Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

[RacerBill]

Hey, I found 2 cents in my pocket this morning, and I don't want them to burn a hole, so here is something I have not heard mentioned. You can buy a Hans device, either the standard or the lightweight Pro model, and it comes with standard tethers. If I am not mistaken, with the standard tethers, you have to slip the tether rings off the helmet posts to release the Hans from the helmet. For an additional $105.00 you can order the 'Quick Disconnect Tether Set' that allows a driver (or emergency worker) to disconnect the Hans from the helmet by pulling TWO straps. Not to draw too many conclusions, but it looks like the manufacturer saw a need to detach the device more quickly than the original design. Can anyone comment on the difference in design from actual usage?

[dickita15]

Bill-

I am a huge supporter of Isaac, but excuse my argument but... HAVING A SINGLE POINT RELEASE IS A SAFETY FEATURE that HANS has figured out. IT IS A GOOD/IMPORTANT FEATURE as it helps a driver get out faster. This is very important, but your question should be is this one feature more important than making it so the driver can attempt to get out in the first place? STOP arguing that HANS only concentrates on the single release exit, it is a lousy argument. The problem you and every other friggen person that argues about this crap needs to figure out is that yes, Hans does this right, BUT their are also other alternatives that can be as safe and most importantly will help when most people get injured/hurt- That is in the accident not getting out of the car. Lets save the people first and just have a requirement that they need to be able to get out in X number of seconds and be done with it.

Raymond "Ok done with my rant... I woke up to early" Blethen
[/b]

But raymond that is the point. the single point of release we are told is the reason that Issac can not get certified. I will belive that is a reason not to use the device when they tell me that I can not use my helmet blower, radio harness and cool suit because that also violates the single point of release principal.

[RSTPerformance]

But raymond that is the point. the single point of release we are told is the reason that Issac can not get certified. I will belive that is a reason not to use the device when they tell me that I can not use my helmet blower, radio harness and cool suit because that also violates the single point of release principal.
[/b]

I understand that dick... I am a Isaac supporter and I am sure that someday I will get one somehow but what I don't understand is people bashing the Hans because they have designed a feature that is better. Knowone should be arguing that a "single release" isn't safer, they should be arguing that a "single release" limits our ability to be safer be it a head and neck restraint, radio for communications, cool suit or helmet blower to help keep the driver comfortable/alert.

The problem I have is that everyone argues what is safer, the Hans or the Isaac? That should not be the point. The Isaac/Hans debates are for the most part pathetic IMO as they are not fighting to keep us safe, but customers fighting to support thier choice in safety equipment.

Raymond

Edit: I have no problem with people debating what product is safer, as that is what this forum is for, to educate us all through debates. I just am sick of seeing Isaac users whom are upset that the Hans is SFI certified retaliating against them because of that one simple fact. I am also sick of seeing the Hans users retaliating agains Isaac because they are not SFI certified. Lets debate what actually is safe or not. If single release is safer then argue about that, and why it is or is not safer. Thier is no reason to involve company or product names. In accidents at what angle is one safe and one not safe? how hard of a hit will either one "save you?" etc etc etc.

[dickita15]

I understand that dick... I am a Isaac supporter and I am sure that someday I will get one somehow but what I don't understand is people bashing the Hans because they have designed a feature that is better. Knowone should be arguing that a "single release" isn't safer, they should be arguing that a "single release" limits our ability to be safer be it a head and neck restraint, radio for communications, cool suit or helmet blower to help keep the driver comfortable/alert.

Raymond

[/b]

I think the Isaac fan will say that the single release requirment is a cheap trick to keep thier product out of the game and that it is not safer. yes you are right that I do not have to release my Hans to be free of the car but the device stays attached to you and that makes egress harder.

the argument is about the politics. it is not a given that single release is safer. that is the argument that you dismiss.

[Bill Miller]

Bill-

I am a huge supporter of Isaac, but excuse my argument but... HAVING A SINGLE POINT RELEASE IS A SAFETY FEATURE that HANS has figured out. IT IS A GOOD/IMPORTANT FEATURE as it helps a driver get out faster. This is very important, but your question should be is this one feature more important than making it so the driver can attempt to get out in the first place? STOP arguing that HANS only concentrates on the single release exit, it is a lousy argument. The problem you and every other friggen person that argues about this crap needs to figure out is that yes, Hans does this right, BUT their are also other alternatives that can be as safe and most importantly will help when most people get injured/hurt- That is in the accident not getting out of the car. Lets save the people first and just have a requirement that they need to be able to get out in X number of seconds and be done with it.

