HANS devices mandatory?

[Mike Hurst]

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.

 

 

 

Having 3 tests, but excusing the product from a 3rd test if the results from the first 2 are both better than the limit by a margin of 20% is common in much of the auto and safety industry.

 

The same practice is applied to seat tracks and tailgate latches, and this industry practice is the origin of that condition of the protocol. ..not expectations.

[benny]

Gregg you should spend more time designing and testing your product, than writing on Board.

Howard Bennett is right, all the rest is pointless, there are 2 institutes SFI and FIA just make the change and get approved.

 

Learn how to run a biz and stop bitching and treating people of litigation!

 

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 !

 

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

 

http://www.fiainstitute.com/

 

I couldn't find anything on that site, despite going through several of their white papers, that claims that data. Can you cite specifically a source?

[benny]

I will have to spend time on that. I did my research was 3 1/2 years ago, after a friend died in a racing accident at Buttonwillow.

Benny

[benny]

Shoboy Before you ask, here:

 

REALRIDE

LEARNING FROM TRAGEDY

12/23/2003

 

LEARNING FROM TRAGEDY. By Tim Spencer

 

Thursday October 16th started like any other thursday before a big race weekend. Organising all the team equipment, last minute food purchases, and generally a thrash. Billy (Our driver) flying in from the east coast. We had done all of this before, but there is always something new every race weekend. This time we were to be on a local radio show in Bakersfield friday morning to help promote the RealRide Racing team and some of our dedicated sponsors; Pennyweb, Pyrotect and Day Wireless Systems. Everything got done and we are off to Buttonwillow Raceway Park. The Radio show goes well even though a competing race series has bought time on the radio program and the host won't let us mention our race series, American Stockcar Challenge(ASC). After the radio gig we are off to the track for a half day of testing. Testing goes well and Billy is doing well and posting very competitive times. All looks good for saturday. A good time out with friends of the radio show and then to sleep we go.

 

Saturday starts with practice going well. No problems and Billy looks to be one of the fastest ASC cars in practice. We install a new set of tires for qualifying, but it does not go well. Billy is pushing too hard under braking and is taking turn one way too fast. He never gets a clean lap for qualifying. Billy has to start near the end of the field. The team rallies together and plots a strategy for the whole weekend. Billy will start slowly and keep the car on track conserving his tires and he will see what happens in front of him. Doing this will help conserve the tires so he can be more competitive on sunday when he has better rubber than the rest of the guys. The start of the race goes as planned. Billy is following the plan as we agreed. He has made some changes to his driving line and braking points and is keeping his position. Unfortunately early in the race Billy looses control and goes off the track impacting an earthen berm. The car impacts the berm on the passenger side and comes to rest on top of the berm. The track safety crew starts to work to get him out of the car. We all help to get him to the hospital as fast as possible, but unfortunately he does not survive. The ER doctor describes the injury as a ruptured carotid artery in his neck causing sudden blood loss and death. I still have a hard time understanding how this accident killed a good friend and fellow racer. The part of the track he went off is not a high speed section and he went off the track side ways. After any accident fatal or not we try to analyse what happened. Here are some things we found.

 

