Free Isaac system!

[gsbaker]

Pick the right number and win a free Isaac system! Why not; it’s the slow season and this could be fun.

That’s right, just pick a number between, say, 15 and 45. We have no idea what the correct number will be until we crash test next week. What are you guessing? The upper neck load on the dummy, measured in hundreds of Newtons. For perspective, 15 is a great number matched by only two products on the planet, and 45 is a dead dummy. It's possible the number would fall outside this range, but unlikely.

But that’s not important. What’s important is that historical testing is of no value because we are testing a new design with a new test protocol. In other words, we have no idea what will happen. Honest. :D

Here are The Rules:
- You must post your guess here, don’t e-mail us please.
- One guess per person.
- In the event of a tie, the first poster wins.
- Guesses are limited to increments no smaller than 0.5
- Contest ends at noon EDT, Monday 19 September 2005.
- If the thing blows up, no one wins. Sorry.

Spread the word.

[Doc Bro]

I'll claim 17!
Rob Breault

[dickita15]

19

[racer14itc]

I'll guess 16. :023:

MC

[Speed Raycer]

15 :D

[its66]

how about lucky number 21??

That's my guess.

[ryotko]

Let's try 18.

-Bob

[gran racing]

20

[gsbaker]

Man, this crowd is fast.

[Matt Rowe]

Hmm, numbers are going fast. How about 22?

~Matt Rowe

[spnkzss]

25

[planet6racing]

13, just because it is my lucky number! :smilie_pokal:

[Joe Camilleri]

14. I have faith in you.

[gsbaker]

This is going much more quickly than expected. Everybody woke up.

To avoid any ill feelings let's add a rule: No decimals, i.e. integers only. If we run out of numbers we can revisit this, or get creative in some other manner.

[Mike Guenther]

Put me down for 23.
Is that the load the dummy takes while wearing the Issac?

[Ralf]

I'll go with 24

[itmanta]

I'll go with 12. I will buy one this winter anyway, but free is good.

[Bill Miller]

I was going to take 25 (my car #), but I guess I'll go w/ 27.

[itmanta]

Sorry Bill I reread the first post and changed my number.

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Mike Guenther@Sep 14 2005, 05:02 PM
Put me down for 23.
Is that the load the dummy takes while wearing the Issac?

60172
Yes, that's it. It's the load the dummy takes where the upper neck connects to the base of the skull while using the Isaac.

The total load the entire dummy takes will be over 5 tons.

[fiat124girl]

Hmmm, how about 33 because I want a Rolling Rock about now.

[chumpy36]

28 please!

[jake7140]

10 will be a number met by only one product on the planet!

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by fiat124girl@Sep 14 2005, 05:18 PM
Hmmm, how about 33 because I want a Rolling Rock about now.

60179
Sounds good to me!
:birra:

[Catch22]

Damn. All of the good ones are taken.

I'll take 29, since 22 was snatched already.
And if you change the rules I want 22.5 - Dibs.

[itaintegra31]

30 will have to do.

[Despr8dave]

gotta go with 11 cause I'm late...................

[Daryl DeArman]

I'll take 26.

If I win (I already have one) I'll give it to the first person who sends me a cashier's/certified check for $500 payable to the City of Hope or Livestrong.org (Lance Armstrong cancer charity), their choice.

[Eagle7]

Gees, you go away for a couple hours...
34. Hope I lose - you guys are better than that.

[zracre]

27 tor me!!!!!!! :023:

[SilverHorseRacing]

Late to the party, and below the initial range, but hey... let's see how good you guys are.

I vote for 9 !!

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by planet6racing@Sep 14 2005, 04:44 PM
13, just because it is my lucky number! :smilie_pokal:

60169


Oh really? Does it take 13 pounds of tensile force to remove your stee.....

er, nevermind, I am just grumpy cuz I missed this !

[seamus88]

31 Please :D

[lateapex911]

According to my chart, 31 is still available...so I will take it.

Hoping the new procedure has a snag to it...

Now, what about guys who have a HANS, but win an Isaac...I think they should be forced to sell the HANS, or re gift the Isaac back to the crowd, in a second "raffle"...

;)

lets make this REALLY interesting....

(I had picked 19 in my head, but was beaten to it ...)

[lateapex911]

Aaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggg gg. :119:

Ok, so we were both typing at the same time....I will take 32

That's it...final offer!

[gsbaker]

This is hilarious.

I promise I'll post my best guess prior to testing. Out of a sense of fairness, I've already written it on a yellow sticky stuck on my desk.

Hey Jake, if you were the exception to the integer rule, what number would you guess?

