Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

[Roy Dean]

He wasn't in there for aroma therapy he was in there trying to get out and the HANS interferred with full egress.
[/b]

Oh man, you love to twist reality to suit your needs in the worst way, don't you? I forgot, you were inside the car with him documenting the whole thing.

Listen dude, there will ALWAYS be that one percent of all accidents where a certain piece of safety equipment will end up killing somebody rather than saving them, yet you continue to press the issue that the hans is a death trap (yet you also continue to deny that you are badmouthing the hans, only trying to expose the hans dealers conspiracy that exists in yours and GBakers head).

Did Mr. Hand die? No. Did he suffer a head or neck injury? No. Was he quoted as saying his life was saved (in this accident and one other) by the hans? YES.

Lets say, for example, he was wearing an Isaac. Same crash. The Isaac saves him from deadly H&N injuries. He unbuckles his seatbelts and falls to the roof (which is now the floor).... but in his post crash daze (which he MUST have been in because if he wasn't, he could've simply pulled the hans quick releases that were on his helmet, or at the very least just unbuckled the hans posts which takes all of 1 second per side, rather than "trying to take his helmet off"), he forgets to release the Isaac tethers. Gas and oil are pouring on him as he is climing out (face first) through the door opening..... But, uh-oh... he can't get out because his helmet is holding him back! He backs into the car to either "take off his helmet" or to relieve the tension on his isaac tethers to therefore release them......

Is that not a totally plausible scenario? If it had happened that way, would you and Mr. Baker be blasting the SFI spec that legalized the Isaac?

[turboICE]

Did Mr. Hand die? No. Did he suffer a head or neck injury? No. Was he quoted as saying his life was saved (in this accident and one other) by the hans? YES.[/b]

Who is being selective to twist reality here? I guess it was crowded since you were you in the car documenting the forces and what transpired. Did you measure the forces? How do you know his life was saved by HANS? How do you know injury was prevent by HANS? Your basis for your selected conclusions is no different than anyone elses - supposition based on what was obseverd and said so lets go with everything he said and everything that was seen.

Was he quoted as saying he was not able to exit the vehicle on his own because his H&N restraint prevented full egress from the vehicle? Yes.

Did the time in the video from full rest of the car to full exit from vehicle take in excess of 60 seconds while soaked in fuel and oil? Yes.

Will I be allowed to choose a product that both will prevent H&N injury, save my life and allow full egress from the vehicle? Not as things stand now.

I am not telling you not to use the H&N restraint of your choice - you are telling me not to use the one of my choice. In history which role is one that is always wrong the one preventing choice or the one seeking choice? We know which role you wish to play in your reality.

I don't care what you use - but you have no right to restrict what I use.

[turboICE]

Lets say, for example, he was wearing an Isaac. Same crash. The Isaac saves him from deadly H&N injuries. He unbuckles his seatbelts and falls to the roof (which is now the floor).... but in his post crash daze (which he MUST have been in because if he wasn't, he could've simply pulled the hans quick releases that were on his helmet, or at the very least just unbuckled the hans posts which takes all of 1 second per side, rather than "trying to take his helmet off"), he forgets to release the Isaac tethers. Gas and oil are pouring on him as he is climing out (face first) through the door opening..... But, uh-oh... he can't get out because his helmet is holding him back! He backs into the car to either "take off his helmet" or to relieve the tension on his isaac tethers to therefore release them......

Is that not a totally plausible scenario?[/b]

No it isn't - because what says he had QR? There is no mention of that it isn't like they are standard HANS requires you to pay more to have their product be safe to reach full egress. And with gloves on unbuckling the HANS posts is not simple or one second per side. He had to try and remove his helmet.

My Isaac QR are second nature - I wouldn't forget to release them anymore than forgeting to release the harness and open the window net.

But it sounds like you are saying full egress with HANS requires multiple points of release.... Hmmm.

[Roy Dean]

No it isn't - because what says he had QR? There is no mention of that it isn't like they are standard HANS requires you to pay more to have their product be safe to reach full egress. And with gloves on unbuckling the HANS posts is not simple or one second per side. He had to try and remove his helmet.[/b]

Nobody said he had quick releases. But if he did, it wouldve been a no brainer. Sorry for my poor wording, but I meant it as though if he DIDN'T, he could still unbuckle the hans posts in 2 seconds. They ARE that simple to remove. I've timed myself doing it. 2 seconds for both sides.

My Isaac QR are second nature - I wouldn't forget to release them anymore than forgeting to release the harness and open the window net.
[/b]

Oh, thats right, I forgot... Only the Isaac releases are second nature. Nobody could EVER learn to use the hans quick releases or standard post release as second nature. You continue to say that you're not "bashing" the HANS, but here is more proof.

You claim that the Isaac is second nature (which it probably IS), yet the HANS can't possibly be second nature... Please. At least there are other Isaac supporters who can plainly admit that there isn't much difference between the two releases. They even admit that vehicle exit without touching the device is possible with a HANS, while it is NOT possible with the Isaac...

