Hans or Isaac? [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

StephF

03-07-2006, 07:29 AM

Well, the season is fast approaching again for those of use locked in the frozen northlands. (don't you FL region members start rubbing it in now! :018: ) And in the middle of the scrambling around with the cars, I realized that I still need to get on the stick and get some safety equipment ordered. The older I get, the skinnier my neck vertabrae becomes....at least SOMETHING'S getting skinnier!! ;)
That being said, I also realized that I am still on the fence as to which one works better, is easiest to use, etc.
So, let me ask all of you these questions:
Which device do you use?
Why did you choose that one?
Would you buy the same one again?
Who did you buy it from?
How much was your Isaac or Hans?
Do you know of any retailers offering SCCA members special buys?
Does your device interfere with you in any way once you are strapped in?

For the Isaac users: How extensive are the helmet modifications? I understand that there is a kind of piston that is attached to the helmet? Does that negate the Simpson rating on the helmet?

And finally, are there other devices out there that are comparable to these two, or are these two it?

Thanks for the input. I know there have been various threads that I've browsed through from time to time, but I'd like to gather as much info as I can before making the purchase. After years of wearing a horse collar to 'protect' my neck, now I find that it might exacerbate a whiplash injury. I certainly don't want to get something that's the 'right' thing now only to find it's the wrong thing later. :wacko:

planet6racing

03-07-2006, 09:50 AM

Steph:

I highly recommend searching this site. If the information came over from all the old threads (which I'm reasonably confident it did), there is a ton of information out there.

I'm an Isaac user. I got mine from Gregg Baker. I've also worked with Gregg to develop the adhesive concept for attaching the mounts to the helmet.

Gregg checks in here often. I'm sure he'd be happy to answer any questions about the Isaac device.

<on edit> Which frozen north lands? If you are anywhere near Milwaukee, I'd be happy to bring over my Isaac and my helmet for you to see...

Knestis

03-07-2006, 10:01 AM

There are all kinds of considerations that you'll want to make when you pick a H&N restraint system. Just be sure that you don't let (sometimes rabid) brand loyalty sway you, and pick the one that's best for you. The most important decision though has already been made - to actually PICK one. :D

The Isaac installation was a little fiddly but I accomplished it in a couple of hours - measuring three times and drilling once. Now that the automagic space adhesive option has proved itself, I'd go with that option. I'd also make my "neutral" head position a little more chin-up, to allow for easier mirror checks: I lowered my seat after putting the brackets on my helmet so the mirror is relatively higher now...

People are amazed when I tell them that, once moving, I don't notice that it's even there. The mechanical noise of the linkage was kind of interesting for about half of my first out lap - I kept thinking of knights in armor! - but it completely goes away after that.

The quick exit issue is one that people get caught up in. I can tell you from experience that, with our "enduro-spec" push/pull pins on a single tether, busting out of my system after rolling at Rally Tennessee last summer added less than 2 seconds to my egress time - and you HUSTLE to get out of a rally car that's sitting on-stage, let me tell you.

But don't make my decision - or anyone else's - for you. Sit down and figure out what qualities are really important to you, and how your choice might be influenced by the type of car or kind of racing you do, and decide for yourself. I would also caution against making your decision based on price difference (not even knowing what they are now). Amortized over the number of races you'll be able to use either system, they are cheap.

K

DavidM

03-07-2006, 03:52 PM

I went with the Issac. The Hans requires a couple inches of space between your head and the seatback, which I don't have in my seating position. The Hans would have forced my head into a downward angle.

Installing the Issac was not difficult, but was not simple either. It's not easy trying to figure out where you install the mounts on your helmet. Try measuring distances on a helmet and you'll see what I mean. You only get one shot at it so you don't want to mess it up. I just eventually gave up trying to measure things, put on my racing gear (all of it - this is key as you will sit up a little higher with your suit on) and the helmet, sat in the car and had somebody mark the spots. My mounts wound up in slightly different places on each side of the helmet due to the way I hold my head apparently, but things seem to be correct.

I don't notice that it's on once I'm on the track, but it can be a pain if you have it on while trying to drive around in the paddock (if you are going straight from your parking space to the track for instance). I find that trying to look at the passenger side mirror takes a little bit of effort to extend the piston a fraction, but you get used to it.

You get the Issac straight from them. Check their website for prices. They are comparable to a Hans.

David

lateapex911

03-07-2006, 04:48 PM

Steph, another Isaac user here.

I can't add too much that Kirk and David have hit on, but....

Go to Headrestarint.org

It's a site that is intended to provide as much real world data in one place as possible.

Don't get *too* hung up in splitting hairs over head loads from one to another...the type of racing we do will not present that many chances to hit walls going 150MPH dead on. Think about how we crash. I can't remember many crashes that were square or "head on". So, to me, lateral and offset hits are much more likely. Prepare for those.