Raymond "Ok done with my rant... I woke up to early" Blethen
[/b]

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.

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.

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?

Bill "one of those friggen people" Miller

[Knestis]

I've been out of this fray for a while but am getting caught up enough with life that I'm able to wade back in...

Different horses for different courses.

Any H&N system, like any other safety system, is going to be a compromise. We could build street cars that would protect occupants from any incident that they might encounter on the highways but we don't, because people have to use them, cost IS a consideration, etc.

What is being argued here is being put in terms of black and white, or right and wrong, when the real solution is to accommodate "different." There's no question that, in the abstract, the time or step required to disconnect an Isaac MIGHT be a problem. Equally, there's no question that - again, in the abstract - having a Hans attached to your noggin might make it difficult to get out.

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.

I've told this story before but years ago I was on an ad hoc committee that was tasked with writing standards for fire system agents, installation, and usage. At the time, we had the choice of Halon 1211 or Halon 1301, each of which had very different properties. Most manufacturers were wedded to one or the other so it quickly became obvious that ANY specification that preferred one over the other - even in just one type of installation, say formula cars - would be a non-starter in the market. And any specification that simply said, "both are OK for any use" wouldn't do the consumer any good...

We wisely gave up.

K

[gsbaker]

If I may suggest, let's put some things in perspective.

First, many thanks to Dave Burchfield and all the other workers who help save drivers, regardless of the circumstances and the safety equipment being used.

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:

<blockquote>- (Seville, Spain, 15th century or so) King Ferdinand announced today that Christopher Columbus would sail around the world, collecting all kinds of goodies along the way. Said one observer, "Yo, Chris. Yer gonna fall off, ya freakin&#39; moron!"

- (Somewhere in a soot-filled room, more recently) The Kerosene Lamp Committee announced today that Thomas Edison&#39;s new "Light Bulb" would not be certified. "It doesn&#39;t meet spec," said Crusty Rumple, Committee Chairman.

- (Grandma&#39;s kitchen, about 1958) "Shoot a basketball with one hand? Is he nuts?! Everyone knows you shoot a basketball with two hands," said Uncle Bill.

- (Mid 20th Century, somewhere in the civilized world) Generic race car driver: "The seat belt is a terrible idea. I don&#39;t want to be trapped in the car, I want to be thrown free from the wreck."

- (October 25, 2004) "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. "</blockquote>

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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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.

[Daryl DeArman]

The problem I have is that everyone argues what is safer, the Hans or the Isaac? That should not be the point. The Isaac/Hans debates are for the most part pathetic IMO as they are not fighting to keep us safe, but customers fighting to support thier choice in safety equipment.[/b]

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.

[RSTPerformance]

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&#39;m not sure where you get the idea that I&#39;m a HANS basher, because I&#39;m not. I think it&#39;s an excellent product. What I have a problem w/ is being told that I possibly won&#39;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&#39;t agree w/ it?

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&#39;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&#39;t feel the same. We need to work on getting that opinion changed.

Raymond,

I crewed for a car (K. Knestis&#39; 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&#39;s egress from the vehicle being slowed or hindered by not having a single-point release system. It&#39;s simply pulling on a cord that&#39;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&#39;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.

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&#39;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&#39;t let us make that choice.

[/b]

Thank you Kirk, you put my rant in "better terms."

If I may suggest, let&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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 &#39;I was at work way to early in the AM" Blethen

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

[Bill Miller]

No problem Raymond, but when you said "The problem w/ you and ....", I kind of took that to be directed at me!

[RSTPerformance]

No problem Raymond, but when you said "The problem w/ you and ....", I kind of took that to be directed at me!
[/b]

Its been a long day...

Greg can I get an Isaac that attaches to my chair??? It would need to hold my head up when it starts to "bob" at my desk I keep getting whiplash

Raymond

[turboICE]

Also let&#39;s be clear on one thing - my intent is not to bash HANS. I don&#39;t want to use HANS when an alterenative that is better in my mind is available. In order to do so, I am required by others to state why I don&#39;t want to use HANS, if that is bashing so be it. But is only by being required to defend my use of ISAAC that it occurs. Stop trying to prevent me from using my choice of H&N restraint and I will never again make any negative comment about HANS. I have never in anyway suggested anyone other than ME should not be using or that anyone should not be allowed to use HANS.

Remove the necessity for me to say why I want to use ISAAC instead of HANS and I will shut my mouth about why I don&#39;t want to be required to us HANS.

[gsbaker]

Its been a long day...

