Head and Neck Restraints in 2006

[Bruce L.]

One example is here: http://www.isaacdirect.com/html/chart.html

 

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.

[Tims]

that is not a "study" of head and neck restraints. that is one manufacturer comparing there product to other manufacturers. I have not seen anyone do a study of crash data from racers/race accidents around the world and then compare the effectiveness of each product. With driver feedback. This would need to be done by an independent group or individual for it to even look legit. We can all see the problems and limitations with such a study, so then we need to look at all other safety items and you can see how the head and neck restraint will be "certified". Just as belts and helmets and all other safety items it will be certified by the SFI and or the FIA and we will have to use products that carry these certifications to participate in sanctioned events. And manufacturers will have to meet these standards or change there product or lobby to have the standard changed. I know full well the consiquences(sp?) of not using a head and neck restraint as well as not having a seat with a head restraint built into it as well. I am not a supporter or promoter of any brand of head and neck support but personally I would not buy one that was not 38.1 certified. Because if the sanctioning bodies I run with require a 38.1 certification then I don't want to buy two expensive devices. Lobbying the sanctioning body will get you nowhere. the standard comes from the SFI or FIA as the case maybe, and they are the ones who will have to change the standard or not. Be safe use a seat with a head restraint, use a head and neck restaint device, check all safety equipment before every event, and use good judgement while on track.

[FocusTed]

that is not a "study" of head and neck restraints. that is one manufacturer comparing there product to other manufacturers. I have not seen anyone do a study of crash data from racers/race accidents around the world and then compare the effectiveness of each product. With driver feedback. This would need to be done by an independent group or individual for it to even look legit. We can all see the problems and limitations with such a study, so then we need to look at all other safety items and you can see how the head and neck restraint will be "certified". Just as belts and helmets and all other safety items it will be certified by the SFI and or the FIA and we will have to use products that carry these certifications to participate in sanctioned events. And manufacturers will have to meet these standards or change there product or lobby to have the standard changed. I know full well the consiquences(sp?) of not using a head and neck restraint as well as not having a seat with a head restraint built into it as well. I am not a supporter or promoter of any brand of head and neck support but personally I would not buy one that was not 38.1 certified. Because if the sanctioning bodies I run with require a 38.1 certification then I don't want to buy two expensive devices. Lobbying the sanctioning body will get you nowhere. the standard comes from the SFI or FIA as the case maybe, and they are the ones who will have to change the standard or not. Be safe use a seat with a head restraint, use a head and neck restaint device, check all safety equipment before every event, and use good judgement while on track.

 

I believe NASA will (and should) use SFI 38.1 certification for head and neck restraints. It's the only thing that make sense because of liability. I agree with you, it must be certified, just like it’s our harnesses, suits and helmets are.

Edited April 20, 2006 by Guest

[turboice]

My seat isn't certified. So just because a standard exists it should be used, with no question of whether or not it is appropriate? Blind acceptance seems to be a poor method. "We know good products exist that will be excluded for no justifiable reason but our liability is covered." Sounds like a concern about liability rather than our safety. I thought NASA was a different sanctioning body that cared about their members.

 

Back to the seat example - certified seats exist in FIA standards, but I don't have to use them, they take the risk upon themselves to tell me how to use an uncertified seat. The if a standard exists we have to restrict equipment to only the standard argument is as flawed as 38.1.

 

If adopting a standard is so protective, why are we waiting over two years after it was issued to adopt it. Isn't every day that goes by before our adoption putting NASA under unacceptable risk of liability?

[FocusTed]

My seat isn't certified. So just because a standard exists it should be used, with no question of whether or not it is appropriate? Blind acceptance seems to be a poor method. "We know good products exist that will be excluded for no justifiable reason but our liability is covered." Sounds like a concern about liability rather than our safety. I thought NASA was a different sanctioning body that cared about their members.

 

Back to the seat example - certified seats exist in FIA standards, but I don't have to use them, they take the risk upon themselves to tell me how to use an uncertified seat. The if a standard exists we have to restrict equipment to only the standard argument is as flawed as 38.1.

 

If adopting a standard is so protective, why are we waiting over two years after it was issued to adopt it. Isn't every day that goes by before our adoption putting NASA under unacceptable risk of liability?