Setting up the Isaac is pretty easy, even alone. I sat in the car, all strapped in with the system on the straps and the mounts pinned in, and moved my head around as I would driving, then left my head in the middle of that range, and with the shocks in the middle of their travel, I attached the mounts to the helmet in the area I had deliniated with double stick tape. I did study the instructions, and had talked to Gregg Baker (One of the great guys in the racing industry) about the best location on the helmet and had attached some two sided tape on the helmet to define the "boundry" of the acceptable area before climbing in the car. Sounds harder than it was, LOL. Once done, I popped the pins, leaving the mounts on the helmet, prepared the wonder glue, and final epoxied the mounts in place. No drilling (and subsequent 'decertification' of the helmet required)

I would be happy to show you sometime at the track.

I chose the Isaac because I thought that the HANS was potentially less effective on lateral offset crashes, which, in my eyes is the most likley to occur, and becuase I saw the real possibility of the "yoke" of the HANS getting caught on the net or the cage when trying to get out of a burning or upside down car. THe Isaac requires me to pull a tether, as Kirk says, to release the pins, and some argue that they will be too "loopy" to remember to do that. So I practice. If you practice for the worst, or the unexpected, it isn't the worst or the unexpected when it happens. Which is common sense. But I can't control certain realities of a crash, and that's where the HANS getting caught on something comes up.

Finally, I like the damper concept a LOT. The HANS requires the straps to be tight for the unit to be effective, which limits head mobility in some cases, not in others. The Isaac seems to have a good degree of freeedom, but when it needs to "tighten up" it does so, automatically, as thats the nature of a damper. Very cool. It does clatter a bit, but then so does my car!

The downside> For various and too long to explain here, the Isaac performs at the very top level, but hasn't met the certification requirements that the SCCA is proposing to mandate. Which means, that, if passed, they will recommend you get a H&NR, but if you do, it MUST be certified. So Karen will be telling me that my Isaac must be taken off, and I will have to race with nothing. That angers me. So, write a letter!

planet6racing

03-07-2006, 05:16 PM

Well, since Jake can't spell...

http://www.headrestraint.org

:D :P :birra:

gsbaker

03-07-2006, 05:34 PM

...And finally, are there other devices out there that are comparable to these two, or are these two it?[/b]
There is a good list here (http://www.jayski.com/pages/restraint.htm), although they use a broad definition of restraint.

There are no bad ones; they all work to one degree or another.

lateapex911

03-07-2006, 06:27 PM

Well, since Jake can't spell...

http://www.headrestraint.org

:D :P :birra:
[/b]

Nor can I type......

But, oh, nevermind...;)

Geo

03-07-2006, 06:29 PM

OK, I really like Gregg and I like the Isaac just fine (although I'm a HANS owner), but the hard reality here is that until something major changes you're taking a huge financial risk with something that is not SFI 38.1 certified. To my knowledge that's only the HANS, the R3, and IIRC the Hutchins II (although I'm not 100% certain about that one).

There is proposed wording in front of the BOD to require any H&N restraint that is in use to comply 100% with 38.1. Despite how well the Isaac works in practice, it's not 38.1 compliant.

Much as I absolutely HATE SFI and I'm not fond of 38.1 I see more and more requirements of 38.1 compliance in the future, not less.

944-spec#94

03-07-2006, 06:54 PM

I have always like the ISAAC.
I thought it was a great design idea and a better implementation that the HANS. Plus I love how Gregg has taken the time and effort to inform all of us at the "grassroots" level of road racing.

I do however hold great respect for the HANS device. I always have considered it safe and it was always in the running as compared to the ISAAC. All the other seemed like they would be ineffective by design.

So given that I have been watching the creation of the SFI38.1 spec. I saw the writing on the wall last November and ordered something. My reasoning was that I could not longer afford to run without a head and neck device. I really needed to use one as I had been "thinking about it" for a year now. So it was a HANS device for me as I could see that I needed an SFI 38.1 approved device to ensure it would not turn into a $900 kiddy toy.

Due to the side impact issues I added in a $75 dollar side net in to the equation. I feel quite comfortable with my set-up.

- Yes I drilled the helmet
- Yes I had to mess with my harness mounting (actually lowered my seat and added lock rings to the harness bar)
- Yes I had to re-learn how to get in and out of the car
- Yes it was uncomfortable at first.

All those stories you hear are true. However after 3 track days I forgot about the HANS it became just another part of my gear. One day it just may even save my life. I just hope I get old and gray long before that happens. B)

Doc Bro

03-07-2006, 10:23 PM

dave parker

03-07-2006, 10:33 PM

Steph
I used to sell HANS.
I wear one.
My wife Terri wears one.
I have crash tested one. :birra:

It is the best at what it does. :dead_horse:

End of story.

If you need further input PM me.

cheers
"dangerous" dave parker

gsbaker

03-08-2006, 12:05 PM

...until we as a society reel in the trial lawyers it is what it is...[/b]
This goes to the irony of the situation. Someone on the CRB is considering this action because they apparently believe it will reduce the Club's liability. The fact is that it vastly increases the liability.

Juries don't know the difference between the SFI and the FBI. When they learn that a driver was injured when denied a safety product because the Club was trying to cover its rear, they will land on the SCCA like a ton of bricks.

buldogge

03-08-2006, 02:11 PM

Nonetheless Gregg...for those of us that have INVESTED in the ISAAC...is there a SOLUTION being worked on...???

This goes to the irony of the situation. Someone on the CRB is considering this action because they apparently believe it will reduce the Club's liability. The fact is that it vastly increases the liability.

