HANS devices mandatory?

[Bruce L.]

So what is the final 2007 decision??

 

have you read the CCR? The changes are highlighted.

(teach a man to fish and all that ...)

Edited December 14, 2006 by Guest

[Bruce L.]

so Dr. Hubbard, who worked with Downing on the development of the Hans, had no input to the SFI 38.1 spec?

(this is not a slam against Dr. Hubbard, or hans for that matter, at all)

bruce

 

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

[XAIX]

You know…this would almost be funny if it wasn’t so sad. I have never seen a product take so much crap for being better than it’s competitors for its intended use…in this case helping to prevent brain damage, paralysis and saving lives. Well…actually I have but that’s a whole nother story.

[Eric J.]

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.

 

...

 

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.

 

Watch the 2005 SCCA safety video. There's a lot of discussion about sprint nets and what they do for head and neck protection in lateral impact. It's a lot of protection for a small investment for accident modes that aren't already well treated. In other words, it goes a long way toward plugging an existing gap in injury coverage, and it does it for a relatively small investment. That's the sort of thing I think we should be doing, and I'm glad it's happening.

 

Also, I obtained a paper from a recent SAE conference that has some pertinent opinions. The paper is "Comparative Performance of Racing Head and Neck Restraints", Gregg S. Baker, General Technical Properties LLC, SAE Technical Paper Series 2006-01-3631. The author gathered a quantity of test data from various sources and compared a number of metrics for various H&N restraints, including rotating moments, shear, and axial loading of the neck.

 

In the discussion section he notes:

 

"The loss of the shoulder belt opposite the impact, while not a factor when full-containment seats are in use, has serious safety implications in more casual racing and driving environments. Unless the design can hold the belt in place one can expect belt-related injuries as head and neck restraints find their way into more amateur racing organizations where sophisticated seat systems are less common."

 

And from the conclusion:

 

"While readers can draw various conclusions from the information presented, it is apparent that beyond the upper neck tension measure (Fz), long the dominant performance indicator, there are opportunities to elevate the quality of evaluation by incorporating other measures of head and neck restrain performance. Broader evaluation measures take on increased significance in more casual racing and driving environments where participants do not use sophisticated seat systems."

 

It sounds to me like he's saying that use of belt-restrained H&N systems in amateur racing needs a harder look because the type of seats used generally differs from those found in professional racing, and that the data seems to show that some belt-related injuries may be increased by the H&N in those cases.

 

This is just one paper, I don't know how well it was received, but from my reading it looks reasonable. I'm not at all convinced that H&Ns are ready for mandate in amateur racing which I think is arguably different from professional use as mentioned above, and it sounds like I'm not the only one. I'm not personally certain of how sophisticated of a seat one needs to avoid the stated issue, as I'd previously thought that the belt guides in most FIA certed seats were adequate.

[white_2kgt]

What happens to a HANS or whatever AFTER an accident? Say you flip the car, does NASA take your HANS and cut it in 1/2 like they do your belts? Can it be reused or do you have to get it re-certified? (how much$$$?) or do you have to buy another one? I can afford to keep a 2nd set of belts in the trailer, but not another HANS.

[D Algozine]

You know…this would almost be funny if it wasn’t so sad. I have never seen a product take so much crap for being better than it’s competitors for its intended use…in this case helping to prevent brain damage, paralysis and saving lives. Well…actually I have but that’s a whole nother story.

 

I assume that when you say product, you're refering to the HANS. Which then leads me to think that your view may be the prevailing attitude. If that is not what you meant, then eveything you read after this, does not apply, but it is good information.

 

Substitue the word "popular", or "well know", where you have the word "better". Then it's a true statement. I am not knocking the HANS, but don't say it's better, because, it's not better. Read this thread from the beginnig and then read all 15 pages of this thread http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=5791

 

Then read the data on the website listed below. Then click on the images at the bottom and watch the video.

http://www.isaacdirect.com/index.html

 

If your still scratching your head get the report from SAE.

 

I'm not going to say one is better than the other, but I know which one I'm going to use, until I'm made to use 38.1 approved one.

 

I don't think there is a good argument for not using a quality, proven H&N device, but there are others then the HANS, and there is evidence that they may be better. The reasons have been discussed in all of the information I listed above. I suggest everyone read it. Hopefully we will be able to choose what we, as drivers, feel is safest for us.

[XAIX]

Hey Dave,

 

I don’t know whether to shoot you or thank you. After reading all 15 mind numbing pages and going to the attached web site and watching the video I have come to these conclusions…

 

The requirement for a single release point device is a valid requirement and should be retained.

 

The fact that the ISAAC design doesn’t meet the single release requirement has more to do with their lack of ingenuity and less to do with the tin-hat brigade’s conspiracy theories.

 

What the hell relevancy did the crash video have to do with anything as the amount of slack in the safety harnesses rendered the results useless?

 

In reality ALL of the designs I have seen are nothing more than poorly conceived band aide fixes with inherent design flaws.

