NASCAR Bans Hutchens Device [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

RacerBill

01-04-2005, 01:13 PM

Don't know how I got the double post but sorry.

The plot thickens - a visit to the SFI website (www.sfifoundation.com)reveals no announcement of the Head and Neck Restraint standard (38.1) but if you drill down in the 'Manufacturers' section, under Specification 38.1, there are two new members - Hubbard-Downing HANS Device, and LFT Technologies R3 Device (????). Jumping over to the LFT website, they advertise that their H&N device has been aproved by NASCAR!!!! BTW, both Speed channel and NASCAR websites announce that the HANS device is the only approved H&N restraint.

Following this logic, the only helmets that NASCAR should approve are Bell and G-Force, since they are the only manufacturers listed on the SFI website. (Simpson Performance Products is listed under other specifications). Very strange.

Mattberg

01-04-2005, 01:16 PM

"A head and neck restraint needs to compliment the system that it is working in. Early testing on HANS Devices show an increase in both neck tension and HIC when used in an entire system with a head rest. (SAE Motorsports: Melvin / Hubert Gramling). This has also been shown to be the case in independent testing done on stock car set-ups with the HANS device. In back to back tests run on the same safety cell, have shown that the differences between carbon devices and strap harnesses is greatly reduced. The strap device systems normally decrease neck tension vs the baseline, while the HANS device neck tension has been shown to increase because of the interaction with the entire system."

Simple. Strap on your HANS device guys. Better chance of breaking your neck. But SFI will stay in business and HANS will make $75,000,000 based on mandated usage. What's SFI's cut?

Mattberg

01-04-2005, 01:21 PM

I'll be just like SFI. I'll set my own standard and not tell you what it is and then I'll tell you that you have a greater risk of breaking your neck if you wear a HANS. If SFI wants to be the authority, disclose the test data. Instead they say nothing and issue certifications that only benefit certain parties. The belts deal is no different. It provided huge support to the companies that pay SFI's bills and the test data at best shady. Nothing has changed in twenty years on belts and all the sudden they're unsafe? What's that tell you about SFI? They let us use unsafe belts for twenty years? SFI is a schlock organization and a front for manufacturers. Add in the insurance company and they have the best gimmick in the world.

gsbaker

01-04-2005, 03:11 PM

One thousand one, one thousand two...

You guys are pretty fast. This hit the AP wire about 24 hours ago.

Because I am short on time at the moment, and because I post here over my signature as a representative of the company, I will refer everyone to the official company position on this matter:

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

I'll try to check in later.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

m glassburner

01-04-2005, 03:11 PM

Not to add fuel to the fire....I think I'll go replace the belts in my street car they are over 2 years old http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

RSTPerformance

01-04-2005, 06:31 PM

Gregg (Mr. Isaac)-

I have a question for you... Can you e-mail me.

[email protected]

Thanks;

Raymond Blethen
RST Performance Racing

lateapex911

01-04-2005, 06:48 PM

Mark this date in your calenders: I agree (kinda) with Mattberg.

If it says NASCAR, we all know that it smells of greed and dishonesty.

Gregg, nice letter...too bad somebody big doesn't seem to care, and the BS continues.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Quickshoe

01-04-2005, 07:18 PM

Who knows maybe there could be a silver lining around that cloud....?

Isn't the Hutchens device patent held by a member of the Richard Childress organization? Maybe they'll get pissed off enough with this whole "force a HANS down your throat" BS approach that something will get done. Some of these tactics by HANS, while effective, ought to be illegal--assuming that they are not. That is coming from a pretty strong capitalist who is anti sue happy.

I'd like to know what the SFI specs are and when ISAAC is going to submit theirs for testing? Is the spec written in such a manner that it purposely excludes the only device on the market that could meet/exceed the performance of the HANS? (read the FIA specs)

gsbaker

01-04-2005, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
Gregg (Mr. Isaac)-

I have a question for you... Can you e-mail me.

Ray,

Are you sure that's the address?

Gregg

gsbaker

01-04-2005, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
...Is the spec written in such a manner that it purposely excludes the only device on the market that could meet/exceed the performance of the HANS? (read the FIA specs)

Actually, yes. Section 2.5

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

gsbaker

01-04-2005, 09:19 PM

In retrospect, I probably should not have offered the initial reference. The letter is overly detailed and makes further reference to documents not presented. Plus, it sounds a bit testy, probably because the author (me) was disappointed at what should have been a first draft of the Spec. Let me try again, beginning with an historical perspective...

We first discussed this subject with Arnie Kuhns of SFI in 2002 in Indy at the PRI show, which immediately followed the SAE’s Motorsports Engineering Conference where several good papers were presented on the subject of head and neck restraints. Arnie is a good guy, and he commented to Brian Butler and me that there was a lot of interest from sanctioning bodies for a standard for H&N restraints post Earnhardt, but that interest had dropped off. We speculated that this was probably because there was not an established measure of performance.

I mentioned that several thoughtful folks were drifting toward the concept of head load reduction (HLR), i.e. the percentage of head load that is reduced by a particular product. A simple concept, it ranges from 0-100% for a given crash protocol (direct frontal, offset frontal, lateral, etc.) and the higher the number the better. Using it drivers don’t need to bother deciphering ads containing copy such as “Our product reduced Fz loads to 3850 Newtons on the 50G, 35mph delta V sled at XYZ labs utilizing a male Hybrid III anthropometric test device! Buy now and get free shipping!!!” Who needs that nonsense? Drivers deserve to know how well something works—preferably in 25 words or less.

We completed testing in August of 2002, so when we were invited by NASCAR to test on the Delphi sled four months later we declined. It was the same setup with a slightly higher impact. The results were predictable (2,000N-2,500N upper neck Fz), so why bother? In hindsight, we probably should have tested there as the SFI Spec calls for testing on that sled, which generates about 70Gs.

