Head & Shoulder Restraint Kit

[jimalley]

I have a Kirkey Intermediate road race seat and think I want to add a "Head & Shoulder Restraint Kit".

I am interested if anyone has installed this kit and generally what people think the Pros & Cons may be.

[924Guy]

Unless you add some pretty substantial support to those bolsters, they're not much help in a serious impact - while substantially reducing ease of egress.

I have a Kirkey Economy seat (which I've crashed a few times)... and I chose to add a center net instead (from Safety Solutions). Cheaper, easier, and far more effective.

[jimalley]

I am thinking that the center net would be effective in restricting arm movement, but cannot imaging it retraining head movement. I use a Hans that restricts forward movement but imagine without side restraints that the head is tossed about severely in an incident.

[BruceG]

I am thinking that the center net would be effective in restricting arm movement, but cannot imaging it retraining head movement. I use a Hans that restricts forward movement but imagine without side restraints that the head is tossed about severely in an incident.

Jim....If the Kirkey head and sholder restraints are anything like the Butler Halo system(and I think they are) they should be a welcome addition to your safety items! Just look at the shunts they have in NASCAR(like the one at Daytona where the woman walked away from an upside down crash and series of flips last week). As regards exit from the vehicle, as they say down south "if you ain't alive, ya'll ain't goin nowhere anyway".

Practice your exit with halos...it may not be pretty but you'll make it out if the halo saved your life to start!

[dickita15]

I am thinking that the center net would be effective in restricting arm movement, but cannot imaging it retraining head movement. I use a Hans that restricts forward movement but imagine without side restraints that the head is tossed about severely in an incident.

Actually head movement is what the right side net is all about. It is set up to catch your shoulder and helmet so they stop movement in the same plane if you get a big right side hit. When I asked around a few years ago I was told that nothing gives you better protection for such a cheap price. I have actually been thinking about one of those sprint car nets for the left side.

[924Guy]

I am thinking that the center net would be effective in restricting arm movement, but cannot imaging it retraining head movement. I use a Hans that restricts forward movement but imagine without side restraints that the head is tossed about severely in an incident.

Actually, the center net should be installed to spread from the shoulder to the CG of the helmet, catching both. I used to have a pic on my website showing this, lemme see if I can find it...

Some pics here...
http://vaughanscott.com/construction/safety.htm

OK, not a perfect picture, but should give an idea about the install config.
http://vaughanscott.com/Races/2007/IT_Fest_07/Sat_grid2.jpg

Note that I'm not fully cinched down in the seat yet - will sit a bit lower than even that. Plus the camera angle's a little high. When I lean over to the net, it does contact my helmet.

I've "used" it in this config, too, having been t-boned by a Volvo at the ARRC in '08. Worked like a charm, drove it away and completed the race.

[924Guy]

I have actually been thinking about one of those sprint car nets for the left side.

Stop thinking about it, and do it!!! There's NO excuse!!! They're dirt cheap compared to the improvement in safety - just like upgrading from the stock 3-pt belts to a proper 6-pt setup!

[ddewhurst]

Lets see now. For 2011 all SCCA drivers SHALL wear a SFI 38.1 H&N restraint. With the Isaac I own not SFI rated I'll buy (not happily) a Defnder which frontal load equals the Isaac & HANS while also greatly reducing the lateral load which the HANS does not do. No right side net required.

It's a laugh that the CRB/BoD recomends a right side net while not allowing the Isaac because of the one release rule. :dead_horse:Yes I understand the window net rule to keep the arms inside the car. < This rule came long before the H&N restraint.

Dito on the silly unsuported head "restraint flaps" that may be added to the seat. Watch one video of the head during a crash you'll understand. The flaps resist minimal lateral load.

[dickita15]

actually 2012 but I get your point David.

[jimalley]

David- I was not aware of the Definder, but I am now going to research it more as it seems like a more positive solution than some of the other alternatives for restraining lateral movement.

[zchris]

Jim, if you want to try the defender on come on down to Holliston. I bought mine last year and like it. You really cannot flip your head side to side. Nice quick release tethers. Oh and thanks for the shocks. Chris Howard

[jimalley]

Chris, I will take you up on that offer. My car is down in your area so I will check in with you when I go down to pick it up. Is it any more restricting in turning your head side to side than the Hans?

[924Guy]

I do like the looks of the Defender; if I were staying in my IT car, I'd likely be shopping for one come 2012. As it is, since I'm moving to a DSR, I'll either be seeing if I can make a Safety Solutions device work or, be forced to get a HANS.

But there's a key point. Any of these devices with lateral restraining capability - ISAAC, Defender, or some of the S2 devices - can only work on the position of the head relative to the shoulders. In order for restraint to happen, the shoulders must first be stopped. This is the same situation as a straight-ahead impact; the hips must be stopped before the shoulders can be stopped, before the head can be stopped (by a H+N device). So you need good tight belts, and that's why 6-pts or 7-pts are better than 5 - they do a better job of restraining the pelvis.

So in order to get the full benefit of a side-impact protective H+N, you must first have something that will stop the shoulders. A side net will do this, or a containment seat. But as already stated, I much prefer the cost-effectiveness (and other factors) of the nets.