 

 

Sorry about the seat… I didn’t mean that…….

 

I believe we’re talking about two different liabilities here. One is for not mandating them and the other is allowing a device that isn’t certified. If NASA Mandates everyone to use H&N Device and allows a device that is not certified by SFI or FIA, then NASA will be taking full responsibility for that non-certified device. It will be hard to explain in court why NASA didn’t mandate only SFI approved H&N devices, since SFI has set the standards for H&N.

[turboice]

I believe we’re talking about two different liabilities here. One is for not mandating them and the other is allowing a device that isn’t certified. If NASA Mandates everyone to use H&N Device and allows a device that is not certified by SFI or FIA, then NASA will be taking full responsibility for that non-certified device. It will be hard to explain in court why NASA didn’t mandate only SFI approved H&N devices, since SFI has set the standards for H&N.

 

How is that different than seats? FIA has set standards for seats. NASA has mandates surrounding replacing OEM nonfixed back seats. You are required to replace your seat.

 

Why wouldn't the following also apply?

 

It will be hard to explain in court why NASA didn’t mandate only FIA approved seats, since FIA has set the standards for seats.

 

In court how is NASA going to explain yeah we made the driver remove their Isaac and wear another product because of SFI 38.1, and then the plaintiff introduces readily available evidence that SFI 38.1 was developed in an environment filled with conflicts of interest. Then the plaintiff goes on to explain how the only impendement to Isaac was a single point of release requirement completely unrelated to restricting the velocity of the head and stress to the neck in a collission. And that single point of release is a complete fallacy with existing equipment in any full body sedan. Mandating a flawed standard will not provide protection from responsibility for drivers in NASA sanctioned races. Especially since the driver assumes responsibility for the safety equipment they use and its proper usage right up and until they are mandated to do otherwise. The mandate moves responsibility for safety from the driver to the sanctioning body.

 

It would be a whole different story if the standard had been developed with any degree of independence whatsoever and only had to do with protection against basilar skull fractures rather than including anticompetitive product favoring restrictions unrelated to driver H&N protection.

[FocusTed]

I believe we’re talking about two different liabilities here. One is for not mandating them and the other is allowing a device that isn’t certified. If NASA Mandates everyone to use H&N Device and allows a device that is not certified by SFI or FIA, then NASA will be taking full responsibility for that non-certified device. It will be hard to explain in court why NASA didn’t mandate only SFI approved H&N devices, since SFI has set the standards for H&N.

 

How is that different than seats? FIA has set standards for seats. NASA has mandates surrounding replacing OEM nonfixed back seats. You are required to replace your seat.

 

Why wouldn't the following also apply?

 

It will be hard to explain in court why NASA didn’t mandate only FIA approved seats, since FIA has set the standards for seats.

 

 

You're right. NASA will be taking responsibility for those seats. But, some items have higher standards then others.

 

Now, the big question is will H&N also need the higher standards. I guess we'll find out.

[pgipson]

All of which still leaves unanswered the question about the studues mentioned in an earlier post.

[Tims]

turboice

I realise you have or want to use the Isaac product, but you still don't understand my point. There are rules that have to be followed to participate and if one states you must use and SFI certified 5 point seat belt then you must use an SFI certified 5 point seat belt irregardless of whether there is a better product available. If there is no requirement then there is no requirement and you may use whatever you would like as is the case with seats currently. I don't agree with this rule either and I wish there was a rule to require FIA or SFI certified seats, but this does not seem to be a priority currently. My point is the sanctioning body makes the rules and if they want to use the SFI certification for Head and neck restaints then you will need to have one to participate. I understand the hardships this imposes on people who have bought other non SFI certified devices and judge them to be as good or better than the SFI certified models. This is why I recomend to people to buy the certified models if they don't own a H&N restraint, so you don't get caught having to buy two expensive devices. I am not bashing Isaac I like the grassroots activities of the company, but I have to follow the rules of the sanctioning body when purchasing items for my racing program. Please take my advice and look into an improved seat it may save your life.