[ITANorm]

36 - 'cause it's the lowest # not already claimed. ;)

[gsbaker]

Good grief, we've created a monster.

Obviously, the remaining numbers (realistic ones that is) will be consumed within a few more Rolling Rocks, so why not officially open up the pickings to include 1/2 increments, i.e. "point five" is good.

BTW, readers here have displayed a lot of faith in our abilities given the charge toward low numbers. We are humbled. Thank you. The reality, however, is that we are going out on a limb with this design concept. It may fail miserably, so don&#39;t be afraid of trying a high number. Honestly, we have no idea what we are doing. <_< None whatsoever. <_< <_<

Yes, I have a number in mind, but my confidence is low. I wouldn&#39;t be surprised by anything.

Either way, it&#39;s gonna make for a great video. :119:

[67ITB]

Boy the one-day I actually have to work at work and I almost miss out on this....
Now that it’s open to decimals I will take 18.5

Thanks

Matt Bal

[mowog]

I&#39;ll take 22.5. And anything I get for a different brand restraint will go to Salvation Army or Red Cross.

Chris

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by 67ITB@Sep 14 2005, 09:00 PM
Boy the one-day I actually have to work at work and I almost miss out on this....
Now that it’s open to decimals I will take 18.5

Thanks

Matt Bal

60216


Ummmm....Matt? Didn&#39;t you just get home from a foreign country where your "normal" work day included being shot at?

None of us pansies has any right to say "We had a tough day at work" compared to you, LOL.

Hmmm.....I WOULD have chosen something in the 19.76 range, or thereabouts, but I have no idea of the design concept so obviously thats just a rough number.....

(And btw Gregg, should Matt actually get closer than anyone, he SHOULD win cuz of his service to the country, but if I were closer, then an original poster should win and you can figure out a second prize for us latecomer integers.

This just in...three hurricanes make landfall and NONE hit Gregg! Maybe thats why he&#39;s so giddy and giving away product!

[Bill Miller]

You know Greg, you guys really are a class act. :023: :023: :023:

[Chris Wire]

Put me down for 20.5.

Took off my shoes, counted all my fingers and toes and that&#39;s what I came up with!

[Dave Zaslow]

24.5

[JLawton]

38.5 !!!

[x-ring]

14.5

[vwmann1]

Holly cow!!!!!! I need to check here in the afternoons also. This all took place over less than 24 hrs :119:
I will claim 19.5 :smilie_pokal:

[JIgou]

Man, NO hints about the new test OR the new system?

21.5

Knew I shoulda blown off that stuff for work yesterday....

Jarrod

[JamesB]

42

[RSTPerformance]

I say 35... Its in the lower part of the range, so I hope that I loose ;)

Raymond

[RSTPerformance]

I am back from the cape and ready to play :)

23.5

Stephen Blethen

[JamesB]

play the high odds ;) I just chose the number for laughs.

[Ron Earp]

19.63

[RacerBill]

Originally posted by rlearp@Sep 15 2005, 11:44 AM
19.63

60268


I&#39;ll go back to whole numbers. If it&#39;s not taken, and I don&#39;t remember seeing it, please put me down for the number 19 ( my car number is 61, so that&#39;s what it looks like upside down!!!!!!)

Sorry, I didn&#39;t see that Dick took 19. OK 19.4

[Racerlinn]

20.5 if it&#39;s not taken (I didn&#39;t see it....)

You guys rock! Rolling Rock!

[benracin]

I&#39;ve got one (it&#39;s the most awesome thing on the planet by the way, thanks Bill!), but my new racing buddy doesn&#39;t. So I&#39;ll take a 14.5 (if it isn&#39;t taken) for my pal!

:023:

Crap! I mean 15.5

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 14 2005, 10:21 PM
You know Greg, you guys really are a class act. :023: :023: :023:

60223
Shhhh. Quite Bill, we got &#39;em all fooled. We are attempting to project an image of money-grubbing scamsters.

[ddewhurst]

Gregg, curious question: Will your company have a Isaac show & tell booth/advertisement/shown at a race parts sales trailer (some good vendor who would do for a minimal fee) at the Runoffs ?

No number for me, I already got free this year. ;)

[gsbaker]

Not this year Dave, but we&#39;d like to do something along those lines in the future.

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by JIgou@Sep 15 2005, 11:08 AM
Man, NO hints about the new test OR the new system?...
60259
The test is very similar to the one shown here (please right click, save as, etc.): http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/Video/Lateral.wmv

It&#39;s another offset frontal impact with the dummy in an upright seating position. The differences are that it is a bigger hit and the seat shape is different, which can have a significant effect on the numbers.

