HANS devices mandatory?

[Eric J.]

What % of the value of your life is the HANS device?

...

 

I’m sure the people who designed and manufacture the HANS device would be amused at your comparison of their product to spinning hub-caps, under-car lights and the like.

 

Regardless of the choice of words or analogies, there are still those of us who question the wisdom of a very expensive device that is really designed to prevent a single, rare injury mode. The benefit is that this particular injury is often (but not always) fatal, so preventing it certainly has an up side.

 

My thought has been whether spending the same money on more common, but less threatening injuries or incidents makes more sense. Well, that's a bit of a judgement call, but I do see that rules packages are moving toward requiring sprint nets, etc., so that's a good move, too.

 

And I find it annoying that these days any time someone has a hard impact when wearing a HANS and walks away, the HANS gets credit for having prevented any head/neck injuries. There's not really much way to know whether it did or not, and before the HANS came along the credit usually went to having a good helmet, harness, cage, etc.

 

I like the idea of the HANS, I think it's a godsend for the pros, and when/if the prices ever come down I think it'll be great for those amateurs who decide to use them. But I think it's still a bit of a judgement call as to whether it makes sense to require amateurs to shell out what amounts to a TON of money for a lot of them when there may be better bang for the safety buck elsewhere.

[944-Spec#94]

Lasy year I bought a HANS device. It cost me more a 1/2 season tire budget and was a huge expense. However the more I learned the more I felt that it was money well spent. I researched H&N devices for 1 year before getting the HANS. Based on my knowledge as an engineer and test results I narrowed the search down to either then HANS or ISAAC. The were the ONLY two devices I felt worthy of my spening money. The last thing I wanted to do was to spend 1/2 as much and get only 1/2 the protection. If I was going to by a H&N I wanted to by one I would have 100% faith in. Why? Lets face it there is risk in what we do and I in general get scared easily. So if I was driving around scared it is no fun and what is the point. With a HANS I fell like I have the best (or really close) protection I can get. If I need to use it I don't want think about cheaping out just before I smack that wall at 100 mph. (BTW... my car is only hits 130 mph max). Interstinly my least two race weekend before I got the HANS I started to get neverious. Again I would hate to make a mistake and smack a wall because I cheaped out and waited one more month before ordering the HANS.

 

The reason I chose the HANS over the ISAAC was due to SFI cert. I liked ISAAC alot, but could not afford for it to be make illeagal due to mandiated SFI certs.

 

Now... my first weekend with the HANS was a pain in the rear. I had to make a number of adjustments in the car to get comfortable with it. I hated it that first weekend. After my third track day however it faded away an I barely notice it now. However I never veture on track in my car without it. Seriously if you can afford it slip a race weekend or two and use that money for the device. It just might save your life one day.

[XAIX]

SHOboy wrote:

“The benefit is that this particular injury is often (but not always) fatal, so preventing it certainly has an up side.â€

[APKhaos]

Why do we need to be convinced that life-saving protection is a good idea?

 

XAIX nailed it nicely, "Let’s see…100 MPH in a professional race…100 MPH in an amateur race…100 MPH in an illegal street race…yep the laws of physics are the same for all three. Hit an immovable object at that speed and the forces exerted on ones head and neck are exactly the same. Who knew? "

 

If any of use took the time to figure the real total investment we have in our cars, track days & races, consumables etc., the price of a H&N device is not significant.

 

I'm a believer, and I use a HANS. Figure since my family are cool enough to support my habit, I should do all I can to return home without life threatening injury.

 

That said, The first race weekend I used the HANS, it contributed to my first [very minor] metal to metal contact. Until you really get used to compensating for the restriction in your field of view, you do need to be extra cautious.

[sharkd]

“My thought has been whether spending the same money on more common, but less threatening injuries or incidents makes more sense.â€

[XAIX]

Heyyyy…another sarcastic smartass…with a brain…and common sense.

[Tiger Racing]

Spoken like a true adolescent. The use of the term “pimptasticâ€

[HBennett]

Carol and others are right. A H&N restraint is an important part of your safety equipment. You can buy a HANS, Hutches, whatever, just get something you are comfortable with and use it. A lot of people are missing the boat on H&N safety because they think they "don't go fast enough". That's BS. It's not how fast you go, it's how fast you stop. Yes, I am repeating it but Dale Earnhart's death resulted from an impact rated at only 43mph. NHRA/IHRA is going through this right now. They have mandated an SFI approved H&N device basically for classes that go over 200mph????

 

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

[Bruce L.]

not to detract from the important safety message, but let's stop using Dale Earnhardt's death - the NASCAR investigation concluded that the cause was due to the broken seat belt and blunt trauma to the lower backside of his head. They concluded it was **unlikely** due to head/neck whip.

