NEW Head and Neck Restraint Launching at PRI

[defNder tech]

DefNder G70, the latest in head and neck restraints is launching at the PRI show in December.

This new device (SFI 38.1 certified) will offer racers the luxury of a high performance HNR at a price that will suite their budget.

Go to our website for more information and feel free to contact us with any further questions.

Regards,

defNder tech

[chewy8000]

Interesting: The big question how much $$$$$$$$$

[spnkzss]

DefNder G70, the latest in head and neck restraints is launching at the PRI show in December.

This new device (SFI 38.1 certified) will offer racers the luxury of a high performance HNR at a price that will suite their budget.

Go to our website for more information and feel free to contact us with any further questions.

Regards,

defNder tech

And the website is?

[pballance]

http://www.defnder.com/index.htm

No info about testing only that is is soon to be SFI certified.

[raffaelli]

Where is the testing data compared to the other units on the market?

[spnkzss]

Are there any other pictures of it, or do we have to wait until it shown at PRI? I'd like to see some not so fancy pictures. The pictures that are there on the web site are cool and all, but they hide the "technical" side of it a bit. Which may be the point right now ;)

[defNder tech]

The price on the defNder team issue will be $549.

Its performance is very comparible with the other high performance SFI38.1 devices. It shows consistent results in both frontal and 30deg. We would also prefer not to get into a performance numbers game with other manufacturers as we belive the numbers are so close to the other manufactures published performance data the numbers are not really of relavance.

Please excuse the pictures but we do want to leave something for the launch at the PRI.

We can assure you, you will not be dissapointed.

Regards,

defNder tech

[quadzjr]

I guess we are going to have to talk to there sales men @ PRI this year to find out.

I love that show.. but it is soo large you can never see everything.

All sorts of stuff in there... every year I get new ideas and new invetions to use on the race cars.

Last yeasr winners were protube, cartesian, and stage 8.

[defNder tech]

I guess we are going to have to talk to there sales men @ PRI this year to find out.

I love that show.. but it is soo large you can never see everything.

All sorts of stuff in there... every year I get new ideas and new invetions to use on the race cars.

Last yeasr winners were protube, cartesian, and stage 8.

This year the winner will be the defNder!!!

[shwah]

Its performance is very comparible with the other high performance SFI38.1 devices. It shows consistent results in both frontal and 30deg. We would also prefer not to get into a performance numbers game with other manufacturers as we belive the numbers are so close to the other manufactures published performance data the numbers are not really of relavance.


Seriously? You want folks to choose your product to manage the loading and position of their head relative to their body, but don't want them to see the data that measures how well it does the job? It's not a performance numbers game, it may be in many situations a life or death game. Maybe I misunderstood and you want to wait until after the launch.

[JimLill]

Every time I have tried to compare the numbers I find that unbiased equivalent data from an independent source is impossible to come by, even from the long established suppliers.

[gsbaker]

Every time I have tried to compare the numbers I find that unbiased equivalent data from an independent source is impossible to come by, even from the long established suppliers.
Would a peer-reviewed scientific paper qualify?

[JimLill]

Would a peer-reviewed scientific paper qualify?

How can I answer that w/o knowing, Who did the study, who are the peers?

[raffaelli]

...We would also prefer not to get into a performance numbers game with other manufacturers as we belive the numbers are so close to the other manufactures published performance data the numbers are not really of relavance.
.


My Civic LX is close to the performance of my E46M3 as they both roll forward.:blink:

I think you should let the consumer decide what is relevant.

[defNder tech]

We will release our testing data at around the PRI in a format that does not negatively reflect other manufactures data, as we connot make the comparison as we do not know without doing the tests ourselves that we are actually comparing the same apples and apples

When i say it is close that is exactly what i mean in context with what has been said below.

Although all the products have been tested to SFI38.1 protocols, the setup of each device can bring in variation that would account for the difference between our performacne and theirs. In the simplist terms, did each manufacture set their device up which closest represents the way a user would use the device under racing conditons. If not you as a racer could not expect the same performance out of the device when you used it and us as the the manufacturer could not expect to directly compare ours to their results.

If i am still not making sense then it would be the same as dyno testing your civic vs the M3 on two different days at two different dyno's. You still get the power and torque printouts for your cars but can they ever be compared when their performance is close enough that a varition in test setup, equipment calibration or atmospheric conditons could account for this variation and make yours better than his or his better than yours?