[jimalley]

Vaughan, all very good points.

In my case I will seriously think about utilizing both as the side net is such a small investment. Call it "Belts N Suspenders" but when it comes to heath and safety issues the additional cost shouldn't be a consideration

[924Guy]

In my case I will seriously think about utilizing both as the side net is such a small investment. Call it "Belts N Suspenders" but when it comes to heath and safety issues the additional cost shouldn't be a consideration

Absolutely; if you have the option (space and cost), by all means do so! :023:

[ddewhurst]

***you must first have something that will stop the shoulders. A side net will do this***

Vaughan, safety is priority so don't take this the wrong way. Where did you find the data to back up your above statement, "a side net will do this". :shrug:IMHJ, you way over estimate the capabilities of a right hand side net.

I'll take my Ultra Shield Pro road race seat, six point harness with a Defnder long before I'll skip the Defnder & use a right hand side net.;)

***So you need good tight belts,***

I would like to believe this ^ is normal process for all racers.:o

[924Guy]

***you must first have something that will stop the shoulders. A side net will do this***

Vaughan, safety is priority so don't take this the wrong way. Where did you find the data to back up your above statement, "a side net will do this". :shrug:IMHJ, you way over estimate the capabilities of a right hand side net.

I'll take my Ultra Shield Pro road race seat, six point harness with a Defnder long before I'll skip the Defnder & use a right hand side net.;)

***So you need good tight belts,***

I would like to believe this ^ is normal process for all racers.:o

No problem. That comes direct from Tom Gideon, GM Racing, in a presentation some years back to the Waterford club. Direct from their (Corvette/GM Racing) crash testing.

He talked about lots of other really cool stuff they did too, but that was the big hitter, particularly with regard to cost-effectiveness.

[Jonathan]

OK. Let's quit dogging safety equipment here. Yes, the old "bent aluminum" head supports are not any safer than nothing. But to say that ALL aluminum head supports used in conjunction with the proper shoulder supports are unsafe is simply false. We have learned a lot about restraining the body in recent years and a right side net and aluminum head rest/shoulder rest containment system that is strong enough and installed properly can work so much better than one or the other. If you only have a right side net, how far does your head have to move to reach it? 6 inches? 8 inches? Not to mention how far your shoulder pushes it away before it is taught enough to hold you put. But a right side net used in CONJUNCTION with the full-containment head and shoulder system can extend the effective restraint area and should be done. There is nothing in a seat belt system designed to hold the torso in laterally, so something else needs to be added. Something is better than nothing, but with the proper lateral restraints then a HANS device or other sfi 38.1 device can do it's job, which is restraining the head in a FRONTAL crash. I've worked for 2 drivers that were killed in stock car crashes, and fortunately was on different teams when that happened because I don't think I could have lived knowing there was more I should be doing to prepare a safe car. There is science behind good safety equipment, not opinion. Follow the science and you will be safer.

[924Guy]

OK. Let's quit dogging safety equipment here. Yes, the old "bent aluminum" head supports are not any safer than nothing. But to say that ALL aluminum head supports used in conjunction with the proper shoulder supports are unsafe is simply false.<snip>

Huh? Who said that?? Did I miss something?

For the record - I do agree with what you're saying... 'cept that SFI reference. ;)

[gsbaker]

With respect to lateral protection:

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart10.GIF

and,

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart9.GIF

[Jonathan]

The object of a good head restraint is to keep the head in contact with the BODY, not the seat belts. If the driver ever slips out of a shoulder belt your device would cause almost certain catastrophe. The reason the Hutchens device is no-longer allowed in Nascar is that it attaches the driver's head to the seatbelts instead of trying to tie it in with body position. This causes compression fractures in the spine. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it's not possible. Your device has better numbers in testing because it attaches the head to the car and not the body holding it more in place, but that doesn't make it better. I'm not going to slam a device I've never used because 2 drivers I have worked with have died of the basilar skull fracture injury. Had they been wearing your device might they still be alive today? Quite possibly. But that doesn't mean your device has all of the benefits of the other devices. Single release for a quick exit isn't the only advantage even if that is the "technicality" they can use to make your device illegal. But dangers to the spine are FAR less by spending more money on a device that keeps the head positioned with the BODY instead of the SEAT BELTS. But I'm sure you know this. I hope you DO continue to find cost-effective means to keep all racers safe, but I believe your device is flawed and I wish you would be more up-front on all of the message boards you post on with the potential for spine injuries.

Jonathan McIntire

[gsbaker]

The object of a good head restraint is to keep the head in contact with the BODY, not the seat belts. If the driver ever slips out of a shoulder belt your device would cause almost certain catastrophe. The reason the Hutchens device is no-longer allowed in Nascar is that it attaches the driver's head to the seatbelts instead of trying to tie it in with body position. This causes compression fractures in the spine. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it's not possible. Your device has better numbers in testing because it attaches the head to the car and not the body holding it more in place, but that doesn't make it better. I'm not going to slam a device I've never used because 2 drivers I have worked with have died of the basilar skull fracture injury. Had they been wearing your device might they still be alive today? Quite possibly. But that doesn't mean your device has all of the benefits of the other devices. Single release for a quick exit isn't the only advantage even if that is the "technicality" they can use to make your device illegal. But dangers to the spine are FAR less by spending more money on a device that keeps the head positioned with the BODY instead of the SEAT BELTS. But I'm sure you know this. I hope you DO continue to find cost-effective means to keep all racers safe, but I believe your device is flawed and I wish you would be more up-front on all of the message boards you post on with the potential for spine injuries.

