Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

[Jeremy Billiel]

So after seeing another serious accident happen at NHIS this weekend, I am all but reminded that I need to stop waiting and buy something. I have heard both sides of the Isaac and HANS arguements and I have read SCCA's response. Are there any updates on SCCA changing to accept Isaac or any other manufactor not currently SFI approved?

Can anyone add any updates?

[shwah]

I have heard rumor that sfi 31 will be required soon. I like my ISAAC but will be budgeting for a HANS in the next year or so.

[lateapex911]

I dunno........

Some random thoughts...

The saftey commitee is newly formed, and needs to get the final proposal to the BoD pretty quickly if it's to be approved in time for next year. I have zero inside information on this, but I hope they are slow in that task! Currently we're under a "recommendation", and nothing more, so the Hutchens or the Isaac are fine as well as the Hans...or nothing.

I guess legally, its good practice for organizations to follow what the "standard setter" in the industry does...and in this case, the SCCA is the "standard setter". So it's not under any time pressure to act in any specific direction, at least from what I've heard. (But hey, I'm no legal beagle, so I could be all wrong)

I certainly hope that we stay the course. When ONE device is mandated, it's not a good thing.

[ddewhurst]

If the SCCA forces the members to use the HANS, the next thing the SCCA will do is force the members to add a razzel dazzel lateral head support to our seats (because the HANS reduces minimal lateral forces) or the SCCA will force members to buy the NASCAR style seat with all the hoop-de stuff.

[dj10]

If the SCCA forces the members to use the HANS, the next thing the SCCA will do is force the members to add a razzel dazzel lateral head support to our seats (because the HANS reduces minimal lateral forces) or the SCCA will force members to buy the NASCAR style seat with all the hoop-de stuff.
[/b]

I'll wear a Hans when autocrossers have to wear them! Those cones can really scuff up the armoral on your tires.

[x-ring]

I think it's pretty bad that they want to mandate an item that offers crap in the way of laterial support, and then mandate a right side net to try make up for the shortfall of the first item.

David is probably right, next thing you know we'll see a 'recomendation' that we get new halo seats...

(Sorry for the rant, I'm kind of crabby this morning)

[JamesB]

I thought the verbage recomending the side net said it was not needed if your seat had lateral support.

[gsbaker]

The BOD meets in August.

I doubt the SCCA wants to have egg on its face--ala BMWCCA--so it will probably take a pass on an '07 mandate and wait 'til the spec changes.

[RacerBill]

Gregg: Do I read between the lines that you believe that the SFI spec is going to change in the near future?

Bill "fingers crossed" Stevens

[gsbaker]

Bill,

Personally, I believe it will change in the future, but I wouldn't say it will be the "near" future. Clearly, sanctioning bodies do not like the egress clause in the SFI spec, and Joey Hand getting stuck in his fuel-drenched BMW (of all things) was the icing on the cake.

I can see sanctioning bodies ignoring that portion of the SFI spec, mandating the performance called for in 38.1, and handling the egress issue separately. That's the best of all worlds, for everyone.

Once that happens, SFI will change the spec.

[gsbaker]

BTW, we want to thank all the Isaac users out there, epecially those at IT.com where interest flared before we even had the Web site up and running. We understand the entire "approval" issue has been disconcerting, but want you to know that things seem to be trending in our favor.

Hang in there. It's like building a race car: A lot of time and a lot of effort, but the results are worth it.

[Daryl DeArman]

Hanging Mode=ON

I must be in the dark...Joey Hand (another ex-Karter from California) what happened? Is he okay?

On edit--I must be really slow today (slower than normal).

Here is a quote from an post crash interview with Hand from another site:

When it was all said and done, I came to a stop upside down. I was still in the seat, and the first thing I noticed was my right shoe was off. I blew my right shoe off and my right glove somehow. I unbuckled myself and fell down out of the car onto the roof. There was fuel running down my back and into the roof of the car, and oil and stuff. The corner workers were yelling to get out of the car because it was going to catch fire, and I couldn’t get out because my HANS device was stuck in the window net, and the window was smaller than normal.

I went back in and tried to get my helmet off and then they called me back out again, and then they finally got me out with my HANS and everything on.
[/b]

[gsbaker]

Daryl,

Joey had a big ride...

http://www.break.com/index/joey_hand_destr...w_in_crash.html

He couldn't get out because of his SFI certified HANS device...

http://www.grandamerican.com/News/Article.asp?ID=6724

[Roy Dean]

He couldn't get out because of his SFI certified HANS device...

http://www.grandamerican.com/News/Article.asp?ID=6724
[/b]

He is quoted as saying:

they finally got me out with my HANS and everything on[/b]

So it's not true that "he couldn't get out because of his SFI certified HANS device", because if it was he'd still be in there. A more accurate statement would be "couldn't get out as quickly because of his SFI certified HANS device"

Later in that artical, he is quoted again:

Q: What about the HANS Device?

HAND: That's number two for me and the HANS Device. That's the second time the HANS Device saved me. They said there's no way I could have survived the impacts without the HANS Device. It saved me again. In (a Toyota Atlantic car at) Milwaukee it saved me and here it saved me. I won't drive without it if I have a chance. Not many people can say that they hit hard enough to have a HANS Device save them twice. Whatever, we'll go on.
[/b]

[planet6racing]

He is quoted as saying:
So it's not true that "he couldn't get out because of his SFI certified HANS device", because if it was he'd still be in there. A more accurate statement would be "couldn't get out as quickly because of his SFI certified HANS device"
[/b]

Actually, the more pertinent part is "They finally got me out..." As in, Joey could not, by himself, get out of the car with his helmet, HANS, and whatever else still on.

[turboICE]

He is quoted as saying:
So it's not true that "he couldn't get out because of his SFI certified HANS device", because if it was he'd still be in there. A more accurate statement would be "couldn't get out as quickly because of his SFI certified HANS device"

Later in that artical, he is quoted again:
[/b]

Well lets just say irrespective of how you want to interperet and come away from the article, on video and not subject to interpretation, from the time that the car came to a rest until the time he was out of the car was greater than 60 seconds. This was a driver who said he was awake and aware throughout. That is a heck of a long time to be on the roof of a car filled with fuel and oil in a driver suit soaked in fuel and oil. He wasn't in there for aroma therapy he was in there trying to get out and the HANS interferred with full egress.

[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.

[ddewhurst]

Was there a Fastrack breif on a potential date that a H & N restraint per the SIF spec is a shall ? Which Fastrack ?