You have seen the other manufactures test figures so ours are within the margin of variation, which side, you will find out when we release them and be able to draw your own conclusions.


Regards,

defNder tech

[924Guy]

Very interested... nice to see what appears to be an effective 38.1-compliant device, with a reasonable price! Will stay tuned...

Quick question.. you reference a feature labeled "Formfit Belts" - does this mean different/replacement shoulder belts? I'm a little unclear... looks like you have Impact shoulder belts there, do they come with the device and need to be installed? Or does this refer to the bright green portion of the device?

[defNder tech]

The formfit belts (part of the defNder) are underneath the "Impact Belts" or what ever belts you currently use.

The formfit belts are simply a set of 2' belts that join the lower half of the green section (stabiliser bar), beneath the Impact buckles, and the upper load carrying section that sits on your shoulders. The padding on the defNder has a pocket that these formfit belts feed through.

The formfit belts therfor take the shape of any shape and size torso and makes the defnder exceptionally comfortable. If you take a close look at image 1 on the website you can see the formfit belts on each side or at least where they loop through the lower end of the stabiliser bar section.

We will release more detailed individual pictures closer ot the PRI via our website. I have also tried to attache a picture but not sure how it will work.

[gsbaker]

How can I answer that w/o knowing, Who did the study, who are the peers?
It's interesting that you would say that. Why would that be in issue?

[rthiele]

Any plans for FIA certification?

[defNder tech]

The defNder has been designed in accordance with the strict FIA guidelines, so we are confident that they will be accepting, at least in concept, with the defNder.

Other than that would have to satisfy any other requirements they might have which will be a result of a presentation of the defNder to them.

We will keep everybody informed as this process progresses.

Regards,

defNder tech

[Sandro]

appears to be a slightly redesigned Hans.


As far as what you mentioned about comparing your results to other manufactures I completely understand, and agree. Just wondering why most companies don't purchase the competitions HNR and then test them in the same manner that they believe is best and publish the data. Is it that they are all pretty close that you might end up giving the competition free advertising? I am assuming you guys purchased a few of the competitions and already tested them to get a base line starting point of where your sits.

Not directing the question just at "defNder tech," wondering about all HNR companies in general, although since HANS has the grasp on the market they probably just don't bother.

[Knestis]

>> Although all the products have been tested to SFI38.1 protocols, the setup of each device can bring in variation that would account for the difference between our performacne and theirs. ...

So I think what I'm hearing here is that you believe the reliability of the 38.1 testing protocol is such that it doesn't actually have the discriminatory power to tell performance of one H&N system from another? That the test-retest repeatability error is large enough that it's greater than the anticipated measured differences in performance outcomes among systems?

K

[defNder tech]

The SFI test is consistant and reliable. The SFI has ensured that as many variables in the test rig have been reduced so that the "device" used on the test rig is tested and not the test rig itself.

We have started a testing page to our website and have currently got some testing photos up with testing data to follow before the PRI.

To date we have not tested other manufactures devices as even if we did test them and publish the results, without credible witnesses the results would always be questioned. For the same reason we would not compare our results to another manufacturer as we were not there to witness and varify their testing and results to be able to compare them directly.

[Knestis]

The SFI test is consistant and reliable. The SFI has ensured that as many variables in the test rig have been reduced so that the "device" used on the test rig is tested and not the test rig itself. ...

So three different tests of the same device, under the 38.1 protocol, yield test results that are considered "repeatable." Why would single tests of three different devices be any different?

The whole point of a "test protocol" is to assure that it's reliable enough to generate data that are comparable, among tests. It's either good enough to use as a basis for comparison or not. And "approval" is comparison to some benchmark performance - presuming the protocol is in fact performance-based.

K

[1stGenBoy]

Ok so it comes in cool colors here are a couple of things I would like to know. Is it made in the USA? What is it made of? Looks like fiberglass to me. To me it looks like it would put a lot of presure on the lower part of the device in a impact. That would be right on your chest. I'm sure the crash dummy used to test the device does not care about it but I might. Any thoughts on that? The rear back piece looks pretty low and looks like it might get hooked under a helmet. It sure looks a lot like the same design concept as the HANS. Wonder what they think about it?

[lateapex911]

Bob, it does appear very HANS-like, and that is NO surprise, as the SFI spec was written with help from the HANS folk, and limits the design architecture of any device that is to pass. The limits are specific in the mandating of a "yoke" device.

