HANS devices mandatory?

[benny]

Why do you pick on NASA?

I also race in Europe, and nothing but HANS.

Just to let you know SCCA pro racing HANS, grand-Am HANS, NASCAR HANS...etc…

Don't you get the point? There is SFI and FIA approved, if you want to be in Biz just apply by the rule.

Oh sorry ! your rules are better so you don't care about the rest of the world.

You are like the guy that wants to play poker and then complain because people are bluffing. If you don't agree with the game, don't play it !

They is a lot of thing, that I do like the world, but I don't treat people of law sue.

Merry Christmas...

 

 

Oh shit, I should have said Happy Holidays, because you may sue me for that !

[bmw22]

Benny

 

You need to stop talking now. Nobody is picking on NASA. You have no idea or understanding of what is being talked about here. Gregg is exactly correct about the legal issues involved with this. NASA and other racing clubs are acting so slow on this because they do not want to leave themselves open to lawsuits. This isn't my opinion, I have spoken with leadership in two different race organizations and that's what they have told me.

 

"I also race in Europe, and nothing but HANS.

Just to let you know SCCA pro racing HANS, grand-Am HANS, NASCAR HANS...etc…

Don't you get the point? There is SFI and FIA approved, if you want to be in Biz just apply by the rule."

 

Using that logic, doctor's would still treat headaches with cocaine.

[Mike Hurst]

Gregg, I know you don't want to re-visit this, but on Nov 7, 2005, we had this conversation:

 

The offset load is not a combined 68G frontal impact and an additional side impact, It's a 68G impact at a 30degree angle, right?

Right.

 

Whether the tension and shear loads were greater or less in the offset impact are determined by the design of the device, not the laws of physics.

All loads are determined by the laws of physics. The greater the offset the higher the loads, for any design.

 

 

You claimed that you didn't need to test the Isaac device in a frontal impact because "the greater the offset, the higher the loads, for any design".

 

The data for the leatt brace, from their 38.1 tests at Delphi, show frontal neck tension higher than offset neck tension, http://leatt-brace.com/r_testing.asp

 

can you explain?..bad Data?

[bryancohn]

FYI, at the PRI show Cool Shirt introduced their pull release connectors that meet SFI and FIA certification. They release WITHOUT any manual manipulation, thereby meeting single point release. The FIA required this for approval, thereby allowing the manufacturer to sell them worldwide.

 

We've all seen radio cables that stick but they don't have to be that way. Mine would always "pop" oiut when/if I forgot to unplug myself, which was quite often!

 

I'm just relaying new info and nothing more.

[benny]

Mark I see that a director for GTS, I'm glad that I do not race in your region.

I dare you to make decision base on your own personal conclusion or your friend conclusion and personal testing.

You are putting racers live in DANGER!

There are independent testing done by SFI and FIA.

I'm not promoting HANS, I just was what independent testing and SFI center or FIA approved. Until that organization approved ISAAC, ISAAC should not be in the market.

By the way Mark, unless you forgot this is a free country that include freedom of speech. Thus allowing you to make of all those bad comments.

Benny

[gbaker]

FYI, at the PRI show Cool Shirt introduced their pull release connectors that meet SFI and FIA certification. They release WITHOUT any manual manipulation, thereby meeting single point release. The FIA required this for approval, thereby allowing the manufacturer to sell them worldwide.

 

We've all seen radio cables that stick but they don't have to be that way. Mine would always "pop" oiut when/if I forgot to unplug myself, which was quite often!

 

I'm just relaying new info and nothing more.

We'd have the same set up if we wanted everything to pop out with a 20# pull. Unfortunately, we a taking over 1/2 ton off the head, so we don't want anything poppin' anywhere.

[bmw22]

Mark I see that a director for GTS, I'm glad that I do not race in your region.

Why??? Do you know anything about me?

 

I dare you to make decision base on your own personal conclusion or your friend conclusion and personal testing.

You are putting racers live in DANGER!

There are independent testing done by SFI and FIA.

I'm not promoting HANS, I just was what independent testing and SFI center or FIA approved. Until that organization approved ISAAC, ISAAC should not be in the market.

By the way Mark, unless you forgot this is a free country that include freedom of speech. Thus allowing you to make of all those bad comments.

Benny

 

I haven't endorsed any H&N device. If you look elsewhere on this forum, you'll find that I have organized a group buy for the HANS device. And if the Isaac get's approved I'll work with Gregg to get a group buy for it.

 

It was your degrading and insulting remarks to Gregg that sparked my reply in the first place. You have no business telling Gregg that we all think he is "out of his mind".

 

By the way Benny, just as speech is free in this country, so is the market.