Jonathan McIntire
In 20+ years dealing with biomechanics I don't believe I've ever seen so many misconceptions compressed into one paragraph.

Please read Melvin, Hubbard, Trammel et al.

[EV]

The object of a good head restraint is to keep the head in contact with the BODY, not the seat belts. If the driver ever slips out of a shoulder belt your device would cause almost certain catastrophe. The reason the Hutchens device is no-longer allowed in Nascar is that it attaches the driver's head to the seatbelts instead of trying to tie it in with body position. This causes compression fractures in the spine. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it's not possible. Your device has better numbers in testing because it attaches the head to the car and not the body holding it more in place, but that doesn't make it better. I'm not going to slam a device I've never used because 2 drivers I have worked with have died of the basilar skull fracture injury. Had they been wearing your device might they still be alive today? Quite possibly. But that doesn't mean your device has all of the benefits of the other devices. Single release for a quick exit isn't the only advantage even if that is the "technicality" they can use to make your device illegal. But dangers to the spine are FAR less by spending more money on a device that keeps the head positioned with the BODY instead of the SEAT BELTS. But I'm sure you know this. I hope you DO continue to find cost-effective means to keep all racers safe, but I believe your device is flawed and I wish you would be more up-front on all of the message boards you post on with the potential for spine injuries.

Jonathan McIntire
I love people who worry about a theoretically possible event that "may" happen .000001% of the time, and overlook the advantage of a device that in almost all situations be more effective.

I am guessing this guy doesn't have a roll protection in his street car because his car "may" roll over in an accident. ID 10 T

I will say no more...

[ner88]

I love people who worry about a theoretically possible event that "may" happen .000001% of the time, and overlook the advantage of a device that in almost all situations be more effective.


Tell that to the Feds regarding Toyotas :p

[Jonathan]

See, this is what I've seen you do on other forums. Instead of coming back with an actual rebutal, you tell people you have the experience and the answer and it is the "evil sanctioning bodies" that are keeping you down. Then you tell me to read something written by the person who invented the HANS device.....um, that's why I'm buying his device, not yours.

As far as th qoute-unqoute .000001% chance time that something bad happens, the first race I ever worked in Cup was the race at Michigan where Ernie Irvan slipped out of his belts when he crashed in practice because they weren't tight enough and spent the next year learning to walk again. So I've seen it. And compared to my road car? I think pushing a vehicle to it's limits and putting it in places that is questionable is what racing is all about, so I think your chances of an accident are more than slightly increased from a road car. That was a rediculous comparison.

[Jonathan]

You said read Hubbard, so I did.

excerpt from The History Of The HANS Device As Told By Dr. Bob Hubbard
By Marty Tyler

http://www.catchfence.com/2006/perspectives/03/27/the-history-of-the-hans-device-as-told-by-dr-bob-hubbard/

“Then in about 1981, Jim Downing, who is my wife’s brother, had a friend of his, Patrick Jacquemart, go off the track at Mid-Ohio and run into an embankment with the front of his car. His torso was restrained, but, his head was unrestrained and he had a fracture of the base of his skull or the basilar skull fracture. Jim knew how Patrick was injured and he asked me what could be done about that. I had this background in head injury and injury assessment and had pit crewed for Jim having been interested in racing for some years and I came up with the idea of the HANS Device to restrain the head relative to the torso in a way that wouldn’t add injurious loads to the neck. My thinking was if I could keep the head on the shoulders then it wouldn’t stretch the neck, a pretty simple concept. I also thought of other ideas with straps, and so on, and didn’t pursue those because I didn’t think they would be as effective as the HANS.”

....it's the "restrain the head relative to the torso in a way that wouldn’t add injurious loads to the neck" that I refer to. Your device does not accomplish this.

[lateapex911]

See, this is what I've seen you do on other forums. Instead of coming back with an actual rebutal, you tell people you have the experience and the answer and it is the "evil sanctioning bodies" that are keeping you down. Then you tell me to read something written by the person who invented the HANS device.....um, that's why I'm buying his device, not yours.



I'm sure it has nothing to do with the impending ban of the device in SCCA...

which, by their own admission is based solely on a CYA approach as opposed to a stance that they are drawing a line in the sand regarding safety.

[JoshS]

....it's the "restrain the head relative to the torso in a way that wouldn’t add injurious loads to the neck" that I refer to. Your device does not accomplish this.

I can't believe I'm wading into this, but Gregg's system *does* accomplish it as long as the torso and head are both restrained relative to the seat belts.

In other words, as long as the belts constrain the body, using the belts to also constrain the head accomplishes the same purpose.

I think Gregg would say that this assumption is totally valid and in fact the only way to approach it, because if the belts fail to constrain the body, then neither system succeeds.

[ddewhurst]

Jonathan, being that YOUR CONNECTED how's the law suite HANS versus Defnder going?

