. So they can choose mandiate any safety devices they like. We as racers however are not bound to participate with NASA or any other organzation. Racing bodies already mandate things like racing harnesses, helmets and roll cages. H & N devices seemingly are the next step. These devices are in their infancy so it makes sense to be careful in madating them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tur8o Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 If the powers-that-be are indeed reading this, please register this as a NO for _required_ head and neck restraint devices.Costas I'm pretty confident that this isn't a case of yes or no. It's what brand(s) will be required. I'm ready to bite the bullet and buy something. I just wish they would get the rulling set sooner than later so I can get it on my santa claus list this year! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nasajerry Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 The 2006 CCR will state: "IMPORTANT NOTICE: It is expected that use of a head and neck restraint system or device, meeting SFI 38.1 may become mandatory for all road race series as soon as of July 1st, 2006." This is the earliest. It may likely even be 2007 or more. We are just trying to keep our comeptitors informed and prepared. Jerry Kunzman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboice Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Ouch! Mid-season. Thank you for updating us though - at least we should know to expect it and also the SFI 38.1 requirement will be part of it. I really wanted to go with the Isaac (the real one not the strap) one, but at least I know in advance that it will not pass tech. It could make Hyperfest interesting for anyone that missed the possible requirement and show up with no H&N... I wonder if OG Racing at Summit Point will have about 100 Hans available for those people! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 (edited) I really wanted to go with the Isaac (the real one not the strap) one, but at least I know in advance that it will not pass tech.Ed, Not so fast. We have always known that the Isaac system would meet the SFI performance standards, but just to make it official we ran the SFI test on Tuesday. It worked extremely well. Probably set a new record. So if NASA, or any other santioning body, wants to mandate only products that are certified to meet SFI performance standards, we would be happy to do that. The paperwork problem is, as someone noted earlier, that the SFI spec was written by the folks involved in the development of the HANS device, who--using logic that is contrary to all the evidence--inserted a section to keep us out. Jerry is being very smart with his wording. He is saying it must "meet SFI 38.1"; he is not saying it must be certified by SFI. This way you get more choice of products and lower cost without sacrificing performance. Edited November 3, 2005 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboice Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 As long as at tech they don't apply "meet" to mean "have the sticker/badge" then that is great news. I still have the same four of us I discussed with you waiting to order the Issac if it is permitted as it is all of our preference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Ed, That's not a problem. We can provide a certification sticker stating that the Isaac exceeds those performance standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboice Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 From ITforums The answer is 22.1, so 22.0 is the winner. Congratulations! Just shoot us an e-mail and we will make sure you have an early Christmas present. As some of you may have guessed, we were testing some design concepts at the Delphi lab in Vandalia, Ohio. The 70G test protocol we used is a specific version of what has come to be known as the SFI test. It's not the easy, straight-ahead frontal test, it's the 30 degree offset frontal which generates the highest head loads. It's a designer's nightmare. If you can pass this one you can pass the straight frontal. It is important to put this load value in perspective. SFI Specification 38.1 calls for a maximum upper neck load of 4,000 Newtons, 40.0 for our purposes here, for the offset frontal test. Coming in at only 2210N implies protection well in excess of 100Gs. Unfortunately, our competitors have only published numbers for the easier straight frontal test. If memory serves, the R3 came in at 3,000N, the SFI limit for that test, and the HANS device at 1,700N. However, these values will be higher in the offset frontal test. So much so that we have a sneaking suspicion that we can now lay claim to the best head and neck restraint in the solar system. If any of our competitors disagree, we expect them to soon make public their test results. What did we test on Tuesday that produced such great numbers? The original Isaac system. Gregg Baker, P.E. Isaac, LLC http://www.isaacdirect.com I am not at all surprised - there was clearly always a reason behind your open and public faith in the product's design and ability to meet the objective of limiting injury - as further reflected by being the most transparent of all the H&N restraint companies. I would say congratulations but wasn't this really the expected result anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 ...I would say congratulations but wasn't this really the expected result anyway! Ed, Well, not really. We fully expected that we would be below 3,000N, and there seemed to be no chance at getting below 2,000N--that's just too much to ask. I was thinking 2,500N but if I had to make a public guess I would sandbag to 2,750N. 2210N makes us happy campers. Thanks for the kind words. Gregg "Happy Camper" Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboice Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 I didn't mean the exact measure to which the system would limit the forces to but rather a measure to support the claim to the best H&N restraint in the solar system! I am not an engineer but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn and based on the 90% of your technical write up that I am able to understand that is up for full public and transparent viewing and scrutiny I wasn't surprised that support for the claim was the result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Ed, Ah, got it. Didn't want anyone to think we were so cocky as to claim we could predict the final load values. Close maybe, but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Hurst Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 "It is important to put this load value in perspective. SFI Specification 38.1 calls for a maximum upper neck load of 4,000 Newtons, 40.0 for our purposes here, for the offset frontal test. Coming in at only 2210N implies protection well in excess of 100Gs. " You quote the results of the offset test, but what were the results of the straight, frontal test? Is "the best head and neck restraint in the solar system." is also below the 3,200/4,000N standard of 38.1 in the frontal 68g test? BTW, for those that believe a 68G standard is too high for their car, this is achieved with Delta V(total change in velocity) of less than 45MPH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Is "the best head and neck restraint in the solar system." is also below the 3,200/4,000N standard of 38.1 in the frontal 68g test? Of course. Frontal loads are always less than offsets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Hurst Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 The offset load is not a combined 68G frontal impact and an additional side impact, It's a 68G impact at a 30degree angle, right? Whether the tension and shear loads were greater or less in the offset impact are determined by the design of the device, not the laws of physics. Please, what was the result in tension and shear of the straight frontal 68G impact with the Isaac device? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 The offset load is not a combined 68G frontal impact and an additional side impact, It's a 68G impact at a 30degree angle, right? Right. Whether the tension and shear loads were greater or less in the offset impact are determined by the design of the device, not the laws of physics. All loads are determined by the laws of physics. The greater the offset the higher the loads, for any design. Please, what was the result in tension and shear of the straight frontal 68G impact with the Isaac device? Fz ranges between 1,500N and 2,000N. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Hurst Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Fz ranges between 1,500N and 2,000N. So you are saying that these numbers are the result of the 68G straight test at Delphi? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 No. These are the numbers that will result from that test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bart Carter Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 ...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%...A 70G frontal impact also seems unrealistic/unlikely for most club racers... Sounds like the HnN requirement should parallel the seat belt requirement. That would give racers a better price choice like the G-Force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtm68 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 but Bart..... Its not about the racers..... Marcus, who is only half kidding, and would love a HANS device, or an Isaac if someone can assure me they will be good past July for whatever racing I may choose to do; including malibu grand prix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.