gbaker Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Leggwork wrote: 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. The tests are identical, i.e. certified by Delphi to be the SFI 38.1 spec, which includes installation per the manufacturer's instructions, including belt spacing. We double checked the belt spacing because we expected someone to claim the test was rigged. 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 Hey, at least I didn't have product displays on the stage like your boss did. The SAE Conference is discussed here, where a link to the presentation and videos can be found: http://www.isaacdirect.com/html/OtherPages/CrashTesting.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce L. Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 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. have you read the 38.1 spec and understand the intent of that part? The distinction is critical to a device's performance on the test by having the device not move relative to the torso. Maybe go ask your company engineers to explain this... 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. Gregg has addressed this misconception. Identical SFI 38.1 testing at Delphi. I can't believe that your marketing department hasn't addressed this competitive info with you because it does look pretty bad on Hans. 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. What does it matter if Leatt has any for sale yet? Does Hans include shipping in their price? A company submits a device for testing and then certifies that the items that are offerred for sale match the device that was tested. In this case, Leatt realized that their current manufacturing facility was inadequate for the large anticipated volume and outsourced the production. The first batch of MOTO-R are due in January. You've publically stated in past posts that Hans wasn't involved in writing of the SFI 38.1 spec and now here you're admitting that you don't really know. Does your company know that you're posting here? You're not doing a good job of it. Whoever wrote it, it is obviously slanted towards the Hans (and it is a badly written spec at that), and FIA 8853 is written only for the Hans - it helps to be first and for the first application to be Formula 1 cars. NASCAR only indirectly uses SFI 38.1 because there are 38.1 certified devices that NASCAR does not allow - they must have additional scientific criteria to reject the others - yeah, that's the ticket, additional scientific criteria. I anticipate that it is sanctioning body behavior like NASCAR's that will actually allow other sanctioning bodies to legally justify not slavishly following SFI 38.1 - if they feel that other criteria are needed to make it appropriate to their series, so, thank you NASCAR. 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. Gregg has provided a link but it was on other public forums also. It is the **FIRST** paper that attempts to break through the marketing spin of the vendors and do a heads up (pun intended) comparison of the devices with the known/available test results. More of this behavior is needed, IMHO. With all this crap that I'm giving you, I do applaud that you frequently implore people to just use any H&NR device. That is great advice. And I do have high regard for the pioneering work that Hubbard/Downing have done and the lives that have been saved as a result. I feel, however, that Hans' tactics are now stifleing true innovation and cost reduction that could make these devices even better and much more broadly used. cheers, bruce Howard Bennett HANS Performance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric J. Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 I may not have been clear enough. When I stated that the manufacturers should act in an advisory capacity I meant to help develop the standards, but they should not have the final determination of a standard or have voting power. I also spent a fair amount of time as a voting member of Semi Standards and was involved with setting standards for chemical delivery systems and components. Applied Materials was the 800 lb gorilla. Imagine trying to get consensus from the US, European and Asian manufacturers. The meetings for a single component mounting standard went on for years and to this day I don’t think there is a single standard configuration. I believe this however is a different situation and I think that most of the sanctioning bodies would prefer an organization as I have out lined. From a philosophical standpoint I don't disagree that having neutral third parties sort out things like this would be good, but the reality is typically that the people most qualified to make the decisions are within the companies/institutions that developed the technology. This makes it very hard to separate the manufacturers from the decision making process. Not allowing the manufacturers a vote (or some sort of decision making) in the process sometimes has the undesired side effect that they won't adhere to the "standard", or they form a separate consortia (i.e., a competing "standard") that suits them better. That sort of thing can sometimes result in a better end result, but at the cost of a lot of delay. And sometimes it just ends up fragmenting and confusing everything into irrelevance. I think we're seeing some of that sort of thing happen in this case with the SFI spec. I hope it doesn't turn into an intractable problem and things start to converge faster than they diverge, if you know what I mean. The same sort of complication comes up with drug/pharmaceutical testing: separating the manufacturers from the testing/regulators is a two-edged sword. I pulled the following off of the SFI web site. “How is the SFI Standards Program Funded?†Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 The problem with FIA is that they don't care how well the product works. Honest; there is nothing in their spec regarding maximum neck tension, for example. We told them at the SAE conference in 2002 that we wanted to test at their lab. They said no, they were not going to test newer designs. Clearly, FIA does not want anyone to challenge their previous decision. SFI is a trade group that will not release any test results. Think about that; "Our stuff is great. No, we won't prove it." It reminds me of a line from Animal House... All that is needed is for a third party to review, and post, actual test results with a reference to acceptable load limits, if they exist. If sanctioning bodies allow products that meet those limits the job is done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Hurst Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 The problem with FIA is that they don't care how well the product works. Honest; there is nothing in their spec regarding maximum neck tension, for example. We told them at the SAE conference in 2002 that we wanted to test at their lab. They said no, they were not going to test newer designs. Clearly, FIA does not want anyone to challenge their previous decision. Hubert Gramling told me very recently that they (FIA institute) were testing other designs and products....yes frontal tests too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBennett Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 Yes, I have the 38.1 spec on my desk and have read and understand it. It is available to anyone who wants to get it from SFI. SFI realizes that a manufacturers best performance numbers belong to the manufacturers and will not publish that information. They certify the numbers presented by the manufacturer as meeting the spec. They also have the capability to have retail models of devices independently tested to confirm a manufacturers claim. That's why I mentioned the fact that there were no actual Leatt devices available. Members also have the right to protest SFI's findings. Greg, is ISAAC a member of SFI? As far as the video on