To summarize SFI Spec 38.1 sections regarding crash testing, you need to conduct three tests at a nominal 68G peak load: two frontal yielding 3,200N or less load and one 30 degree offset at 4,000N or less load. These are easy numbers for an Isaac system. Honestly, after seeing 15+ years of data in which researchers have hit dummies at offset frontal/frontal impacts, this bores me to tears. Doing this stuff again is a waste of time. Dr. John Melvin, a big HANS proponent and all around good guy, has roughed up equations-—similar to ours-—that predict head loads in impacts beyond 100+Gs. So why do we ignore all the data from the 50G sled at Wayne State and go with a recent ~70G sled on which few devices have been tested? And what about the big honkers, the new 100G sleds? If we test the Isaac on a 100G sled and kick butt do we not receive SFI certification because the Isaac is too good? Let’s get real.

But I digress. Our problem is not with the crash-test sections of the Spec-—that’s easy--it is with other sections.

So, which products meet the performance requirements called for in 38.1? The Isaac system, the HANS device, the White device and the R3. The Hutchens device, apparently, does not. (I’m taking bets on this, BTW. I’m good for a beer.)

The interest thing to watch is the recently "SFI certified" R3 device developed by Trevor Ashline (another all around good guy), who developed the Hutchens device. If NASCAR says the Hutchens is out because it failed to pass the SFI test, must the R3 be in because it passed? According to NASAR, no. They want to think about it.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

RSTPerformance

01-05-2005, 02:50 AM

Gregg-

You can actually mail [email protected].... it can be anything from [email protected] or [email protected]... I just thought the [email protected] was cute http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

If that e-mail doesn't work then just do [email protected] that goes to the main e-mail account for RST Performance and I will get it http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

thnanks;

Raymond "Isacc supporter, even though not a user, no funds http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif" Blethen

Knestis

01-05-2005, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by gsbaker:
... If we test the Isaac on a 100G sled and kick butt do we not receive SFI certification because the Isaac is too good?

Not specifically because it's too good but, yup - that's the system, isn't it?

I had a little exposure to Mr. Kuhns and the SFI when I worked with a suit manufacturer years ago. When we would submit quilt samples for testing, SFI approval was granted for that exact make-up - and ONLY that make-up - including the color of the NomexIII on the outside.

They didn't actually do SFI cert until I was on my way to a different career but if their simple two-layer suit had been tested and received SFI 32a/5 approval, my custom suit would not. For the record, it's made of (inside to outside)...

3.5 oz. Nomex tricot lining
Nomex batting
PBI/Kevlar
Nomex III

For those who haven't looked into this business, SFI ratings are NOT minimum performance standards. They are certification that something has passed a very specific testing protocol, whether it results in generalizable findings or not.

Further, the SFI foundation charges an additional fee for each of the tags that manufacturers affix to their products, in addition to charging for the actual testing.

Unlike some, I don't adhere to a conspiracy theory on this stuff. It's simple capitalism, taking advantage of tort-happy US customers and masquerading as a benevolent "foundation."

It's no different than SportsCar allocating space in the annual safety equipment "buyers' guide" based on how much we paid for advertising.

K

gsbaker

01-05-2005, 12:46 PM

Great post Kirk. I agree 100%. And you are correct with respect to my rhetorical question; true, if we blow away the competition on the 100G sled SFI will not issue a certification.

You also touched on another area that makes this unworkable, the fact that any variation must receive additional certification, and be retested every year. Since there are now a total of 48 different configurations for an Isaac system, we would need to conduct 144 crash tests each year (yup, the same old frontal stuff) just to stay current.

We could, of course, build an SFI version but it would not work as well. The extra risk exposure would require a price premium. What a great deal for the racer: pay more, get less.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

Geo

01-05-2005, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Knestis:
It's no different than SportsCar allocating space in the annual safety equipment "buyers' guide" based on how much we paid for advertising.

Actually, IMHO it is. SFI certs turn into requirements in actual use.

I did a lot of research into the belt issue and before I could write to national they already made a decision. What I find most appalling is that when I received the test protocol from SFI (I wrote and asked for it), it did not even match (in any way) to what was written up in Sports Car.

There's more I could go into and have in the past, but I call BS on the belt issue.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

gsbaker

01-06-2005, 08:20 AM

George,

I believe Kirk is referring to the shakedown nature of the arrangement. This is common with publications who hint that they are considering including your product in an article, then in the next breath ask what your ad budget is. We bought an ad in last year's SportsCar safety issue and were included in the article. We are not buying an ad this year. Let's see what happens.

In the case of SFI, the organization serves as a CYA function for sanctioning bodies, and as a stamp of approval for manufacturers. It's an appealing arrangement. As long as everyone meets the standard it's no one's fault when something goes wrong. After all, we all agreed it was the way to go. Not bad; in most cases I would agree that a standard is better than no standard.

But, there are two problems with this thinking:

1) Products that exceed the standard are, against all logic, outlawed. The Isaac system on the 100G sled is one example. Another is the fact that high performance harness systems utilized in aviation and NASA application don't meet SFI belt specs because they are too good.

We also see this in the medical businesses. There was a time when it was illegal to provide to a surgeon an artificial joint prosthesis (hip for example) if it was custom made to the patient's bone geometry, even though it was clearly better for the patient than an off-the-shelf design. Why? Because FDA approval required a statistical sample, but if it was custom made, there was only one. It took, literally, an act of Congress before these products were legal.

This mindset of meeting the standard continues today with all medical product development. The joke in the industry is that FDA approval is a stamp of obsolescence.

2) There is little if any motivation to optimize the standard, regardless of how silly it becomes. It doesn't matter if it makes sense, just as long as it is there. It's like the single release rule in SCCA. I have spoken to SCCA officials who will pound the table defending a 40-yeal old rule they acknowledge is behind the times, claiming it is necessary for rapid egress, while admiting that getting out of the seat means nothing if you can't get out of the car. They don't care if Jeff Altenberg's HANS device got snagged in the window net of his burning car, and he couldn't get out until the net melted--AT AN SCCA EVENT! I kid you not.

Some people's love for rules/standards is so great that if the standard called for driving around the track with a dead chicken glued to our helmet, we'd all be driving around the track with a dead chicken glued to our helmet.

Standards are convenient, no one has to think. The problem with this one is that someone is going to get hurt--and then the lawyers will show up.

Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[This message has been edited by gsbaker (edited January 06, 2005).]

gsbaker

01-06-2005, 09:20 AM

...and
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/01-0 5-2005/0002770439&EDATE=://http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/s...02770439&EDATE= (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/01-05-2005/0002770439&EDATE=)

Here's the part I like:

"...the R3 was the first head and neck restraint system to exceed the SFI 38.1 specification after it was written." (Emphasis added.)