[turboice]

And you don't understand my point. Adoption of a flawed standard is flawed. It is inappropriate to accept standards blindly, if indeed safety of the driver is the real concern. If liability mitigation is the real concern, then name the CCR section required liability mitigation equipment rather than required safety equipment.

 

I fail to see how blindly accepting standards promotes driver safety. NASA is the member of SFI, we are not, NASA is in a position to do something about it, we are not. It has not been adopted at this time and hopefully on this one NASA will listen to their members.

[Tims]

What part of the SFI standard is "flawed"? and is this "flaw" going to cause immediate injury? I think not. you have "blindly" accepted alot of safety standards to race. No one questions SA helmet standards or SFI standards on suits or belts, so why does the H&N restraint standard get so much attention? I know everyone believes there is some conspiracy to put Isaac out of business and force the racing world to buy a HANS to line the HANS device makers pockets. I do believe that the sanctioning bodies of the world write rulebooks for safety and not primarily for liability mitigation, but people sue when someone is injured no matter what the situation. I would like to know why everyone "blindly" uses the SFI standards for all other safety items and yet questions their intentions when it concerns H&N restraints?

[turboice]

I don't blindly use SFI. When given the opportunity I do not use SFI. SFI is a manufacturer's marketing organization.

 

As a point of social observation I always enjoy the implementation of words loaded with negative conotation. There is no conspiracy to put Isaac out of business as Isaac's principals do not rely on Isaac for their living. There were however blatant conflicts of interest in the development of 38.1 to advantage Hans and disadvantage other products. Take it as conspiracy or not, the conflict exists no matter what term is applied.

 

Look here for an independent history of head and neck restraints hosted on ESPN with links to sources:

 

http://www.jayski.com/pages/restraint.htm

 

Which includes:

 

"criteria recently developed by NASCAR for the SFI Foundation"

 

Here is the cliff notes version:

 

HANS is developed sometime around 1985 I think.

 

NASCAR very appropriately starts looking into head and neck restraints after several high profile frequent basilar skull fractures.

 

They work with a lot of manufacturers, but early on show favor to the HANS.

 

Eventually NASCAR figures that everything that needs to be known for standardizing is known in their minds. As an accountant I would love to match up HANS and NASCAR financial transactions during this time.

 

NASCAR decides to require H&N restraints, with suggestions but no required products. Dissatisfied drivers complain bitterly about still looking for one that is right for them.

 

Since NASCAR is not an FIA member that I know of (and to my knowledge uses no FIA standards) they go to SFI, saying we need an "independent" standard to point to and so we can require all drivers to use Hans.

 

SFI says we don't have a clue how to develop a H&N restraint standard - NASCAR you write it for us and we will put our rubber stamp on it. "criteria recently developed by NASCAR for the SFI Foundation"

 

NASCAR's experts write 38.1 for SFI. Their experts have financial interest in Hans.

 

At the time of issuance HANS is the only product on the market that meets a single point of release requirement that does not exist anywhere in sedan bodied motorsports and is unrelated to H&N restraint.

 

NASCAR mandates only the HANS even after R3 was the first product to finish testing (after redesigning to meet arbitrary single point release) and the first receive licensing to certify their product 38.1 compliant (but there was no conflict there, right?).

 

The presence of conflicts of interest in the development of SFI 38.1 is laid out clear as day right there on that site.

 

To say that SFI 38.1 was not written in a manner intended to favor HANS and disadvantage other products is a move ostrichs are most famous for. NASCAR had already expressed a desire to see only HANS used, drivers didn't like it, NASCAR goes to SFI to give them a standard to bring the hammer down on their drivers and then the SFI says we can't write it NASCAR, you write it for us NASCAR.

 

BMWCCA, SCCA and NASA looks to the three monkeys for guidance and with the appropriate orifices covered brings the NASCAR hammer down on their respective drivers. When all it would take is to ask the simple question of WHY? and then answer it with anything representing independent thought.

 

If conflicts of interest are conspiracy, then yes it is a conspiracy but not a theory - it's laid out right there on a site with references. A site which has no agenda and makes no analysis just posting of reported events.

 

Read that site and come back straight faced saying there aren't more conflicts of interest in SFI 38.1 than a congressional lobbyist having meetings in DC.