After a short bit of research I find that even slow speed accidents at certain angles can be fatal. It turns out that impacts to the passenger side of race cars can cause serious and sometimes fatal injuries to the driver. Most injuries are to the neck and head. The seats in most race cars do not have any side head restraints, so even a small impact can cause the head and neck to be over extended. Alot of work has been done to help with front and rear impacts, but what we needed was something to prevent the type of injuries sustained in a side impact. Seems this should be handled by the seat. Alot of testing and research has been done on seats in race cars after some of the deaths in NASCAR. Most race seats used by racers of all types(pro and amateur) are very similar. Large side bolsters to keep you in the seat and rib or shoulder "wings" to keep you from sliding around under hard cornering forces and a headrest of some type to keep your head from going backwards in a front or rear impact. Nothing on either side of your head. This for many years has been the "standard" in racing seats and is made by many companies out of aluminum, fiberglass, and carbon fiber. I set out to find a better alternative. One that would give the driver a chance in an accident such as Billy's. Several of the stock car seat companies have been testing and building seats with head restaints since Dale Earnhardt's accident. Butler and Richardson have seats available with heavily reinforced headrests/restraints. They supply almost all NASCAR teams with seats and have a alot of experience with NASCAR stock cars. I also contacted Recaro as they have a new line of seats with a large head rest/restaint also. These seats are very new and as of this writing I have not been able to see one in person. Recaro has alot of crash data and has a good reputation in the racing seat business. The seat I finally bought for myself is built by Racetech. The seat was designed and built for the new Dodge Viper competition coupe race car. Daimler-Chrysler commisioned Racetech to build a seat capable of high G impacts that would protect the driver. Racetech and Daimler-Chrysler designed a seat that meets all of my requirements and is reasonably priced considering the other options. The seat has been tested at some of the highest G loads. The minimum requirements for Daimler-Chrysler were well beyond what the FIA requires of seats(the only organization that has specifications for race seats that I know of). It is used in the new Viper race car from the factory. The seat is also available in several sizes to fit nearly anyone, and this has been a problem for me since I am near 300 lbs and 6' tall. It has a wrap around headrest/restraint, extended shoulder restraints, heavily reinforced back brace area, built in bosses for extended passenger side window nets, and bosses for the back brace attachment. It is a side mount seat that can be adjusted for nearly any seating position. It is compact and light weight.

 

Finally I hope that our tragedy will inspire other racers professional or amateur to look at their safety gear. Make sure you have all required items properly installed and then look to some of the new products. Seats are one area I believe everybody needs to improve. Head and neck restraints are items all racers should start using. These items cannot guarrantee that you will not get hurt, but it will improve your odds. It is everyone's responsability to be as safe as possible while on the track, so use this info to make choices in regards to safety.

 

 

RealRide/Pennyweb

 

 

Benny

[Eric J.]

The organizational makeup of SFI is flawed at best. What is needed is n independent non-profit organization with manufactures acting only in advisory position with no voting ability. Racing organizations need to fund this organization with a small percentage of member’s dues. The organization would establish the standards and review manufacturers test data to verify compliance.

 

First, thanks for a post with coherent opinion free from character assassination. That helps a lot.

 

The 2005 SCCA Safety Symposium vid was a bit of an eye opener for me regarding the SFI. I'd heard opinion prior to that raising some questions about them, and their rep at the symposium didn't exactly fill me with confidence. The FIA guys, in comparison, seemed to have a strong logical connection between the test data they used and their standards. That being said, I know others who came to the opposite conclusion from the vid.

 

Having spent a fair amount of my career helping to develop broadly-used technical standards (IEEE 802, 3GPP, Intelsat, et al), I think it would be impractical to implement the solution you suggest of having "neutral" third parties write the spec. I don't know of any successful standard that has been written that way; standards are almost universally written by representatives from organizations with a commercial (or sometimes government) interest in the particular market space. Excluding manufacturers from being able to influence a spec can easily lead to undesirable side effects like competing standards, retardation of development for that product space, or collapse of that market in extreme cases.

 

Standards are a mixed bag. They're generally a design-by-committee approach, but it's what you have to do to get "agreement" (a term used loosely here) to move an industry forward.

 

My point here is just that the existence of a test spec from an entity such as SFI (or even the FIA) shouldn't necessarily be regarded in a "trust the standard/spec" sense, especially, IMHO, with regard to safety devices. When I see guys like Carl Schroth or Dr. Melvin making presentations where they back up their conclusions with useful data and logical rationale it easily holds more weight than "SFI says it therefore we do it". There's been a lot of data thrown around regarding H&N devices and, to me, it doesn't yet look to be quite mature for mandate in amateur racing. The issues regarding egress, seat suitability, visibility restriction, cost, etc., don't seem to be fully addressed quite yet. I suspect that if a mandate happened now it may wind up being changed in a year or two, perhaps radically so, as the technology and research in the area continues to develop.

 

I'd like nothing more than to be wrong about all this and have H&N solutions save everyone from here on, but that doesn't seem to be consistent with the publically available data and concerns I've seen from suppliers and researchers as well as users. This is pretty serious stuff and we should tread carefully when it comes to things like this, IMHO.

