Tims Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 the Kirkey seat is inexpensive but just not up to the standards of the Butler and LaJoie in the aluminum catagory. None of them approach the Racetech for high G survivability. The high end Butler's and LaJoie(all custom fitted and built) work very well, but nowhere near the performance of the Racetech,especially in a side impact(most likely to happen to you and kill you). If you saw the amount of metal that is on the high end aluminum seat then you could see how the .125 sheet that most of the low end seats are made is way to thin. In my friends fatal accident the base of the seat seperated from the sides of the seat (seat was not built by Kirkey but was of similair construction). It just broke from the impact. This can then allow your belts to come loose and for you to literally come out of the belts. this is not a good situation and will negate the effectiveness of any H&N restraint you might be wearing. Check with the seat manufacturers and ask about the G loads these seats are subjected to during testing, especially the side impacts. I found a few years ago that most do no testing and the rest that are FIA certified are tested at a very low G number(sorry I don't remember the exact number). The top of the line Racetech was tested at double the FIA standard, which Daimler Chrysler had determined was a more real world number. Daimler Chrysler helped Racetech develope the seats for the Viper Competition coupe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboice Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 If you saw the amount of metal that is on the high end aluminum seat then you could see how the .125 sheet that most of the low end seats are made is way to thin. That just confuses me. Most Butlers are .090 including the Road Race Advantage. Only a few of them are .125 There are double layer parts of the Road Race Advantage, but I don't see how there is so much more metal in the Butler. My car came with a butler and side by side with my kirkey, I took the kirkey with thicker metal. The butler has less metal, no more reinforcement and the TIG welding can not be determined to be any better. Also the Racetech for me is not FIA homogulated. Their restricted sponsorship of only selected NASA classes doesn't exactly endear them to me. Where is the independent test results for double the FIA standard? I don't even see that claim on their site. I have heard the same double the FIA standard from supporters of other manufacturers but no one ever produces any sled test sheets. Until otherwise it is just another supporter claim. $1,000 for a seat that is demonstratably safer is fine with me, show me the safety numbers, show me where I can try the seat out. I can't find a dealer list. I am driving an IT spec 240sx, not a viper. There are a lot of things I want to improve, but as the core of my driver restraint my seat is not where I have the most concern there are higher priorities for my restraint. Besides with so much interest in liability mitigation, NASA let's me use my seat and if it wasn't safe I am sure they would be quick to have indicated that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tims Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I am not talking about the standard Butler or LaJoie seats. these are very similair to the one you have or plan to build. I wish that Racetech could share all the information with the racing community, but working with a major car manufacturer can prevent companies from sharing all info. I do know for a fact that the double the FIA test is for real and is only in relation to the viper model seats. I wish these seat cost $1000 it would help everyone to buy one. I am not a sponsored Racetech racer. I bought my seat a full price 3 plus years ago. I don't have any experience with their contingency program or lack there of. I use and recommend the the seats because they are the best. Recaros new SPG(I think this is the current model) is a close second and both are terribly expensive. sorry for getting the thickness wrong, memory is first thing to go. here is some photos of the custom Lajoie's . I couldn't find any good shot of the top of the line butlers. http://www.joieofseating.net/seats.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboice Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Joey Hand on his Rolex wreck... http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/grandam/27471/ The corner workers were yelling to get out of the car because it was going to catch fire, and I couldn’t get out because my HANS device was stuck in the window net Everytime I see someone get out of something that bad OK I am thankful for all the safety requirements - and then there is always that part that regrets that we are likely going to be mandated to use a product that has serious egress issues in production bodied cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgipson Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 The corner workers were yelling to get out of the car because it was going to catch fire, and I couldn’t get out because my HANS device was stuck in the window net, and the window was smaller than normal. Q: What about the HANS Device? HAND: That’s number two for me and the HANS Device. That’s the second time the HANS Device saved me. They said there’s no way I could have survived the impacts without the HANS Device. It saved me again. In (a Toyota Atlantic car at) Milwaukee it saved me and here it saved me. I won’t drive without it if I have a chance. Not many people can say that they hit hard enough to have a HANS Device save them twice. Whatever, we’ll go on. Let's have all the relevant words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboss Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 It may be true that it is possible for some h/n restraints to make it more difficult to get out of a car in a hurry, but had he not been wearing one he may not have got out of the car alive anyhow. Also, some race cars have smaller window openings than others which makes it difficult in situtaions like that. Plus, I believe the car he was driving may have had some sort of window in the door which futher makes it difficult to get out. In my opinion using a HANS is a wise choice. just my thoughts, -V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce L. Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 I wonder if the fine mesh window nets would be better than the 1" mesh with hans? bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboice Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 And HANS is the only H&N restraint that would have saved him, no other H&N restraints would have successfully protected him. Why stop at 38.1 only allow HANS. If single point of release is so important then there should be lobbying that full egress from the car should be more important. Quick releases from yokes should be standard not optional and should be required by the standard if driver safety is the real objective of 38.1 rather than putting in a requirement like single point release that is a fallacy in a production bodied car - which accomplished only one thing - every product except HANS required redesign. Make H&N restraints truly safe and require that they not interfer with full egress from the vehicle by an awake and alert driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanElam Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 I will weigh in and echo some of the concerns with SFI. I first started taking a hard look at them when they came out with the seat belt regulations. At the end of the day it was basically junk science dealing with hypotheticals - not the real world. (It was almost impossible for any regular race car to undergo the scenarios they used to weaken the seat belts and I could find no testing of what was found in the real