Hubbard/Downing says the HANS device is the "first ever head and neck support to be certified by the SFI."

To our knowledge, both of these statements are correct. Wow. Those guys at H/D are so good, they were able to test to the SFI spec before it was even written! I wonder how they knew what the Spec was going to be?

Then again, technically, "head and neck support" is a registered trademark of Hubbard/Downing, so if they received the SFI cert a hundred years from now, it would still be the first.

Don't ya just love marketing?

[/smarta$$mode]

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[This message has been edited by gsbaker (edited January 06, 2005).]

Despr8dave

01-06-2005, 10:04 AM

Relevant or not, IMHO, I don't race professionaly any more, don't race for Nascar and have the freedom to choose what ever safety equipment is available to me, as long as it is "approved" by the sanctioning body I choose to run with. Thus, it is my responsibilty to research and choose my equipment. When I worked for a small racing school, I was the safety instructor and was consistantly asked how much to spend on a helmet. My usual responce was, "how much is your head worth?"....that said, I have fortunately been introduced to the Isaac's device and have come to my own conclution that is the way I'm going, I don't care what the SFI ratings or non ratings are, it's my neck. I also have a custom suit that is Nomex111 outside and PBI Kevlar inside. Only rated by the SFI for the Nomex, but I know better, that's all that counts. Some may question my maturity, but I am an adult, I am responsible for my own actions. I feel confidant that I have chosen the best equipment I can afford, as we all should. I feel safety is first, where I should spend my money before car parts, etc. We do need as much information as we can get, regardless where it comes from and the SFI is a necessary "evil" we need, as someone has to do the testing and info sharing. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world. Sorry for the soap box, but at least I feel better for getting it off my chest!!
David

dazzlesa

01-06-2005, 04:14 PM

a corner worker told me that 2 drivers had lost testicles after hard impacts using the hutcinson device.at that point i bought the hans device.i have no proof to back this up but it sure looks like it can happen when the straps tighten when your head hurdles foward. rick

planet6racing

01-06-2005, 04:47 PM

I heard Sterling Martin had a similar problem with his Hutchens device after a crash in NASCAR.

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

lateapex911

01-06-2005, 09:01 PM

How anyone who races at the NASCAR level can rationalize using a Hutchens is beyond me.

I'm sorry, but sometimes you have to call a spade a spade, and that thing just looks like it's trouble.

I know, I know...."But it's been tested" an owner would defend...but I ask this....did the testing occur on dummies that were anatomically correct? Hmmmm?

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

gsbaker

01-06-2005, 09:16 PM

I believe the reports of testicular injuries with the Hutches device are true--same problem you can have with 5-point belts. The 6-point version solves that problem.

The webbing products actually work rather well if you crank them down very tightly.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

Geo

01-06-2005, 09:56 PM

What I find funny are the people who try to tell me NADSCAR is on the leading edge of safety.....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

gsbaker

01-06-2005, 10:40 PM

George,

You would be amused at some of the mail we get on that very subject. Since I must maintain a certain diplomacy in a public forum, I won't relay them here. An e-mail may be worth your time, however.

G

gsbaker

01-06-2005, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Mattberg:
"A head and neck restraint needs to compliment the system that it is working in. Early testing on HANS Devices show an increase in both neck tension and HIC when used in an entire system with a head rest. (SAE Motorsports: Melvin / Hubert Gramling). This has also been shown to be the case in independent testing done on stock car set-ups with the HANS device. In back to back tests run on the same safety cell, have shown that the differences between carbon devices and strap harnesses is greatly reduced. The strap device systems normally decrease neck tension vs the baseline, while the HANS device neck tension has been shown to increase because of the interaction with the entire system."

Matt,

What is the source of this quote? Just curious.

Thanks.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

Geo

01-07-2005, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by gsbaker:
George,

You would be amused at some of the mail we get on that very subject. Since I must maintain a certain diplomacy in a public forum, I won't relay them here. An e-mail may be worth your time, however.

G

Oh cool!

Send it to: [email protected]

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

gsbaker

01-07-2005, 09:09 AM

George,

You've got mail.

G

JohnRW

01-07-2005, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by gsbaker:
Matt,

What is the source of this quote? Just curious. Thanks.

Matt has posted that quote on several different boards, but when challenged on the source, he has resorted to what amounts to the dictionary definition of 'eqivocation'.

To quote Thorndike-Barnhart - "equivocate - use expressions of double meaning in order to mislead".

At least his style is consistant. Get past the obnoxious bluster and you'll find that he's 'factually challenged', too.

Joe Harlan

01-07-2005, 01:07 PM

Well you can take a shot at Matt if you like but is the source is right in what he wrote:

(SAE Motorsports: Melvin / Hubert Gramling)

Sometimes you all should look at the message not just who is delivering it.

ddewhurst

01-07-2005, 01:28 PM

Joe, I enjoy Matt face to face talking whatever. If people have met him face to face he may be a little aesier to understand. Maybe??????? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif How ever about the only time Matt posts on this site is when he has a desire to trash someone or something. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif He starts a lot of pi$$ing matcnes on the Production site & draws in those who just can't resist.

Another side subject. Someone posted something about a head & neck restraint being required in SCCA for year 2006. When I attempt to enter the SCCA site GCR to look up the rule as was posted 15.17. something I get the "This program has performed an illegal operation bla, bla........." Do others get the same rejection or do you get in to the GCR section?

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

Joe Harlan

01-07-2005, 01:40 PM

SCCA for year 2006

Lets see lasts years convention was pimping these things hard so i would guess there is probably something to that rumor. I Don't have an issue with the need for them..( I will be purchasing something this year) I have an issue with a certification that means nothing other than forcing me to spend more money. I don't want to purchase a hutchens or anyother device if SCCA is going to be strong armed or purchased into only allowing 1 device... David you know me well enough to know I don't tow anybodies line but sometimes you just can't look the other way while your wallet is constantly being lifted.

JohnRW

01-07-2005, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Sometimes you all should look at the message not just who is delivering it.

I'll choose to discount any messenger I please, thank you.

