Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

[gsbaker]

"Has the SCCA ever printed the load reductions of all the H & N restraint systems for member viewing ?"

No, but it's out there, you just have to dig it up. We grew weary of constantly rummaging through test reports, so we put some graphs together for our own use. So, allow me.

From Wayne State:



Here is the source of the data for each product, from left to right:

Product/ Source
Baseline/ SAE Paper 2004-01-3516, Melvin et al
Hutchens/ SAE Paper 2004-01-3516, Melvin et al
D-Cel/ SAE Paper 2004-01-3516, Melvin et al
Wright/ WSU test NCRST - 76
G-Force/ Company advertising
White/ Catchfence article of 6 August 2002 (http://www.catchfence.com/html/2002/mt080602.html)
Isaac Link/ WSU test NCRST - 148
HANS/ SAE Paper 2004-01-3516, Melvin et al
Isaac/ SAE Paper 2002-01-3306, Baker


From the SFI test at Delhi:




And my personal favorite:



IIRC, the lateral head torque chart from WSU tells the same story, but I can't locate it at the moment.

[Phat-S]

I'll just address one, as I se them all as the same. - then I will step away as I am clearly in the minority.

The SFI stamp is the required certification for your H&N. Snell is the required certification for your helmet. There are plenty of other certs that have to be met.

As to the cage, you COULD build a safer one...but you are only allowed 6 points plus an optional 2 forward bars for a total of 8. If you had unlimited latitude on attachment points, do you think you could build a better unit? If you designed such unit for say, another racing series, for 1st gen RX-7's - would you then stop selling your SCCA version because it then became your 'dumbed down' version that was known not to protect as well?

I think the difference here is perception and the starting point. The 'better' product was here first so people think it's a big deal to build a different version to fit rules. Just because the first one was over-engineered to the current spec doesn't make the second one a liability. If you can't build a good one to the spec, then don't. Just because it isn't as good as the first doesn't make it crap. It just makes it the best you can do within the guidlines - just like the cages.

Again, philisopically, I am with you all. The cert needs to be fought and addressed but I just see it a different way in the end.
[/b]

Well don't step away because you are the minority by all means, it is often one person, one step, one word that starts the trip of a thousand miles (for better or worse).

The current language says an SFI stamp is the required certification for your H&N. You will go zero disagreement w/ me on that. I am suggesting that H&N devices should follow other elements defined in the GCR as having an alternate approval mechanism (see fire protection, fire bottles, cage materials, seats).

I am not saying that the SCCA must request a rewrite of SFI 38.1, I am saying that by precedent, they could say "all devices that meet SFI 38.1 are approved AND additionally, the following ..... are also approved devices." I actually think the language on fire suits and suppression is written something very much like that.

I am trying to avoid the whole chicken and egg thing (rule vs. product) because IMO, if you introduce that, I and a lot of other folks would be grandfathered in (another precedent set by SCCA's rules) by the time at which we adopted use of these safety devices with regard to the rules change (or even the GCR's "recomendation"). But to argue this makes it a self-centered argument which this really isn't for me. I think the argument should be about my and EVERYONE's safety and choices in how they persue their safety. If there are others out there - yet to purchase a H&N restraint - that feel like I do regarding the Isaac device, they should be allowed to wear it as well.

Heck, I have a Momo Nomex driver suit but would I rather have a PBI / Kevlar suit? You betcha. Luckily due to how the rules are written, PBI/Kevlar doesn't need to be detuned to meet rules. I happen to use a combination of Halon remote & Chemical handheld in-car. Nonetheless, I am happy the rules allow my friends to run AFFF too. My point here is that there are new/old/more obscure means of getting to the same result for safety - I just wish SCCA's rationale on H&N restraints followed suit.

IMO, its a nonsensical rule to ONLY allow SFI 38.1 spec - especially considering what the spec is based on (the ONLY is the important word here).

BTW, regarding the "As to the cage, you COULD build a safer one...but you are only allowed 6 points plus an optional 2 forward bars for a total of 8." This is really not applicable to the discussion as that speaks to a competitive performance advantage in several aspects. And believe me, I don't think anyone that's seen my car thinks I skimped anywhere on cage. But luckily the SCCA gave me lattitude to take full responsibility of my safety within the confines of my cage - they even had "recommendations" on what I needed. Likewise, at one point, the SCCA recommended I use a H&N restraint ... and at one point, they gave me lattitude to take full responsibility of my safety within the confines of that decision as well.

[ddewhurst]

Greg, thanks for the data. May I use the data within my letter as long as the data source is not identified ? I had viewed/read some of the data. Please forgive my ignorance but what is the White system ?

[gsbaker]

Greg, thanks for the data. May I use the data within my letter as long as the data source is not identified?[/b]

Okay by us. Or, you can hold off for a few days so we can give you direct references, such as WSU/Delphi test numbers, SAE papers etc. We are sending a letter to the SCCA and will need to compile those anyway. Your choice.

