Jump to content

Head and Neck Restraints in 2006


Simon

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • turboice

    30

  • gbaker

    20

  • Tims

    11

  • Bruce L.

    9

Top Posters In This Topic

It's certainly not a good thing but you have eluded to the fact that people have died due to being trapped in cars by H&N devices and I've never heard of one so I'm simply asking for you to provide your source and a number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't actually say that anyone had died, only that drivers have been "trapped". However I am only aware of one driver that has expressed that sort of sentiment (and he didn't use the word trapped). That was Jeff Altenburg after an on course fire in his Mazda6.

 

Gregg -- on another subject you stated here that the SFI spec would be revised to "not exclude" the ISAAC. Do you have a feel for when that will occur, and -- once that happens -- how long to achieve SFI approval for the ISAAC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

So what exactly does the last sentence mean if it's not eluding to people dying?

 

I've asked why it 38.1 is "far to dangerous as written" and it's because of this "egress issue" that Greg has brought up. He states people are being trapped in cars by using SFI approved H&N devices and then he makes the statement above.

 

If a statement like that is going to be made then I'd like to understand what the body count REALLY is to put everything in prospective.

 

What am I missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor wording on my part. Sorry.

 

Connecting the H&N restraint to the belts has safety implications in two general areas: egress and retention of the shoulder belts.

 

With respect to the former, there are several cases of drivers having been trapped in cars, burning or otherwise, by the HANS device. This is well documented. So far no one has died--at least to our knowledge. Obviously, it's just a matter of time. Nothing good happens when you cannot get out.

 

With respect to the latter--and ignoring fatalities in circle track racing that we have not been able to document--the most recent case we are aware of is a HANS user who died of a head injury after "coming though the belts" at LRP. Whether this injury can be specifically categorized as a BSF is not known, and won't be known until the autopsy is complete.

 

The video is quite clear about something that is not implicit in the data: An Isaac system keeps the belt on the shoulder where the SFI certified HANS does not.

 

Suggesting that a single point release is safest is nothing more than an old wives' tale. This has been proved to be not just wrong, but backwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your clarification.

 

 

Would you say that anyone could replicate the results of the video? Meaning are you able to supply values for all of the obvious factors that go into the simulation (speed of sled, position of dummy, weight of dummy, tightness of belts, etc?) so that the results would be the same?

 

Was the side load data you provided taken from the simulations posted on your website?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

 

Yes, anyone should be able to repeat the test and its results. All parameters are very specific and include the shape of the seat, the dummy to be used, the load pulse, etc. The impact pulse is taken from an actual stock car crash data recorder and duplicated by a computer-controlled hydraulic ram.

 

The side load data comes from load sensors placed in the dummy's upper neck, although we have also done computer simulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm coming into this thread late, but I have some concerns as well regarding mandating H&N devices. I don't think I follow the necessity to mandate the device. Even if a standard exists, why should they be required?

 

I've been keeping an eye out for statistics on the frequency of BSF fatalities in amateur racing and haven't seen anything. Perhaps they just don't exist in a reliable form. My worry is that our safety dollars may be being spent in the wrong place. If fire suppression systems or sprint nets or other systems not currently mandated in every class would be more effective at reducing injuries or fatalities then perhaps that's where we should be looking?

 

As an engineer who helps develop standards for a living I'm just a bit skeptical about the entire process in this case. We all want to be safer, we all want everybody to survive this sport, but there are practical tradeoffs. I'm a bit worried to see statements to the effect that if the SCCA does it then we'll have to as well. That's sometimes how bad standards applications happen.

 

Kudos to Jerry and our NASA administration for supporting the dialogue, for having the discussions early, and for waiting for some hurdles to be cleared. I'm just expressing general concern around whether H&N devices are ready for mandating even if a standard exists and even if other amateur bodies jump on the bandwagon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The R3 has an SFI cert...why not use that?

 

Because I already have an ISAAC which I believe outperforms an R3 or HANS in the range of impacts I'm likely to see in the kind of racing I do. I don't race on circle tracks, not even rovals, a solid concrete wall is the last thing I have to worry about when I get in my car. I want something designed for my needs, not for Helio Castroneves or Kimi Raikkonnen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't race on circle tracks, not even rovals, a solid concrete wall is the last thing I have to worry about when I get in my car.