Does the passage he quoted totally represent the meaning and scope of the whole report ? No...because that just wouldn't suit his agenda...whatever 'that' might be at this moment. E-QUIV-O-CATE.

Regardless, the message is irrelevant. The messenger has no standing here, other than to provide irrational amusement. It's like watching monkeys in the zoo.

gsbaker

01-07-2005, 05:56 PM

Relax guys. I've deduced the source of the quote.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

gsbaker

01-07-2005, 06:12 PM

At this juncture there are three options:

1) Continue trying to get the SFI Spec changed so it does not expressly exclude the Isaac system. Since no one at SFI has replied to our correspondence, it would be reasonable to assign a low probability of success to this action. Expended resources with no results, so why bother?

2) Build an SFI version of the Isaac system. It wouldn’t work as well, but who cares?

3) Wait for a driver who was refused the use of an Isaac system by his SFI-friendly sanctioning body to get turned into a crispy critter when the HANS device traps him in a burning car. This gets ugly, especially if it occurs on national TV. Also, it may take some time until the grand event--even though the problem has happened several times recently, the drivers weren’t killed, just singed. It’s just a matter of time. Probability of success? High. Plus it’s easy. We just sit and wait. I like it.

What do you guys think? Let’s take a poll. 1, 2, or 3?

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

Quickshoe

01-07-2005, 06:41 PM

I'd like to see option #1

A) I'd like to continue to use my ISAAC. I think the trend is more and more organizations are relying on some outside agency to set their safety standards/mandate their use. Thankfully, VARA has continued to allow us drivers to make our own choices.

B) A "SFI" stamp of approval will sell more devices to those who believe the certification process is the end of the story.

C) Most importantly, I don't want to become the driver in your scenario #3.

What would have to change in the design of the ISAAC, to allow #2. How would this affect its' performance in a negative way?

------------------
Daryl DeArman
ex ITA and EProd 1st gen Rx7 and ITA Mk1 MR2
current owner of a FV, who still visits this site because the Vee forums aren't near as fun.--and no there isn't anything to do on my Vee right now or I'd be doing it ;)

planet6racing

01-07-2005, 07:18 PM

I'd like to see #1 as well and would even volunteer to help.

I will continue to wear my Isaac until a) someone shows me conclusive evidence that doing so will cause me serious injury, B) on grid, they look at all H&N restraints and don't let me out on track, or c) I stop racing.

Even if the SCCA bans the Isaac, I'm still wearing mine. I'll gladly be protested and finish last. It's better than being dead!

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

gsbaker

01-07-2005, 07:31 PM

I hear ya Daryl, and I agree that #1 is the cleanest way to go.

I had a chance to chat with Arnie Kuhns of SFI at the SAE conference and mentioned some of the concerns expressed in our letter to them. Arnie's a good guy. He was very receptive and noted more than once that the specs can change as new information is collected.

SFI hasn't ruled anything out. I strongly believe they are between a rock and a hard place. On one side are the sanctioning bodies that want a standard, on the other side are consultants/manufacturers offering advice. I don't want that job.

An SFI version of the Isaac system would generate slightly higher compression loads in the early portion of the crash sequence. These loads are already low, so a small increase is not an issue. If you or I hit the wall head-on we could not tell the difference between the real Isaac and the SFI Isaac, but a crash dummy load sensor would pick up a small spike--maybe 15% (I'm guessing).

We just hate to waste time screwing around with a fresh design and test cycle only to produce something with predictably lower results. We developed this product line because we wanted to help drivers, not because we wanted to have something "certified" by an organization that needs consultants to write a spec.

Then there's the "certified" thing. Passing the test does not mean the product is certified by SFI. In order to become certified the manufacturer needs to sign the SFI agreement--and that's another story.

This injury is rather straightforward. It's been happening since someone invented the hangman's noose. In the racing environment, however, the solution gets a bit tricky. Perhaps it's time for a specialized sanctioning body.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

924Guy

01-07-2005, 07:32 PM

I'd no question prefer #1, but would deal with #2 and a retrofit if it's what I had to do to keep my ISAAC over a HANS. I would not race sans H+N device.

An excerpt from my post on the NASA forums:

But when I, as an engineer (in automotive safety systems, BTW), am faced with a spec that makes no sense, I will fight like hell to have it fixed! Specs are written with a purpose in mind, but they don't always get there -not unlike much correspondence. I view a large part of my job as making sense of the spec, not just blind obedience to written word that may not be justifiable. I'm sure Gregg Baker is in a similar situation; there are a number of points, large and small, in this spec that do not make sense with respect to providing optimal protection for the driver, and he's doing his dammedest to fix the problem at the source. However it does appear that his efforts are being met with less than genuine interest.

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITB/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com

924Guy

01-07-2005, 07:37 PM

Two more things I forgot to add. The SFI site does now list the LFT R3 as an approved device/manufacturer. Presumably this was a matter of paperwork not catching up with the website?

Another is that NASA does state now, in their CCR (GCR equiv.) that they expect they may well require H+N devices in compliance with SFI 38.1 as of 2006. That's as in devices are _required_ for competition, not that any devices used must meet 38.1.

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITB/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com

gsbaker

01-07-2005, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by planet6racing:
I'd like to see #1 as well and would even volunteer to help.

That's very generous Bill, thanks. You've already made a contribution with the adhesive helmet mount. (Nice work, BTW.)

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

gsbaker

01-07-2005, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by 924Guy:
I'd no question prefer #1, but would deal with #2 and a retrofit if it's what I had to do to keep my ISAAC over a HANS.

A retrofit is no problem. Already designed.

I would not race sans H+N device.

Smart guy, but we already knew that. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

As an aside, I am frequently struck by the difference in attitudes between drivers who have never crashed (and think they never will) and those who have, like Vaughan.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

gsbaker

01-07-2005, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Lets see lasts years convention was pimping these things hard so i would guess there is probably something to that rumor....

Wait 'til this year's convention, Joe. Bigger and better. Just look for the guys who have the product logos on their shirts and laptop lids.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

Joe Harlan

01-07-2005, 09:53 PM

Greg, I won't be there. I have a hard time justifying the expense to value ratio. I look at this as another big tadoo that costs me money...