Is it possible that a HANS can impede a driver's exit from a burning car? You bet. Is the same true for an Isaac? If your answer is anything other than YES, then you are delusional....

[lateapex911]

Oh, thats right, I forgot... Only the Isaac releases are second nature. Nobody could EVER learn to use the hans quick releases or standard post release as second nature.

You claim that the Isaac is second nature (which it probably IS), yet the HANS can't possibly be second nature... Please. .....


Is it possible that a HANS can impede a driver's exit from a burning car? You bet. Is the same true for an Isaac? If your answer is anything other than YES, then you are delusional....
[/b]

I can't say what was in the original writers mind when he wrote what you are quoting Roy, but just to put the point in perspective....

Yes, both the HANS and the Isaac can be equipped with similar releases, and both users can use them in similar ways. But....with the Isaac, it is second nature, habititual behavior, because that is the only method practiced when leaving the car....every single time. When you practice something and repeat it ad nauseum, it becomes nearly muscle memory. In situations where your mind isn't formulating plans, and is just reacting, habit can be a good thing. You are more likely to do the same thing you always do.

That said, of course a HANS wearer can (and arguably should) get in the same practice. Drill drill drill.

But, from what I've seen in person at both Pro and ametuer levels, and On TV at all levels, there is very often a lot of "dorking around" wth the HANS when exiting the car.

Why? We're lazy? We think we spent the money and therefor our safety is covered? We don't think about the role WE play in the process? I dunno.....but I sometimes grab my stuff and strap in the car in the shop and watch the second hand on the wall clock as I time my exits. My car has double release nets, for instance. Why?? I won't have to dork with it as much when I'm upside down...I've got a release in the right position regardless. Practice makes better...assuming that perfection is unobtanium!

Point being that, I think that the Isaac forces you to do your homework, and thats actuallly a bit of a safety feature in and of itself.

Honestly, I'm of the camp that thinks performace is the bottom line. Prove you can get out of the car in a certain time period. Will it eliminate issues with crumpled cars upside down? Not entirely, but it will force drivers to practice egress, and to think about it.

[turboICE]

You continue to say that you're not "bashing" the HANS, but here is more proof.[/b]

Again with the selectiveness of what you want to read and respond to. As long as I am being forced to defend my desire to use ISAAC and to not use HANS - I am forced to point out the differences that concern me. As I said before if anyone wants to take that as bashing then so be it. Stop making me defend my desire and I will stop talking about HANS. (It is funny how you can use the observation of selected statements as proof, but somehow observation of drivers being inhibitted by HANS to exit a vehicle as not being proof of similar strength.)

You claim that the Isaac is second nature (which it probably IS), yet the HANS can't possibly be second nature... Please. At least there are other Isaac supporters who can plainly admit that there isn't much difference between the two releases. They even admit that vehicle exit without touching the device is possible with a HANS, while it is NOT possible with the Isaac...[/b]

Greg covered this, could HANS release be second nature - sure. Is it - not in my observation, drivers aren't releasing they are trying to exit with HANS installed it isn't second nature for them. Release is second nature to EVERY ISAAC user.

Is it possible that a HANS can impede a driver's exit from a burning car? You bet. Is the same true for an Isaac? If your answer is anything other than YES, then you are delusional....[/b]

It has been observed with HANS. I can neither see any way for ISAAC to interfer, nor has it ever been observed. Does that mean it isn't possible at all I suppose not - but I would love to see what the little helmet mounts would catch on to prevent egress. If ISAAC could ever interfer with egress once released then so could the HANS posts.

If you want to respond to me again at least include a response to this as well next time - I choose ISAAC - why is it you are so dead set that I shouldn't be allowed that choice and should be forced to use an egress inhibiting yoke system (SFI 38.1)? What is your interest in prventing me my choice? Are you affiliated with HANS? Are you affiliated with someone that sell HANS, either through direct interest or sponsorship? Why exactly would you care if there are drivers who prefer to use a device that functions to its intended purpose that is their preference? Because your positions are taken from an emotional vested interest not from supported logic.

If your interest is that I not "bash" HANS, once again stop making me defend my choice of ISAAC. Because I can not respond with "I just want to use ISAAC." I have to point to why I am making that choice - I have tried HANS and was not comfortable with my ability to achieve full egress and I have seen others that needed desperately to fully egress not able to because of HANS.

BTW as I have stated before 38.1 is perfect for open cockpits - I feel that it inadequately addresses ALL the issues of closed cockpit cars which we field on the race track and its limiting of options is a poor result not a positive one.

And if you continue to think the purpose of my posts is to solely "bash" HANS, replace every instance of HANS with "SFI 38.1 required yoke device". HANS is not my issue, being required to wear a yoke that does in actual practice prevent full egress is.