It's also no surprise that this unit appears (and I use the term "appears", because the photos are rather dramatic, yet un-revealing, probably by choice), to incorporate some elements to improve on the HANS' failings in the belt retention area.

I'm confused by the companies stance that test results aren't to be considered valid unless they were there as witnesses.

Isn't that the point of hiring Wayne State et al to do the testing? Impartial 3rd party oversight? The implication is that the results are suspect, and that implies meddling. How can such manipulation enter the process??

[JohnRW]

The limits are specific in the mandating of a "yoke" device.


The R3 device has SFI 38.1 certification. It has no "yoke". Please explain.

[lateapex911]

I'd consider the R3 to have a yoke, obviously a different design than the HANS, but a yokelike unit, nonetheless.

[defNder tech]

The material that the defNder is made from is a Dupont Composite Nylon which they have developed extensively to replace traditional materials like aluminium etc ie high strength to weight properties.

The chest displacement of the defNder is in fact less than the baseline tests. This is achieved by the tether geometry which allows for very low resultant torque on the front lower end of the defNder. The stabiliser bar (green part) is partially flexible and not a rigid member, as it is not having to counter a torque from the tethers and so translates into low chest pressure, chest compression and V*C. This is very different to other devices.

[JimLill]

I'm confused by the companies stance that test results aren't to be considered valid unless they were there as witnesses.

I think what he is saying is that if Company X tests Company Y's product, how can X make a statement about Y unless it is witnessed.

I have never seen any "raw" data from Wayne State or Delphi (maybe I need to join SAE or something?), only data cited by the manufacturers.

[lateapex911]

I guess I'm naive, but I thought the whole point of paying the big money to Delphi or Wayne State was to have them be the unbiased tester/reporter. I give them the money, they perform the test according to protocol, and they give me the numbers. I'm merely there watching because I bought the tickets!

Seems simple. how could the numbers be unreliable?

[JimLill]

Seems simple. how could the numbers be unreliable?

That would work... if I, a consumer, could see the report from them.

[JohnRW]

I'd consider the R3 to have a yoke, obviously a different design than the HANS, but a yokelike unit, nonetheless.

Please describe what you call "yokelike".

The picture you linked is not an R3.

[Daryl]

I don't know how he would describe "yoke-like" but Webster defines yoke as, among other things, "a frame fitted to a person's shoulders to carry a load in two equal portions"

I'd say an R3 fits that description as well.

http://www.safedrives.com/proddetail.asp?prod=RTO%2DR3&cat=82

[lateapex911]

John, let me detail my thoughts... I have used the term "yoke" when referring to the spec, and used quotes in doing so. I had lost my link to the 38.1, but did some digging, and here are the relevant parts;


Separate Restraining Devices:
A. Linkages attached to the helmet which transfer restraining loads directly
to the helmet from the main device which is secured to the driver's
shoulders, torso, etc. Methods for attachment of these linkages to the
helmet and main device shall be prescribed by the manufacturer.
B. The main device shall be a mechanism held tightly to the driver's torso by
seat belts or other strap systems such that the reactive load carrying
components move directly with the torso and controls head, neck, and
torso relative positions during forward or off-center impact situations.
2.3 Reaction Linkage: The means by which the head force necessary to limit
displacement of the head with respect to the torso is reacted. Acceptable
reaction linkages could include load paths to the torso or to the restraint
webbing. Direct attachment to react loads to a fixed point or points on a
vehicle structure or restraint webbing will not be acceptable because of the
potential for torso displacements with respect to these points. Imposed
loading by the reaction linkage to other areas of the body should be applied
using approaches demonstrated to be practical without imposing risk of
serious injury.

Now, while it doesn't use the term "yoke", you can see that it mandates a "main device" that is strapped to the users body. The various R3 devices, and the HANS each have main devices, that many would consider "yoke-like".

The point remains that the specification is limiting, requires a certain component and attachment method, and excludes other possible solutions.

[Dave Burchfield]

Let me add a personal experience to the discussion....

I was asked by a manufacturer of a head restraint system to take delivery of said system and deliver it to the Delphi testing lab. I was asked to do this because I am about 30 minutes from the lab and the manufacturer was unable to be there(it was NONE of the systems being discussed here).