[Eric J.]

Shoboy Before you ask, here:

 

REALRIDE

LEARNING FROM TRAGEDY

12/23/2003

 

LEARNING FROM TRAGEDY. By Tim Spencer

 

...

 

After a short bit of research I find that even slow speed accidents at certain angles can be fatal. It turns out that impacts to the passenger side of race cars can cause serious and sometimes fatal injuries to the driver. Most injuries are to the neck and head. The seats in most race cars do not have any side head restraints, so even a small impact can cause the head and neck to be over extended. Alot of work has been done to help with front and rear impacts, but what we needed was something to prevent the type of injuries sustained in a side impact.

 

...

 

 

If you haven't yet, I'd strongly recommend that you take a look at the 2005 SCCA Safety Symposium vid (which, yes, I've mentioned before), as much of the material addresses this exact point about lateral impact protection. The addition of sprint nets to the new rules is, IMHO, going to go a long way to adding the protection needed for this sort of thing.

 

I'm very sorry for the loss of your friend.

[benny]

So after 13 pages of blabla... you are finally coming to the conclusion that front and side impact are different. So you need 2 different device not one like ISAAC says. one being like a HANS the other one is the seat or a helmet net.

It is pretty simple !

Benny

[gbaker]

So after 13 pages of blabla... you are finally coming to the conclusion that front and side impact are different. So you need 2 different device not one like ISAAC says. one being like a HANS the other one is the seat or a helmet net.

It is pretty simple !

Benny

Look at these loads from the SFI tests and tell us which product needs help in lateral impacts:

 

 

[gbaker]

Gregg you should spend more time designing and testing your product, than writing on Board.

Howard Bennett is right, all the rest is pointless, there are 2 institutes SFI and FIA just make the change and get approved.

 

Learn how to run a biz and stop bitching and treating people of litigation!

 

Benny

We have no interest in designing our light bulb to meet the specs set forth by the kerosene lamp committee. We don't want to hurt drivers.

 

Again Benny, we are not suing anyone. We don't have to. As soon as a sanctioning body denies a driver the use of an ISAAC system and that driver dies, his estate will be doing enough suing to satisfy anyone. Trust me, you'll be in a state of shock.

[Jeremy C.]

And the sad part about this whole thing is that this "crap" no matter what side of it your on is preventing people from purchasing a Head and Neck restraint device and it's also preventing organizations from making them mandatory for the most part.

I know some are still going ahead and making the SFI standard mandatory for H&N devices, but I don't see SCCA or NASA making them mandatory until this stuff gets sorted out!

 

I just hope no one has to loose their life because of all this political crap!

 

It's logical that people wanting to purchase the ISAAC would not want to purchase anything at the moment for fear that it will become illegal.

I know I was researching H&N devices at the beginning of the year. I just went ahead and purchased a HANS because I knew that if they were mandated, it would be legal.

I suspect that there are many people out there are not like me and simply hold off on the purchase, but I wanted to be protected NOW!

[Bruce L.]

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.

this is not true - the Isaac does not attach to the harnesses - there is a roller arrangement that goes on either side of the belts and it moves along the belts. We already had this discussion earlier in this or another thread.

 

 

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.

nice quote of the company line - an offset test is done for 38.1 and it more closely represents the type of impacts that occur in road racing so it's results should be published. And if competitors can produce videos that show a problem with the performance of your device, wouldn't it make sense to show a video of the same test without the problem?

 

 

 

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).

 

If the SFI follows through on lowering the neck tension limit to 2500N, thereby kicking Leatt out of certification, you can bet that a lot of people will be POSITIVE that SFI is a puppet of manufacturers! FIA does seem to spend more time on research as a basis for standards.

 

Dr. Hubbard has the patent on Hans, is more than likely an investor in Hans Performance and contributed significantly to drafting SFI 38.1 - walks like a duck ...

 

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

 

Have you not seen Gregg's SAE presentation comparing the various devices with comparable tests?

 

Hans has done a good marketing job but the device has some limitations in the amateur road racing category. And some people just don't like dealing with companies that behave like an 800lb gorilla ...

bruce

Edited December 21, 2006 by Guest

[gbaker]

I just hope no one has to loose their life because of all this political crap!