I had viewed/read some of the data. Please forgive my ignorance but what is the White system?[/b]

The world's first head and neck device, tested by George White around 1979. It resembles a Hutchens harness but the fabric is Kevlar, which is very rigid.

George is Da Man in my book. When I say he "tested" it, I mean he personally tested it -- by driving a Cadillac into a concrete wall. On purpose. He was so intent on not lifting he broke his right femur and tibia.

Check the video here.

[gsbaker]

Post #141 edited to include source.

[lateapex911]

In every endeavor, there's a fine line between "Hero" and "moron", LOL. Glad he ended up on the right side of that line.

That was a serious hit.

[Catch22]

I've stayed out of this until now, but this whole thing really really bothers me.

Like Adam, my significant other has unfortunately also crash tested an Isaac. She had an offset front hit at a very high speed into the concrete wall on the inside of turn 12 at Road Atlanta at last year's ARRC. The mark is still there.
She climbed out of the car and walked away. She will gladly and quickly tell you that she is positive the Isaac kept her from taking a helicopter ride (or worse) that day.
The sled testing backs that up. The Isaac is at a minimum as effective as a HANS and its easily argued that its BETTER than a HANS. The single point release issue is (pardon my french) complete bullshit.
What I'd like to see is testing of drivers climbing out of spec miata windows on a stopwatch. One wearing an Isaac and the other a HANS. I promise you my money is on the Isaac wearer getting out faster.

So, in short, if SCCA's lawyers convince our rules makers that we can no longer use a device that is so completely proven to work... A device that we know first hand saves necks... We are done racing with SCCA. Which means we are probably done racing period since I'm sure all other bodies will follow the SCCA lead.

My letter has been sent, but I have a feeling it'll be akin to pissing into a hurricane.

Me = Disgusted and Disappointed

[Hracer]

I can't argue with the good points Andy is making. However, I'm pretty sure he (and anyone else in favor of this) will also agree that any hypothetical scenario that does not allow a proven system such as the Isaac to be used while filtering out the "dangerous/homeade" one out there, yet does allow using *no* h&n system whatsoever, is simply put: stupid. Or in more PC terms, greatly inadequate.

I do not know the best solution to solve this absurd scenario, but a few simple-minded suggestions do pop up. Why must there be only one single standard that's deemed acceptable in this case? Why not allow other standards to judge the merits of a h&n system? The possiblity is there that there might even be superior standards that can be applied as a substitute to the present one. This is just a superficial, un-informed suggestion, but a rather simple and straightforward one to what, and I'll say it again, is a scenario that screams in your face stupid. It's a shame SCCA has adopted and is sticking by such an absurd position. There *must* be alternatives. IMHO, the only reason why something won't be done in this case is because "they" - whomever this ought to represent - do not *want* to do anything about it. If that is indeed the case, it will send a powerfull message to all the members of the club, regardless of the specific issue is at hand, or which "side" you are on that particular issue. It is a matter of principle.

[tom91ita]

..... Why not allow other standards to judge the merits of a h&n system? .....[/b]

i agree. and that standard should be something like passing some maximum force test per a 3rd party crash test. i will write the director for my area and suggest that they accept a criteria such as the following:

A maximum Neck Tension (Fz) of 3000 Nm (achieved by 2 of 3 devices)
A maximum Lateral Force (Mx) of 40 Nm (achieved by 2 of 3 devices)

or perhaps something like 50% less than no protection, i.e., baseline for both criteria

this type of a standard essentially eliminates the homemade devices and should provide a basis for the lawyers. if a manufacturer cannot meet both criteria, they may have to go back to the drawing board. and then with this type of standard, i would expect to see some competition between products as they extol the virtue of how far below the maximums they could achieve.

fwiw, tom

[ddewhurst]

When WE look at the primary reason for the use of a H & N restraint system ask yourselves which system without EXTRA goodies offers the most protection to the driver.

IMHJ getting out of the car is a secondary issue. WE have ALL read about some secondary issues of getting out of a car after an accident.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I can't argue with the good points Andy is making. However, I'm pretty sure he (and anyone else in favor of this) will also agree that any hypothetical scenario that does not allow a proven system such as the Isaac to be used while filtering out the "dangerous/homeade" one out there, yet does allow using *no* h&n system whatsoever, is simply put: stupid. Or in more PC terms, greatly inadequate.

[/b]

Let me first say that I am NOT in favor of this. I just tend to look at stuff from a different perspective. The problem is that the SCCA would have to set up it's own certification system (or adopt an industry standard one - is there?) and have every H&N set up out there tested in orderto approve it. If there is no governing body now, are we to think the SCCA can do it - and do it right?

It's about that line in teh sand again. We have to use someones line, or draw our own. What is the best use of club funds? If you think this is a good use, write in!

[Knestis]

The Club would not have to do the testing. It could mandate that the testing be undertaken using a standard set of protocols (like SFI's perhaps, hmm??) at any of an approved list of facilities equipped for the job. (There are only a handful.)