 

This is a very dangerous attitude. This same line of thinking contributed to the death of a close friend of mine. He did not want to spend the money of certain optional(non mandated) safety devices. He crashed at the slowest corner on the track, did not hit a wall, and was killed by the basal skull fracture. He went off track at about 60mph and hit an earth berm of sorts. People have been killed by car to car contact. He had all the required safety devices and none of the recommended ones. A HANS or other SFI certified device would have likely saved his life. Your family will not understand why you did not spend $1000 dollars to save your life. Believe me I have had this conversation and they don't understand at all. Sanctioning bodies have to use these standards to protect themselves. I am sorry but sadly even racers sue sanctioning bodies. My suggestion to manufacturers is to collaborate with the testing groups to establish the standards, design a product that meets the standard, or get into another form of business. I love grassroots companies that interact with there customers who are not pro racers, but I also need to support the sanctioning bodies. Just like you would not use a helmet that was not SA90 certified or a fire suit that didn't have the SFI or FIA cert. I hope that companies like Issac get the certification(by current rules or new and improved rules), but I don't think that SFI just called HANS and said what should the standard be. I have to spend my money wisely and this is why I bought a HANS. I did not want to buy two devices if the others didn't get approved. I tell everyone I meet that races to buy your head and neck device and install a proper seat with H&N restraints. For $2000-$3000 you will improve your odds of survival by huge amounts. Be safe and don't cut corners on safety, that doesn't mean you have to break the bank either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim,

 

Vaughan is referring to the only impact where a HANS device has a theoretical advantage over and Isaac system: a 200+G impact. That is of no practical value because the driver will perish for other reasons before that level is reached.

 

...Sanctioning bodies have to use these standards to protect themselves. I am sorry but sadly even racers sue sanctioning bodies....

And they will sue NASA if they prefer an Isaac for ease of egress, but get trapped in a burning car by a HANS device only because it had a certain sticker. CYA doesn't work well with juries, not when there are bodies around.

 

My suggestion to manufacturers is to collaborate with the testing groups to establish the standards, design a product that meets the standard, or get into another form of business.

You are missing the point. Performance standards were set before we began any R&D. We have outperformed any product ever developed. We have no intention of detuning the design to meet SFI specs, anymore than the U.S. Air Force intends to detune its harnesses so they meet SFI specs.

 

If sanctioning bodies do not go beyond SFI specs, they are going to get someone killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

I do appreciate the input you have on all these bulletin boards but my point was that all of the SFI devices will likely save your life in a severe impact. This is the critical point here. People need these devices and other modifications to there race cars, like improved seat with head restraints. You are correct everyone will sue when people are killed or dead. I will tell you the wife of my friend understood his passion and realised he took his own life in his hands each time he went on track and she has so far decided not to sue. The sanctioning body does have a position to stand behind by using the SFI standards(it might not prevail in a court case, but they do have a position to argue). I am also not telling you to reduce the effectiveness of your device, but if this standard is adopted all the people who bought your product will have to replace it or race elsewhere(not a good scenario for anyone). I hope you can show the powers that be at the SFI that there specification should be altered/changed. Not just to include your product but that the spec will be as safe or safer with the change. But I believe that beating on the sanctioning bodies gains you no friends in you fight. I am sure you are working on the SFI folks and I do wish you luck, as I love to support grassroots companies that try to work with us small time operators. I am by no means trying to say your product is not effective just that eventually it will need to meet the SFI standard(completely) in its present form or a revised form(device or standard).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

given this statement by Jerry, why, in Appendix D of the 2006 CCR, do you suppose it lists a number of non-SFI 38.1 compliant HNRs? The way it is written, it appears that all those would be allowed if/when NASA implements a mandate sometime after July 1, 2006

cheers,

bruce

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Anyone?

 

I'm ready to buy a system, I think (and I've got a deal working that expires soon. If I act quickly enough, I can save almost $200.)