[gbaker]

You claimed that you didn't need to test the Isaac device in a frontal impact because "the greater the offset, the higher the loads, for any design".

 

The data for the leatt brace, from their 38.1 tests at Delphi, show frontal neck tension higher than offset neck tension, http://leatt-brace.com/r_testing.asp

 

can you explain?..bad Data?

I spoke with Grant Nelson, head of R&D for Leatt, about this and he noted that his product is thicker off to the side that it is directly to the front. Because it works by acting as a spacer these results would be expected, but only for that design.

 

An Isaac system does not act as a spacer. It reduces relative head velocity by use of a shock.

 

Look Mike, I know you love this subject, but the fact of the matter is that if you run both the zero offset and the 30 degree offset tests fifty times you will get a bell-shaped curve for each, with the zero offset having the lower mean. Hence, it is possible that a statistical overlap could occur that would yield higher loads for the zero offset than the 30 degree offset. Fine; I can go with that.

 

The problem your are having is that you seem to believe the loads would increase by the massive 35% necessary for the Isaac to fail the SFI load spec. Not only is that highly unlikely from a statistical perspective, but the cam lobe mechanics of the occipital condyle joint makes it impossible--well, okay, 99.99999999999999999% impossible. There, happy?

 

Tell you what. You get an Isaac system to flunk any of the recognized tests and we'll pay the lab fee. Until then, please park the subject.

[gbaker]

There are independent testing done by SFI and FIA.

Right, and every time we get HANS in a crash lab we kick their posteriors:

 

http://www.isaacdirect.com/html/OtherPages/TestGraphs.html

[benny]

Oh ! I'm very sorry Gregg; i could not see the SFI sticker on your device!

Sorry about the confusion and the 11 pages posting.

So the entire world is wrong, I apologize for the entire humanity!

Once again you are right, I did notice that all the F1 driver, the most expensive, with no questions ask on how much should we spend in technology,mototsoprts, all are wearing the ISAAC devise.

 

Do you actually think, that if any one though that the ISAAC were better, a 35million dollars per year driver with a 150mil $ insurance policy will be force to were one!

 

And last point, on side impact the bulk of the wait is ion the chest. H&N are not sufficient only a well built seat can hold the body and head.

Oh but I'm sure you do not like that!

here this is the seat I run with 2 nets, one on each side.

 

http://www.racetechseatsna.com/images/promoto/rr.viperside.jpg

 

That is the only true way for side impact, and HANS beeing the best for frontal impact.

Enjoy !

Benny

[gbaker]

Oh ! I'm very sorry Gregg; i could not see the SFI sticker on your device!

We don't want an SFI sticker. Those are the designs that lose belts and trap drivers in burning cars.

 

It would be like putting a Yugo sticker on a Ferrari.

[Mike Hurst]

 

 

Tell you what. You get an Isaac system to flunk any of the recognized tests and we'll pay the lab fee. Until then, please park the subject.

 

 

 

I'm not H&N device manufacturer.

 

You are.

 

Please test your product in a frontal impact.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Guest

[benny]

OH ! Over 85% of death in racing accidents are from H&N injury, so I take my chance with the 85%, not the 0.3% death in Burning !

Benny

[Eric J.]

OH ! Over 85% of death in racing accidents are from H&N injury, so I take my chance with the 85%, not the 0.3% death in Burning !

Benny

 

Can you cite a source for those statistics? Is the data separable for amateur and pro?

[benny]

http://www.fiainstitute.com/

[bmw22]

And last point, on side impact the bulk of the wait is ion the chest. H&N are not sufficient only a well built seat can hold the body and head. Oh but I'm sure you do not like that!

here this is the seat I run with 2 nets, one on each side.

 

http://www.racetechseatsna.com/images/promoto/rr.viperside.jpg

 

That is the only true way for side impact,

 

Really....where are your test lab results to back that up?

[Bruce L.]

sounds like there may be some test results coming. This is a snippet from the FIA institute on the Closed Car Research Group. I couldn't find anything that says that 85% of racing deaths are from H&N injury, though.

 

Recent projects include dynamic tests of seat, seat back support and lateral restraints. Results of these will lead to the creation of a new Competition Seat Standard.

 

Closed Car Occupant Safety

The FIA Institute is working to improve the safety of rally car crews and through new research conducted at the Delphi Laboratory in the United States, is evaluating a number of measures including neck and head restraints, the optimisation of seats, harnesses and the general safety of the cockpit environment.

[IkeF]

Benny,

Will you take a minute to LOOK at the latest test results! Gregg does this for a living! Sure, you could say he's got a motive behind his words, but numbers don't lie! It's preposterous to believe that HANS is the only way to go, simply because that's the current standard.