Juries don't know the difference between the SFI and the FBI. When they learn that a driver was injured when denied a safety product because the Club was trying to cover its rear, they will land on the SCCA like a ton of bricks.
[/b]

gsbaker

03-08-2006, 02:23 PM

Yes, there is. More than one, in fact.

erlrich

03-08-2006, 04:32 PM

I just got my ISAAC 1 day after the SCCA's SFI thing.....really disappointing. I'm not sure what to do, it is a pricy investment. The bottom line in my mind. Run an ISAAC if you want to live, run a HANS if you want a H&N that will always pass the political process and provide "some" level of protection. I'm debating getting a HANS as well just because something is better than nothing and until we as a society reel in the trial lawyers it is what it is..............

Use the ISAAC when they're not watching (ie test days, EMRA or whenever) use the HANS when they're (ie false grid, SCCA etc.) putting the pressure on.....expensive but cheaper than most insurance plans deductible for a lengthy hospital stay.

my .02

R
[/b]

Rob, keep in mind the SCCA's rule is only proposed at this time; our ISAACs are still good to go for now. As far as I'm concerned, even if the rule goes through as currently proposed I won't stop using my ISAAC, since at that time mine will no longer be a head and neck restraint, it will then become a "helmet strut" ;)

lateapex911

03-08-2006, 08:50 PM

...I won't stop using my ISAAC, since at that time mine will no longer be a head and neck restraint, it will then become a "helmet strut" ;)
[/b]

I hope your lawyer is in the right seat when you roll thru grid and they pull you to the side to remove it...

erlrich

03-08-2006, 11:21 PM

I hope your lawyer is in the right seat when you roll thru grid and they pull you to the side to remove it...
[/b]

Jake, it is my sincerest hope that before it comes to that the club's lawyers will wake up and realize the idiocy of telling racers to take off a piece of safety equipment that could save their lives.

Oh, and to the original question - I guess it's obvious which one I chose. I was fortunate enough to have won mine through one of Gregg's contests, so I am obviously a little biased; but I can say in all honesty that after dealing with Gregg and his group, and having used the device for numerous sessions I wouldn't think of using anything else. IMHO, it is the best at what it does. Period.

lateapex911

03-09-2006, 12:47 AM

Agreed. I am particualry peeved as I now harbor guilt feelings as I too won one in one of his contests, and sold it, brand new, at a significant discount, to a friend. I hope he gets out on the track a billion times this year to get some mileage on it!

Still, I feel bad.

Daryl DeArman

03-09-2006, 02:26 AM

I don't check in here as often as I used to, but I am glad I did.

I use an ISAAC. I love it. The install was fairly simple. When I get a new helmet I will go with the bonded mounts.

I have used it in an IT Enduro car, A EProd car, A Group2 Rally car, A Formula Ford, A Formula Vee, a Ferrari 360 Modena Challenge car and the Celicas from the LBGP pro/celebrity race. If I had decided to be a HANS wearer I would have required at least 3 different devices.

To determine the best position for you while in the car try some double stick 3M-type foam squares. Once you get it figured out you then can mount it for real.

I chose the ISAAC because I loved the concept of controlling velocity versus limiting position. (Bungee jump with a bungee or bungee jump with a rope? Both will keep you from hitting the ground---one will start to reduce your speed much sooner and therefore be less strenous when you bottom out) I believe that for the device to work as we want it to everything doesn't need to be as perfect as it does with some other devices (belts properly mounted, correct model, tethers properly tensioned, angle of impact, etc.).

Regarding the SFI thing. I really hope Gregg and Co. are trying with all their mite to fight the good fight. IF it comes down to it and SCCA mandates the use of a SFI 38.1/FIA device I will be racing elsewhere. IF the day comes that all racing organizations adopt the SFI/FIA rule I guarantee you I wont be wearing a HANS--on principal alone.

StephF

03-09-2006, 07:23 AM

Wow. I'm really glad I asked. I had no idea that the ugly political aspect had reared it's head.
It's a shame that a decision like this has to be influence by crap like that.
Does anyone know for sure when this proposed SFI rating rule regarding these H&N restraints will go into effect? (or even if it will?)
I like the idea of the lateral neck support (my impression is that it's better than HANS at that??) because I do agree, I'm far more likely to generate G forces in a sideways hit than I will in a head on impact......after all, I am in ITC.. ;)
But we can't afford 2 devices each, as one poster suggested.
I am honestly not sure that a HANS will fit easily against the seatback of my car. I don't seem to have a lot of room there. I guess I will have to try our friends and see.
To be honest, I haven't even really considered any of the other devices. I need to get some time to go through the list that was provided earlier in the thread. (hey! I'll do it at work! That's what work's for anyway, right? :D )
Are any of them also going to be 'not legal'?

gsbaker

03-09-2006, 10:55 AM

Wow. I'm really glad I asked. I had no idea that the ugly political aspect had reared it's head.
It's a shame that a decision like this has to be influence by crap like that.
Does anyone know for sure when this proposed SFI rating rule regarding these H&N restraints will go into effect? (or even if it will?)[/b]
No one knows. So far, the CRB has requested that the Board of Directors put this rule into effect in November of this year. The Board will probably vote on it at their August meeting, assuming it gets that far. However, the reconstituted Safety Committee had its first meeting about the time the CRB put forth this request, so it is unlikely the CRB has even run the idea past the Safety Committee. If logic prevails the Board will go to the Safety Committee for a recommendation.

