Head and Neck Restraints in 2006

[turboice]

I am just really hoping there is some notice - so we and the suppliers are left with the entire club racing population ordering all at once...

 

Ed - who would have already ordered an Isaac if I knew it was going to be permitted to meet the future requirement...

[nasajerry]

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. “When” will be determined by a number of factors, and a large factor is “industry standard.” When a safety mandate becomes industry standard, we should follow suit. As for “what,” it will be devices that have SFI tags (or possibly FIA, if they come out with something). It is our hope that more devices become approved and prices come down before mandating use of a system becomes “industry standard.”

 

For those of you that have a concern, I sympathize with you. It’s a balance between budget and your personal safety. You may want to bite the bullet and get a safety device now even if there is a chance you may have to discard it later. It’s your safety. If you are really that concerned, then take chance… by not taking any chances. Buy one now and use it to save your neck not your wallet. If you are not concerned, that’s a valid personal choice; and you should have no problem at this point.

 

Lobbying sanctioning bodies, such as NASA to allow the use of other devices without SFI tags (after a mandate takes place) is pointless. We will be using a standard or standards along with the mandate. So, if you want to lobby, you can either lobby the manufactures to get their devices certified by SFI, or lobby SFI, FIA, etc. for different criteria used in certification, so as to get more devices to pass.

 

Lastly, there are a number of devices on the market. We have no way of knowing which ones were submitted for testing. Testing costs a good deal of money and it’s up to the manufactures to decide if they want to pay it and have theirs tested. The test results belong to those that pay to have the test done. So, disseminating the fact that a device failed is not likely.* The bottom line is that we don’t know which other devices have been tested or will be tested. It is possible that a lot of devices have not yet been submitted for testing.

 

I am sorry that this is long, but I am hoping that it will explain our position. This may be posted elsewhere and/ or forwarded; however I ask that nothing be taken out of context (please publish the whole section or message).

 

Jerry Kunzman

Executive Director

National Auto Sport Association

 

*One device was tested and failed, and we know about that because NASCAR paid to have that device tested. If NASCAR pays for the test, the own the results, and therefore may disseminate the information if they so choose.

Edited December 9, 2005 by Guest

[gbaker]

Jerry,

 

Thank you for the post. Your description of the situation is similar to those we heard from most sanctioning bodies last week at PRI.

 

Three days ago we completed a test series which will be made public as soon as all the data is compiled. The results are enlightening.

[johnnyk]

I was the driver of the '06 MX-5 Miata that rolled at the 25hr and I thank God that I had my HANS. Those who don't wear one (or another device), just go get one... It's worth it...

[Mike Hurst]

Your description of the situation is similar to those we heard from most sanctioning bodies last week at PRI.

 

I stopped by the Isaac LLC booth at the PRI show (Friday morning), but it was empty. Were you there later?

[gbaker]

We were in and out on Thursday and popped in very briefly on Friday, but it was after noon. Sorry we missed you.

 

We had to prep for a crash test the following Tuesday.

[944-Spec#94]

Jerry,

Thank you for making clear NASA's position on this issue. I have been following the this since last year when the the "notice" about H&N devices were posted in the rules.

 

Since then I have been watching and listening. A couple months ago I contacted Ryan F about this privately and he relayed the samething you did here.

 

For me it made very clear NASA's position on this and I chose then to Purchase a H&N device that was SFI38.1 certified now rather than waiting until it was required. I hope to never ever test it, but I am happy that I have it. I believe in the future it will be one of those "I can't believed I raced without one" sort of things for all of us.

[gbaker]

Just to close this out, the testing went very well.

 

A video can be found here (please right click and "save as"): http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/Video/SFIBoth.mpg

 

Everyone have a good weekend.

[Bruce L.]

Hi Greg,

is the video of an offset impact test?

Did the isaac result in lower forces on the neck? It was hard to tell from the video whether the head moved less with the isaac even though the hans came out of the belts.

 

and, just fyi, BMW CCA CR has just mandated use of an SFI 38.1 restraint after Apr 1, 2006.

 

cheers,

bruce

[gbaker]

Bruce,

 

Yes, it is the 30 degree offset protocol, so the total impact was 68Gs and the sideways component was 34Gs (68 x sin(30)).