Re the product:
- There has been some general public discussion of the product, but nothing specific.
- It is another extension of the Isaac product line. It is not replacing anything.
- It takes advantage of the modular Isaac concept, allowing existing Isaac systems to be retrofited to this design.

[Wreckerboy]

You guys are really something special.

I&#39;ll take 25.5, please. Anything to get a head start on this winter&#39;s planned safety upgrades.

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Wreckerboy@Sep 15 2005, 03:49 PM
You guys are really something special....

60300
Well, a little crazy maybe...

Thanks.

[gsbaker]

While I&#39;m thinking of it, are there any of you who believe you missed a shot at a freebie because this moved so fast? If so we might feel obligated to give you another chance. After all, this guessing has been only about one load sensor on the dummy, and there are dozens of them.

Seriously, if anyone wants Part Deux we can make it happen. Anyone want to guess belt loads, or sled Gs, or maybe lumbar spine compression? Hey, this could be more fun than balancing your checkbook. :) Lucrative, too. :D

[944-spec#94]

17.5...

( Think it was open...) :unsure:

[spnkzss]

Originally posted by gsbaker@Sep 15 2005, 04:11 PM
While I&#39;m thinking of it, are there any of you who believe you missed a shot at a freebie because this moved so fast? If so we might feel obligated to give you another chance. After all, this guessing has been only about one load sensor on the dummy, and there are dozens of them.

Seriously, if anyone wants Part Deux we can make it happen. Anyone want to guess belt loads, or sled Gs, or maybe lumbar spine compression? Hey, this could be more fun than balancing your checkbook. :) Lucrative, too. :D

60305



I think more importantly, when is the test being done and when will you have results? I&#39;m hoping not to spend $800 this winter :)

[ddewhurst]

***Re the product:
- There has been some general public discussion of the product, but nothing specific.
- It is another extension of the Isaac product line. It is not replacing anything.
- It takes advantage of the modular Isaac concept, allowing existing Isaac systems to be retrofited to this design. ***

Ok, lets start a new "What will it be game".

My guess is that it will be a carbon fiber shoulder deal that the current harness end of the Isaac will attach to.

[Marcus Miller]

16.5 ; I have faith.


Marcus

[Daryl DeArman]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Sep 15 2005, 11:22 PM
My guess is that it will be a carbon fiber shoulder deal that the current harness end of the Isaac will attach to.



I would like that. I believe the ISAAC device people have strayed away from the worn device because of egress issues.

I also believe that HANS people have a patent on that design (yoke/shoulder harness portion) of the device.

I&#39;d love to see ISAAC license the damper technology/patent to the HANS people (HANS with dampers instead of tethers) or an ISAAC that is SFI approved.

[ddewhurst]

***I also believe that HANS people have a patent on that design (yoke/shoulder harness portion) of the device.***

Daryl, I hear you & thought about that before I posted. BUT, the Hutchenson (IIRC) 2nd device came out with a yoke/shoulder harness portion for their device after HANS. Maybe the device will be mounted to the shoulder portion & not the two vertical horns.

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by spnkzss@Sep 15 2005, 06:28 PM
I think more importantly, when is the test being done and when will you have results? I&#39;m hoping not to spend $800 this winter :)

60322
Testing is scheduled for the first half of next week. Let&#39;s use noon Monday as the cutoff for guesses.

We&#39;ll have results immediately after testing. If we can get everything packed into Monday, I could post the results as early as Tuesday.

[evanwebb]

How about 24.5 for me. But Gregg you can change my number to the winning number later if no one has claimed it ;-)

[ShelbyRacer]

I&#39;m going with 33.5 (since I wanted 33.3). I&#39;m hoping for everyone&#39;s sake that I&#39;m wrong... ;) My daughter was born on 3/3/03, so I figured what the hey... I was originally going to go with 33 (close to 33.03) but that of course is taken.

My real hope is that your final result is like 17.75, because that was my gut instinct as soon as you explained the range... Not that we really know anything to make an educated guess though :bash_1_: If you go to 1/4 increments, I get dibs on 17.75!

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Daryl DeArman@Sep 15 2005, 10:51 PM
...I believe the ISAAC device people have strayed away from the worn device because of egress issues....
60348
Big 10-4 there, Daryl. Every time--not some time or most times, but every time--a H&N restraint has trapped a driver in a car it&#39;s been one they have had to wear.

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by evanwebb@Sep 16 2005, 12:53 PM
How about 24.5 for me. But Gregg you can change my number to the winning number later if no one has claimed it ;-)

60390
Sorry Evan, I don&#39;t think that&#39;s in the rules. :)

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer@Sep 16 2005, 03:04 PM
I&#39;m going with 33.5 (since I wanted 33.3). I&#39;m hoping for everyone&#39;s sake that I&#39;m wrong... ;)
60407
Matt,

There is nothing to be ashamed of if we get 33.5. That&#39;s a driver who is still alive.