 

For GT cars a much better concept that would meet the single release requirement, exceed all other SFI 38.1 performance requirements and allow you to rotate your head would be…never mind.

 

You are going to have to use a SFI 38.1 certified H&NR device so all this

whining…er…discussion is probably useless…but somewhat entertaining.

 

Too much talk about feelings…not enough thinking.

 

SHOboy’s inane babblings can get extremely boring. Pull cord…SFI 38.1 is bad…pull cord…SFI 38.1 is bad…pull cord…SFI 38.1 is bad…flip switch…pull cord…professional and amateur racing is different…pull cord…professional and amateur racing is different…pull cord…professional and amateur racing is different……………………………..

[IkeF]

As long as a driver can exit the car within the required time limit, why do they insist on ONE release point. One of the design goals of the ISAAC was to leave the device behind when exiting because it's one less thing to get caught as you're trying to exit a car quickly. It's not a matter of lack of ingenuity, simply a matter of prioritizing design constraints.

 

Also, on the video, don't be so quick to assume that the belts are loose. I have a feeling that they look loose simply because of the forces involved. I highly doubt that sanctioning bodies would let them get away with rigging their tests to skew results.

[gbaker]

...What the hell relevancy did the crash video have to do with anything as the amount of slack in the safety harnesses rendered the results useless?

Spoken like someone who has never witnessed a crash test.

 

Too much talk about feelings…not enough thinking

Agreed.

 

It has been demonstrated repeatedly that SFI designs are inferior to ISAAC systems--in theory, in the lab and on track. If sanctioning bodies think about this they will realize that denying a driver the use of an ISAAC system will get them sued into the next dimension. This is why the SCCA rejected 38.1.

 

Think amateur and pro drivers have the same safety environment? Let's take a survey: Everyone on this board who has a $5,000+ seat, raise your hand. Thought so....

[sharkd]

What happens to a HANS or whatever AFTER an accident? Say you flip the car, does NASA take your HANS and cut it in 1/2 like they do your belts? Can it be reused or do you have to get it re-certified? (how much$$$?) or do you have to buy another one? I can afford to keep a 2nd set of belts in the trailer, but not another HANS.

 

Generally speaking, like helmets, a HANS can be returned to the manufacturer to be tested and re-certified after an accident, IIRC. That, and you'll get a T-Shirt from HANS ("I totaled my race car and all I got was this fabulous T-shirt")

[XAIX]

I may not have been at a crash test in person but I have watched enough crash test videos and read reports, been personally involved with testing in other industries (in the Semiconductor industry I would have been laughed at had I provided such a non-representative test of real word application) and was actually the crash dummy in a couple of my own crashes. One nose first into the outside embankment of turn 2 at Sears point. I can tell you that there is no way my Safety Harness allowed my torso as much forward/lateral movement as your video. If it had most of my teeth, many facial bones and copious quantities of blood would have been splattered all over the steering wheel and dash. After the crash my harness was just as tight as before the crash which could not be said for the front end of my car (Swift DB-2). I reviewed the video and stand by my statement that the test is not representative of any racing situation I have ever witnessed. The “seatâ€

[FBody383]

If sanctioning bodies think about this they will realize that denying a driver the use of an ISAAC system will get them sued into the next dimension.

 

Interesting product marketing...

[gbaker]

I may not have been at a crash test in person but I have watched enough crash test videos and read reports, been personally involved with testing in other industries (in the Semiconductor industry I would have been laughed at had I provided such a non-representative test of real word application)

Great. Tell it to SFI. It's their protocol.

 

I can tell you that there is no way my Safety Harness allowed my torso as much forward/lateral movement as your video.

Then you didn't hit at 68Gs.

 

I reviewed the video and stand by my statement that the test is not representative of any racing situation I have ever witnessed. The “seatâ€

[gbaker]

If sanctioning bodies think about this they will realize that denying a driver the use of an ISAAC system will get them sued into the next dimension.

 

Interesting product marketing...

It's just common sense. That's why SCCA and PCA have recently tossed the SFI spec. We never made a phone call.

[white_2kgt]

What happens to a HANS or whatever AFTER an accident? Say you flip the car, does NASA take your HANS and cut it in 1/2 like they do your belts? Can it be reused or do you have to get it re-certified? (how much$$$?) or do you have to buy another one? I can afford to keep a 2nd set of belts in the trailer, but not another HANS.

 

Generally speaking, like helmets, a HANS can be returned to the manufacturer to be tested and re-certified after an accident, IIRC. That, and you'll get a T-Shirt from HANS ("I totaled my race car and all I got was this fabulous T-shirt")

 

So basically, if you wreck on Saturday you are done. I doubt many people are going to carry around a spare HANS. Personally, I have spare helmets and belts (which must be replaced after an accident) no way I could also carry a HANS, just another reason why they shouldn't be required.

[benny]

How bad of a product do you need to have, when your main argument to sale that product is treating of law sue.

 

Remind me to never buy an ISAAC, looks like a Co. run by laywers.

 

Benny

[gbaker]

...argument to sale that product is treating of law sue.