 

The forces were lower, especially the lateral torque at the upper neck.

[chucktoo]

When the devices are required please update the CCR to reflect which devices that NASA will accept. It would make it a lot easier for most of us rather than trying to find the actual certifications.

[Tom A]

When the devices are required please update the CCR to reflect which devices that NASA will accept. It would make it a lot easier for most of us rather than trying to find the actual certifications.

They are pretty easy to find. SFI lists them all here:

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

[D Algozine]

A copy of my post on CC.com

 

So, once again, the question remains, will the Isaac be SFI 38.1 legal anytime soon? Will the SFI 38.1 be ammended or, can or will Isaac make the necessary changes to meet the standard? I own the Isaac, but haven't installed it yet. I will be buying a new helmet, so I need to decide which type of attachment to have installed on the helmet. Obviously, I'd like to be able to use the system I already own, plus I chose the Isaac becasue I thought it is a better system. But, it really doesn't matter what I think or want. It appears this is a case of the big boys pushing around the little guy, which really pisses me off. Especially if I/we will be forced to buy a potentially life saving device based on politics or big business, and not safety. I choose the Isaac system because I believe it offers better protecion during offset or side impact and it allows for easier egress.

 

Dave

[gbaker]

...I choose the Isaac system because I believe it offers better protecion during offset or side impact and it allows for easier egress.

 

Dave

Testing per the SFI Spec indicates a significant advantage over the HANS device in lateral protection, so you made a wise choice in that regard. And you won't have to drag it out the window if you are in a hurry to leave.

 

There is no such thing as a bad head and neck restraint. Express your concerns to your sanctioning body.

[Greg G.]

Bruce,

 

Yes, it is the 30 degree offset protocol, so the total impact was 68Gs and the sideways component was 34Gs (68 x sin(30)).

 

The forces were lower, especially the lateral torque at the upper neck.

 

Greg, what does all of this mean in relation to whether or not you will get the coveted SFI rating? I to have been waiting to see how all this pans out. I'm committed to having better head and neck protection for myself in 2006 than I did in 2005, but I'm not going to waste money on a system that won't be legal in 2007.

Thanks

[D Algozine]

Who do we contact at SFI? and how?

[FocusTed]

I believe that NASA will only allow SFI Approved devices. If the device doesn’t not get approved by SFI I’m sure NASA will not allow it.

[Greg G.]

Ted,

Jerry just stated that on the previous page (and added FIA cert. if one comes about). The question to Mr. Baker is whether or not he believes that the Isaac will get SFI approval or not, and when.

[FocusTed]

Ted,

Jerry just stated that on the previous page (and added FIA cert. if one comes about). The question to Mr. Baker is whether or not he believes that the Isaac will get SFI approval or not, and when.

 

 

Oh, okay

[mwilson7]

...I choose the Isaac system because I believe it offers better protecion during offset or side impact and it allows for easier egress.

 

Dave

Testing per the SFI Spec indicates a significant advantage over the HANS device in lateral protection, so you made a wise choice in that regard. And you won't have to drag it out the window if you are in a hurry to leave.

 

There is no such thing as a bad head and neck restraint. Express your concerns to your sanctioning body.

 

What is the numerical difference in the lateral load reduction of the HANS vs the Isaac? I might have missed it if it was posted in the last 5 pages and if so I apologize.

[gbaker]

What is the numerical difference in the lateral load reduction of the HANS vs the Isaac? I might have missed it if it was posted in the last 5 pages and if so I apologize.

The HANS device reduced the lateral head torque by 18%. The Isaac system reduced it by 85%.

 

This is the torque which tends to twist the head sideways. One also needs to consider the upper neck tension, which tends to pull the head off top of the neck. Both the HANS and Isaac are similar in tension; the primary difference is torque.

 

With respect to SFI 38.1, this will eventually be revised to not exclude the Isaac system. It is far too dangerous as written. Hopefully the body count will not go up before sanctioning bodies understand this.

[mwilson7]

So by reducing the torque the head doesn't turn as quickly? I think I'm missing something here so I'm wondering if you have a link you could direct me that would explain the torque and tension and their effects on the head so that I don't waste bandwidth here.