 

1. "Dale Earnhardt most likely died from a blow to the occipital portion of the skull (the lower back of the head), which in turn caused a basilar skull fracture." 2. "It is unlikely that Dale Earnhardt's basilar skull fracture was caused by head whip or an impact to the chin." 3. "The left lap belt separated at some point during the wall impact, which increased the forward and rightward motion of Dale Earnhardt during the wall impact." 4. "No single factor can be isolated as the cause of Dale Earnhardt's death."

The impact speed differential was 43mph but he was doing about 160mph when he struck the wall. The report said:

In laymen's terms, this is what that means: A driver sitting parked in a passenger car and a different driver rams the parked car at 75-80 mph.

http://www.nascar.com/2001/NEWS/08/21/dalesr_reportlead/index.html

 

How many have checked the angle of attachment to the lap belt anchors to lessen the likelihood of ripping out in a crash? (check out page 67 in

http://www.bmwccaclubracing.com/static/2006Series/Rules/rules_2007_v12-1_061029.pdf )

 

ditto on what Carol said - people come the conclusion about the need for this safety device at their own pace and publically ridiculing them will not hasten that decision.

cheers,

bruce

[Eric J.]

This gets the award for the underststement of the year. Fires are often (but not always) fatal also, so maybe we should make fire resistant suits and fire systems optional to.

 

It's a serious consideration. There are a lot of fatal accident modes that don't have anything to do with basilar skull fractures, and we're not spending $800/possible injury for all of them, just this one. Why the difference?

 

And to your point about fires, fire suppression systems are NOT mandatory and I suspect that fires occur more often than basilar skull fractures in amateur racing. So you've gotten right to my point: Is that $800 better spent on mandating fire suppression?

 

If you can't see that it's a serious discussion then have the decency to not belittle it. Safety, safety equipment, and the limited budgets that racers have to work with mean that, IMHO, we should put some serious thought into this stuff instead of jumping on a bandwagon without thinking it through. I suspect that the delays are because the NASA rule makers are continuing to think it through, and that's the exact right thing for them to do. As racers we should, too.

 

Again this ridiculous attempt to make a distinction between “professionalâ€

[HBennett]

The physics aren't different, clearly, but the budgets, and often the average speeds, are usually quite different. This means that in practice there is a significant distinction between professional and amateur racing.

 

No, not really (budgets, yes). They are prepared better but it is still how fast you stop.

 

Leggwork, thanks for the link. Info varies over time and have to be re-read to come back to date.

 

Howard

[APKhaos]

Most people have seen the Speed channel video clip of Johnnie Hand's horrific multiple endo at Mid Ohio earlier this year.

 

Can one of the 'amateur racing is different' crowd explain to us how this accident could not have happened to ANY amateur racer running on the MO track after the repave but before the berm was fixed??

 

Anyone, racer or HPDE guy, could have found themselves in the same situation. All it took was something to put you four wheels off down the back straight, and bingo!

 

As you are flipping, repeat "This can not happen to an amateur racer".

[XAIX]

Tiger Racing / C.

 

I visited the Tiger Racing booth at the SEMA show I believe in 2003 and was impressed with the workmanship/quality of the car, the young lady who (I assume it was you I spoke to) was to drive it and all of the people I talked to.

 

Now back to the issue at hand. I was in fact trying to control myself…but since you brought it up…sorry I don’t make any distinctions between men and women in this case… I don’t care one bit about sparing someone’s feelings and even less about how you may feel I am “educatingâ€

[Eric J.]

The physics aren't different, clearly, but the budgets, and often the average speeds, are usually quite different. This means that in practice there is a significant distinction between professional and amateur racing.

 

No, not really (budgets, yes). They are prepared better but it is still how fast you stop.

 

Yeah, you can break your head falling off a bicycle, my point is really the budget issue. The significant cost of many of the H&N restraints (particularly the HANS, which arguably appears to be the top choice), is a big deal to many (if not most) amateur racers. My concern is just that with the limited safety dollars to spend, is this big chunk being spent on the right thing?

 

It's quite clear that the HANS, and hopefully the other H&N restraints that get approved, is effective in preventing basilar skull fractures. I wish we had statistics available for how often basilar skull fractures have occurred in amateur racing, especially compared to other fatal injury modes. Without that sort of data it'll probably boil down to a judgement call on the part of the rule makers.

[XAIX]

SHOboy

 

OK so money is your primary concern and you don’t think people should be spending money to prevent basilar skull fractures. Please list in order of your perceived importance other types of injuries you think someone could better spend their money on. The injuries can be fatal or non-fatal as you stated…

 

“My thought has been whether spending the same money on more common, but less threatening injuries or incidents makes more sense.â€

[white_2kgt]

SHOboy

 

OK so money is your primary concern and you don’t think people should be spending money to prevent basilar skull fractures. Please list in order of your perceived importance other types of injuries you think someone could better spend their money on. The injuries can be fatal or non-fatal as you stated…

 

“My thought has been whether spending the same money on more common, but less threatening injuries or incidents makes more sense.â€

[Shawn M.]