 

Benny

Too much egg nog, Benny.

 

Have a good weekend.

[IkeF]

What happens to a HANS or whatever AFTER an accident? Say you flip the car, does NASA take your HANS and cut it in 1/2 like they do your belts? Can it be reused or do you have to get it re-certified? (how much$$$?) or do you have to buy another one? I can afford to keep a 2nd set of belts in the trailer, but not another HANS.

 

Generally speaking, like helmets, a HANS can be returned to the manufacturer to be tested and re-certified after an accident, IIRC. That, and you'll get a T-Shirt from HANS ("I totaled my race car and all I got was this fabulous T-shirt")

 

So basically, if you wreck on Saturday you are done. I doubt many people are going to carry around a spare HANS. Personally, I have spare helmets and belts (which must be replaced after an accident) no way I could also carry a HANS, just another reason why they shouldn't be required.

 

I'd say if you wreck hard enough to put your safety equipment in jeopardy, your CAR is going to be in no condtion to race by Sunday.

[white_2kgt]

What happens to a HANS or whatever AFTER an accident? Say you flip the car, does NASA take your HANS and cut it in 1/2 like they do your belts? Can it be reused or do you have to get it re-certified? (how much$$$?) or do you have to buy another one? I can afford to keep a 2nd set of belts in the trailer, but not another HANS.

 

Generally speaking, like helmets, a HANS can be returned to the manufacturer to be tested and re-certified after an accident, IIRC. That, and you'll get a T-Shirt from HANS ("I totaled my race car and all I got was this fabulous T-shirt")

 

So basically, if you wreck on Saturday you are done. I doubt many people are going to carry around a spare HANS. Personally, I have spare helmets and belts (which must be replaced after an accident) no way I could also carry a HANS, just another reason why they shouldn't be required.

 

I'd say if you wreck hard enough to put your safety equipment in jeopardy, your CAR is going to be in no condtion to race by Sunday.

 

hahaha, in any crash you get your belts cut.

[Jeff F]

hahaha, in any crash you get your belts cut.

hahaha, there is more world out there than just your little corner of it. I've seen numerous track crashes at NASA events where the belts were not cut.

[XAIX]

Look Gregg,

 

I don’t care how you want to try to spin this. The test setup is wrong. The most obvious problem is that the lateral bar behind the driver/dummy where the shoulder harness is attached is way too high in relation to the driver’s/dummy’s shoulders. This is what is allowing the torso to move so far forward and is a contributing factor in the HANS Device slipping from under the shoulder harness. I don’t believe this placement of the lateral bar would pass most tech inspections. I don’t give a sh$% if it was 68Gs. If it is a good harness and attached properly it would have to be made of rubber to stretch enough (the harness is not stretching in the video) to allow as much forward motion as in your video. Now I’m sure you are a sharp guy and this did not escape your notice…but hey…alls fair in love, war and marketing.

 

Your right on one point…if this is the type of tests that are used by any testing group we are all in trouble.

 

And again you are being disingenuous in your statement regarding the $30,000 Hendricks seat. You can spend much less to get a seat that will stop lateral movement of the torso and in so doing complement the effectiveness of any brand of H&NR system.

 

You know…you have a relatively good product but in your zeal to promote it you are not doing your company any service.

[XAIX]

Hey Gregg, take a look at the “HANS Compatible Seatâ€

[Bruce L.]

the way I have heard it described is that the technicians at Delphi fuss with the setup for an hour to get the belts just right, etc. IIRC, the SFI spec says the device is to be belted in as per the manufacturer's instructions (which includes the angle of the belts back to the harness bar). These guys run testing for the automobile industry in general and are "professionals". How come Hans doesn't show any test videos that refute these results? That would be good "marketing".

cheers,

bruce

 

Look Gregg,

 

I don’t care how you want to try to spin this. The test setup is wrong. The most obvious problem is that the lateral bar behind the driver/dummy where the shoulder harness is attached is way too high in relation to the driver’s/dummy’s shoulders. This is what is allowing the torso to move so far forward and is a contributing factor in the HANS Device slipping from under the shoulder harness. I don’t believe this placement of the lateral bar would pass most tech inspections. I don’t give a sh$% if it was 68Gs. If it is a good harness and attached properly it would have to be made of rubber to stretch enough (the harness is not stretching in the video) to allow as much forward motion as in your video. Now I’m sure you are a sharp guy and this did not escape your notice…but hey…alls fair in love, war and marketing.

 

Your right on one point…if this is the type of tests that are used by any testing group we are all in trouble.

 

And again you are being disingenuous in your statement regarding the $30,000 Hendricks seat. You can spend much less to get a seat that will stop lateral movement of the torso and in so doing complement the effectiveness of any brand of H&NR system.

 

You know…you have a relatively good product but in your zeal to promote it you are not doing your company any service.

[gbaker]

Hey Gregg, take a look at the “HANS Compatible Seatâ€

[IkeF]

I don't think you understand Gregg, he watched the video, therefore, he knows!