 

Conflicts of interest are the flaw in the standard and in a safety standard conflicts of interest should not be tolerated by a member of SFI - which NASA is.

[turboice]

Here is the problem with SFI in their own words:

 

The SFI puts manufacturers first (makes sense having been created by SEMA) and end users of products as are merely a by-product of their activities:

 

The SFI Foundation, Inc. (SFI) is a non-profit organization established to issue and administer standards for specialty/performance automotive and racing equipment.

 

SFI was originally a foundation run by SEMA, the automotive aftermarket trade organization. The letters "SFI" stood for "SEMA Foundation, Inc." Although SFI is now completely independent from SEMA, the Foundation has retained the name SFI Foundation, Inc. but the "S" no longer means SEMA.

 

Manufacturers of equipment are the primary users of SFI standards. Some standards are adopted as part of the rules of race sanctioning organizations. Ultimately, the consumer benefits from the program as it establishes recognized levels of performance or quality for a product.

 

Note the FIA and FIA Institute objective has nothing to do with manufacturers:

 

The heart of the FIA will always remain its member clubs and their activities in both general motoring and sport. FIA member clubs serve the motorist in a multitude of ways.

 

-------

 

The objective of the FIA Institute is to promote improvements in the safety of motor sport by supporting and disseminating the results of research; supporting training of officials, circuit and race personnel in safety procedures, practices and the use of equipment; supporting the protection of participants, officials and members of the public at international motor sport events and monitoring motor sport safety trends in order to identify research and regulation priorities.

 

NASCAR is not a member club of FIA and doubt if they could be if they wanted to - their practice of motorsport would not be accepted by FIA.

 

So yes, my faith in the SFI (and those who mandate SFI standards) as being in my best protection is very shaky.

[Tims]

Okay, SFI is a bogus front organiziation for NASCAR that does nothing but "rubber stamp" standards. I will for the sake of arguement agree with you, so why do you use SFI certified belts in your car? Why do you use a driver's fire resistant suit that caries the SFI certification? Why are you using an SFI certified window net? And I understand the standard was written to make sure HANS(who as you stated was in business since 1985) had a monopoly on the H&N restraint market(nice of NASCAR to help there existing business). So how is this conspiracy and conflict of interest causing you to be injured? It is only forcing to to buy a specific product and HANS is not the only manufacturer that is certified. HANS is also required for FIA sanctioned racing like F1, so I doubt it is a bad product. I am sure your beloved FIA has tested the device and approved its performance for it to be allowed in the F1 series. It is preventing the use of several other products, and I think all the resistance to 38.1 is about money. If the HANS cost the same as the Isaac products we would not be having this discussion, so all these arguements are based on the fact that most people would like a less expensive product. I understand that but lets be honest. Using a HANS device will improve your odds of surviving a severe head on crash, and I will restate please upgrade the seat in you car and wear a H&N restraint.

[turboice]

You can twist what I wrote but it doesn't mean I wrote it.

 

My harness is FIA. Why would I use a belt built to a standard that lasts 40% as long?

 

And regarding window nets, are they as important as someone's neck? Not mine. Also sanctioning bodies are seeing through the SFI's conflicts and ignoring the recert of SFI window nets. And it costs a lot less to replace a window net every two years than to buy a product that the driver feels less safe using. The recert of window nets is yet another (like seats) example of when they think about it they selectively adopt standards, not wholesale adopt them. NASA is allowing people to use window nets for three years that are no longer SFI certified. Selectivity in the application of standards is rampant.

 

The difference is that the other standards were not set in an environment with so much conflict of interest as 38.1.

 

NASCAR follows the golden rule - he with the gold sets the rules. It was in fact nice of NASCAR but not necessarily intentional. NASCAR's only experts were those with an interest in HANS - they never involved anyone not affiliated with HANS or any of the experts at research facilities not affiliated with any product. Without intent on the part of SFI or NASCAR, the decisions made by each of them put the standard in the hands of HANS.

 

SFI acknowledged it didn't have the ability to write the standard. Since NASCAR asked for it, SFI says sure have your experts write it. NASCAR's only experts are connected to HANS. Neither SFI nor NASCAR had to actively desire to benefit HANS, but intended or not they did.