ISAAC's site comparing the ISAAC to the HANS Device, the adjustment and the mounting points for the shoulder straps are obviously different. Who's mounting instructions were used, HANS, Impact? They were certainly not HANS mounting instructions. The differences are pretty obvious to me. If you want someone to blame for SFI 38.1, it's not big bad HANS. Try NASCAR and other respected professionals in the industry. As Dr. Hubbard is one of those respected professionals, I'm sure they looked at some of his testing also. They all contributed to the final spec. There are two other companies that have SFI certified devices, LFT/Safety Solutions (3 devices) and Leatt (although no product for sale yet). It doesn't look like HANS locked them out. Thanks for the link to the SAE presentation. I will take a look at it as soon as I can but probably not until after Christmas. Howard Bennett HANS Performance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 ...SFI realizes that a manufacturers best performance numbers belong to the manufacturers and will not publish that information. ...Greg, is ISAAC a member of SFI? It is our understanding that SFI retains rights to test results, and will not release them. This is one reason we are not a member. When we outperform the competition we intend to tell people about it--and prove it. As far as the video on ISAAC's site comparing the ISAAC to the HANS Device, the adjustment and the mounting points for the shoulder straps are obviously different. Who's mounting instructions were used, HANS, Impact? They were certainly not HANS mounting instructions. The differences are pretty obvious to me. The mounting is per HANS, as on all the other HANS SFI tests. That's called for by the spec. Check the company test videos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 The problem with FIA is that they don't care how well the product works. Honest; there is nothing in their spec regarding maximum neck tension, for example. We told them at the SAE conference in 2002 that we wanted to test at their lab. They said no, they were not going to test newer designs. Clearly, FIA does not want anyone to challenge their previous decision. Hubert Gramling told me very recently that they (FIA institute) were testing other designs and products....yes frontal tests too Well now, it's good to hear that Hubert is broadening his horizons. So why didn't he ask to test ours when he saw our presentation at SAE three weeks ago? I'm curious. How can Hubert "test" other designs when the FIA spec has no performance criteria? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBennett Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 No, the mounting is not per HANS instructions or anyone from HANS. Howard Bennett HANS Performance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 Then show us company videos--all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBennett Posted December 24, 2006 Share Posted December 24, 2006 I'll be glad to assist with proper harness mounting instructions. Howard Bennett HANS Performance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce L. Posted December 24, 2006 Share Posted December 24, 2006 what about the setup in the video is contrary to Hans corp recommendations? thanks, bruce No, the mounting is not per HANS instructions or anyone from HANS. Howard Bennett HANS Performance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBennett Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 As to the comparison video, it looks to me like the straps aren't as tight with the HANS Device as the dummy with the ISAAC. It looks loose. It also looks like the dummy with the HANS Device is sitting a little lower in the seat. There is definitely a difference in the spacing of how the shoulder straps are mounted. Anyway, as to the mounting. The shoulder straps should be mounted 3" or less apart measured at the inside edges of the straps. SFI and a majority of the harness manufacturers specify the mounting to be 4-6" apart measured at the center line of each strap leaving a range of 1-3" apart measured at the inside edges. On this point, HANS recommends the closer the better. HANS recommends the mounting point should be 1-2" below the horizontal from the top of the device. SFI and most manufacturers recommend the strap be perpendicular to the spine or not more than a 5 degree upward or 30 degree downward angle from the top of the shoulders. The shoulder straps should wrap up on the device. Howard Bennett HANS Performance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 Howard, I like you. We've never met but I've appreciated your comments on this and other safety subjects over the years. You are an asset to HANS Performance Products. You need to look at your own company's test video/photos. I personally watched the Delphi techs spend over an hour setting up the test of the HANS device per the HANS' instructions. We had absolutely no input into the process and measured the inside of the belts at 3". Look at the videos; moving the belts and inch or so either way won't make any difference. Please, show us a video where this does not happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Howard, Well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 DAMN! Can't you guys give it rest already! I don't think anybody cares anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce L. Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 what do you mean nobody cares anymore - it is just starting! NASA and SCCA haven't made their decision yet... bruce DAMN! Can't you guys give it rest already! I don't think anybody cares anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shawn M. Posted January 8, 2007 Members Share Posted January 8, 2007 I think what he means is, the topic has been beaten like the 17 page dead horse that it is, like a bunch of old women waiting for the laundry to dry in a rainstorm. Something like that. what do you mean nobody cares anymore - it is just starting! NASA and SCCA haven't made their decision yet...bruce DAMN! Can't you guys give it rest already! I don't think anybody cares anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Thanks Shawn. Sorry if I was unclear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shawn M. Posted January 8, 2007 Members Share Posted January 8, 2007 Thanks Shawn. Sorry if I was unclear. LOL!!! No problem, brutha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 ...Can't you guys give it [a] rest already!... Hell no. When we catch HANS blowing smoke into warm, dark places we are going to call them on it. If they don't like it they can prove us wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 DAMN! Can't you guys give it rest already! I don't think anybody cares anymore. Then quit reading. Regardless of what you meant by that statement, I'm still very interested in all of this. Yes, several points have been rehashed a couple of times, but, it's pretty important stuff, and it can be difficult to flush out the info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Racing Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Hell no. When we catch HANS blowing smoke into warm, dark places we are going to call them on it. If they don't like it they can prove us wrong. Very professional. C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbaker Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Hell no. When we catch HANS blowing smoke into warm, dark places we are going to call them on it. If they don't like it they can prove us wrong. Very professional. C. As opposed to, say, deceiving the public about your product's performance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Hurst Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 As opposed to, say, deceiving the public about your product's performance? edit: nevermind, too obvious., 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.