Geo

01-07-2005, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by gsbaker:
I had a chance to chat with Arnie Kuhns of SFI at the SAE conference and mentioned some of the concerns expressed in our letter to them. Arnie's a good guy. He was very receptive and noted more than once that the specs can change as new information is collected.

And as vendors become new members of SFI I'm sure.

Originally posted by gsbaker:
Then there's the "certified" thing. Passing the test does not mean the product is certified by SFI. In order to become certified the manufacturer needs to sign the SFI agreement--and that's another story.

I know you are not saying it, but I will.... This is the rub.

I sure wish a truly independent safety agency would be set up. Sadly I don't think it will every happen.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

lateapex911

01-07-2005, 11:21 PM

Oh, #1, for sure.

And I agree with the others. The day they tell me my Isaac isn't allowed on the track is the exact day, to the moment, that I turn my car around, put a "For Sale" sign on it, and give the collective SCCA, and SFI the proverbial finger.

Sorry, while I have a respect for authority, I have NO respect for greedy "Unbiased" agencies, nor organizations that are run by lawyers.

We are too close to that point as it is.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Dave Zaslow

01-08-2005, 10:05 AM

Gregg,

Come on up to the Philly area and pose a few questions at the safety seminar found at:

http://www.aarn.com/ms-seminars.html

Dave Z

gsbaker

01-08-2005, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Geo:
I sure wish a truly independent safety agency would be set up. Sadly I don't think it will every happen.

I don't know, George. It would be tough for all racing safety products, but I can see an independent agency for this issue.

How does this sound?...

The Institute for Blah Blah rates head and neck restraints based on percentage head load reduction (HLR). Period. It does not "certify" anything. It simply collects test data and assigns a number between 0 and 100 based on an established pool of knowledge.

There is no requirement that anyone become a member and there is no charge to the manufacturer. The cost is zero; no money changes hands. Donations to maintain a Web site would be accepted from individual racers only.

The only requirement for a product to be "Institute Rated" is for the manufacturer to submit all test information ever collected on that product. By "all" I mean ALL. No more of this showing just the good stuff. Full disclosure and it all goes on the Web.

Racers and sanctioning bodies can decide for themselves what level of protection is appropriate for them.

Everything has already been tested at Wayne State. If we had the data this could be online in a week.

What's missing (except for a name, the Blah Blah thing doesn't cut it)?

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

Knestis

01-08-2005, 12:52 PM

I'll host the site gratis so there's no suggestion that it's being funded by any one manufacturer.

I've got a really expensive piece of paper that says that I'm a perfessional evaluator and researcher, too. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

lateapex911

01-08-2005, 02:36 PM

Sounds great. It's EXACTLY what's needed. How can you assure the data is indeed 100% complete (all) and accuate?

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

gsbaker

01-08-2005, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Dave Zaslow:
Gregg,

Come on up to the Philly area and pose a few questions at the safety seminar found at:

http://www.aarn.com/ms-seminars.html

Dave Z

Dave,

Thanks. We were aware of that one and offered to present, but it didn't come together.

We know what's going to be said because John presented at SAE last month--although this will probably be more overview material.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

gsbaker

01-08-2005, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Knestis:
I'll host the site gratis so there's no suggestion that it's being funded by any one manufacturer.

I've got a really expensive piece of paper that says that I'm a perfessional evaluator and researcher, too. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

That's generous Kirk. Thanks. Be aware that there may be bandwidth problems. You'll need 400MB storage per crash per product. The videos alone are about 120MB each and there are three per crash.

And that's just Wayne State; there are also Delphi and FIA labs.

You could easily start with a one-page site using WSU data only. Show a summary chart and list some tabular data.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

gsbaker

01-08-2005, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Sounds great. It's EXACTLY what's needed. How can you assure the data is indeed 100% complete (all) and accuate?

The best approach is to get the data directly from the lab. If any manufacturer had a confidentiality agreement in place with the lab, the product would not get an Institute Rating.

One should anticipate some odd situations where, say, someone was testing in Australia unbeknownst to the manufacturer, so revoking a rating may be a bit harsh if the manufacturer can't cough up all the data. I don't think zero tolerance works, but you do need full disclosure from the manufacturer, at least.

One could just go with WSU data. It's a mother lode. They've hit everything over 15+ years.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

Knestis

01-08-2005, 09:25 PM

Ooch. I hadn't thought about video - I don't have the capacity at this point - but if I can help out with static content to get started, I'd love to.

K

lateapex911

01-08-2005, 10:20 PM

I think it would be a great idea. And each manufacturer should have a link on their website to it.

Getting manufacturers to "subscribe" will be tricky, I imagine. I can think of only one off the top of my head that would be willing to "show all"..........

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Geo

01-08-2005, 11:56 PM

I kind of hate to put you on the spot Gregg, and apologize if the answer is either more complex than you want to go into, or you don't want to go into for other reasons, but...

Despite my loathing of SFI, why doesn't Isaac just join? That would probably mean instant approval.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Despr8dave

01-09-2005, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by Geo:
I kind of hate to put you on the spot Gregg, and apologize if the answer is either more complex than you want to go into, or you don't want to go into for other reasons, but...

Despite my loathing of SFI, why doesn't Isaac just join? That would probably mean instant approval.

I kinda have to agree with George. My first impression about Isaac's situation with the SFI was you didn't want to "play their game", I personnally would not want to either, but it seems you must if you want to succeed further. I also feel they (SFI) are similiar to the FDA in the way they operate with new products, of which I've been involved with in the past. I prefer to not thinking of it as kissing ass, but a way, however unfortunate, to do business. I like your product, I think it is the best thing going, but to get it where it needs to be, ya gotta play the game. IMHO.

David

Eagle7

01-09-2005, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Geo:
Despite my loathing of SFI, why doesn't Isaac just join? That would probably mean instant approval.
I thought that was option 2 that Gregg asked for input on:
"2) Build an SFI version of the Isaac system. It wouldn’t work as well, but who cares?"

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX-7 #13
CenDiv WMR

lateapex911

01-09-2005, 05:46 PM

If I read between the lines, SFI really doesn't care about safety.

If they really did, they would structure their deal differently.

Maybe I am naive and too idealistic, but to me, an SFI approval or certification is really meaningless.