[XAIX]

Sheeeese, I take a break for a couple of days and this thread looks like a NY Nicks Denver Nuggets game.

 

As I said posting on a forum is not the same as talking directly to someone or meeting them in person. I have spoken on the phone to Gregg a couple of times and reviewed information and here are some the thoughts I have come away with.

 

The Isaac system appears by the test results to have superior performance to the HANS system in almost all situations.

 

The single point release requirement can almost be achieved with the Isaac by using the optional “pull typeâ€

[HBennett]

I'm sorry but the reason the ISAAC Device is not SFI certified is not only because of the lack of a single point of release. This issue has gotten clouded over several forums. The ISAAC Device attaches to the harnesses which are attached to the car. It probably performs very well as a lot of people believe in it. Great.

 

I'm not going to get into a performance arguement with a bunch of real or wannabe engineers as I am a salesman, not an engineer. We have not published 30 degree offset or side impact numbers. Not because the HANS Device doesn't perform well in these areas but because it is not a part of SFI. From my understanding of the SFI certification, 2-3 frontal impacts are required with a single 30 degree offset test. The 30 degree offset test is there to make sure the manufacturer is not doing something funny to achieve their frontal impact performance. We also do not publish test video's on our website comparing impacts with different devices with them being obviously different.

 

When it comes right down to it. Use whichever device you trust and feel comfortable with, but use something. I believe the benefits of a H&N restraint have been proven. If you purchase something that is not SFI certified and your sanctioning body requires it, then you have another decision to make. I don't agree the SFI or FIA is the puppet of the manufacturers (no, HANS did not write the SFI specification as some people want to believe, there is no HANS mafia). I believe these organizations provide a valuable service to the racers. You do not have to rely on manufacturers providing whatever test results in whatever format they want to cloud true performance. The manufacturers test results are verified to a single standard. Is SFI or FIA the greatest organizations on the face of the earth? I don't know but I trust them. I trusted them, along with Snell, before I joined HANS. Who do you put more trust in? An organization that have verified performance standards that covers just about every aspect of racing safety or a bunch of manufacturers reporting however they want just to sell you something.

 

I'm passionate about this and I'll stand by the fact the HANS Device is the only device certified not only by SFI but also FIA. The current product is the result of over 25 years of research, development and tests by us and independant organizations. There are over 35,000 users worldwide. It is the only device allowed in NASCAR, ALMS, F1 and others. No other device, none, can make those claims.

 

Is it the best performing device on the market. I believe it is but until everyone starts reporting numbers based on the same criteria, we may never know.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

Edited December 21, 2006 by Guest

[gbaker]

50% of racing fatalities result from head and neck injuries, according to an article published by the Charlotte Observer newspaper.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the rate is 85% in Europe. Those rally guys use open-faced helmets and are forced to use a HANS device while going sideways. There is no way that is a safe combination.

[gbaker]

 

 

Tell you what. You get an Isaac system to flunk any of the recognized tests and we'll pay the lab fee. Until then, please park the subject.

 

 

 

I'm not H&N device manufacturer.

 

You are.

 

Please test your product in a frontal impact.

This is the third time I have patiently explained to you how and why everyone close to this subject (except Mike Hurst) knows that, with rare exceptions, offset loads are higher than frontal loads. Why do you think SFI has higher load limits for offset than frontal?

 

There is no rational reason for us to run that test, especially when we know what the results will be.

 

Please don't bring it up again.

[gbaker]

Is it the best performing device on the market. I believe it is but until everyone starts reporting numbers based on the same criteria, we may never know.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

 

See SAE paper 2006-01-3631, which did just that:

 

http://www.sae.org/servlets/productDetail?PROD_TYP=PAPER&PROD_CD=2006-01-3631

 

The summary performance charts are here:

 

http://www.isaacdirect.com/html/OtherPages/TestGraphs.html

[Mike Hurst]

Why do you think SFI has higher load limits for offset than frontal?

 

 

 

That is a lie. I've exposed you before for telling this lie before, and you continue to repeat it.

 

The limits for offset and frontal are both 4,000N.

 

38.1 protocol requires at least 2 frontal tests, and one ofset test.

 

If the first two Frontal tests of the SFI 38.1 protocol are less than 3,200N, (80% of 4,000N), then a 3rd frontal test is not required.

 

Only one offset test is required, and it must be below 4,000N.

 

You'll use non-sense and wierd science, half truths, outright lies, to sell your product, but not a frontal test.

[gbaker]

It is clear that SFI expects lower values in a frontal than an offset--even to the casual observer--which is consistent with peer-reviewed, published test data.