This is a big blast. Most IRL impacts aren&#39;t this big, and IRL posts some huge numbers. On the baseline videos one can see the driver&#39;s chest collapse from the belt loads--I&#39;m talking flattened like a pancake. Very nasty. And the head loads are so high the driver is definitely a dead dummy, no question. If we can save a driver in such extreme impacts we have much to be proud of.

We&#39;ll take 33.5. We won&#39;t like it, but we&#39;ll take it.

[gsbaker]

We&#39;d like to thank everyone for their enthusiastic participation. It was more than expected and a great source of amusement.

Someone will win an Isaac system, unless we break something and have no numbers to work with. If that happens we will make it up somehow.

Along those lines, I want everyone to know that this crash test is the second time we have hit this prototype. The first time was on another sled, where it saved the dummy. When I say "this prototype" I mean the exact same set up; not the same concept, not the same design but the exact same hardware. That&#39;s right folks, it&#39;s a "used" Isaac system and a "used" helmet with "used" helmet mounts attached with "used" Isaac adhesive.

Got to go. Igor and I must repair to the lab and hook up the electrodes. :)

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by gsbaker@Sep 16 2005, 05:16 PM
Someone will win an Isaac system, it&#39;s a "used" Isaac system and a "used" helmet with "used" helmet mounts attached with "used" Isaac adhesive.

60423

Gee Greg, what kind of a deal is that? :bash_1_:

[Daryl DeArman]

Marty, I took the "IT" that Gregg was referring to is the unit being sled tested, not the prize.

Even if it was the prize, I&#39;d still be cool with it, wouldn&#39;t you....guess a silly number win a prize...no 1099 for the prize...sounds like a winner to me.

[Eagle7]

Just trying to add a little humor - failed again I see. :bash_1_:

[USGUYS]

26 FOR USGUYS :smilie_pokal:

[TBreu007]

How about 26.5

[kevin22]

17.5

[gsbaker]

The mathematical model is telling us 23.6. However, we know there is a predicting error for this test protocol so I am not that optimistic.

My guess is 27.5.

Of course, the error could go the other way and we end up in the teens.

Yeah, I&#39;m sandbaggin&#39;, but not much.

[itbgti]

44....Hope I lose :)

[Hammer]

28.5

[gsbaker]

It was your classic good-news, bad-news story with a new test. In this case the best sequence is bad news, good news, and really good news.

The Bad News
The bad news is that we had a malfunction. Nothing broke, but there was a hiccup that we thought might occur at these higher loads. The net result was that one side was rendered nonfunctional, and all the load was carried by the other side.

(Pleased note that this test was the examination of a design concept--one we don’t like, frankly. Only one prototype exists; no customer is using a hiccupable Isaac system. The same malfunction occurs with the HANS device on this sled, so don’t get excited.)

The Good News
We have a winner. The number was 46.6. That’s high, but given that we almost saved the dummy with ½ an Isaac system, it’s not too shabby.

The Really Good News
The really good news is that Bill’s (a.k.a. planet6racing) helmet mount adhesive put forth a performance that was positively stunning. It’s one thing to go through the calculations and bench testing knowing that the product works well, but it was quite a sight to see the entire load of a 70+G blast going though a single adhesive mount that had already taken a 50G hit--and come out untouched. I have not seen a video that scary since the original Alien movie. All hail Bill!

Congratulations to the winner!

[944-spec#94]

Greg,
Sorry to see that the design did not work as hoped.

Something tells me I know pretty much what you are working with this design.

All I can say is DAMN (insert your favorite 3 letter safety body). :bash_1_:


Keep up the good work :023:

[Racerlinn]

Um, I think I&#39;ll take, uh 46.6! Yeah, right, really!!
:D
OK, maybe not...
I think itbgti is closest.

[Marcus Miller]

Good try! :happy204:

Now, when will we see our next prototype testing?

Marcus

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by 944-spec#94@Sep 20 2005, 03:13 PM
Greg,
Sorry to see that the design did not work as hoped....

60722
It&#39;s not as bad as it seems. Yes, technically, it did not work. But we knew that at some point of increasing loads it would not work, and that&#39;s exactly what this test proved.

It works at ~50Gs but not at ~70Gs, and that is why we do not like this design concept.

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Marcus Miller@Sep 20 2005, 10:48 PM
Good try! :happy204:

Now, when will we see our next prototype testing?

Marcus

60770
Marcus,

Thanks.