An SFI cert. means to me that it meets certain specs, but whether they are meaningful, or not is another story, and the lack of an SFI cert means even less! The item could be better! Or worse! What good are they?

I realize they MUST do some good but I bet the layers and insurance adjusters are the only ones who will see the bright side on that....

(Playing devils advocate here.......)

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited January 09, 2005).]

gsbaker

01-09-2005, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Eagle7:
I thought that was option 2 that Gregg asked for input on:
"2) Build an SFI version of the Isaac system. It wouldn’t work as well, but who cares?"

Marty,

We are interested in input on all of it. We are wide open to suggestions.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[edit, because I can't type]

[This message has been edited by gsbaker (edited January 09, 2005).]

gsbaker

01-09-2005, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911:
...Getting manufacturers to "subscribe" will be tricky, I imagine....

There may be a way to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. address the issue of bandwidth and manufacturers' sensitivity to releasing all the crash test info. This agency could assign performance ratings only if satisfied that it had all material data, but not put supporting documentation on the Web.

This is on par with SFI's "certification," but offers the advantage of enhanced public trust via the fact that no money changes hands.

There are many good marketing reasons for not opening one's komono all the way. We don't like it, but that's the reality.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

gsbaker

01-09-2005, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911:
If I read between the lines, SFI really doesn't care about safety.

If they really did, they would structure their deal differently.

Maybe I am naive and too idealistic, but to me, an SFI approval or certification is really meaningless.

An SFI cert. means to me that it meets certain specs, but whether they are meaningful, or not is another story, and the lack of an SFI cert means even less! The item could be better! Or worse! What good are they?

I realize they MUST do some good but I bet the layers and insurance adjusters are the only ones who will see the bright side on that....

(Playing devils advocate here.......)

Jake,

It's not that bad. Our disappointment is that two years have been wasted and there is an increased potential that someone will get hurt before this is improved.

I mean really, adopting a single point release rule for a component that is not part of the harness system, ignoring the entire concept of getting out of the car, failing to leave the egress issue to santioning bodies who are moving toward a timed egress (Forget the methods. Like explosive bolts? Fine.) and then accepting only the good test results? Geez, why not insult someone's intelligence.

All,

BTW, options 1, 2 and 3 are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

gsbaker

01-10-2005, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911:
I think it would be a great idea. And each manufacturer should have a link on their website to it.

Getting manufacturers to "subscribe" will be tricky, I imagine. I can think of only one off the top of my head that would be willing to "show all"..........

A minimum of three come to mind.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

planet6racing

01-10-2005, 06:31 PM

From my manufacturing side (and I know Gregg has thought about this), I be very, very hesitant to post ALL my data to the web. Lawyers and laypersons are very dangerous people, and mis-interpretation of the data would run rampant. I would not want to be sitting in the chair in front of a jury answering the questions that would come as a result of this. I would think that it would actually increase the costs due to higher liability.

Examples from the medical industry come to mind where newspeople get a hold of preliminary, incomplete datasets and start making conclusions based on them. Soon, the product is being touted as a heart attack inducing product before the full dataset is acquired.

Oh, and btw, there are Black Helicopters around my office. I don't like being deposed...

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

gsbaker

01-10-2005, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by planet6racing:
I don't like being deposed...

Aw c'mon, Bill. Few things in life are more fun that throwing at a lawyer, while on the witness stand, a highly technical concept that his expert forgot to bring up in pre-trial depos. He looks like a deer in the headlights.

Lawyers and laypersons are very dangerous people, and mis-interpretation of the data would run rampant

Well put, sir. You can also add competitors to that list.

This seems to be true of the videos especially. HANS will release their video of the belts slipping off their product about the time hell freezes over.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

gsbaker

01-10-2005, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Despr8dave:
I kinda have to agree with George. My first impression about Isaac's situation with the SFI was you didn't want to "play their game", I personnally would not want to either, but it seems you must if you want to succeed further. I also feel they (SFI) are similiar to the FDA in the way they operate with new products, of which I've been involved with in the past. I prefer to not thinking of it as kissing ass, but a way, however unfortunate, to do business. I like your product, I think it is the best thing going, but to get it where it needs to be, ya gotta play the game. IMHO.

David

David (& George),

Agreed. SFI certification is the best way to go along to get along. I may have left the wrong impression. If SFI and the sanctioning bodies stick to the current 38.1 spec, we will build a product for it (option #2), even if it can be clearly demonstrated to be inferior to our present designs—-though not by much. The first light bulb did not meet Spec XX.X of the Kerosene Lamp Foundation, but people eventually came around.

The problem is that this spec makes the SFI a very dangerous place to be, because the lawyers (not the ones Jake is referring to) may well determine the outcome.

Jake speaks of lawyers for the organizations that are attempting to minimize their risk exposure. Ironically, what they have done is traded a nonexistent perceived risk for a much larger, real one. This position might be justifiable if there were a fundamental downside to our product, but there isn’t; it’s not as though the Isaac system has a low level of performance. ( http://www.isaacdirect.com/html/chart.html ).

Here’s the scenario that is just a matter of time: A driver with a HANS gets barbequed. (Anyone see the near-miss with Paul Newman on Saturday?) The lawyer(s) poking around find the sanctioning body/SFI knowingly and willingly excluded the only product that could have avoided the fatality (Isaac) while accepting a product with a documented history of trapping drivers in burning cars (HANS). Everyone gets hammered. Not a party we want to be at, thank you.

I’ve never set foot in a law school and I can figure this one out.

What would you be doing now if you were a plaintiffs’ lawyer? You would be busy connecting dots and looking for deep pockets. Knowing that a safety image sells street cars, and tracing the financial support for the HANS device to GM and DaimlerChrysler/FIA et al, you have found your deep pockets. The icing on the cake is NASCAR, especially since it has rejected the SFI “certified” R3 device. The cherry on top will arrive if this can be pitched to a court as a class action, complete with RICO.

Well here’s a news flash folks: Some of this has already happened. Past tense.

Will we produce an SFI 38.1-compliant version of the Isaac system? Sure, if need be. Will the cost reflect the extra risk? Oh, yeah.