Or anyone else with info.

EDIT:

Forgot, with our production based cars after procuring the HANS then we can procure a hallo seat to cover the lateral load which the HANS does rather POORLY.

[kgobey]

Ahh drive naked... :023:

[Jonathan]

.....as far as the lawsuit goes the only thing I've heard is on other boards. From those, the lawsuit has been dropped but dropped in a way that can be brought again.

....as far as the halo seat goes, ABSOLUTELY! The devices are best served when the body is restrained to it's fullest extent. HANS HAS added lips on the side to help keep the belts in place, and Schroth has taken it a step further by patenting their own non-slip surface under the belts of their HANS. I'm sure a lot of us have seen the video of Delphi testing where the HANS slips out of the belts, but if not it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkB9D8eFLLg
But what you will notice is how far the body slips inside the belts even though it stays "relatively" in them. Just think how far the Isaac device would be pulled out of sync with your head attached. This isn't good for the HANS, but it isn't good for ANY system that is unsupported with a halo system, the Isaac included. So if I'm going to have the much-needed halo system and a net installed, I'd rather have an sfi-rated device that will be legal for my money, as well as single-release capability AND presents no danger to my neck.

Here's how it should work in frontal crashes only;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PXWpmSH-ao&NR=1

And here's the side with a proper halo seat;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1gLMXmdjfg&feature=related

......and again to address how safe we are in road cars compared to racing cars, an SFI device is more effective than an airbag, but your road car DOES utilize them to restrain the passengers.

I know all of this safety stuff is expensive and a pain in the rear, but racing is supposed to be the coolest thing you do in your life, not the LAST thing you do in your life. I've been unfortunate enough to be around a lot of pain and suffering of those affected and left behind by major racing crashes in my pro career, but I've also been fortunate enough to be around during a major safety awakening and been to seminars held by NASCAR with some of the best info available in the business. I'm just trying to pass on the info I was fortunate enough to learn to help everyone race as safely as we know how right now.

[lateapex911]

I can't believe I'm wading into this, but Gregg's system *does* accomplish it as long as the torso and head are both restrained relative to the seat belts.

In other words, as long as the belts constrain the body, using the belts to also constrain the head accomplishes the same purpose.

I think Gregg would say that this assumption is totally valid and in fact the only way to approach it, because if the belts fail to constrain the body, then neither system succeeds.

100% bingo for my view as well.

And while some will speak lovingly of halo seats, it's not like there aren't prices to pay with them as well. One, unlike NASCAR, we don't have numerous spotters around the course to inform us of cars in our now numerous blind spots. And again, unlike stock cars designed expressyl for halo seats, we race small sportscars with small windows that require us to climb out of on occasion, and when we have to go out the window, it's often when we're in a hurry. Dragging a HANS (or even not) through a much reduced (thanks to the big old wings) becomes quite a pain for people of larger than jockey size. I know I know, get a bigger car, ...it's safer...

it's all about balancing the different equipment choices with what our personal risk situation is. I'm NOT thrilled that I will hurt my visibility, AND significantly make it harder to get out of the car in a situation when I need to, when I've had a system that has protected me in incidents in the past, and is known to NEVER slip off the belts, AND tests WAY better than all others in lateral hits......

But, some lawyer someplace, or some "Foundation" knows better.

[JoshS]

Halo seats: I've been using one since 2004. The egress is more difficult, no doubt, but I honestly have never felt any change in visibility. I think you're kidding yourself if you think you turn your head that far.

[lateapex911]

yea, I'm looking at his picture of a "Proper halo seat"...there ARE other seats like the momos and Recaros that are sized more conservatively, but at some point i wonder, when I hear teh reports of how far the belts stretch in an impact, if those more minimal seats are properly effective. And if they aren't, then why pay the egress price? I know, it's not black and white, but then again, it's not black and white. ;)

[cooleyjb]

yea, I'm looking at his picture of a "Proper halo seat"...there ARE other seats like the momos and Recaros that are sized more conservatively, but at some point i wonder, when I hear teh reports of how far the belts stretch in an impact, if those more minimal seats are properly effective. And if they aren't, then why pay the egress price? I know, it's not black and white, but then again, it's not black and white. ;)

I'm guessing you're looking at a 'containment' seat which is more like what you see in the Sprint Cup. Extremely long right side halo that blocks vision to the right but as you said earlier, with spotters helping it's a non-issue for them.

[EV]

See, this is what I've seen you do on other forums. Instead of coming back with an actual rebutal, you tell people you have the experience and the answer and it is the "evil sanctioning bodies" that are keeping you down. Then you tell me to read something written by the person who invented the HANS device.....um, that's why I'm buying his device, not yours.

As far as th qoute-unqoute .000001% chance time that something bad happens, the first race I ever worked in Cup was the race at Michigan where Ernie Irvan slipped out of his belts when he crashed in practice because they weren't tight enough and spent the next year learning to walk again. So I've seen it. And compared to my road car? I think pushing a vehicle to it's limits and putting it in places that is questionable is what racing is all about, so I think your chances of an accident are more than slightly increased from a road car. That was a rediculous comparison.
So let me get this straight, you have seen one person who misused their belts ("weren't tight enough"), and slipped out, to damn the design of a device that's proven to be the most effective design, in all but one exceedingly rare instance (slipping out of belts), and call my comparison "ridiculous"? :shrug:

If the sanctioning bodies I run with permittted it, I would be using the device that give me the best protection. Sadly, some lawyer somewhere has made me choose to be less protected than I could be. I hate warning labels too...