 

Basic economics when uncompetitive practices are permitted the consumer is always injured by either inferior products or inferior pricing market.

 

F1 was open car last I checked. My comments have always been qualified with sedan body motorsports. F1 does not have egress issues. FIA also did not exclude any other product, no other product had the financial backing to be subjected to FIA's process. FIA wrote a standard specifically addressing what was required to use HANS, they did not refuse to write a standard for any other product that desires to come to FIA. The FIA standard is substantially more involved than SFI - but at least FIA used experts independent of the product being covered.

 

Oh and guess what there is no mention in FIA standard at all about release, single point or otherwise. What does that say when F1 doesn't need a single point rule in any standard at all but club racing does?

 

The difference in price between HANS and Isaac over its period of usage is diminimus and as protection for my neck which has already been subjected to and weakened by multiple soft tissue injuries no price difference would not matter in the least. My issue is with being forced to use a product I feel is less suited to my protection than another product that is available. What good is a single point rule for H&N when single point release does not exist anyway, and most especially what good is single point release when a product interfers with full egress from the car? Any situation where single point release matters, full egress matters more.

 

It is simple - get rid of the single point release requirement in the standard (which is a fallacy in club racing) and the standard would be fine.

 

Are you going to remove your window net, stop using your cool shirt, go to wireless headset for coms? Why would you hold on to a part of a standard that isn't even applicable?

 

If the sanctioning body wants to address egress issues, do so directly and explicitly don't include a noncompetitive restriction on release in a H&N standard. Oh yeah they do - 10 seconds. If I can egress in 10 seconds, why would they care which H&N restraint I used to protect my neck if it reduces forces applied to my neck below the standard in the same sled test?

 

Keep in mind what prevents certification of Isaac has nothing to do with protection - it is solely based on single point of release.

 

Tell me exactly what is wrong with my Kirkey seat?

 

And as long as I can wear my Isaac, I improve my odds of surviving a head on impact, an offset impact where my H&N restraint remains in place for multiple impacts, and I can actually get out of the car.

[pgipson]

Isn't the HANS is the only Head & Neck restraint system accepted by the FIA? In fact there is an FIA standard (8858-2002-HANS system) which, if you could get a copy of it would probably read very much like the SFI 38.1 standard.

 

And while it is true that manufacturers are not mentioned in the objectives of the FIA Institute, and manufacturers are not members, the SFI is a member. And there is an associate membership class for other than national delegates (i.e. companies). After all, who will fund the research?

 

As to NASCAR not being acceptable to FIA, one should examine what FIA is and what the relationship of FIA is to sanctioning bodies. The US motorsports delegate to FIA is ACCUS (headed by none other than the ever beloved Nick Craw). Members of ACCUS were (and I believe still are) SCCA, IMSA, Grand Am, NHRA, NASCAR, IRL, USAC, and Champ Car. So NASCAR is an FIA member the same as the other major sanctioning bodies in the US are.

 

I think it is unfair to attack the SFI and the entire SFI process because a standard was developed that some dislike. If other systems have merit and can provide a comparable level of safety then they should be willing to be tested for credit against the standard.

[turboice]

I have a copy of the FIA standard. It reads nothing like the SFI. It is very stringent and very thorough. It is written only on the requirements to use HANS but not so as to be the sole H&N standard. It is the sole standard written because no one has come and asked the FIA to prepare a standard for their product.

 

And it has no single point of release requirement.

 

I understood ACCUS and its member clubs and relation to FIA, I was not aware that NASCAR was a member of ACCUS and am surprised to see that it is so. NASCAR's rules are proprietary and their approach has always been to be their own rather than a part of the larger international motorsports community. It was an assumption from observations which proves out to have been incorrect. They seem to be all over SFI standards but not so much so on FIA standards, I have never seen FIA and NASCAR in any rule reference.

 

If other systems have merit and can provide a comparable level of safety then they should be willing to be tested for credit against the standard.

Exactly finally someone posts and agrees with me. Isaac can and is willing to do exactly that!