BTW, if you have already purchased an Isaac system, you’re covered. The belt connector components have been redesigned for a retrofit compliant with SFI 38.1, GCR Section 20.4 and any other boneheaded, Mickey-Mouse, light-weight, namby-pamby rule thought up by some intellectual giant who doesn’t understand the difference between getting out of the seat and getting out of the car. (Did I mention that diplomacy was not my strong suit?)

As an aside, I have a friend who is convinced that all lawyers should be arrested and sued before they are allowed to practice law. I believe we should extend that philosophy to those who write emergency egress rules for racers: Put them in a car equipped per their rules, set them on fire, and see if the rules work.

Sorry. Life’s too short for paperwork, IMHO.

Hey, that was fun. IT rocks. You guys are great.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

Despr8dave

01-10-2005, 08:57 PM

Greg,
You reminded me of why I dropped out of pre-Law 30 years ago.......
Also of some of the law suits brought by racers wives and families. Everytime we get in a car we are at some risk re: Bill's Saturn steering wheel fiasco at Road Atlanta. Mark Donahue's family sued Goodyear, and many others. To hell with that. When I go, I'd rather be doing what I love than getting killed by a drunk driver. I'm responsible for all the safety equipment I can afford. Me, no one else. Take your law suits and .......well, you know what I mean.
Let's just race and have a ball.
David

Despr8dave

01-10-2005, 08:59 PM

Despr8dave

01-10-2005, 10:16 PM

sorry for the double post
sorry for the double post
David

lateapex911

01-10-2005, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by gsbaker:
..................As an aside, I have a friend who is convinced that all lawyers should be arrested and sued before they are allowed to practice law. I believe we should extend that philosophy to those who write emergency egress rules for racers: Put them in a car equipped per their rules, set them on fire, and see if the rules work.

[sigh]

I love it!

Dave..the double post post was funny ...

see? I can do it too...

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Geo

01-10-2005, 11:03 PM

BTW, I feel the need to set the record straight here (sorry Gregg). The HANS has optional quick release tethers that achieve the very same result of car exit that the Isaac does. Works very easily too (I tried them at Hubbard-Downing when I was there).

Also, the R3 has the same potential for having exit issues from a car due to the very same sort of piece that sticks up in the back like the HANS. Unlike the HANS (and Isaac) I don't believe (but could be wrong) it has a QR mechanism available to separate the driver from the H&N device.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

gsbaker

01-11-2005, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Geo:
BTW, I feel the need to set the record straight here (sorry Gregg). The HANS has optional quick release tethers that achieve the very same result of car exit that the Isaac does.

So much for single-point release; no more compliance with SFI 38.1.

Also, the R3 has the same potential for having exit issues from a car due to the very same sort of piece that sticks up in the back like the HANS. Unlike the HANS (and Isaac) I don't believe (but could be wrong) it has a QR mechanism available to separate the driver from the H&N device.

Agreed.

It's less of an issue with most road racers, but the NASCAR setup with the large head surrounds on the seat means the racer can't get out easily. In July of 2003 Bobby Lebonte had to completely remove his HANS before he could exit his burning car. That's a minimum of three release points, assuming the HANS will just fall away.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

924Guy

01-11-2005, 12:47 PM

Hey, I agree with where you're going with the lawyer-speak and all, but Gregg - the quick-releases on the HANS amount to simply another option for egress. This I would put in the same category (though to a greater extent) as removing your helmet before exiting the car - simply makes it easier, in most cases. As noted, there may be some cars where the driver is impaired or unable to exit while weearing a HANS.

That said, I still prefer the egress options of the ISAAC, with or without the 38.1 mod.

Kind of ironic isn't it, though, how we're getting to a point where we've got so much safety gear layering up that it'll almost be impossible to exit?

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITB/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com

gsbaker

01-11-2005, 01:35 PM

I hear ya, Vaughan. I was just tweaking George a bit. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

All this underlines the absurdity of mandating what a driver what he must do to get out of the car quickly. Why not just mandate that he must get out of the car quickly?

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

wlfpkrcn

01-11-2005, 05:34 PM

The manufatcurer of the R3 is offering $100 off with a trade in of your Hutchens Device. Here's the link.

http://www.lfttech.com/index.php

FYI- After a phone call to LFT they stated the Hutchens barely failed the test for NASCAR (a frontal impact) and the Hutchens is superior to the Hans in a side impact situation.

Eric

[This message has been edited by wlfpkrcn (edited January 11, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by wlfpkrcn (edited January 11, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by wlfpkrcn (edited January 11, 2005).]

gsbaker

01-11-2005, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by wlfpkrcn:
...FYI- After a phone call to LFT they stated the Hutchens barely failed the test for NASCAR (a frontal impact) and the Hutchens is superior to the Hans in a side impact situation.

The Spec was written after most devices were tested.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

gsbaker

01-11-2005, 06:19 PM

Speaking of videos, let's have some fun. We just received this one from a customer (6+MB): http://www.isaacdirect.com/Paavo.mov

Here's the driver's site: http://zakin.com/paavo.html

His personal car is quicker. Low 7s with a best trap speed of 208.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

ITANorm

01-11-2005, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by gsbaker:
Aw c'mon, Bill. Few things in life are more fun that throwing at a lawyer, while on the witness stand, a highly technical concept that his expert forgot to bring up in pre-trial depos. He looks like a deer in the headlights.

The last time the Feds called me in for a deposition, they dropped the case after they deposed me. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Geo

01-12-2005, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by wlfpkrcn:
The manufatcurer of the R3 is offering $100 off with a trade in of your Hutchens Device.

Do you get $200 off if you trade in your left nut as well that you lost using your Hutchens device? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

gsbaker

01-12-2005, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Geo:
Do you get $200 off if you trade in your left nut as well that you lost using your Hutchens device? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Good point, George. What's a right nut worth? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

Quickshoe

01-12-2005, 09:58 PM

I still haven't come across the specs for 38.1.

Does the fact that HANS w/quick release tethers now has 2 points of release void the SFI spec the way it is written? Or is still valid because 1pt of release (harness) will still free you from the seat http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif? You just now have an additional point of release that can release you from the HANS so that you don't turn to a crispy critter.

Sidenote: Did Paul Newman have a difficult time exiting the car during his recent fire?

Wayne

01-12-2005, 11:54 PM

This kind of stuff pisses me off to no end. Running around trying to get the car ready for 05 and have to putz around with throwing away perfectly good harnesses, and potentially outlawed head restraints... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif

I'm so confused after reading all this I need some guidance...