[lateapex911]

.

And here's the side with a proper halo seat;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1gLMXmdjfg&feature=related


I was being direct and referring to the one mentioned and shown here in this thread.

[gsbaker]

....it's the "restrain the head relative to the torso in a way that wouldn’t add injurious loads to the neck" that I refer to. Your device does not accomplish this.
If you don't like ours you're gonna hate the HANS (it has higher loads to the neck, i.e. adds loads).

Any driver safety "system" is a collection of building blocks. Once a cage and seat are in place, the next step is the belts. If you cannot keep the belts on the shoulders everything goes downhill. The H&N restraint performance is compromised, and the seat head surrounds and side nets are only needed because everything has then become disconnected. It's a Keystone Cops exercise in trapping the driver in the car, all because the H&N restraint failed to hold the belts in place. We know this because we have tested designs that do not engage the belt, and designs that do engage the belt both rigidly and loosely -- at both Wayne State University and Delphi Safety Systems -- and published the results in peer-reviewed papers. We actually know what we're talking about.

Guess which approach works better?

Look, I think your concern for driver safety is laudable, but if there is something you know about belt interaction that the rest of the world is missing, please publish it.

[buldogge]

Slightly OT...but...Gregg are there any efforts being made in regards to ISAAC use in he future or are we (ISAAC users) simply all screwed next year.

???

[gsbaker]

Slightly OT...but...Gregg are there any efforts being made in regards to ISAAC use in he future or are we (ISAAC users) simply all screwed next year.

???
The SCCA made two completely opposite rulings on the subject in 2009 (same people, same issue, different outcomes), with the latest not going into effect until 2012. It's a pretty good guess that things will change at least once between now and then.

Everyone play safe this weekend! :)

[924Guy]

The SCCA made two completely opposite rulings on the subject in 2009 (same people, same issue, different outcomes), with the latest not going into effect until 2012. It's a pretty good guess that things will change at least once between now and then.

So... no change on your end? :blink:

[gsbaker]

So... no change on your end? :blink:
Design change? No.

[mr. black]

So what's the verdict? You guys are scaring the hell out of the newbie who needs to buy one of theses things. Isaac becuase of it's lateral protection, HANS because of rep, Defnder because is offers a little of both for the price, or Rage because is supposedly offer the best lateral protection and does not rely on the belts at all? It would seem the best idea would be to get rid of the potetnial liablity all together. I don't know as much about the Rage as the others, but it looks like the likes of John Force uses it. And we've seen his monsterous wrecks. I'm buying a right side net as well, but not another seat. Smart words about the most fun you do and not the last.

[Darryl Pritchett]

My money is on the Hybrid Rage Pro for $595 you can't beat it. SFI rated, great protection and very comfortable. Will be getting one very soon.. There are also more NASCAR truck series guys wearing it now also as well as Force and many other NHRA guys.

[gsbaker]

So what's the verdict? You guys are scaring the hell out of the newbie who needs to buy one of theses things. Isaac becuase of it's lateral protection, HANS because of rep, Defnder because is offers a little of both for the price
Two recommendations, depending on your situation:

1) If you want maximum safety (including egress) and you intend to keep everything until old age puts you in a nursing home, get a high quality seat -- without the head surround/halo -- and use an Isaac Intermediate, or Titanium if you feel flush.

2) If you want the best short-term value package, keep your existing seat and get an Isaac Link ($199) and a side net. You're in for <$300. If you change anything later you can always sell these to a buddy.


...or Rage because is supposedly offer the best lateral protectionKey word is "supposedly." It's easy for a manufacturer to publish test results, yet some companies refuse to do it. If I said I was the fastest guy at the track, would you want to know my lap times?


...and does not rely on the belts at all?If you lose you the belts you have a bigger problem than head injuries, which is why a H&N restraint that engages the belts is a good thing.

[Darryl Pritchett]

Why would anyone buy a unit that is not SFI rated and will be rendered useless in a year or two. NASA, PBOC all require a SFI 38.1 unit and SCCA is soon to follow. Buy one that meets the requirements and be done with it.

If people would stop buying the NON SFI 38.1 units now they would be forced to make a choice. Go out of business or redesign theirs to meet the requirements.

[EV]

Why would anyone buy a unit that is not SFI rated and will be rendered useless in a year or two. NASA, PBOC all require a SFI 38.1 unit and SCCA is soon to follow. Buy one that meets the requirements and be done with it.

If people would stop buying the NON SFI 38.1 units now they would be forced to make a choice. Go out of business or redesign theirs to meet the requirements.
Perhaps the hope that the powers that be will allow a non-SFI restraint system that's been tested to be better than some of the other more popular brands before the deadline.

[924Guy]

Of course, that's a helluva gamble to take these days, with your own money...