 

It's logical that people wanting to purchase the ISAAC would not want to purchase anything at the moment for fear that it will become illegal.

This is a great post.

 

It's why so many sanctioning bodies are leaning toward mandating products that meet the performance specs of SFI 38.1. They can require a high-performance product, yet leave the egress issue aside. It's the best of both worlds.

[benny]

Gregg Baker don't you ever get it !

HANS was never design for side IMPACT. only frontal and back, that why racer need to have seat with Head restrain or a helmet net.

 

Dammm

Benny

[gbaker]

We agree. HANS sucks in side impacts and the ISAAC doesn't. So, which should drivers use?

[benny]

Dammmm you are a morron !

 

15 pages and you just admit was is on the front page of HANS !

They never claim being good for side impact !

 

Damm morron, it's like you want to sell a roll cage that does fuel cell at the same time !!!!!!!!

 

[IkeF]

Benny, I hope to God I'm never anywhere near you on a track. I can only assume that you're level of arrogance behind a keyboard matches that behind a steering wheel. Everyone here encourages a passionate debate on important issues, but you're not bringing much to the table with post after post of unwarranted personal attacks.

[benny]

Ike there are 15 pages of debate on HANS and side impact. HANS was never made for side impact.

 

Just a lot of people enjoy bitching for no reason

 

and yes I can drive !

benny

[IkeF]

That doesn't justify the way you've been treating people. Make your point and leave it at that. Until the past several posts, I couldn't even tell what point you were trying to make amongst the tirades.

[Bruce L.]

it is a discussion on head & neck restraints, not the merits of hans. Excuse us for trying to find a H&NR that matches the style of driving that we do, versus formula 1 or roundy round.

 

and I've been resisting correcting you, but "threatening" is not spelled "treating". Isaac never threatened to sue anybody - don't know where you got that misunderstanding.

 

calm down, you don't have to read this thread if it upsets you so much.

bruce

 

 

Ike there are 15 pages of debate on HANS and side impact. HANS was never made for side impact.

 

Just a lot of people enjoy bitching for no reason

 

and yes I can drive !

benny

[benny]

The reason why I'm getting so upset, is because my enduro co-driver died at Button willow in 03. Guess what broken neck !

So yes, I do get upset when I see people like you and Gregg Baker, on those forums arguing, and Gregg constant treat of litigation, make sanctioning body like scca,poc...and other holding off on making H&N mandatory.

 

My view is simple. There are 2 comity SFI and FIA, and H&N device approved on those 2 should be mandatory.

 

I do not care which one, if ISAAC is approved great.

Because of what you are doing, already 2 racing org back out of making H&N mandatory. ask Gregg, he is so proud of that!

 

How many racer need to died for you guys to stop; do you actually think it is fun to see some died at track.

Let me answer this one for you ! Not at all.

 

And when a widow will ask you why it is not mandatory to have H&N device, just tell her, to read this great 15pages posting and she will understand !

 

It is a very serious issue. I'm not a Hans fanatic, but a safety fanatic !

I support Hans because you can race in any racing organization and be legal.

So just get the dam ISAAC SFI and FIA approved, and stop it.

 

How many dead people will it take for you to understand that you are holding the process of making amateur racing safer !

 

Last issue. Remember X and Y axes ! If a device try to be x and y at the same time you now allow for rotation !

Not good for the neck !

Are you also going to try to regulate your water temp thru your ISAAC device !

you mgiht as well, you are trying to make it do every thing else. Hans is for front and back only, and a seat must have head restrain or a helmet net for side load.

 

You won !

 

I will not post here any more. I'm to upset and frustrated with this BS. I have to leave with the fact that because of comments like your and Gregg a friend died. I'm convince that, if he had H&N device plus side impact net or seat with head restrain, he will be with us now.

So yes I'm fucking upset !

 

And Please do not back to me saying that it is why racer should have the choice and not making it mandatory. Hope you are not so imatur ethat you beleive that a racer will spend money on safety if he is not obligated to do so.

 

 

And sorry I'm French so my english is not perfect. so sue me !