Since the only thing keeping the Isaac system out of the SFI certification is the egress issue, and since the egress issue is handled separately (see recent utterances re window net mounting) it would not make sense for the SCCA to give this factor any weight.

I like the idea of the lateral neck support (my impression is that it's better than HANS at that??)...[/b]
Correct.

I need to get some time to go through the list that was provided earlier in the thread. (hey! I'll do it at work! That's what work's for anyway, right? :D ) Are any of them also going to be 'not legal'?[/b]
Most of them are going to be 'not legal', yes.

Fastfred92

03-09-2006, 11:55 AM

Ok, I dont mean to display my ignorance here but why is the ISAAC not SFI ?? Will it not pass their test for some reason ??? I dont know much about the ISAAC but sure like what Gregg does here on this forum and seems like he has the racers interest at heart. I like HANS, again not wanting to seem ignorant, but I feel any H&N device is better than no device..

planet6racing

03-09-2006, 12:04 PM

The SFI test specifically states that (and this is my summary of it all) upon release of the harness, the H&N system must be free. With the Isaac, the dampers are still connect from the helmet to the belt and require the user to pull two pins (or one lanyard) in addition to popping the belts.

I've drilled the exit procedure with my Isaac and can get out of it very quickly. Last year, when I needed to make a rapid egress, the only thing that delayed my exit was disconnecting my radio, and that was just because I could find the plug! The single point of release for exiting a vehicle is a joke, in my not so humble opinion as I can (legally) have a cool suit, radio, drink bottle, harness, and window net that all need to be disconnected before I can get out.

lateapex911

03-09-2006, 12:36 PM

Agreed. The "Single point of release" stipulation in our ruleset refers to the "restraint", and does not consider the window net, nor the steering wheel or the myriad of other items to be restraining to the degree that they need to be considered in that single point mandate.

My viewpoint is that indeed, the window net IS a restraint, and is designed to be so, and it's attachment has been mandated to be restraining even if the door to the car is removed completely. In many cars the driver is seated in such a way as to require the steering wheel removal as it too is restraining him.

It's all about drawing lines in the sand I guess, when it comes to writing up these rules, and common sense seems to have been totally ignored in this case.

There is not a racer in a sedan based car in the SCCA that can actually get out the drivers side with a single point of release. Try it sometime.

I think, that if we are going to insist on a single point of release of all restraints, that the net be included, or...that we see the benefit of the net and allow multiple points of release, and that the benefit of a H&NR system are so great, that they be included in the allowance as well...

It's just common sense.

Despr8dave

03-09-2006, 02:32 PM

Did any one see on Speed Channel last night, the driver getting caught in his window net with his HANS device. The only way he got free was the net "melted" in the fire, releasing him. Scary at best. I've been in two racecar fires, and I can assure you, I was climbing out faster than I ever thought I could. I've been burned badly before also, 2nd and 3rd degree burns over 40% of my body, not a fun thing to have happen to you. I agree with practicing your exit while wearing all your gear. And Jake, I will be borrowing your slogan of being prepared for the unexpected making it no longer unexpected!!??

David
Sunny and 80 degrees today!!

turboICE

03-09-2006, 03:24 PM

I didn't catch that on speed anybody record it?

Was the net top or bottom mounted - this could be part of what is driving the requirement to fix mount the bottom of the net.

I bought an Isaac. It's overall design and function provides me with the most assurance that it will in all instaces do what it is meant to do in the most efficient and effective manner available - reduce the amount of force applied to my neck from sudden changes in velocity of my body which is attached to the car while the lead weight at the other end of my neck seeks to continue its previous course and velocity. Whether via deceleration or via lateral acceleration or more likely via some exotic combination of the two.

Part of the problem is that 38.1 doesn't really care about full egress but has a release requirement that affected every product then in existence except HANS! The requirement is a single point of release (which as covered previously is a complete fallacy in production based racing from SS to Rally to NASCAR). Are you going to forget to disconnect your H&N restraint anymore so than your radio, cool shirt or window net? Egress is habitual - by the time you are in an emergency it is second nature and you will do what is necessary to exit the vehicle how ever many steps that may involve. But in a rush you can catch an extension off of the back of your head on a roll cage bar, net, wire or any number of things. Radio and cool shirt connections are much more problematic than Isaac pins which are even simpler than some window nets.

There is no other SFI standard so blatantly written with such glaring conflicts of interests.

You might find these quoted references interesting - http://www.jayski.com/pages/restraint.htm

From those sources you can put together the following:

1 - NASCAR wants a standard because drivers were pushing back on the limited options NASCAR was requiring at the time.
2 - NASCAR wants something to shove down their drivers' throats and goes to SFI (don't think NASCAR acknowledges FIA as at all valid for anything)
3 - SFI doesn't know a thing about H&N restraints
4 - SFI punts back to NASCAR saying sure write and we will make it the standard
5 - NASCAR has already been in bed with HANS for years as their own experts and consultants on the H&N topic are tied to HANS in several ways and have been whispering HANS is the only valid device in their ears for years.