[Darryl Pritchett]

Well I am far from being an expert and do not claim to know which one is better then the other. I am also not saying I agree with the SFI but unfortunately in life if we want to play in their sand box we have to play by their rules or go find another sand box to play in. With that in mind though the single point release rule has been in effect long before this debate started and is probably there for very valid reason.

[gran racing]

I agree. I'd prefer just on release point but there are comprimises with all systems out there. When looking at them, I evaluated which had comprimises that I felt would impact me the least. I personally put a heavier weight on side impacts than I did a fire where I'm knocked out and corner workers couldn't get both release points off and didn't have a knife to cut the belts. I feel with the car I drive, it's much more likely that I'd suffer a crash than a fire that go inside the cockpit of the car. That's just me though.

[EV]

<Snip> With that in mind though the single point release rule has been in effect long before this debate started and is probably there for very valid reason.
How does the Issacs violates the single point release anymore than your coolsuit connection, radio connection or fresh air connection?

On edit: Also, why does Hans offer "quick disconnects" to their device? Because it impedes egress maybe?

[gsbaker]

It's important to keep in mind the original intent of this old single release rule. Written at a time when there was very little safety equipment in the car -- no side nets, winged seats or H&N restraints you had to wear -- the general idea was that getting out of the seat is good enough, and back then it was true. Getting out of the seat meant you could get out of the car.

This is not true today, and drivers using SFI-designed H&N restraints have been trapped in burning cars: http://www.isaacdirect.com/SFI.html. (Was the SCCA driver who burned to death at Daytona last year was using an SFI design?)

We sell product to people who cannot, under any circumstances, exit their car using an SFI-design product. Meanwhile we have never had an Isaac product returned because of concern about egress. Never. Ask someone who uses an Isaac product about this, and then ask yourself why the people who complain about Isaac and single release have never used it. It's laughable; it's like a virgin complaining about sex.

Safety advances in motorsports are never incremental, so here's what will happen:



An Isaac user will have their Isaac taken away from them.
They will be forced to use an SFI design.
They will have a fire or side impact, or lose their shoulder belts.
They will die (or end up a quad).
The SCCA will get sued into the next dimension.
The jury, which has never heard of SFI, will find gross negligence.
The gross negligence finding means there is no insurance.
SCCA tanks.


Then the rules will change.

(That's the "lite" version.)

Think this isn't already being set up?

http://www.fortheracer.com/

[gsbaker]

Also, why does Hans offer "quick disconnects" to their device? Because it impedes egress maybe?
I've heard that's their most popular option.

[gran racing]

Gregg, did you just create that site? :D

[gsbaker]

Gregg, did you just create that site? :D
I have a good idea where it came from: http://www.forthepeople.com/

:)

[mr. black]

GBaker I see your point but what is the problem with having your equipment certified? I honestly don't know. It would seem if you did, from your perspective you would and do have the best product out there and a SFI rating would seal the deal.

As for your points

1. No one will take away anybody's equipment
2. Yes you would be forced to use SFI if you want to play in the sandbox, just like our suits, gloves, helmets etc.
3. Side impact worries me for the same reasons as gran racing, if your belts come off (as you said) you have bigger issues to contend with and that would make the Rage a better product than all of them, and as for fire; that's why even in the current issue of Grassroots, practicing egress is stressed. The racer (forget name) got out with burns to his hands. But he got out. You really shouldn't find out that you have problem getting out with a SFI H&N during an actual fire.
4. Maybe with pratice 4 can be skipped. But no amount of equipment takes that out of the equation. If it did, most of would probally just go ride roller coasters instead anyway.
5-8. I find a stretch considering how long the SCCA has been around and how much safety stuff has happened.

Again, what's the deal with getting your product certified? Expensive?

[Darryl Pritchett]

(Was the SCCA driver who burned to death at Daytona last year was using an SFI design?)

In regards to the driver who burned to death at Daytona. It was in no way a result of any kind of head & neck restraint system. I was there and my wife saw him pulled out of the car. His issue was he had tie wrapped his onboard fire system lever and could not pull it and was reluctant to stop the car when he first knew of the fire. He started catching fire in turn 3 and proceeded all the way around to pit entrance. Not sure if he kept trying to pull the lever and when he realized he could not it was already too late. But to throw that into a comment that it might have been his head & neck restraint system that caused him not to be able to get out of the car is just wrong.

[gsbaker]

(Was the SCCA driver who burned to death at Daytona last year was using an SFI design?)

In regards to the driver who burned to death at Daytona. It was in no way a result of any kind of head & neck restraint system. I was there and my wife saw him pulled out of the car. His issue was he had tie wrapped his onboard fire system lever and could not pull it and was reluctant to stop the car when he first knew of the fire. He started catching fire in turn 3 and proceeded all the way around to pit entrance. Not sure if he kept trying to pull the lever and when he realized he could not it was already too late. But to throw that into a comment that it might have been his head & neck restraint system that caused him not to be able to get out of the car is just wrong.
We heard that too, but we also heard from witnesses that there may have been an egress issue once he stopped. This is all second-hand info at best, so it doesn't help the discussion.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that drivers have been trapped in burning cars when forced to wear a H&N restraint. Had there been an egress issue at Daytona and the SFI mandate were in effect, the survivors could have brought a claim. Had an SFI mandate been in effect when Dr. Zimmerman was killed, the survivors could have brought a claim. Had an SFI mandate been in effect when the NASA driver broke his neck, he could have brought a claim, precisely because our design is excluded by the spec.

