Hans or Isaac?

[StephF]

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? )
Are any of them also going to be 'not legal'?

[gsbaker]

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? ) Are any of them also going to be 'not legal'?[/b]

Most of them are going to be 'not legal', yes.

[Fastfred92]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

[gsbaker]

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]

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]

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]

"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.

[7racing]

"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]

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]

...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]

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

[240zdave]

"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]

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]

... 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

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