 

The thing is, I can't make a decision because of the fuzzy wording in the CCR. Regarding 15.7.8 in the CCR -- what exactly does "meeting SFI 38.1" mean. Does it meet performance requirements or certification requirements, or something else? This needs to be addressed, if it hasn't already (and I somehow missed it.)

 

Since the "Isaac Device" is on the list of approved models (29.1.2) and yet isn't SFI 38.1 certified (nor can it be at this time,) it woud appear that 15.7.8 is referring to perfirmance requirements and NOT certification requirements. Am I correct in thinking this?

 

Also, while the Isaac Device is listed, Isaac LLC doesn't have a product called the "Isaac Device". They have:

 

- Isaac Link

- Basic Isaac

- Intermediate Isaac

- Titanium Isaac

- Kid's Isaac

- Quarter Midget Isaac

 

Which of these is 15.7.8 referring to? All of them? This is important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff

Robert, without putting you through the torture of reading this entire thread, the bottom line is that there is still no answer at this time. NASA still does not have a rule requiring H&N restraints, and until such time that a rule is written and in the CCR's, there are no guarantees. Jerry implied (or outright stated--can't remember) in one of the past posts that NASA will likely eventually adopt a rule that requires SFI certification, because that will likely be the industry standard at the time that will necessitate NASA writing the rule in the first place.

 

Many of us would like to purchase one of the Isaac devices, but at this time, SFI won't certify them because they attach to the driver's restraints. From everything that I've seen and heard from Greg Baker, they would pass the remainder of the tests. I think that he has a great case when comparing the ability to egress a burning car with a Hans vs. one of the Isaac devices, but for now, no SFI cert. So, the decision is up to the individual driver (buy an SRI cert. device that may make it difficult to move or get out of a crashed car, buy a non-SFI cert. device that is better in at least some aspects than the SRI cert. devices and risk having to replace it in 6 months or more, or continue to use a horse collar or nothing and have a higher risk of a basillar skull fracture or broken neck if you crash). At least that is my personal view of this (my opinions on this issue are not reflective or intended to be taken as a statement from NASA).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vaughn Scott wrote:

a solid concrete wall is the last thing I have to worry about when I get in my car

 

Vaughn, If you run at Mid-Ohio you will get to see a wall up close when cresting a hill and entering thunder valley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
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 January 1st, 2007.

 

Well I guess I am glad and disappointed at the same time.

 

I am glad because this would appear to provide a fair level of certainty that my recently purchased Isaac can be used throughout 2006. And because hopefully in the additional time 38.1 will be fixed, revoked or made obsolete by an FIA rule. (SFI rules being driven primarily by manufacturer commercial concerns and FIA primarily by actual driver safety.)

 

I am disappointed because I believe it is an important safety feature every driver should utilize and some won't unless they have to (frequently myself included).

 

I am glad for the NASA notice and update on the subject and do understand difficulties in concluding on this rule area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Item 17. Effective 11/1/06: Add new section 11 to section 20 as follows:

11. Head and Neck Restraint

The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by the SFI Foundation and bear the SFI 38.1 label.

 

As long as the use is highly recommended, I think the 38.1 spec also should be only highly recommended as well - which should be just as protective to the SCCA as an optional device anyway.

 

Also the wording as it stands now - no H&N restraint can be used since the SFI Foundation does not certify any equipment as explicitly stated in thier licnensing - all certifications of compliance with a spec are made by the manufacturer not SFI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I would much rather see NASA come up with a list of approved Head and Neck restraints, than just say it has to have a SFI 38.1 stamp. Studies have shown that some non 38.1 compiant restraints work better at protecting your neck than the ones with the stamp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they decided to do that then they would assume the liability associated with any recommendations. Using the SFI standards they pretty much get away from any liability if I'm not mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Studies have shown that some non 38.1 compiant restraints work better at protecting your neck than the ones with the stamp.

 

Which studies would that be? A lot of people have been pretty passionate about their H&N Restraint System of choice and I don't recall seeing any mention previously of studies that compare the effectiveness of one approach against another. Such studies would be interesting to review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...