Quote:
Raymond,
Where did I say that HANS only concentrates on the single-point release? What I said was, that that section of the SFI standard looks to be written around the HANS design. Single-point release has NOTHING to do w/ the way a H&N device functions. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm a HANS basher, because I'm not. I think it's an excellent product. What I have a problem w/ is being told that I possibly won't be allowed to use a device that I feel is actually a better product (addresses lateral load much better than a HANS) because of a section of a standard that has nothing to do w/ the performance of the H&N device.
BTW, is that how you debate things, call people names and yell at them to stop preseneting their side because you don't agree w/ it? :018:
Bill "one of those friggen people" Miller
[/b]
Bill- I respect you a lot, and I am sorry if my rant lead me to think I was tlaking about you, I wasn't. I was a bit anoyed with people in general complaining that the HANS restricted the driver from getting out of the BMW, and I am also a bit anoyed with the "other side" also complaining that the ISAAC is not safe because it is not a single release. People seem to avoid defending or debating the real issues IMO. As a FYI I infact DO think that with the ISAAC despite its "attachment system" would be easier to ger out of a crashed vehicle, unfortunatly most people (or the important people) don't feel the same. We need to work on getting that opinion changed.
Quote:
Raymond,
I crewed for a car (K. Knestis' ITB VW GTI) at the 12hr race at Summit Point, both this year and last year. There are drivers that use an ISSAC device, and we had no issues at all w/ driver's egress from the vehicle being slowed or hindered by not having a single-point release system. It's simply pulling on a cord that's attached to the two release pins. It requires one hand and probably takes less than a second to disconnect.
And as Dick pointed out, the single-point release clause in the SFI standard means nothing when you've got other things like radios, cool suits, helmet blowers, sternum straps, window nets, etc. (and ISSAC devices) that have to be disconnected before you can get out of the car.
[/b]
Bill- That is two great points/arguments that need to be made by multiple people to SCCA. Somehow we need to get averyone to agree with this.
Quote:
The difficulty here is that we are arguing one vs. the other, when the REAL issue is whether the consumer should be allowed to make the compromise that he/she feels most comfortable with. Some will pick the Isaac's better lateral control numbers, accepting the pins. Others may feel better with decreased lateral control (or be using other elements of a system to resolve that need) and want to stay away from being connected to the harness.
SFI won't let us make that choice.
[/b]
Thank you Kirk, you put my rant in "better terms."
Quote:
If I may suggest, let's put some things in perspective.
Second, what is happening with the head and neck restraint issue is an old story in the product development world, i.e. the science is ahead of the rules. History is full of parallels:
All these parties had very good reasons for saying what they said. They were not part of a conspiracy. It made complete sense at the time, given what they knew. It was the right thing to say and it was the right way think, and everyone knew it. It wasn't so much that they were wrong (boy, were they), they were simply behind the curve.
We have been engaged in product development work involving extremely critical applications for over twenty years, and have seen this same pattern occur repeatedly. It's human nature. By the time the rules catch up to the science, the rules are obsolete. The joke in the medical device industry is that FDA approval is a stamp of obsolescence. In the case of H&N restraints, SFI is working with old concepts from the last millenium, thinking the safest way to go is single point release. Again, it is not a conspiracy. They are just behind the curve. Events have shown the old concept to be not only wrong, but backwards. We hope they get it fixed before the body count goes higher.
Third, Kirk is right. The real issue is choice. We are not suggesting the HANS device be banned; we are suggesting that all high performance H&N restraints be allowed. If a racer doesn't like a particular product, fine; they should not be forced to use it.
Last, we find it continually amusing that the only people who express any concern about egress with an Isaac systems are those who have never used it. It's like a virgin complaining about sex. The total number of Isaac users who have availed themselves of our return policy because of egress issues is zero. Zip, zero. zilch, nada.
[/b]
Thank you Greg, I enjoyed reading the post. Once again that post addresses the issues that we (consumers) should be concerned with.
Bill- Once again sorry if I mislead you or others in my post, in retrospect I am glad i made the posts, it really got this thread away from the 1 accident conversation and spelled out the key issues we do need to worry about.
Raymond 'I was at work way to early in the AM" Blethen
Quote:
Raymond,
I have got to disagree. Our safety most certainly IS the point. We are fighting for a CHOICE. I want to continue to have the choice to wear the best device for my circumstances. I think it would be great if there were performance and timed egress standards that had to be met without regard to design. Let me know how that one works out.
[/b]
Agreed safety is most important, however the arguments have been HANS vs. ISAAC. The arguments are used to "keep Isaac out" or "bring Isaac in" as an allowable H&N restraint at sanctioning bodies. The issue in my mind for Isaac (or any other present or future companies out their) has NOTHING to do with HANS. I think Greg understands that, but I am not sure that everyone else does. If they do, sorry, maybe I am misinterpreting some things?
Raymond