 

Be safe out there

 

Benny

[Bruce L.]

I am sorry you lost your friend.

 

I am not anti-H&NR.

Tons of racers have bought non-mandated safety equipment - every Isaac owner is in that camp, for example.

 

Isaac is not threatening to sue any sanctioning body, or anybody else for that matter. It is racers who prefer the Isaac and don't want to stop using it that **MIGHT** take that action.

 

Consider that the current problem with the sanctioning bodies might be more due to the SFI acting more like a trade association than a safety body and the FIA's seeming refusal to consider approving adequate alternative devices.

 

cheers,

bruce

[XAIX]

Benny…Benny…Benny,

 

I never thought I would say this…but you need to tone it down a little and relax…but thanks for making me sound like Mary Poppins relatively speaking.

 

I brought up the subject off side impact in the context of lateral support somewhere back in this thread so it has been a topic of discussion. I think it is a matter of concern and I think it is an important comparative issue when discussing H&NR systems. If as you state the HANS Device was never designed for side impact (lateral support) there is nothing wrong with another manufacturer posting data that shows his product superior to another’s regarding a likely to occur impact.

 

Gregg was not talking about suing anybody himself. He was talking about the possibility of an individual racer or racers family suing a racing organization for not allowing the use of a “superior performingâ€

[HBennett]

Leggwork wrote:

this is not true - the Isaac does not attach to the harnesses - there is a roller arrangement that goes on either side of the belts and it moves along the belts. We already had this discussion earlier in this or another thread.

 

OK, it has a roller. It still attaches to the belt. Sure you pull a pin on either side of the helmet to release the dampers but it still attaches to the belts which are attached to the car.

 

 

Leggwork wrote:

nice quote of the company line - an offset test is done for 38.1 and it more closely represents the type of impacts that occur in road racing so it's results should be published. And if competitors can produce videos that show a problem with the performance of your device, wouldn't it make sense to show a video of the same test without the problem?

 

Take a closer look at that video on ISAAC's website. If you can watch it and still make the statement that both video's are the same with the same sled and belts, you need to look again. The belts are obviously not tightened the same and the mounting points for the shoulder straps are wider for the HANS Device than anyone specifies.

 

 

Leggwork wrote:

If the SFI follows through on lowering the neck tension limit to 2500N, thereby kicking Leatt out of certification, you can bet that a lot of people will be POSITIVE that SFI is a puppet of manufacturers! FIA does seem to spend more time on research as a basis for standards

 

Dr. Hubbard has the patent on Hans, is more than likely an investor in Hans Performance and contributed significantly to drafting SFI 38.1 - walks like a duck ...

 

Can anyone figure out how the Leatt device got SFI certified without actually making any products for sale? I contacted them a couple of weeks ago about buying one. Their response was that they were taking pre-production order, they were negotiating with a company in Taiwan to manufacture the device and that posted pricing did not include import duties or shipping. I did not get a chance to talk to them at PRI so I don't know if anything has changed but I doubt it. Yes, Dr. Hubbard has the patent on the HANS Device and he may have contibuted data for testing, but contributed significantly? I don't know if I would go that far. I'm sure that other "powerhouses" in the industry had a lot more input, like NASCAR, for example.

 

Leggwork wrote:

Have you not seen Gregg's SAE presentation comparing the various devices with comparable tests?

 

No, have you? I would be interested in seeing it. I'm sure it was presented with the same flare he uses when discussing the subject in the forums.

 

Howard Bennett

HANS Performance

[HBennett]

Benny…Benny…Benny,

 

I never thought I would say this…but you need to tone it down a little and relax…but thanks for making me sound like Mary Poppins relatively speaking.

 

I brought up the subject off side impact in the context of lateral support somewhere back in this thread so it has been a topic of discussion. I think it is a matter of concern and I think it is an important comparative issue when discussing H&NR systems. If as you state the HANS Device was never designed for side impact (lateral support) there is nothing wrong with another manufacturer posting data that shows his product superior to another’s regarding a likely to occur impact.

 

Gregg was not talking about suing anybody himself. He was talking about the possibility of an individual racer or racers family suing a racing organization for not allowing the use of a “superior performingâ€