And yes black helicopters were involved.

http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1...ecification.pdf (http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1_Head_Restraint_Specification.pdf)

2.4 The Head and Neck Restraint System must be designed and manufactured to allow freedom of movement of head, torso, arms, etc., commensurate with operating a race vehicle under all race and associated conditions.
2.5 Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations.[/b]

It is highly questionable that any device could really pass section 2.4 of the specification, ever try to look ahead into a hairpin with a "properly" installed HANS? And section 2.5 has nothing to do with limiting forces being applied to the H&N which should be the focus of the standard and is a fallacy anyway as mentioned. And lastly if the standard wants to get into release issues then they should address full egress from the car not just releasing the belts and it needs to be a comprehensive standard across the board - egress should be covered by something simple like "from seated position as raced the driver shall be able to egress the vehicle within X seconds without assistance".

Issac would be very capable of passing all the objective tests surrounding the purpose of H&N restraint - reducing loads on the neck. 2.4 is too subjective to ever determine and arguably HANS could be the worst performer - I think Issac performs 2.4 better than any example short of air being the H&N restraint material. ;) 2.5 was so explicitly written for HANS that it is the only product that did not require a change to comply and does not contribute to quality H&N restraint at all. We are talking sesame street here which section doesn't belong!

Lastly, I am dying to see how the HANS double belt system can be justified as passing 2.5 - the yoke (now with a retaining lip) is firmly retained between two belts! Releasing the belts does not disengage the yoke, with motion additional to releasing the belts, the belts now have to be slid off the yoke of which there is no manner to be positive that the yoke has been released even. Isaac pins are positive release - when they are released they are released.

I want to see a comparison of 5 drivers in production based race cars releasing from a HANS double belt system and Isaac and explanation how one passes 2.5 and the other doesn't.

gsbaker

03-09-2006, 04:42 PM

Not to beat a dead horse on the release issue, but how is the HANS version with the optional quick release shackle on the straps "SFI certified"? If it is to give the driver the option of an additional release point, the question must then be asked, "Why would he/she need it?"

Did any one see on Speed Channel last night, the driver getting caught in his window net with his HANS device. The only way he got free was the net "melted" in the fire, releasing him.[/b]
This is what happened to Jeff Altenberg in the SCCA Pro race in Puerto Rico in 2003. Was this a rerun?

David
Sunny and 80 degrees today!!
[/b]
Now Dave, be nice to those in the frozen north. And don't tell them that tomorrow's forecast is for 86.

turboICE

03-09-2006, 04:48 PM

Any word on the events surrounding the unfortunate death of Greg Bruder in Texas at Motorsport Ranch in Texas at a NASA race?

gsbaker

03-09-2006, 04:56 PM

Re Mr. Bruder, this is a post from a track photographer on another forum:

"The official cause of death was heart failure, resulting from internal
secondary injuries from the accident. He was wearing a HANS. According to
doctors at the receiving hospital, Greg Bruder's aortic vessel collapsed
momentarily after impact."

This was from a side impact in a Formula Mazda into the rear of another, stopped FM.

Despr8dave

03-09-2006, 06:40 PM

This is what happened to Jeff Altenberg in the SCCA Pro race in Puerto Rico in 2003. Was this a rerun?
Now Dave, be nice to those in the frozen north. And don't tell them that tomorrow's forecast is for 86.
[/quote]

Jeff was doing a segment on safety equipment and they showed video of the event, and it was the reason they changed the mounting requirements for the net.

86 dgrees and sunny!....ever walk into a closed up motorhome exposed to direct sunlight at 80-90 degrees?....snow huh?....and they don't let us wear shorts either.....life is tuffff

David

very sunny and very warm Florida!!!!

sgallimo

03-13-2006, 03:07 PM

Hey Gregg, I mentioned this in another thread but I'll ask it here to get your thoughts. I think my Isaac passes section 2.5 of SFI 38.1. Specifically, releasing the seat belts from the Isaac is the only motion that is required to disengage the device. Section 2.5 doesn't specifically state that the seat belts are being released "from the driver" so I feel free to interpret it to mean "release the seat belts from the head and neck restraint system". Nor does it define the "release motion" or how many steps that motion may contain. In my case the "release motion" can either be "pull the two pins to release the shocks from the helmet" or "remove the retaining ring and shaft and then remove the shock from each belt".

I think we've been "assuming" that section is describing a single point of release/egress but I don't think it actually does. Any thoughts?

gsbaker

03-13-2006, 03:40 PM

7racing

03-13-2006, 06:12 PM

"2.5 Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations."

Scott,

Interesting that the driver is not mentioned. Good point. Also, I'm not sure what is meant by "disengage". In the end it won't matter; if SFI doesn't want you to have a sticker, you don't get a sticker.
[/b]

I read that quote and thought that the Head and Neck Restraint System was still engaged for the HANS. The HANS is still attached the helmet. What does it have to be disengaged from? We are asuuming belts and/or driver, but it doesn't state that.

Greg, you are probably most correct in the "if SFI doesn't want you to have a sticker, you don't get a sticker." Which is pretty sad at best.