If the ONLY complaint about SFI 38.1 is the single point of release requirement, SCCA could simply require that system manufacturers wishing to be listed as approved submit sled test data that comes in under the same threshold required by 38.1. NOT demonstrate SFI compliance, merely perform to the level required for it.

That would be the simplest solution - adopting all of the impact-pertinent requirements of 38.1 (a) without muddying the water with the egress issue (to be addressed by a SEPARATE rule, if it's perceived as important enough), (b) without imposing SFI "certificiation" costs on its members, and (c ) providing pretty much the same level of legal protection...

If we want an EXTRA measure of safety - both in impacts and in court - the Club could easily mandate ADDITIONAL performance benchmarks beyond the SFI-spec minimums. If some set of new minimums is demonstrably above the standards for 38.1 (in terms of type of hit, or degree of head load reduction) it seems like it would be a long legal row to hoe, to try to prove the Club negligent in its rules-making if it exceeds the "industry standard."

K

EDIT - OR the GCR could simply require "any SFI 38.1 approved head and neck system, or [insert approved manufacturer/models here], as they may be demonstrated to meet all of the performance requirements of SFI 38.1, except for the single point of release."

[tderonne]

Lot's of reading here.

I like Adam's approach. Why can't everyone simply ask for the ISAAC to be allowed? Plenty of data to show it works. No risk of allowing dangerous homemade devices. Sets the precedent for other devices to be allowed on a case by case basis.

Too easy?

[gsbaker]

Kirk's idea works well. The icing on the cake would be to expand things even further without sacrificing safety, although this may be a big first bite for any sanctioning body...

...The problem is that the SCCA would have to set up it's own certification system (or adopt an industry standard one - is there?)...[/b]

In effect, yes. When I first met Drs. John Melvin and Paul Begeman at the WSU lab they were talking about this issue of drawing a line and told me that people wanted designs that were good for a 100G impact, i.e. would have an Fz no greater than 4,000N (the injury limit) at 100Gs. That translates to 2,000N on WSU's 50G sled. This was prior to the construction of the Delphi sled, but it has still proven to be valid. How do we know? Because every design that has tested under 2,000N at WSU passes the SFI tests at Delhi. There's your industry standard/line in the sand.

..and have every H&N set up out there tested in order to approve it....[/b]

Already done (see first chart above). Topeka gets a copy of all test reports and lists approved designs. To quote John Belushi in Animal House, "Don't cost nuthin'."

Also, it may not be a bad idea if SCCA puts together a fund to test homemade designs. After all, if 80% of the Clubs 9,000+ racers are eventually forced to buy an SFI "certified" prouduct at ~$850, their wallets are going to be lightened over $6 million. $6MM buys a lot of crash tests.

[Bill Miller]

What's going to be real intersting is the first time someone experiences a severe head or neck injury while wearing a HANS (either due to torsional loads, or due to the device slipping the belts). The lawyers will have a field day w/ the SCCA, especially if alternate products like the ISSAC are not approved.

"So Mr. SCCA President, your organization mandated that any H&N device used by competitors in your events meet a standard, even though that standard did not address torsional loads. You also excluded a product that showed comperable force reductions to the premier certified product, and additional showed significant reductions in torsional loads over this same premier certified prouduct? And isn't it also true that members of your organization have actually prevented drivers from using this alternate device and were given the option of either buying a device w/ inferior performance or using no H&N device at all? No further questions."

[Greg Amy]

Sorry, I'm late to the game (been busy...)

Item 18. Effective 11/1/06...All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by the SFI...[/b]

Said differently: effective 11/1/06, Greg Amy stops wearing his Wright Device sled-tested and -proven head and neck restraint and starts to use...nothing.

Way to go, Buck.

GA

[Catch22]

Sorry, I'm late to the game (been busy...)
Said differently: effective 11/1/06, Greg Amy stops wearing his Wright Device sled-tested and -proven head and neck restraint and starts to use...nothing.

Way to go, Buck.

GA
[/b]

Or you could just come autocrossing and karting with Renee and I.

[JuanPineda]

A lot is written here and on Isaac's web site about single point of release being the reason for its not meeting SFI requirements. However, that is not the only reason. Another more serious issue, from SFI 38.1:

Direct attachment to react loads to a fixed point or points on a vehicle structure or restraint webbing will not be acceptable because of the potential for torso displacements with respect to these points.

With Isaac, the critical case would be a side impact, or multiple impact (roll/endo), where harness slips off the shoulder and pulls the driver's head sideways, potentially causing injury where none would have occured otherwise. Hans, Hutchens and R3 are all attached to the torso, and don't have that problem.

-Juan

[Greg Amy]

Oh, no, he's crossed over...IN BEFORE THE LOCK!!!

[gsbaker]

Oh, no, he's crossed over...IN BEFORE THE LOCK!!!
[/b]