Im wondering, if by chance NASA mandated that the Hans device be made mandatory as of today.....

 

how many drivers currently have a Hans device and could make the race if it were this weekend?

[zuperdave]

Im wondering, if by chance NASA mandated that the Hans device be made mandatory as of today.....

 

how many drivers currently have a Hans device and could make the race if it were this weekend?

I'm surprised at the number of responses from people who have Isaac devices.

[Tiger Racing]

I visited the Tiger Racing booth at the SEMA show I believe in 2003 and was impressed with the workmanship/quality of the car, the young lady who (I assume it was you I spoke to) was to drive it and all of the people I talked to.

Tiger Racing has never had its own booth at SEMA, but we've had cars there every year for about the last 5 or 6. I bet you saw my Mustang in Vortech's booth. Thank you for the compliments on the car and (probably) on me. That was a particularly exciting year for me as we were just completing the build on my Mustang and I could hardly wait to start driving a "real race car".

 

I don’t care one bit about sparing someone’s feelings and even less about how you may feel I am “educatingâ€

[Tiger Racing]

There are a lot of fatal accident modes that don't have anything to do with basilar skull fractures, and we're not spending $800/possible injury for all of them, just this one. Why the difference?

Don't be silly. Plenty of money is spent on other safety equipment. The cage in my car cost thousands of dollars and can't imagine bitching about a single penny. This is my health and life we're talking about. I'm willing to take some risks, but I'm not an idiot about it.

 

And to your point about fires, fire suppression systems are NOT mandatory and I suspect that fires occur more often than basilar skull fractures in amateur racing. So you've gotten right to my point: Is that $800 better spent on mandating fire suppression?

This isn't an either/or situation. You shouldn't be picking and choosing which forms of safety equipment you're going to try. If you can't afford a "safe" car as defined by rational, experienced racers, then you shouldn't be playing this game.

 

Safety, safety equipment, and the limited budgets that racers have to work with mean that, IMHO, we should put some serious thought into this stuff instead of jumping on a bandwagon without thinking it through.

If you have such a limited budget, then you should limit the go fast bits, not the safety bits you put on your car.

 

The physics aren't different, clearly, but the budgets, and often the average speeds, are usually quite different. This means that in practice there is a significant distinction between professional and amateur racing.emphasis added

 

People break their necks in street car crashes all the time. I'm astonished that you think you can make any kind of reasonable argument about amateur racing not being fast enough to bother worrying with some proven forms of safety equipment. What classes of racing do you really think go slow enough to dismiss head and neck restraints? How flimsy a cage are you OK with? How old a helmet? Any need for six-point harnesses or are they a waste of money too?

 

C.

[Eric J.]

There are a lot of fatal accident modes that don't have anything to do with basilar skull fractures, and we're not spending $800/possible injury for all of them, just this one. Why the difference?

Don't be silly. Plenty of money is spent on other safety equipment. The cage in my car cost thousands of dollars and can't imagine bitching about a single penny. This is my health and life we're talking about. I'm willing to take some risks, but I'm not an idiot about it.

 

You've missed the point. A cage, good seat, harness, window net, etc., prevent numerous common injuries that are arguably much more frequent when not used than when present. I don't think there's much argument there. Since the money spent for those goes a long way toward preventing many possible injuries it's well spent.

 

An H&N, on the other hand, is a LOT of money to prevent only one type of infrequent injury. How infrequent? That's what I'd like to know. Nobody seems to have any data on how often basilar skull fractures happen in amateur racing. Nobody seems to have much data on how often fires happen, either, but I suspect it's more often than basilar skull fractures. Without hard data it's just handwaving from here, and my concern is that there's a bandwagon of handwaving for H&Ns that seems to have a lot of people on it. It's a real question as to whether it's the right thing to do, but very few people seem to want to come off the bandwagon and have the discussion.

 

If you have such a limited budget, then you should limit the go fast bits, not the safety bits you put on your car.

 

Personally I can afford a HANS and I can afford to make my car go a lot faster than it does. My personal choices here are, IMHO, irrelevant to whether mandating an H&N is good for the sport. I don't want to see people have to spend a major part of their budget on an H&N device if there are more common injuries/failures that aren't being addressed as a result. A fire suppression system is just an example, and I'm wondering whether there aren't other areas that should be addressed, too.

 

I've not heard of anyone dying from a basilar skull fracture in amateur racing, although I'm sure it's probably happened. I have heard, however, of people burning and suffering other problems, which may not yet be being adequately addressed. Hooray for the addition of sprint nets to the new rules, I think that's a step in the right direction.