BTW, I am an Isaac wearer, I understand it is illegal within SCCA competition today (single point of release), and I'm daring someone to protest me. Don't worry, I have another stupid SCCA GCR rule to fire back with, just in case. ;)

Jeremy

(anxiously awaiting info from SCCA BOD on this decision, as well as any response from Isaac to current users of their product, should SCCA outlaw them)

planet6racing

03-13-2006, 06:38 PM

Jeremy:

Just to be clear. The Isaac is perfectly legal for use in the SCCA right now. There is nothing that says that it isn't.

gsbaker

03-13-2006, 06:41 PM

...BTW, I am an Isaac wearer, I understand it is illegal within SCCA competition today (single point of release)...[/b]
Jeremy,

You are 100% legal. The GCR only mentions harnesses, and says nothing about H&N restraints.

Your other points are well taken, and thanks for being an Isaac user.

7racing

03-14-2006, 12:02 PM

Jeremy,

You are 100% legal. The GCR only mentions harnesses, and says nothing about H&N restraints.

Your other points are well taken, and thanks for being an Isaac user.
[/b]

Greg (and Bill),

I'm not trying to start up another argument on here, but this is what I was referring to, from the April - 2005 FastTrack:
3. Allow the Isaac device (Loesch). The CRB addressed this last year and found that the device does not comply with GCR section 20.4 (single release). Further, there now exists FIA and SFI specifications for head and neck restraints. Major sanctioning bodies including the SCCA are considering adopting the specifications, and both preclude the use of the Isaac.

I do not have a 2005 GCR handy to read section 20.4, but the on-line 2006 GCR does not appear to clarify anything about that, but does state "harness" and nothing else. Nor can I find anything else in print in regard to this.

Has this been further clarified? I remember a conversation I had with the Comp Board in April of last year that strongly suggested that Isaac (and others) fell into this trap.

I'm still running my Isaac. Thank you Greg for helping us all out on these issues!

Jeremy

:dead_horse: :birra:

240zdave

03-14-2006, 12:05 PM

"2.5 Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations."

Scott,

Interesting that the driver is not mentioned. Good point. Also, I'm not sure what is meant by "disengage". In the end it won't matter; if SFI doesn't want you to have a sticker, you don't get a sticker.
[/b]
Gregg,

The way the little article was written in this month's SPORTSCAR sounded more like the 3 SFI approved H&NR device or none at all rule is a done deal in November of 2006, rather than just a proposal. Maybe I misread it.

Has anyone brought up the point that with guys who race open cars (spridgets, spitfires, etc.), even with the HANS, there is no single point of release for the driver, but rather 3 points, because of the arm restraints?

turboICE

03-14-2006, 12:13 PM

Again the CRB needs to start saying what they mean and meaning what they say.

4. The shoulder harness shall be the over the shoulder type. There shall be a single release common to the seat belt and shoulder harness. When mounting belts and harnesses it is recommended that they be kept as short as reasonably possible to minimize stretch when loaded in an accident.[/b]

Nothing indicates that using Isaac prevents a common release of the seat belt and shoulder harness. If they meant something else, then say that something else. For them to say that the rule prevents the use of Isaac is a tortured interpretation.

The way the little article was written in this month's SPORTSCAR sounded more like the 3 SFI approved H&NR device or none at all rule is a done deal in November of 2006, rather than just a proposal. Maybe I misread it.[/b]That is the way it is written in SC, though the language in the FasTrack is a proposal. It wouldn't be surprising it is a proposal with a forgone conclusion and being used as "notification".

The thing is as written - NO H&N restraint is permitted. SFI does NOT certify, so NO product can meet the SFI certified requirement of the proposal.

sgallimo

03-14-2006, 04:09 PM

... snip ...
Interesting that the driver is not mentioned. Good point. Also, I'm not sure what is meant by "disengage". In the end it won't matter; if SFI doesn't want you to have a sticker, you don't get a sticker.
[/b]
Thanks Gregg. Let me know if this question is out of bounds. So are you anticipating that SFI won't certify the Isaac or have you already submitted and been rejected?

Oh, I did send the following letter to the CRB:

--------------------
To SCCA, Inc., and the Competition Racing Board;

I am writing to voice my disapproval with the CRB's proposed GCR Section 20.11. Specifically, the CRB's recommended endorsement of only SFI rated head and neck restraint devices. While I understand the desire for approval by a sanctioning body (i.e., SFI), I have two serious concerns regarding the proposed GCR section. First, I feel that SFI Specification 38.1 unfairly includes egress specifications in its Section 2.5. This issue has no positive bearing on the performance of the actual device and absolutely does not belong in any specification detailing the performance of a head and neck restraint. Second, while not requiring that I make use of a head and neck restraint device, the SCCA would be preventing me from using an industry leading device.

I use, and fully endorse, the Isaac head and neck restraint device as do many of my fellow competitors. After numerous hours of research I chose the Isaac because of its superior performance in real world and sled testing. I feel that its singular ability to control head movement both laterally and backwards puts it firmly in front of the other head and neck restraint systems. The manufacturer of my Isaac device feels that the current wording of SFI Specification 38.1 excludes all devices, such as the Isaac, that physically attach to the seat belts. It appears that SFI 38.1 is excluding my device for one of the major improvements it brings to the table - the fact that the Isaac is physically attached to the belts making it impossible for the belts to slip off of the device during or following an impact.