We&#39;re noodling on the back of the envelope now. It will take several weeks to set something up.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by gsbaker@Sep 15 2005, 01:17 PM
Shhhh. Quite Bill, we got &#39;em all fooled. We are attempting to project an image of money-grubbing scamsters.

60278


Gregg,


Sorry that the design didn&#39;t work, but better to fail in testing, then in a real application. From what I could gather, looks like Alan L. was the winner. Congrats Alan!!!

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Marcus Miller@Sep 20 2005, 10:48 PM
Good try! :happy204:

Now, when will we see our next prototype testing?

Marcus

60770


Oh, about two hours ago. :)

Here&#39;s what the lab engineers thought: :happy204:

Here&#39;s what we did to our competitors: :bash_1_:

Here&#39;s the result: :smilie_pokal:

Okay, I&#39;m stretching things a bit, but not much (we would never take a hammer to our competitors).

Since the first test had a wrinkle, the results were not fair to those who made more accurate, i.e. lower, estimates. So, we are willing to give away another Isaac system to whomever picked the number closest to today&#39;s test value.

We&#39;ll give some time to anyone who missed out and wants to make a last minute guess of a value that has not already been picked.

Heh, heh... Yeah, baby.

:bash_1_: :bash_1_: :bash_1_:

[944-spec#94]

Originally posted by 944-spec#94@Sep 15 2005, 01:17 PM
17.5...

( Think it was open...) :unsure:

60306


I stand by this number...
:006:

[tcpip]

13.5

[JamesB]

16.8

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by JamesB@Nov 1 2005, 08:13 PM
16.8

64235



Uh James, it&#39;s increments of .5 :bash_1_: :P :lol:


And once again, I&#39;d like to say how much of a class act that Gregg and his company are. Looking forward to using mine (wait, that doesn&#39;t sound quite right. :o )

[Wreckerboy]

Put me down for 12.5, please.

[JamesB]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 2 2005, 07:47 AM
Uh James, it&#39;s increments of .5 :bash_1_: :P :lol:
And once again, I&#39;d like to say how much of a class act that Gregg and his company are. Looking forward to using mine (wait, that doesn&#39;t sound quite right. :o )

64265


yes I know that, I was being facisious. I already made my decision after lots of reading, consideration and finally trying on for fit and feel.

[RacerBill]

Originally posted by JamesB@Nov 2 2005, 10:52 AM
yes I know that, I was being facisious. I already made my decision after lots of reading, consideration and finally trying on for fit and feel.

64291

I&#39;ll modify my first choice to fit the &#39;.5&#39; rule and say 19.5

[gsbaker]

I see there is still much interest. Excellent.

When do you guys think we should post the result?

[mustanghammer]

Originally posted by gsbaker@Nov 2 2005, 05:04 PM
I see there is still much interest. Excellent.

When do you guys think we should post the result?

64310



After you except you guess!

11.0

[mustanghammer]

Originally posted by mustanghammer@Nov 2 2005, 05:28 PM
After you except you guess!

11.0

64313



I meant......After you accept MY guess

11.0

Geez!

[gsbaker]

Okay, we can close this out, say, noon tomorrow.

BTW, I should note that this is a really nasty test. It&#39;s like pulling on Superman&#39;s cape, going one-on-one with Shaq, or pitting your IT car against an Audi R8.

In other words, this is the test you run if you want to look bad and get your head handed to you, pun intended.

Yeah, that&#39;s a hint. :)

[benracin]

I think my 15.5 is still good.

The only thing I hate about this product is watching it sit in the garage with winter coming and knowing I won&#39;t be able to play with it for a long long time. Looks like it&#39;s time to create the perfect video game chair with a 5 point just so I can wear mine over the cold months.

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by benracin@Nov 2 2005, 05:53 PM
The only thing I hate about this product is watching it sit in the garage with winter coming and knowing I won&#39;t be able to play with it for a long long time.
64375
I don&#39;t know, Ben. I recall one holiday party where someone put a Kirkey seat in their office chair, draped harness belts over the seat, donned a helmet and gave it a whirl.

Not very scientific, but it made for a lot of fun. :)

[wlfpkrcn]

I&#39;m going with a high number, because all the good ones are taken 36.5. Good luck. I hope the number goes low

Eric

[gsbaker]

BTW, while our test results were excellent as measured by all the load sensors at this zillion dollar facility--and the Isaac system came through untouched--the most impressive part, from my perspective, was the adhesive for the helmet mounts.

Remember I mentioned above that we were using a helmet/mount combination in our previous test that we had already crashed once before? Rather than play it safe and go with new components, we decided to hit that same helmet/mount combination again, just to see if it could take it. In summary, one hit on a 50G sled, one hit on a 70G sled (with all the load to only one side), and this hit on a 70G sled.