I use an Issac system. Don't remember the specific model but it was one of the first production run ones I think. I got a new helmet and was just about ready to try and rip the old issac brackets off the old helmet (glued on) so I can glue them onto the new helmet.

Are you guys saying my issac system is no longer legal for scca competition? Should I even bother with mucking up the new helmet with brackets if I may not be able to use the system this year????

Is the issac system legal for use in scca competition in 2005, yes or no???

Wayne

Quickshoe

01-13-2005, 12:03 AM

YES.

-AND-

Originally posted by gsbaker:
In summary, all Isaac products are accepted (if not encouraged) for use in the SCCA, and we expect all Isaac products to be viewed favorably by Club Racing in the future, it's just a question of how the wording is handled. Section 20.4 may be rewritten, a section for H&N restraints may be added, or a "Bail" requirement may be added.

If you have strong feelings on this subject, now would be a good time to let them be known.

Happy Holidays.

This is from another thread on this site. Titled "August Fastrack is out" bottom of page 2.

Get that letter written...they got one from me. It is your neck, you bought the ISAAC instead of something else for a reason(s).

GREGG BAKER--please see what you can do about getting that device SFI 38.1 certified.

gsbaker

01-13-2005, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
I still haven't come across the specs for 38.1.

Does the fact that HANS w/quick release tethers now has 2 points of release void the SFI spec the way it is written? Or is still valid because 1pt of release (harness) will still free you from the seat http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif? You just now have an additional point of release that can release you from the HANS so that you don't turn to a crispy critter.

That's how we interpret it, yes. Technically, the HANS device is 38.1 compliant because you can get out of the seat with a single release. I guess the teather QRs are there for drivers who want to make sure they can get out of the car.

Sidenote: Did Paul Newman have a difficult time exiting the car during his recent fire?

Not to our knowledge. He is 79, but pretty spry. I saw him in the pits of a CART race last year, where he was buzzing around on a scooter. Still, the window opening on a Daytona Prototype is pretty small, so it could have been exciting.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

gsbaker

01-13-2005, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Wayne:
...Is the issac system legal for use in scca competition in 2005, yes or no???

Wayne

Wayne,

Yes. You are good to go. The worst-case scenario is that SCCA goes with SFI 38.1 for club racing in 2006. We have already designed a retrofit for all Isaac models, so you can swap out a couple of parts and be all set.

I understand your frustration. It just a lot of time, effort and expense to to fix a "problem" that does not exist. You can imagine how happy we are.

Thanks for being an Isaac user!

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

wlfpkrcn

01-13-2005, 02:43 PM

If you are in a big crash, the theory is your belts stretch and are supposed to be replaced. Is the same true for the tethers/straps that attach the restraint system to your helmet ie. Hans, Hutchens, R3 etc... Gregg do you happen to know?

Eric

gsbaker

01-13-2005, 02:54 PM

Eric,

To the best of our knowldege they are supposed to be replaced, yes. You will typically see wording like, "Replace every 2 [or 3] years or after severe use."

Same with the HANS device. The straps must be replaced periodically and the whole thing should be replaced if the impact exceeds 100Gs.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

wlfpkrcn

01-13-2005, 07:09 PM

Gregg,

Is the contact email on the website your email?

gsbaker

01-13-2005, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by wlfpkrcn:
Gregg,

Is the contact email on the website your email?

No, that is the general company inbox. I'm at [email protected].

shwah

01-14-2005, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by gsbaker:
Wayne,

Yes. You are good to go. The worst-case scenario is that SCCA goes with SFI 38.1 for club racing in 2006. We have already designed a retrofit for all Isaac models, so you can swap out a couple of parts and be all set.

I understand your frustration. It just a lot of time, effort and expense to to fix a "problem" that does not exist. You can imagine how happy we are.

Thanks for being an Isaac user!

I am the happy new owner of an ISAAC system - despite FedExs best efforts (they delivered an empty case - well it did have the hardware baggie - covered in FedEx tape the first time). A huge thanks to Gregg and company for the responsive service.

If the SCCA does go down a road to require that I retrofit the kit to a lower performing specification to meet questionable 'certification', I will be quite happy to exit stage right and spend my weekends with the Midwest Council of Sports Car Clubs here in the Midwest.

I guess I need to get that in a letter off to Topeka...

Chris

planet6racing

01-14-2005, 12:46 PM

I hate to say this, but...

I would expect that if the SCCA adopts 38.1, MCSCC and NASA will as well. I actually expect them to do it first, just due to the liability issues...

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

gsbaker

01-14-2005, 04:23 PM

I'm not so sure, Bill. Two weeks ago I would have agreed with you 100%, but we've had some interesting correspondence lately from a variety of acronyms.

I'm not sure everyone is drinking the SFI Kool Aid, though they may ultimately choke it down.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

Wayne

01-14-2005, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by gsbaker:
Wayne,

Yes. You are good to go. The worst-case scenario is that SCCA goes with SFI 38.1 for club racing in 2006. We have already designed a retrofit for all Isaac models, so you can swap out a couple of parts and be all set.
Retrofit? You have a design that makes a single release point?? Both pins are pulled at the same time??

Wayne

Knestis

01-14-2005, 10:18 PM

Both of my pins pull with one motion. It's the "Team GTI Enduro Spec" model. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

gsbaker

01-15-2005, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Wayne:
Retrofit? You have a design that makes a single release point?? Both pins are pulled at the same time??

Wayne

Wayne,

No. Technically that would not satisfy the single release requirement; you would have two release points.

I'm referring to a change in the Isaac belt connector. Rather than capturing the belt with the mechanism, the belt slips into a "C" shaped component. You could either disconnect at the helmet as you do now, or drag it out the window, looking like a human TV antenna.

BTW, this would not affect the performance of the Isaac system in controlling tension loads, but the increased friction at the belt connector would slightly increase early compression loads. We crashed a similar design at Wayne State so we know it's very safe.

Kirk,

You seem satisfied with your beta-tested, Enduro Spec model. What length would you recommend for the lanyard? We can have them made up in time for the new season.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[This message has been edited by gsbaker (edited January 15, 2005).]