Every single time a driver has been trapped in a burning car by a H&N restraint it has been an SFI design, whereas an Isaac product can be left behind. What makes this difficult to understand?

The present SCCA rule must go back 40 years and has not kept pace with safety advances. Does SCCA ban inside nets? They require an extra release if you need to bail out the passenger side, right? If it would just accept RSI specs all the problems go away. All of them.

[gsbaker]

GBaker I see your point but what is the problem with having your equipment certified? I honestly don't know. It would seem if you did, from your perspective you would and do have the best product out there and a SFI rating would seal the deal.
The two are mutually exclusive. The SFI spec is low performance; it is the equivalent to putting a propeller on a jet engine. All the data proves it. We would have to detune our design to meet that spec.


As for your points

1. No one will take away anybody's equipment
2. Yes you would be forced to use SFI if you want to play in the sandbox, just like our suits, gloves, helmets etc.So, which is it? You can't have it both ways. If there is an SFI-only mandate, SCCA drivers will have their Isaac systems taken away.


3. Side impact worries me for the same reasons as gran racing, if your belts come off (as you said) you have bigger issues to contend with and that would make the Rage a better product than all of themThe manufacturer will not release test data for the Rage. For all we know it increases head loads.


...and as for fire; that's why even in the current issue of Grassroots, practicing egress is stressed. The racer (forget name) got out with burns to his hands. But he got out. You really shouldn't find out that you have problem getting out with a SFI H&N during an actual fire.Agreed. Most people who have a problem getting out with an SFI design find out day one, then hope they don't have a fire.


5-8. I find a stretch considering how long the SCCA has been around and how much safety stuff has happened.That's an interesting point. In an simple scenario I would tend to agree, and plaintiff lawyers will normally start something like this with a test case or two. But if they believe they can convince a jury that parties have colluded to trade safety for money (which is how they would pitch it), the SCCA will only be a co-defendant. GM, which did testing stateside, Daimler, which did testing in Europe, every manufacturer/member of SFI, every sanctioning body/member of SFI, all 200+ HANS distributors, and the guy trying to sell you that Rage will be co-defendants.

Sure that's the extreme case, but if the target is juicy enough any mildly competent plantiff firm will do it because it costs nothing to add a name to the list. Trust me; I've been involved in 100+ mass tort cases on the defendant side.

Why take the risk?


Again, what's the deal with getting your product certified? Expensive?Racing is cheap. Our background is aerospace and medical devices, where getting something out the door for less than $1MM is a good day. The data, from both the test labs and the track, forces us to conclude that the SFI design is dangerous vis-a-vis our design. It's very simple: We are not going to kill drivers just to make a buck.

[AjG]

How exactly is the Isaac released? Can the two push pins on the helmet just be pulled or do the buttons have to be pushed to unlock the pins? Is there video somewhere of someone getting out of a car with the Isaac system?

[924Guy]

How exactly is the Isaac released? Can the two push pins on the helmet just be pulled or do the buttons have to be pushed to unlock the pins? Is there video somewhere of someone getting out of a car with the Isaac system?

There are different flavours of the pins available; I have the older, more costly style with the push-to-pull pins, where the center button must be pushed to release the pins. As I recall, straight pull pins are also available, for a slightly lower cost (IIRC).

Never bothered taking a video of crawling out of the car - it's a non-event, as Gregg has pointed out.

[gran racing]

While watching the Rolex 24 (I know, it's taking me a while to get through with the wife not enjoying quite as much as me lol) and noticed that the TRG cars have two window nets mounted. There's the traditional window net AND one of the triangle nets used for head protection. So in order to get out of the drivers door, both of those need to come down. Interesting how we're hung up on (ha, ha!) two release points for H&NR but that's okay.

[mr. black]

So it's the single release point that is holding up your design? If egress is the only real difference between being able to play or not. I will just take some extra time and practice getting out of my car. I see my problem more of trying to rush and get out of the car and forgetting to take the stupid steering wheel off or somethign rather than my H&N getting in the way. In the end I'm looking for the product that will allow me to play, both legally and physically. If that means practicing to get out of my car or pulling my belts extra tight, whichever. Speaking of which, I see that, I believe Simpson, has made new belts that have 2" straps to become more "HANS friendly". Of course I have 3" staps. Is that really the issue, or is it loose belts in general? In the crash test videos it looks like there is a lot of slack in those belts and the Isaac slides along the length of that slack until the body is stopped by the belts; the same as the other devices, except you don't have to worry about the Isaac coming undone form the belts. The principle behind the shocks seems sound as well. But with all that R&D you can not develop a dual pull pin/cable doo-hicky? As much as getting out seems to be a non-issue for me I can see the same issue being that a driver may be too hurt or disorientated to pull both pins. i.e. one arm or collar bone is broken or a rescue worker not only having to reach around your head, but figure out how to unlatch it because the driver is still attached to their belts. Am I off base here?

[924Guy]

The one thing that's "off-base" would be the issue of getting stuck with the belts; cornerworkers carry knives that make short work of the belts if needed.