The helmet has had the living snot kicked out of it, yet the Isaac adhesive appears untouched:

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/misc/TestHelmetLeft.JPG

and, from the other side

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/misc/TestHelmetRight.JPG

Just for grins, we might continue to hit this until it breaks, assuming it ever will.

For the record, I don&#39;t wish to jeopardize my image as one sophisticated dude,

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/Humor/Ugly101.jpg

but I must admit that sometimes R&D is a whole lot of fun. :)

[charrbq]

Gimme 14...woops, wrong number...make it 26

[gsbaker]

One hour left.

[Racerlinn]

Originally posted by Racerlinn@Sep 15 2005, 03:56 PM
20.5 if it&#39;s not taken (I didn&#39;t see it....)

60270

Come on 20.5.....go baby, go!

[gsbaker]

(Drumroll please)

The answer is 22.1, so 22.0 is the winner. Congratulations! Just shoot us an e-mail and we will make sure you have an early Christmas present.

As some of you may have guessed, we were testing some design concepts at the Delphi lab in Vandalia, Ohio. The 70G test protocol we used is a specific version of what has come to be known as the SFI test. It&#39;s not the easy, straight-ahead frontal test, it&#39;s the 30 degree offset frontal which generates the highest head loads. It&#39;s a designer&#39;s nightmare. If you can pass this one you can pass the straight frontal.

It is important to put this load value in perspective. SFI Specification 38.1 calls for a maximum upper neck load of 4,000 Newtons, 40.0 for our purposes here, for the offset frontal test. Coming in at only 2210N implies protection well in excess of 100Gs.

Unfortunately, our competitors have only published numbers for the easier straight frontal test. If memory serves, the R3 came in at 3,000N, the SFI limit for that test, and the HANS device at 1,700N. However, these values will be higher in the offset frontal test. So much so that we have a sneaking suspicion that we can now lay claim to the best head and neck restraint in the solar system.

If any of our competitors disagree, we expect them to soon make public their test results.

What did we test on Tuesday that produced such great numbers? The original Isaac system. :)

:smilie_pokal:

[its66]

Originally posted by gsbaker@Nov 3 2005, 05:54 PM
(Drumroll please)

The answer is 22.1, so 22.0 is the winner. Congratulations! Just shoot us an e-mail and we will make sure you have an early Christmas present.
:smilie_pokal:

64514



darn..Missed it by one. No consolation prize I assume??

Congrat&#39;s to Matt Rowe

[Racerlinn]

Crud!
The shotgun wll be out if Santa doesn&#39;t bring me a Link system at the end of next month.
:023:

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by its66@Nov 3 2005, 01:57 PM
darn..Missed it by one. No consolation prize I assume??

64515


Geez Jim, we just gave away two prizes for one contest. :) We are open to suggestions, though.

[its66]

Gregg,
I&#39;m just messing with ya.

I am still amazed by the strength of the adhesive that you are using. WOW. That stuff must be incredible.

Stop by and say hi at the Turkey Trots.!

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by its66@Nov 3 2005, 04:24 PM
Gregg,
I&#39;m just messing with ya.

I am still amazed by the strength of the adhesive that you are using. WOW. That stuff must be incredible.

Stop by and say hi at the Turkey Trots.!

64545


I can&#39;t make the TT this year, unfortunately. Family obligations. Obviously, I need more racers in the family!

Yes, the adhesive is impressive. If you stick an Isaac mount to the top of most IT cars, you could lift the car with it. The gearhead in me looks at the numbers and says, "Sure, that&#39;ll work", but I still have a hard time believing it when I see it.

Have fun at Sebring!

[944-spec#94]

Originally posted by gsbaker@Nov 3 2005, 02:14 PM
Yes, the adhesive is impressive. If you stick an Isaac mount to the top of most IT cars, you could lift the car with it. The gearhead in me looks at the numbers and says, "Sure, that&#39;ll work", but I still have a hard time believing it when I see it.



You sure Gregg? I am thinking the roof may pull off first. :lol:

Great work... very impressive. Now if I only could have guessed a little better... :( then I&#39;d be really happy! :P

[gsbaker]

Thanks, Joe.

It&#39;s always rewarding when the final results prove what one knew to be true years prior.

[lateapex911]

Great stuff Gregg!

Congrats to the new user...

Not only does the Isaac work well, it&#39;s COOL! Little dampers on my helmet...how high tech! Now, when will you release the RR version???

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 3 2005, 09:17 PM
...Now, when will you release the RR version???