If the SCCA proceeds with the proposed changes to GCR Section 20 (20.11), even though you do not require me to wear a head and neck restraint system, you will be preventing me from using a valuable safety device that my doctor, my car owner, my family, and myself believe provides a significant additional amount of safety. It would be horrific for a competitor to suffer morbidity or mortality at an event while their Isaac or Wright device sat in their trailer on-site but unused.

I implore the SCCA to change the proposed GCR Section 20.11 to something like the following:

"The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by their manufacturer to meet or exceed the minimum performance requirements of SFI Specification 38.1."

This would allow the SCCA to request a minimum performance level and leave the egress issue outside of the equation (where it belongs). Doing so would expand a driver's product choice to include the Isaac, Wright, Isaac Link, and others.

Thank you for your careful consideration of this very important, life saving issue.

Sincerely,
Scott Gallimore
member # 269232-00
National Competition License,
Start, F&C, Pit & Grid, Race Control
NCR Region Board of Directors Member at Large

------------------------------------

gsbaker

03-14-2006, 05:46 PM

Thanks Gregg. Let me know if this question is out of bounds. So are you anticipating that SFI won't certify the Isaac or have you already submitted and been rejected?[/b]
We have been told by SFI that our design is not "certifiable", so we have not submitted it.

Oh, I did send the following letter to the CRB:...[/b]
Good letter. Thank you. We greatly appreciate it.

Doc Bro

03-14-2006, 05:51 PM

turboICE

03-14-2006, 06:28 PM

First I want to premise by saying I would support language to this effect.

"The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by their manufacturer to meet or exceed the minimum performance requirements of SFI Specification 38.1."[/b]
I think it is highly likely that there are licensing issues with manufacturers making that representation without actually having the license to do so:

1.3 Use of the "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1" logo/designation, the authorized artwork style, or conventional lettering by a manufacturer, on a subject product, is intended only to indicate that the manufacturer of the product has represented that they have submitted the product to the recommended tests, with positive results, in compliance with the standards established herein.[/b]

10.0 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Upon demonstration of successful compliance with all the requirements of the specification and the self-certification program and upon entering the licensing agreement with SFI, the manufacturer may advertise, present and offer the Head and Neck Restraint System for sale with the representation that their product meets the SFI Specification 38.1.[/b]

14.0 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS
Testing procedures and/or standards contained in this specification are intended for use only as a guide in determining compliance with the minimum performance requirements as defined herein. The granting and assignment of the "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1" logo/designation is in no way an endorsement or certification of product performance or reliability by SFI. SFI, its officers, directors and/or members assume no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for failure or malfunctions of a product under this program.[/b]

I suspect the text of the logo is part of the subject of what I am sure is a registered trademark. This is all extremely problematic for a manufacturer to make the representation in the proposal you wrote.

"The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. Only head and neck restraint devices that have successfully passed all the impact performance tests of SFI Specification 38.1. may be used."

I know some will say it is semantics - but semantics matter in the arena of law and licensing.

Even then the SCCA as an SFI member may not even be able to provide such a work around as part of their membership.

I think efforts to correct 38.1 would be better served if the rule is going to make any reference to it all.

Great letter Scott however you plagarized parts of my letter without permission.....(lol)!! :018: :D
[/b]
Falls under fair use, tough! :P

Racerlinn

03-14-2006, 09:39 PM

Great letter Scott however you plagarized parts of my letter without permission.....(lol)!! :018: :D
Thanks for the compliment....and let's keep up the good work on this.
R
[/b]

Hey Doc, I used your original letter as a basis for mine as well. Different words, but easily comparable. :024:
I copied the Insurance and Medical folks as well as an Executive Steward. Got good feedback from the Stew who was in complete agreement. This needs to be fixed.

gsbaker

03-14-2006, 10:38 PM

It's important to keep in mind that there have been many personnel changes within the SCCA recently, and we suspect that some of what prompted the FasTrack piece is poor communication. The subject has been discussed and a general direction was coming together, but with new folks in new places there is some rebooting going on, so to speak. Anyone who has worked in a large organization knows that getting everyone on the same page telling the same story can be challenging.

Decision makers in the SCCA, and other bodies, "get it". They know what is happening and they want to do the right thing by the members while keeping their insurance carriers happy. One problem is that home-made H&N restraints are showing up at the track, and the Club fears that the use of an untested design could be dangerous. So please, don't duct tape your helmet to the roll cage. It just make matters worse.

It's not as bad as it looks, although I must admit the continuous stream of announcements inconsistent with the GCR looks stunningly messy.

We want to thank everyone for the letters they have written to the Club. Please keep them upbeat; they have a difficult job.