The issue of trying to deal with pins with limited mobility on one side is an interesting point; at the same time, that can also affect your ability to, in general, climb out of the cage and car. Even so - it'd be a pretty straightforward step to reach around and get the other pin with the far-side hand.

Regarding the belts: why would you ever take to the track with ANY slack in your belts???

As for 2" vs. 3" HANS - I've gotten the impression that this is more a comfort issue for the driver than regarding security of the belts? Maybe those more familiar with HANS options could compare; I've only used mine with standard 3" belts.

I also asked, when prepping my built list for the new car (DSR, with formula-style belts), about if I will need to switch to 2" belts if/when I transition to using a HANS in that once 2012 rolls around, and was told no, not unless the 3" shoulder belts aren't working/comfortable...

[mr. black]

I can see your point. As for the belt slack, it just looks like a lot of slack. Plus, when I first started to get my liscence, my instructor asked if I wanted the belts tight because he liked his a little loose for comfort. I personally don't want to be able to move at all, it's so tight. I've run both formula and sedan and it's the same for both.

[Eagle7]

I believe the SFI spec also includes design requirements, not just performance requirements. Essentially, if it isn't a yoke design, it can't be SFI compliant. Works out pretty well for the first vendor to arrive at the party, who if I understand correctly, pretty much wrote the spec for SFI.

[mr. black]

Sounds about right to me. It's unfortunate that a better or different mouse trap gets kicked to the wayside like that. I don't think design should be a factor as long as it doesn't hinder performance (in all respects).

[Matt Rowe]

Plus, when I first started to get my liscence, my instructor asked if I wanted the belts tight because he liked his a little loose for comfort.

:o

That is a very disturbing comment from an instructor.

[mr. black]

I should clarify. If memory serves me, it was the racer of the formula car that I was renting during the school. He and another formula racer was pitting for me. They both also gave me tips of how to keep the arm restraints loose (for comfort), but not look like they were loose when you have to raise your arms to show you're strapped in before getting on track. I rather be uncomfortable than hurt or dead.

[lateapex911]

The Isaac is released by pulling two rings. They have lanyards on them, or can be modified in anyway that the wearer likes. One thing that makes the Isaac easy to releases is that the pins are on the helmet, and you always find them there, so it's easy to do no matter your position. It's like reaching for your ear. AND, every single time you get out of the car, you release them. THAT's a major difference compared to say the HANS. I see the HANS guys leaving the thing attached to the helmet because it's easier that way. Too much fumbling to get it back in place and ready to roll. Trouble is, THAT becomes 'The habit" and when you need to get out NOW, after an endo when your brain is rattled (see Mid Ohio video of Joey Hand), you don't change the 'habit" and go for the quick releases. (That incident could have ended much differently if there had been one less flip and an aggressive fire developed.).

For those who are asking why the Isaac can't just be changed, it performs as well as it does because of it's design. The SFI spec MANDATES certain design, or architecture parameters be met. It requires that the loads be transferred to the body, and that means some form of S&M strapping or some yoke like thing. The issue is that the belts are now not captive, and the devices can slip free. (See numerous videos, including one of Greg Amy at Watkins Glen)

I think that, for Greg's company, it presents a very real predicament. IF they changed the design to a yoke like thing, such as the HANS or DEFENDER, but with some cool roller track and the dampers, it would indeed ROCK. BUT, it would have the same weakness* that he has clearly shown he is aware of, that the things come off the belts. So, if a guy crashes, bounces of some wall, dislodges the yoke, then slams into a concrete pillar and dies, his wife may decide that something went wrong. He was SUPPOSED to live, he was wearing this device that was SUPPOSED to save him, and WHY did he die? Didn't the device maker know this would happen? In Greg's case, he's clearly said it can and will happen. At least with the others, they're looking the other way and there's no easy fishing for a lawyer.

* It has the same weakness because our club insists that all the other crap we hook to ourselves doesn't restrain us, and that the belts MUST be free with one action.**

**I can 'see' a belt device that uses the cam lock release action and has two cables that release the Isaac pins...but I just can't design them. Even if I could, I'd have to go get such a thing certified by the SFI, which would suck, not only because it would cost a ton, but because it would be a big gamble. If they feel the design doesn't meet their criteria, you're out tens of thousands of dollars. I don't know if, knowing what I know about the politics of it all, that I'd gamble that amount.

[mr. black]

Is there anyway to make sure that the belts dont' slip?

[raffaelli]

I was browsing Racing Junk and came across an ad for Defnder. Funny, though, at the bottom of the ad was another ad for back and neck work...:o

[Steven McWilliams Jr]

I have and highly reccommend a defNder. It is adjustable so I can move from my FV to my ITA car easily, just adjust the angle. Also, it is easy to get out with, you just have to make sure to flip the belts off, or pull the tabs and twist your head while buckled in to leave the DefNder behind, then hop out. People getting stuck in cars is mostly from not practicing getting out. If you practice getting out of your car quickly just a few times, you'll be able to get out in a hurry when it really matters.

Steven

[mr. black]

I liked the Dfendr much better for an overall purchase. But I have a short neck which did allow for enough clearance. In the end I got the HANS.