 

People break their necks in street car crashes all the time. I'm astonished that you think you can make any kind of reasonable argument about amateur racing not being fast enough to bother worrying with some proven forms of safety equipment. What classes of racing do you really think go slow enough to dismiss head and neck restraints? How flimsy a cage are you OK with? How old a helmet? Any need for six-point harnesses or are they a waste of money too?

 

Again, you're missing the point. Without statistics or some sort of hard data on how often BSF injuries happen in amateur motorsports, it's a judgement call as to whether that's the best place to ask people to spend a lot of money. Do _you_ know how often BSF injuries have happened in amateur motorsports? There've been some famous cases in the pros, clearly, but if there's data that's relevant to amateur classes nobody seems to be sharing it. I suspect it doesn't exist.

 

I'm all for preventing any kind of injury that can be reasonably prevented, but ignoring the fact that it takes pulling money out of participants pockets to fund this stuff isn't going to result in good policy or rulemaking. If H&Ns cost a lot less or if everyone just raised their hand and said they'd buy one regardless it'd be a non-issue. That's not what I've been hearing or seeing in the various forums, though: a lot of people are expressing concern about the high cost and what they'll have to cut from their budget to get one. There are often unintended consequences to this sort of thing, and I'm greatly concerned that the bandwagon mentality may be closing the doors to even having a rational discussion about it. That seems to be evident even in this thread.

 

What exactly is wrong with having a rational, fact-based discussion about whether an H&N is the next best step in user-funded safety equipment?

[D Algozine]

A few relevant facts:

 

1) Front end collisions have resulted in neck injuries and deaths in both amateur and pro racing

 

2) A good Head and neck restraint device will help to prevent both injuries and deaths

 

3) The main reason many sanctioning bodies are, or will be mantating H&N devices is because Dale Earnheart died because of the result of a basal skull fracture.

 

Fact number 3 does not change 1 or 2, but it does make them more prominent. Had he died as a result of a fire we would be looking at installing some very comprhensive fire systems.

 

 

A couple questions:

If the CCR's can strongly recommend several safety measures/devices, why can't it mandate a H&N device and strongly recommend that it be an SFI 38.1 approved device? (example, fire systems, fuel cells, dash bars, rear diaginal bars, head restraint (see below), and currently the use of H&N restraint device, are all recommended, but not mandated)

 

"15.6.21 Head Restraint

A head restraint must be used to help prevent whiplash. The head restraint should have

a minimum area of thirty-six (36) square inches and be padded with a non-resilient

material such as Ethafoam or Ensolite with a minimum thickness of one (1) inch. It is

recommended that padding meeting SFI specification 45.2 be used."

 

My point, there is a history of "storngly recommending" certain safety guide lines, why can't a driver choose what's best for the individual? There are other very good H&N restraint devices that will not meet SFI 38.1, because the rule was written to meet the HANS guidelines, instead of the other way around.

There appears to be way too much politics involved in these guidelines and it stems from NASCAR, the most political sactioning body ever.

[HBennett]

It is currently estimated there are about 22 racing deaths in a year from all forms of auto racing in the U.S. that are attributed to BSF, probably more. No, there are no hard figures available just as there is no proof those heads, intake or new stickier tires are going to get you around that other racer that always beats you. What a lot of people don't understand is that in every collision, there is the chance of additional injuries from the whipping motion of the unrestrained head. There is an immense amount of pressure put on the head and neck. To ignore it or pass it off because there are no hard and fast statistics is to ignore the possible consequences.

 

H&N restraints is something everyone should seriously consider, either on your own or if your sanctioning body requires it. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a HANS Device, ISAAC, SRS-1 or anything, but get something.

 

By the way, I'm sure the conspiracy advocates will whole heartedly cry foul, but HANS had nothing to do with the writing of the SFI-38.1 spec. I'm sure SFI wanted everything to meet the performance of the HANS Device but HANS had no input to the spec.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

[Jeff F]

Hooray for the addition of sprint nets to the new rules, I think that's a step in the right direction.

I find this statement a bit hypocritical.

 

I understand the overall point that you are trying to make-- which is that there is a limit to everything, including your budget and the steps taken towards safety. There isn't a racecar out there that couldn't be made safer in some manner or another, and it makes sense that each sanctioning body and individual racer uses the resources available to get the best bang for the buck-- so if you can't do everything, make sure that you are concentrating on the items that have the worst combination of likelyhood of occurance, consequence if it does, and ability to prevent it (from a technology and cost standpoint).

 

That said, why do you think that requiring sprint nets is such a great idea? You are asking for all of this data about the likelyhood of a BSF, where is the data that says a sprint net is going to save lives or prevent injuries? Just because the cost is much less than a H&N doesn't mean it doesn't deserve the same scrutiny.

[Red Tornado]

So what is the final 2007 decision??