64578
"RR"? Rolling Rock? :)

[racer14itc]

Originally posted by gsbaker@Nov 3 2005, 09:14 PM

Yes, the adhesive is impressive. If you stick an Isaac mount to the top of most IT cars, you could lift the car with it. The gearhead in me looks at the numbers and says, "Sure, that&#39;ll work", but I still have a hard time believing it when I see it.



64555


Gregg,

Maybe if you stuck it on the doors in shear, but wouldn&#39;t the mount on the roof be in tension? :P

MC

[gsbaker]

MC,

Wise guy. :)

You are, of course, correct sir. However, the tensile strength is roughly twice the shear strength for this material so--downhill with a tailwind and a little luck--you are probably looking at a load carrying capacity north of 5,000# (each) in tension. Less in shear.

Hey, maybe we could pick up an Excursion or Hummer as a demo. B)

[racer14itc]

Originally posted by gsbaker@Nov 4 2005, 03:29 PM
MC,

Wise guy. :)

You are, of course, correct sir. However, the tensile strength is roughly twice the shear strength for this material so--downhill with a tailwind and a little luck--you are probably looking at a load carrying capacity north of 5,000# (each) in tension. Less in shear.

Hey, maybe we could pick up an Excursion or Hummer as a demo. B)

64617


Now THAT would be cool!! I didn&#39;t realize the tensile strength of the adhesive was so good.
MC

[benracin]

That&#39;s it... I&#39;m gonna say it... you guys are awesome. Awesome people, awesome company, awesome product.

Now lets see those other guys numbers so that we can point and whisper about them.

Great work. :happy204: :happy204: :happy204:

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by benracin@Nov 4 2005, 12:49 PM
...Now lets see those other guys numbers so that we can point and whisper about them...

64627
Ben,

The reaction will be interesting. If they beat us they&#39;ll announce something right away. If they didn&#39;t, we will all hear nothing but silence. Don&#39;t hold your breath. ;)

Thanks for the kind words.

[gsbaker]

BTW, no one asked what value I would have guessed. :) I was thinking 2,500N but if I had to make a public guess I would sandbag to 2,750N.

[ITS48Datsun240Z]

Originally posted by gsbaker@Nov 3 2005, 12:54 PM
(Drumroll please)

As some of you may have guessed, we were testing some design concepts at the Delphi lab in Vandalia, Ohio. The 70G test protocol we used is a specific version of what has come to be known as the SFI test. It&#39;s not the easy, straight-ahead frontal test, it&#39;s the 30 degree offset frontal which generates the highest head loads. It&#39;s a designer&#39;s nightmare. If you can pass this one you can pass the straight frontal.



I can see how the opposition would have trouble with the offset test, probably as a result of the displacement of the "collar" sideways under the belts.

...But I&#39;ve got to play the devil&#39;s advocate, and ask for the results of the straight ahead 70G impact, and why you&#39;re not quoting those figures? :(

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by ITS48Datsun240Z@Nov 5 2005, 11:23 PM
...But I&#39;ve got to play the devil&#39;s advocate, and ask for the results of the straight ahead 70G impact, and why you&#39;re not quoting those figures? :(

64711
Because we don&#39;t have a specific value. Frontal loads are always lower than offsets, so if the offset is below the frontal limit, why bother running frontal tests?

(Isaac frontal loads would run 1,500N-2,000N. The HANS device will come in around 1,600-1,700N, although one can tune a 4-belt harness with a HANS to get under 1,000N, but that&#39;s not the SFI protocol.)

[ITS48Datsun240Z]

Originally posted by gsbaker@Nov 6 2005, 09:37 PM
Because we don&#39;t have a specific value. Frontal loads are always lower than offsets, so if the offset is below the frontal limit, why bother running frontal tests?





To prove that the Isaac will prevent someone from breaking their neck in a frontal collision?

How can it be an absolute that offset loads are always higher? Wouldn&#39;t that vary with the design of the system? If a system was better at limiting the side to side motion of the head than forward and back, wouldn&#39;t the neck loads decrease as the imapct was offset?

[M. Hurst]

The offset load is not a combined 68G frontal impact and an additional side impact, It&#39;s a 68G impact at a 30degree angle, right?

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

Are you saying that you did not test the Isaac in a frontal test?

[gsbaker]

Head loads increase with the offset, independent of the design.

[944-spec#94]

The ONLY reason to do a frontal impact is marketing.

Gregg and the boys are smart enough to calcuate the worst case and if they say the 30 deg offset is worse than I bet it is.

And with limited testing budget... why do an expensive test that is less stressfull than the one you just passed. <_<

Make 100% sense form and Engineering prespective.

Now from marketing perspective you are not comparing apples to apples and thus that really is the ONLY REASON to run a 70G frontal test.