world.) It wasn't like we were having seat belt fatigue problems - we actually had more of a problem with seat belts not being mounted correctly. From an interested outsider's perspective (who did happen to be the former US Technical Expert to the International Standards Organization (ISO) for various computer technologies), it sure seems like the research was designed to sell more products from member companies than it was to actually promote safety. It also has the added benefit of requiring companies to get SFI certification - thereby increasing SFI's own revenues. Talk about self-serving! While SCCA and NASA may have been lemmings in following this, I don't blame them. Insurance and legal issues are a big deal and I don't blame either organization for wanting to do whatever they can to keep trial lawyers at bay. It isn't like they are the first to take steps to limit potentially frivolous lawsuits. As for HANS vs. ISAAC I had done a lot of research and was leaning strongly towards ISAAC because of the better performance. But I went with HANS because I knew I could run in any race series and didn't have to worry about it. Both are products that can save your life and I would strongly encourage anyone to run one of them. The differences in performance are, frankly, very small when applied to the number of wrecks where a difference in performance would show up. But that doesn't change the fact that 38.1 is an arbitrary standard that not only takes away personal choice, it also affects safety in ways it doesn't intend to. When was the last time you saw a NASCAR driver running from his car because it was on fire? It has been a long time. But at Pocono Jeff Gordon hit the wall at 200mph. If I was driving in NASCAR, I would conclude that a 200mph hit is far more likely than a cockpit fire and would want that extra protection you get from ISAAC. SFI 38.1 doesn't give you that option. So, is SFI self-serving, arbitrary, and sometimes in conflict with safety? Yes. But the reality is that we don't have anything else. It is a flawed model, but it isn't going to change so we might as well get over it. Use a H&N device. If the rules require you to use a 38.1, then just go along with it. Don't let a biased, bad standard get in the way of using something that may save your life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_2kgt Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 And HANS is the only H&N restraint that would have saved him, no other H&N restraints would have successfully protected him. Why stop at 38.1 only allow HANS. That's a little overzealous statement. If you want to make a point use facts, when you make a statement like this, then continue typing, my eye's have already rolled several times and the rest of your post is just bla, bla, bla to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboice Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Dan I agree and well said. (Though I do remember a NASCAR driver [Jr.] wishing he could run from a car on fire - just wasn't in a NASCAR car...) And HANS is the only H&N restraint that would have saved him, no other H&N restraints would have successfully protected him. Why stop at 38.1 only allow HANS. That's a little overzealous statement. If you want to make a point use facts, when you make a statement like this, then continue typing, my eye's have already rolled several times and the rest of your post is just bla, bla, bla to me. Sound good as long as you don't take it in the context of the post it was in response to - the prior posts starting with pgipson were implying exactly what I was saying tongue in cheek. I am all for and fully support H&N restraint requirements - that should allow a driver to choose among effective retraint choices not excluded by an arbitrary and contrived requirement that has never existed anywhere else in Motorsports equipment requirements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_2kgt Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 I am all for and fully support H&N restraint requirements - that should allow a driver to choose among effective retraint choices not excluded by an arbitrary and contrived requirement that has never existed anywhere else in Motorsports equipment requirements. Agreed! When a specific product is required it makes me wonder if there are underlying motives behind that decision rather than what is actually the 'best'. As most know 'best' isn't a definiate, I'd rather do the research and choose among several choices than just be told this is the 'best' use it or don't race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce L. Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 time for a 2007 update - just saw the 2007 CCR today - there is still just a notice saying that an SFI H&NR **may** be mandated as of July 1, 2007 They are mandating that we add side impact protection by July 1 - either a seat with helmet bolsters or a right side net - fair enough. There are now 5 SFI 38.1 H&NR's available. http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1 I was reading the SFI 38.1 spec the other day and noticed that the single-point-of-release "requirement" is actually in a section titled "Definitions" and there is no procedure shown for how the requirements in that section are tested. Kind of messed up... cheers, bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 I have been following this tread periodically as best I can, but I don't know if this video has been posted. I can't bring myself to read all 14 pages to check. http://www.isaacdirect.com/index.html click on the photo to download the video So, some folks might want to pull two pins to get out of the car (Isaac), and avoid the chance of the collar slipping out. The other item that is very important is that the tethers on all devices need to be adjusted properly,or they won't perform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 time for a 2007 update - just saw the 2007 CCR today - there is still just a notice saying that an SFI H&NR **may** be mandated as of July 1, 2007They are mandating that we add side impact protection by July 1 - either a seat with helmet bolsters or a right side net - fair enough.... I was reading the SFI 38.1 spec the other day and noticed that the single-point-of-release "requirement" is actually in a section titled "Definitions" and there is no procedure shown for how the requirements in that section are tested. Kind of messed up... cheers, bruce Bruce, That's nothing. If you read Section 2.1 you'll see that any product that requires the use of "structures or nets", e.g. helmet bolsters and side nets, does not meet the definition of a H&N restraint. Most, if not all, "SFI certified" products do not meet SFI spec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce L. Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 well presumably they pass the SFI test for frontal and offset impact without the net, but what is really needed to make them work in real life is a different matter. cheers, bruce time for a 2007 update - just saw the 2007 CCR today - there is still just a notice saying that an SFI H&NR **may** be mandated as of July 1, 2007They are mandating that we add side impact protection by July 1 - either a seat with helmet bolsters or a right side net - fair enough.... I was reading the SFI 38.1 spec the other day and noticed that the single-point-of-release "requirement" is actually in a section titled "Definitions" and there is no procedure shown for how the requirements in that section are tested. Kind of messed up... cheers, bruce Bruce, That's nothing. If you read Section 2.1 you'll see that any product that requires the use of "structures or nets", e.g. helmet bolsters and side nets, does not meet the definition of a H&N restraint. Most, if not all, "SFI certified" products do not meet SFI spec. 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.