Greg can I get an Isaac that attaches to my chair??? It would need to hold my head up when it starts to "bob" at my desk I keep getting whiplash

Raymond
[/b]

The first time anyone actually "wore" an Isaac system was when I wrapped a harness around my office chair, installed mounts on a helmet and hooked everything up. Unfortunately, even with the wheels on the chair we couldn&#39;t get up enough speed for a valid impact test.

Yes, it was during the office holiday party, but that was just a coincidence. Thank heavens no one took a photo.

[Bill Miller]

The first time anyone actually "wore" an Isaac system was when I wrapped a harness around my office chair, installed mounts on a helmet and hooked everything up. Unfortunately, even with the wheels on the chair we couldn&#39;t get up enough speed for a valid impact test.

Yes, it was during the office holiday party, but that was just a coincidence. Thank heavens no one took a photo.
[/b]

LOL! Sounds like one of those clips in that commercial that has the guy doing the &#39;human bowling&#39; w/ the water cooler jugs!!

Ed,

Very well said!

[Z3_GoCar]

Just Curious if anyone&#39;s tried the R3, or has concerns about it? I saw one for sale at the VARA race at Cal-Speedway last weekend. Sorry, but I&#39;m planning on doing BMW club events too so I need a SFI certified device.

James

[gsbaker]

Hey, I found 2 cents in my pocket this morning, and I don&#39;t want them to burn a hole, so here is something I have not heard mentioned. You can buy a Hans device, either the standard or the lightweight Pro model, and it comes with standard tethers. If I am not mistaken, with the standard tethers, you have to slip the tether rings off the helmet posts to release the Hans from the helmet. For an additional $105.00 you can order the &#39;Quick Disconnect Tether Set&#39; that allows a driver (or emergency worker) to disconnect the Hans from the helmet by pulling TWO straps. Not to draw too many conclusions, but it looks like the manufacturer saw a need to detach the device more quickly than the original design. Can anyone comment on the difference in design from actual usage?
[/b]

Sorry Bill. your question got lost in the shuffle.

These are popular in tight confines where, frankly, drivers expect to have to leave the HANS behind. Bobby LeBonte used them when his car caught fire in Chicago in &#39;03. We have talked to some racers (Land Speed Record and drag racers) driving non-production cars that have cages so tight they can&#39;t get out of the seat. The HANS goes in once and stays there.

HANS users who opt for these should trim the tethers as short as possible. There has been more than one case of them getting pinched under the belt and releasing.

[gsbaker]

James,

The manufacturer won&#39;t release the R3 test data, so all we know is that its upperneck load was less than 900 pounds in the offset SFI test. Isaac and HANS test at about 500#.

[Daryl DeArman]

James,

FYI, VARA allows the use of the ISAAC. I know of three just in my run group.

Were you racing, spectating or crewing?

-Daryl

[Z3_GoCar]

Hey Daryl,

I was crewing/spectating. I helped out with Rich Kirchner&#39;s FC and Tom Kuby&#39;s 911 Porsche. I was also hanging out with Kevin MacDonald, I rented his Green Monster 2002 for my Super School. The real sticking point is not VARA, where I&#39;d be running exhibition class, but BMWCCA which requires SFI cert on the H&N restraint. Kevin drove the Plavin 911 Porsche in the Sunday morning practice session which is where I saw the R3 unit. The other issue is that I need to do this in the next month as I&#39;d like to run the BMW/SCCA vintage event in September at Laguna Seca. So waiting for BMWCCA racing to change their rule is out of the question.

James

[gprodracer]

"Raymond....BTW is that how you debate things, call people names and yell at them to stop presenting their side because you don&#39;t agree w/it "

Absolutely the funniest line you&#39;ve ever typed...
Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot here...Two words for you..You&#39;re black!

On a more serious note, I have no preference here, however has anyone considered the fact that Mr. Hand had just rolled 8 times end over end, and 1 1/2 times sideways? Could we all agree that the "shaken and stirred" factor could have contributed to why he had a problem getting himself out, and may have gotten him caught up in the window net? (Knocking on wood now..) I have only had one hard impact, fell out the door of my car, and walked away like a drunken soldier. I believe that the impact affected the (very ungracefully) way I exited my car. I personally believe we should have a choice, but not that this one instance should cause us to make a final decision of one device over another. We all know that each wreck is completely different, with all sorts of variables.
I&#39;m with Raymond, and others, write letters to change the written rules, and try to get them affordable for all of us!
Carry on, this is an extremely informative post! Thanks to all with the pertinent info!

With apologies to Raymond,

Mark " learning something new every day" Larson
CFR #164010