Geo

03-14-2006, 11:12 PM

Even then the SCCA as an SFI member may not even be able to provide such a work around as part of their membership.
[/b]

Is the SCCA a member of SFI? As a non-manufacturer, I would imagine not.

turboICE

03-15-2006, 12:29 AM

Is the SCCA a member of SFI? As a non-manufacturer, I would imagine not.
[/b]
Yes the SCCA is a member sanctioning body. I think you have to be in order to use their standard in the sanctioning body rules.

http://www.sfifoundation.com/sancbody.html

The following sanctioning bodies are members of the SFI Foundation, Inc. Each organization listed here utilizes SFI Specifications within its rulebook. In addition to setting minimum performance standards for the industry, SFI also provides a technical and chassis inspector certification program that is used by some of the organizations.[/b]

Chris Wire

03-15-2006, 01:28 AM

We have been told by SFI that our design is not "certifiable", so we have not submitted it.
[/b]

Interesting choice of words as a response from a group (SFI) that may very well be "certifiable" in there own right! :119:

edit=clarity

shwah

03-15-2006, 08:53 AM

Good discussion.

Going all the way back to the original post, I chose the Isaac. I felt it offered the most comprehensive protection in the widest range of possible incidents.

If I were purchasing today I would choose a HANS, since rightly or wrongly, it is the only 'high performance' H&N device that I expect to be legal next year.

I really do hope that there is a solution available for current Isaac users by mid year.

Doc Bro

03-15-2006, 10:11 AM

Good discussion.

I really do hope that there is a solution available for current Isaac users by mid year.
[/b]

Retro fit the HANS with the ISAAC viscoelastic dampers instead of the webbing......hhmmm Greg, collaborative effort?

Dibs on the royalties!!

R

Despr8dave

03-15-2006, 10:20 AM

Bill Miller

03-15-2006, 11:08 AM

If this gets approved codified in the GCR, I want to see race officials make people remove their ISSAC. They have no idea how ugly this will get.

turboICE

03-15-2006, 11:28 AM

Pleeze excuse me for saying this, but I don't understand the term used for the SCCA as "They"...I thought "We" are the SCCA.......or do we pay dues for the bennefit of "THEM"......off subject I guess, but while keeping up on this post I keep feeling it is us against them...

David
cool but sunny Fla. today
[/b]
Perhaps there are days when some aren't feeling the included and represented feelings of club membership based on leadership or rule making actions.

The realities of a club this size which is often more a deifinition and representation of a finite leadership group can easily result in a member (particularly one that is of a perceived minority or unrepresented view) at any given time utilizing correctly or not the exclusive 'they' rather than the inclusive 'we' in terms of the club.

Only an observation, not a conclusion or judgment.

ddewhurst

03-15-2006, 04:25 PM

***Dibs on the royalties!!***

Sorry Rob, I got dibs on this a year ago. :o

Renaultfool

03-15-2006, 06:36 PM

According to a small blurb at the bottom of page 17 in the April SportsCar, there are three devices approved at this time. The HANs and the Hutchens II and R3.
Carl

Geo

03-16-2006, 11:23 PM

Yes the SCCA is a member sanctioning body. I think you have to be in order to use their standard in the sanctioning body rules.

http://www.sfifoundation.com/sancbody.html
[/b]

Thanks for the info Ed. I never knew that.

shwah

03-17-2006, 09:39 AM

ddewhurst

03-19-2006, 06:25 PM

George, WKA ia also a member. ;)

Here is a little bit of news from the May, 2006 Circle Track mag.

Safety Alliance:

Simpson Performance Products is now an authorized distributor and factory trained installer for the HANS Device. The cooperative effort presents a wider platform for the head-and-neck restraint. As part of the effort, the "Simpson Safe Racer Program" will offer extended payment terms for the purchase of a HANS Device.

Extended payment terms is saying a lot.......................

sgallimo

03-20-2006, 05:16 PM

Great letter Scott however you plagarized parts of my letter without permission.....(lol)!! :018: :D

Thanks for the compliment....and let's keep up the good work on this.

ISAAC users of the world unite!!

R
[/b]
ARG Doc!! I almost plagarized the whole thing! Sorry about leaving out the "shout out" and thanks for appending your letter -- it's what prompted me to send mine in.

JeffYoung

03-20-2006, 05:54 PM

240zdave

03-21-2006, 09:34 AM

Scott, excellent letter. You can add my name to it if you wish:

Jeff Young
NCR 55
Member No. 304971

David, I run an open ITS car. While I fully agree the Isaac should be allowed, jsut one point of clarification. The arm restraints attach to the cam lock -- basically they are pinned in by one of the belts. They release with a single twist of the camlock harness as well.

Jeff
[/b]
Jeff,

You're right. Don't know what I was thinking. Must have written that post before I had my full dose of caffeine. As mentioned in previous posts, though, there are still the radios, cool suits, helmet ventilation hoses, etc. that must be unhooked before the driver is extricated from the car, making the single point of detachment issue sound a little naive. The decision-makers should give the corner workers a little credit, too. I believe any corner worker who sees a driver wearing an Isaac will realize that the shocks must be detached from the helmet in order to get the driver out. If there is any doubt, demonstrate the procedure in a mandatory corner worker meeting prior to the start of the event. Require Isaac wearers to display an ISAAC sticker on the both doors to alert the corner workers, similar to the E sticker that locates the extinguisher/fire system. For that matter, require all drivers to display a sticker on every car listing all items which must be unhooked in order to get the driver out.

Another early morning, uncaffeinated rant.