Then again even without that I consider ISAAC :smilie_pokal:!

Hell I am even ready to buy... the ONLY thing that I am concerned with is if the racing bodies start Mandating SFI 38.1 If they do that and I have an ISAAC... well .... :angry:

I am feeling a little :bash_1_: by the man right now... :(

[gsbaker]

Time out, everyone. I just realized the source of the problem. (Took long enough.)

Some of the comments here regarding the loads caused by a pure frontal (zero degree offset) impact compared to the standard 30 degree offset impact would make sense if the joint were the ball-and-socket style, as in your hip joint. But where your head connects to your neck more resembles your knee joint. In fact, those big bumps at the bottom of your thigh bone are called condyles, and the smaller ones at the neck-head junction are also condyles--specifically the "occipital condyles".

It&#39;s been while since I studied the specifics of this but, IIRC, the shape of the joint means there is less stress when flexed directly forward than when flexed to the side--similar to bending your knee to the side vs. straight front to back. That may not be the best analogy because your knee isn&#39;t really designed to bend to the side at all, but the mechanics are similar in the neck. The greater the angle the more the condyles are forced out of the matching "slots" in the atlas.

Frontal vs. offset loads are well documented in the literature.

The number we want to see is the HANS load value for the 30 degree offset 68G sled test at Delphi, i.e. the same test.

[M. Hurst]

Originally posted by 944-spec#94@Nov 7 2005, 10:52 AM
The ONLY reason to do a frontal impact is marketing.

Gregg and the boys are smart enough to calcuate the worst case and if they say the 30 deg offset is worse than I bet it is.

And with limited testing budget... why do an expensive test that is less stressfull than the one you just passed. <_<



If the device does a better job of limiting motion side to side, than forward and back, the loads will be less in an offset test...think about it.

If you&#39;re at delphi anyway, wouldn&#39;t it be cost effective to turn the table on the sled straight and do one more pull?

BTW my neck moves side to side, but my knee doesn&#39;t, is this unique?

[lateapex911]

Gregg, just curious...I remeber discussing this wheN Jay (Wright) passed away, but I can&#39;t remeber the specifics. How much does a test actually cost??

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by M. Hurst@Nov 7 2005, 08:40 PM
If the device does a better job of limiting motion side to side, than forward and back, the loads will be less in an offset test...think about it.
There is no connection between head position and head loads. This is an old wive&#39;s tale left over from the last millennium. Move your head as far forward as possible. Are you dead?


If you&#39;re at delphi anyway, wouldn&#39;t it be cost effective to turn the table on the sled straight and do one more pull?
Sure, if we expected to learn something. But no one is going to bother conducting a test if they know the outcome a priori--any more than you would pay a lab to throw a ball in the air just to see if it would come down.


BTW my neck moves side to side, but my knee doesn&#39;t, is this unique?

64831
See post #134.

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 7 2005, 11:56 PM
Gregg, just curious...I remeber discussing this wheN Jay (Wright) passed away, but I can&#39;t remeber the specifics. How much does a test actually cost??

64861
Not much compared to medical! :) A simple follow-up study for a simple medical device will run at least $1 million and take about five years. A full-blown double-blind prospective controlled study for a pharmaceutical is now about 1/2 billion.

Crash testing is a comparative bargain, starting at about $2,500 per for the lab fee. Costs go up if one is looking for an unusual set up or instrumentation. And don&#39;t break anything; replacing a neck load sensor runs about $10K.

We figure $5K-$12K total by the time you throw in prototype production, travel, etc.

[lateapex911]

So, running the second test could have some savings due to the "already there" status, but you&#39;re still looking at $6K or so....

And you wouldn&#39;t "learn" anything per se, but you could pinpoint a number, which would at least give you an answer for the doubters...

On the other hand, you can give away a lot of product for $6K and make some friends that way, LOL!

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 9 2005, 01:58 AM
...And you wouldn&#39;t "learn" anything per se, but you could pinpoint a number, which would at least give you an answer for the doubters...
Exactly.


On the other hand, you can give away a lot of product for $6K and make some friends that way, LOL!

64987
Or buy the beer. :023:

[JIgou]

Originally posted by gsbaker@Nov 9 2005, 08:11 AM

Or buy the beer. :023:

64996


DANG DANG DANG DANG DANG DANG DANG DANG DANG DANG DANG

Wish I was on my way to Atlanta right now... :D

Jarrod

[gsbaker]

Come on down, Jarrod! A lot of people who were racing last year are coming this year just to spectate, so you won&#39;t be alone in that regard. Besides, we need someone to fetch the ice. :)

Jump on a plane, lightweight! ;)