gbaker Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 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. You keep missing the point: This is not our test, and we did not run it. It is the SFI spec 38.1 executed and certified by Delphi Safety Systems Test Center in Vandalia, Ohio. If you paid Delphi to run that test on a HANS device you would get the same results. Your right on one point…if this is the type of tests that are used by any testing group we are all in trouble. We are in agreement. The SFI spec for H&N restraints is lame at best. That's why we don't care about it, along with SCCA, PCA, NASCAR, CART, FIA, IRL... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 I don't think you understand Gregg, he watched the video, therefore, he knows! Oops, I forgot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XAIX Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Ike, “As long as a driver can exit the car within the required time limit, why do they insist on ONE release point.†Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shawn M. Posted December 17, 2006 Members Share Posted December 17, 2006 Because Ike…if the driver happens to be unconscious the marshals have to release his safety harness…and with the Isaac…the release pin on the left side of his helmet…and then try to reach around to the right/blind side of the helmet to get to the second release pin. I know this is a hard concept for someone of your indicated limited capacity to grasp. You know, this thread had been moderately informative, mostly entertaining but I simply cant wrap my head around why you cant just debate the subject without adding some sort of personal attack? All that does is make you present yourself an an old angry knowitall a-hole. Are you? Because if you are then that would be the obvious way to percieve you based solely on your comments and ill leave it at that. Ill respectfully ask you to lay off the personal attacks, they are not warranted nor helpful to your cause. Just because someone does not subscribe to your point of view, does not neccessarily make them wrong. Debates are good and I think you have some valid points, there is just no need to attack everyone who dissagrees with you. EDIT: On a side note, feel free to use the QUOTE tabs so we know what your replying to! Your last reply was rather confusing and im really not as smart as you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkeF Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Ike, “As long as a driver can exit the car within the required time limit, why do they insist on ONE release point.†Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce L. Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 the silly thing about the single point of release rule these days is that some racers have cool suit hoses, helmet air hoses, radio wires, sternum straps, etc that violate the single point rule. Corner workers are trained to cut things that present the slightest impediment to extracting the racer. Cutting the shoulder belts would immediately release the Isaac. cheers, bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Hurst Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 We are in agreement. The SFI spec for H&N restraints is lame at best. That's why we don't care about it, along with SCCA, PCA, NASCAR, CART, FIA, IRL... For guys that don't care about SFI 38.1, why did they show up at the SFI 38.1 meeting on Thursday morning? The SFI spec is considered a starting point by the FIA, CART, IRL, Nascar, who were represented at the meeting. Although they (FIA, CART, nascar) require the Hans, they do not consider spec 38.1 irrelevant, and according to them, they are considering other 38.1 devices, but would not consider apprroving a non-38.1 device. This includes the single point of release requirement, which was discussed and re-confirmed. Mr. Baker, have you tested your (Isaac) device in a straight frontal impact yet? What were the results?...on rennlist you claimed to have tested it: On the 5th page of the rennlist "New H&N design" topic, http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/showthread.php?t=288771&page=5&pp=15 G. baker claims in post #75, regarding the SFI 38.1 sled tests "Passing the test is easy. We did that last year. ..but on Nasioc... On Nasioc forums, "Cusco" topic post #188 http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=935861&page=8, Baker claims this about testing the Isaac in forward tests: "We have not crashed the Isaac system in a head-on sled test. Those are for girly men". SFI 38.1 requires at leat 2 frontal and one offset sled test . These statements contradict each other, which one is correct?...are these the same G. Baker? Are going to threaten to sue me for bringing this up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XAIX Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Shawn, I believe that if you go back you will see that our friend Ike fired the first verbal shot over the bow. I am probably on the down hill side but like to think that I’m not old yet. I certainly don’t know it all and like to think that I’m learning something new everyday. Your going to have to do better than “a-hole†Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric J. Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 These are not personal attacks. This is verbal sparring…sometimes heated. It would be better if it was just an intelligent discussion of the issue, which is a pretty serious subject, IMHO. Drawing it down to "verbal sparring" (even though it's written) detracts from the ability to really exchange useful information. But, hey, it's teh intarweb, anybody with a keyboard can be an expert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XAIX Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 SHOboy, I have read and reread you contributions to this discussion and so far if you condense them down all we get is H&NR Systems are good for professional racers but too expensive and not required for amateur racers. That’s it. I don’t claim to be an expert so perhaps one such as yourself could interject you superior intellect on the technical aspects of H&NR Systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 SHOboy, I don’t claim to be an expert so perhaps one such as yourself could interject you superior intellect on the technical aspects of H&NR Systems. He would probably refer you here: http://www.sae.org/servlets/productDetail?PROD_TYP=PAPER&PROD_CD=2006-01-3631 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XAIX Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Ike, OK..I certainly am not making statements based solely on the video but it is amazing how many questions the video brings to my mind, particularly when combined with the gforce information. Look closely at the video and tell me if you see… The seating position of the dummy on the left is lower than the one on the right. Notice the two holes in the seatback directly above the shoulders. The dummy on the left looks slouched down. This does not give me confidence that the tests are consistent. The adjustment buckles as the crash is in progress. They both start out well down the chest of the dummies and end up well behind the dummies shoulders. The gforce information states that the belts are designed to “stretch 20% yet the length of the belts from the lap to the buckles does not appear to lengthen. If the belts were stretching between the back attachment points and the drivers shoulders then it would seam that the buckles should stay in approximately the same position and that the forward motion would be limited to about 2-3†Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Ike,...In both comments they are talking about limiting the bodies movement. As I said there would be a rash of collapsed chests and faces if upper torsos were allowed to move forward as much as in the video…not to mention lower back injuries. But that's what's happening. There were two presentations at the SAE conference just ten days ago about spinal injuries. So tell me why you think the dummies upper torsos are moving so far forward. Are safety harnesses really that lacking in a 68G offset impact? About 1/4 of that motion is belt stretch. The remainder is the body being jammed into the belts with the chest collapsing. 180# driver hit with 68Gs is getting stuffed into the belts with 6 tons of force, w/ about 40% taken by the shoulders. He's getting flattened like a pancake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XAIX Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Gregg, So what you’re describing here sounds a lot like death. If that’s so what good are H&NR systems in a crash like this and again what relevancy does this test have as you are beyond the limits of the body’s ability to survive with or without a H&NR System of any type? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Gregg, So what you’re describing here sounds a lot like death.... Close, but not quite. You won't like it but you can survive it; you'll wake up in a hospital bed with all your arms and legs broken, but you'll wake up. You are good up to ~150Gs, when your heart will probably tear away from your aorta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 We are in agreement. The SFI spec for H&N restraints is lame at best. That's why we don't care about it, along with SCCA, PCA, NASCAR, CART, FIA, IRL... For guys that don't care about SFI 38.1, why did they show up at the SFI 38.1 meeting on Thursday morning? Because it's the only spec in North America and they were already in town? The SFI spec is considered a starting point by the FIA, CART, IRL, Nascar, who were represented at the meeting. Although they (FIA, CART, nascar) require the Hans, they do not consider spec 38.1 irrelevant, and according to them, they are considering other 38.1 devices, but would not consider approving a non-38.1 device. This includes the single point of release requirement, which was discussed and re-confirmed. Mr. Baker, have you tested your (Isaac) device in a straight frontal impact yet? What were the results?...on rennlist you claimed to have tested it: On the 5th page of the rennlist "New H&N design" topic, http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/showthread.php?t=288771&page=5&pp=15 G. baker claims in post #75, regarding the SFI 38.1 sled tests "Passing the test is easy. We did that last year. ..but on Nasioc... On Nasioc forums, "Cusco" topic post #188 http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=935861&page=8, Baker claims this about testing the Isaac in forward tests: "We have not crashed the Isaac system in a head-on sled test. Those are for girly men". SFI 38.1 requires at leat 2 frontal and one offset sled test . These statements contradict each other, which one is correct?...are these the same G. Baker? We've been over this before, Mike. If you didn't get it then, you won't get it now. Are going to threaten to sue me for bringing this up? No, I'm an engineer. Attorneys handle the litigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Hurst Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 We've been over this before, Mike. If you didn't get it then, you won't get it now. No, I'm an engineer. Attorneys handle the litigation. I "get it" just fine...and good luck sueing me for telling the truth. You have claimed to meet the "performance standards of SFI 38.1" and "passed the test", but by your own admissions, have never tested your device to the SFI 38.1 protocol...which include at least 2 frontal tests. At this point, forget the SFI, judging by what I saw on Thursday, you're never going to get them to change, so invite the representatives from SCCA / NASA / PCA Grassroots motorsports, etc., to a sled test (frontal and offset), and give them something to go on besides your own claims and half truths. I suggest doing this ASAP, before they adopt 38.1, as NHRA and USAC have recently done. There has been enough political resistance inside SCCA and NASA to delay the onset a H&N or SFI 38.1 rule, I see this as an opportunity to get your foot in the door before it closes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric J. Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 For guys that don't care about SFI 38.1, why did they show up at the SFI 38.1 meeting on Thursday morning? Are the proceedings from the latest meetings publically available? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Hurst Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Are the proceedings from the latest meetings publically available? No, but it was pretty much like any internet forum arguement about H&N devices..just in person and 2 hours long. ..and If you happen to be a manufacturer using the SFI license to market your device, you ought be there looking out for your interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 We've been over this before, Mike. If you didn't get it then, you won't get it now. No, I'm an engineer. Attorneys handle the litigation. I "get it" just fine...and good luck sueing me for telling the truth. You have claimed to meet the "performance standards of SFI 38.1" and "passed the test", but by your own admissions, have never tested your device to the SFI 38.1 protocol...which include at least 2 frontal tests. This is the part we are not going to go over again. At this point, forget the SFI, judging by what I saw on Thursday, you're never going to get them to change, so invite the representatives from SCCA / NASA / PCA Grassroots motorsports, etc., to a sled test (frontal and offset), and give them something to go on besides your own claims and half truths. I suggest doing this ASAP, before they adopt 38.1, as NHRA and USAC have recently done. There has been enough political resistance inside SCCA and NASA to delay the onset a H&N or SFI 38.1 rule, I see this as an opportunity to get your foot in the door before it closes. Interesting point, but I don't believe it requires that much effort as most of those bodes want another spec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tornado Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 The bottom line is I have until July to figure this out and let this debate rage before I need to get a hans (or similar device). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 The bottom line is I have until July to figure this out and let this debate rage before I need to get a hans (or similar device). Plenty of time. It gets down to a matter of wording. If NASA wants to mandate a product certified by the manufacturer to meet the SFI performance spec you have a choice of about five manufacturers with prices beginning as low as $295. If they insist on the copyrighted SFI logo sticker (but no SFI certification) you have a choice of two manufacturers with prices beginning at $865. What we find amusing is that mandating SFI 38.1 requires the driver to use a good product, but does not allow them to use a better one. How's that for risk management? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 To Gregg Baker, I never saw any one like in my entire life. I do not know about your product, but i do know that you do not belong in motor sport, please get a job has a lawyer, and you are not able to make one post with treating people of litigation. Who would ever buy an Isaac device, do you send a law sues at the same time when you ship your product!!!!!! I wear a Hans for 5 years and will never wear any thing else, mainly after reading your post, you scare the crap out me and many of my friend’s racers. There are a lot more people reading and talking about this post than you know, but all of them have the same view, that you are out of your mind. For once try to argue and make a point without talking about litigation ! Benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmw22 Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 To Gregg Baker, I never saw any one like in my entire life. I do not know about your product, but i do know that you do not belong in motor sport, please get a job has a lawyer, and you are not able to make one post with treating people of litigation. First of all, Gregg is an assett to motorsports. Too bad some folks don't like an additional point of view. Who would ever buy an Isaac device, do you send a law sues at the same time when you ship your product!!!!!! I know several who have, and one that gave it a pretty damn hard crash test. I wear a Hans for 5 years and will never wear any thing else, mainly after reading your post, you scare the crap out me and many of my friend’s racers. That's your choice. You and your friends are easily frightened. There are a lot more people reading and talking about this post than you know, but all of them have the same view, that you are out of your mind. Please..... don't even think that you are speaking for the rest of us. And your personal attack on Gregg is pointless and has no class. For once try to argue and make a point without talking about litigation !Benny Litigation is very much apart of this whole debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 Benny, I was not clear. My fault. We aren't going to be suing anyone--at least not on this issue. Here's what's going to happen: 1. Isaac user decides he wants to race NASA. 2. NASA takes his Isaac away and sticks him with some SFI gizmo that offers no lateral protection, for example. 3. Driver dies in a side impact. 4. NASA gets sued into sub atomic particles. Simple. We won't lift a finger. 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.