 

They were told by SFI not to bother because they don't meet the arbitrary single point of release requirement. Isaac provides at least as comparable safety and they are willing and have tested. But for the single point of release requirement they would be able to license for the certification.

 

Here are the non sled test requirements (2.5 is the sole reason Isaac can not be certified):

 

2.4 The Head and Neck Restraint System must be designed and manufactured to allow freedom of movement of head, torso, arms, etc., commensurate with operating a race vehicle under all race and associated conditions.

2.5 Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations.

 

Note that I question whether or not HANS even passes 2.4, it is subjective but I found HANS restrictive to free movement of the head. Try to look through a hairpin or the carosel at shenandoah with the straps installed to the proper length (most HANS wearers I see have them at the longest permitted length, not the ideal length).

 

And I really want to know is how in the world can the "state of the art in protection" double belt HANS pass 2.5 - it would require motion in addition to release of the seat belt to be disengaged from the restraint system.

 

Enforce 2.4 and remove 2.5 and the standard would make a whole lot more sense.

 

I would use HANS in a open cockpit with no qualms. I find its is much less preferable in a production based sedan body due to egress and operability issues.

[Tims]

This egress issue in my opinion is just BS. I have worn the HANS and my car has a full halo Racetech seat, radio system, fresh air helmet cooler, and I can still do a driver change before the fuel is finished filling. I only race in enduros and normally have a codriver and I can get in and out of the car with no issues. I have even gone through the window. And anyone who knows me knows I am not the thinnest individual. I hope your preferred device is finally certified, but don't race without a head and neck restraint and a seat with a head restraint.

[turboice]

but don't race without a head and neck restraint and a seat with a head restraint.

In any case agreed on the most important aspects. I need to add for seat head area and a right hand side net.

[Bruce L.]

what exactly would you like to see over a head to head comparison of products in standardized tests at a single testing facility?

bruce

 

 

All of which still leaves unanswered the question about the studues mentioned in an earlier post.

[pgipson]

what exactly would you like to see over a head to head comparison of products in standardized tests at a single testing facility?

 

Impartial testing

[Tims]

sled testing is great but real world experiences coupled with real world data would validate the sled results. Not all accidents are head on or flat to the ground. accidents happen at odd angles and can't be replicated on the sled machine.

 

Ed,

I am happy we can agree on the seat issue. this in my opinion is more important than the H&N restraint. the seat will do more to help you survive a serious crash. A simple and inexpensive fix is to use the "sprint car" net on the right side. the standard window net works for you on the left. I would also use a very strong seat and please stay away from the aluminum models unless it is a high end Butler or LaJoie. Also be sure the mounting points on the floor are solid(no washers and bolts through the sheet metal floor).

[turboice]

My kirkey seat is plenty strong, the mounting frame is all attached to the cage not any part of my seat or harness is to the sedan body. It does lack the head area surround shown to be highly beneficial and is an area needing to be addressed.

 

 

I find them as strong as butler, but more comfortable. For head area I likely will need to go to FIA fiberglass as I am not thrilled with the aluminum full containment seats, unless they develop something else for my Kirkey. I need to address my personal issue of size and also the mounting frame to move to the FIA fiberglass.

 

The sprint net on the right hand side will addressed as well to be in accordance with the new SCCA recommendation. Including mounting around the seat back to my left side main loop to have the net as close to the head support as possible.

[Bruce L.]

how is Wayne State not impartial? I agree that the various manufacturers can pick which test results they choose to present to the public and that could be an issue.

bruce

 

 

what exactly would you like to see over a head to head comparison of products in standardized tests at a single testing facility?

 

Impartial testing

[Bruce L.]

I think you alluded to this in an earlier post, but comparing various accidents would be confounded by too many variables, mis-reporting of the circumstances and even quantifying the results.

 

One of the arguments for a device like the Isaac is that on a subsequent hit (real world), the isaac is still attached where a Hans might have slipped out from under the belts. I am firmly in the camp that thinks that the SFI 38.1 testing does not reflect the real world in a road racing incident.

cheers,

bruce

 

sled testing is great but real world experiences coupled with real world data would validate the sled results. Not all accidents are head on or flat to the ground. accidents happen at odd angles and can't be replicated on the sled machine.