 

 

I read that people are concerned with egree while wearing a HANS but I believe that the Isaacs has just as serious of a concern in certain situations. What would happen if a car was either on its side or upside down and someone released the belt before the helmet attachments were released? If I'm not mistaken the helmet would still be attached to the harness and the person would be able to fall free. Thoughts?

 

Why is 38.1 dangerous the way it is written?

[gbaker]

So by reducing the torque the head doesn't turn as quickly? I think I'm missing something here so I'm wondering if you have a link you could direct me that would explain the torque and tension and their effects on the head so that I don't waste bandwidth here.

 

Go back to the video and look at the position of the dummy's head at about the ten second mark. You can see how the head is twisted to the dummy's right, the same as if you look straight forward and attempted to twist your head about an axis that ran from your nose through the back of your head. There is load sensor in the dummy which measures that torque.

 

I read that people are concerned with egree while wearing a HANS but I believe that the Isaacs has just as serious of a concern in certain situations. What would happen if a car was either on its side or upside down and someone released the belt before the helmet attachments were released? If I'm not mistaken the helmet would still be attached to the harness and the person would be able to fall free. Thoughts?

 

Drivers are normally taught to release their belts last, especially when inverted. The same thing could happen with a radio connector or drink tube.

 

Why is 38.1 dangerous the way it is written?

Because of this egress issue. Section 2.5 of the Spec has nothing to do with head injuries and it should not be there. It states that you should be forced to drag the H&N restraint out the window, in effect. The only products that have ever trapped drivers in cars have been of the design SFI calls for. That's exactly why we let the driver leave the restraint behind. That's also the only reason we do not comply with SFI Spec 38.1.

 

When it comes to head load reduction, however, we are the big dog.

 

We think it is a very powerful combination when we can minimize head loads, keep the belts on the shoulders and not trap drivers in cars.

[mwilson7]

I read that people are concerned with egree while wearing a HANS but I believe that the Isaacs has just as serious of a concern in certain situations. What would happen if a car was either on its side or upside down and someone released the belt before the helmet attachments were released? If I'm not mistaken the helmet would still be attached to the harness and the person would be able to fall free. Thoughts?

 

Drivers are normally taught to release their belts last, especially when inverted. The same thing could happen with a radio connector or drink tube.

 

That may be what they are taught but who knows what someone will do in an actual emergency. That's kind of like saying someone is trained to get out of a car with a HANS device so there shouldn't be an issue but apparently this is a big issue in some peoples eyes (which it may be). I also don't think that a radio connector or drink bottle tube would hold the helmet in place like the Isaacs would and is not a very accurate comparison to what I am asking.

 

If you were upside down or on your side and the belt was to be released and you fell out of the seat before the Isaacs device was released on both sides would the helmet be able to fully articulate with the occupant or would the occupant be put in a bind condition?

Why is 38.1 dangerous the way it is written?

Because of this egress issue. Section 2.5 of the Spec has nothing to do with head injuries and it should not be there. It states that you should be forced to drag the H&N restraint out the window, in effect. The only products that have ever trapped drivers in cars have been of the design SFI calls for. That's exactly why we let the driver leave the restraint behind. That's also the only reason we do not comply with SFI Spec 38.1.

 

When it comes to head load reduction, however, we are the big dog.

 

We think it is a very powerful combination when we can minimize head loads, keep the belts on the shoulders and not trap drivers in cars.

 

What is the egress issue?

 

I have to ask this..... how many documented cases are there of drivers getting stuck in vehicles and dying because they were trapped due to a H&N device? You are making it sound like it is such a burden to get out of a vehicle with any H&N device but yours and to be honest I don't see it. I think if we all think hard enough we can come up with a situation where any piece of safety equipment could be considered a hinderance and possible cause a death. What I want to know is how many documented cases are there were the H&N device was the direct cause of someone not being able to leave a vehicle and dying. Apparently the list must be pretty long based on your comments above.

 

I'm not trying to be anti-Isaacs here but your making a few off handed remarks here which I think you should provide facts to back them up.

[gbaker]

Mark,

 

The Isaac system captures the belt with a roller assembly which allows it to move along the length of the belt.

 

Re egress, all cases of H&N restraints having trapped drivers in cars have involved SFI compliant designs. Not some, or most, but all. Ask users how difficult it is to bail.

 

Further, extrication by pro EMT crews is faster, and backbrace installation is simplified.