After arriving at Delphi, the technicians there took it form me and proceeded to attach it to the dummy on the sled. They related to me that, because they conduct these tests on a regular basis and are most familiar with the equipment, they would handle it thank you very much. I was able to watch them attach it to the dummy and then watch the test conducted. After the test, the system was put back in the box I brought it in and handed back to me.

As I read all the comments and discussion of how these things are tested, who might be able to have an impact on how the test is conducted, who might be able to do something funny to skew the test, or any other nefarious thing, that voice in the back of my head keeps saying "that isn't possible, the testing lab would never allow that to happen."

I also had the opportunity to hear some conversations of un-named major players in that room that gave me some insight as to why some things are the way they are. I must say it was a most informative day.

[Dave Burchfield]

Jim........you will only see a report if it is in the public domain. If the manufacturer doesn't want you to see it, you won't.

[lateapex911]

Jim........you will only see a report if it is in the public domain. If the manufacturer doesn't want you to see it, you won't.

Dave, what's to stop me, for example, being the rich basta'd that I am, LOL, from taking a Defnder, and Isaac, a HANS and an R3 and paying Delphi and or Wayne State to sled them all, then publish my findings, as reported by those facilities?

[Xian]

Based on previous info Gregg has provided, nothing is stopping "anyone" from stroking a big check to Delphi or Wayne State and testing all the big H&N options. This issue is that the testing is not at all cheap. :(

[Z3_GoCar]

Dave, what's to stop me, for example, being the rich basta'd that I am, LOL, from taking a Defnder, and Isaac, a HANS and an R3 and paying Delphi and or Wayne State to sled them all, then publish my findings, as reported by those facilities?
:rolleyes::shrug::026:

[Dave Burchfield]

Jake, absolutely nothing.

[gsbaker]

Let me add a personal experience to the discussion....

I was asked by a manufacturer of a head restraint system to take delivery of said system and deliver it to the Delphi testing lab. I was asked to do this because I am about 30 minutes from the lab and the manufacturer was unable to be there(it was NONE of the systems being discussed here).

After arriving at Delphi, the technicians there took it form me and proceeded to attach it to the dummy on the sled. They related to me that, because they conduct these tests on a regular basis and are most familiar with the equipment, they would handle it thank you very much. I was able to watch them attach it to the dummy and then watch the test conducted. After the test, the system was put back in the box I brought it in and handed back to me.

As I read all the comments and discussion of how these things are tested, who might be able to have an impact on how the test is conducted, who might be able to do something funny to skew the test, or any other nefarious thing, that voice in the back of my head keeps saying "that isn't possible, the testing lab would never allow that to happen."

I also had the opportunity to hear some conversations of un-named major players in that room that gave me some insight as to why some things are the way they are. I must say it was a most informative day.
Indeed, it was an informative day.

[defNder tech]

As per many of the requests we have recieved we have added some individual detailed pics to the front page of our website.

ENJOY!!!

[raffaelli]

Test data available yet?

[trhoppe]

Now that I see the concept in detail and the design, I'd like to see actual test data.

Looks like a HANS that could also help in side impacts.

-Tom

[defNder tech]

The team issue test data will be posted on the testing page of the website before the PRI in Dec.

What we can tell you is the team issues neck tension was well below 300lbs in both frontal and 30deg during the SFI 38.1 certification.

Regards,

defNder tech.

[shwah]

Those appear to be competitive numbers. I look forward to seeing more data.

[defNder tech]

The key here is that you get high performance from a device that is Budget Friendly.

We have not sacrificed performance to be able to offer the team issue at the price point of $ 549.99 excluding tax and shipping.

We believe every driver should have the same access to good neck protection, as every driver is going as fast as their money will let them.

[924Guy]

Very nice... and still able to afford the SFI sticker at that price!! ;)

I like the adjustable angle factor... sucks to need different devices for different cars!!!

[quadzjr]

Look forward to see it @ PRI. It might be a good idea to bring a seat and let people try it on to help sell it. It looks more cumbersome than a HANS. I like the ears to hold the belts in place, but they could get caught on those same belts during a quick exit. The price however is hard to beat.

[defNder tech]

We will have a few free standing seats with harnesses and a two seater race car at PRI so there will be lots to try the team issue out on.

Hope to see you there!!!

[defNder tech]

We have added the SFI certification info to our TESTING page of the website.

Please refresh if you do not see the testing info on the TESTING page.

Regards,

defNder tech