Head & Shoulder Restraint Kit

[924Guy]

Of course, that's a helluva gamble to take these days, with your own money...

[Darryl Pritchett]

Well I am far from being an expert and do not claim to know which one is better then the other. I am also not saying I agree with the SFI but unfortunately in life if we want to play in their sand box we have to play by their rules or go find another sand box to play in. With that in mind though the single point release rule has been in effect long before this debate started and is probably there for very valid reason.

[gran racing]

I agree. I'd prefer just on release point but there are comprimises with all systems out there. When looking at them, I evaluated which had comprimises that I felt would impact me the least. I personally put a heavier weight on side impacts than I did a fire where I'm knocked out and corner workers couldn't get both release points off and didn't have a knife to cut the belts. I feel with the car I drive, it's much more likely that I'd suffer a crash than a fire that go inside the cockpit of the car. That's just me though.

[gsbaker]

It's important to keep in mind the original intent of this old single release rule. Written at a time when there was very little safety equipment in the car -- no side nets, winged seats or H&N restraints you had to wear -- the general idea was that getting out of the seat is good enough, and back then it was true. Getting out of the seat meant you could get out of the car.

This is not true today, and drivers using SFI-designed H&N restraints have been trapped in burning cars: http://www.isaacdirect.com/SFI.html. (Was the SCCA driver who burned to death at Daytona last year was using an SFI design?)

We sell product to people who cannot, under any circumstances, exit their car using an SFI-design product. Meanwhile we have never had an Isaac product returned because of concern about egress. Never. Ask someone who uses an Isaac product about this, and then ask yourself why the people who complain about Isaac and single release have never used it. It's laughable; it's like a virgin complaining about sex.

Safety advances in motorsports are never incremental, so here's what will happen:

1. An Isaac user will have their Isaac taken away from them.
2. They will be forced to use an SFI design.
3. They will have a fire or side impact, or lose their shoulder belts.
4. They will die (or end up a quad).
5. The SCCA will get sued into the next dimension.
6. The jury, which has never heard of SFI, will find gross negligence.
7. The gross negligence finding means there is no insurance.
8. SCCA tanks.

Then the rules will change.

(That's the "lite" version.)

Think this isn't already being set up?

http://www.fortheracer.com/

[EV]

<Snip> With that in mind though the single point release rule has been in effect long before this debate started and is probably there for very valid reason.

How does the Issacs violates the single point release anymore than your coolsuit connection, radio connection or fresh air connection?

On edit: Also, why does Hans offer "quick disconnects" to their device? Because it impedes egress maybe?

[gsbaker]

Also, why does Hans offer "quick disconnects" to their device? Because it impedes egress maybe?

I've heard that's their most popular option.

[gran racing]

Gregg, did you just create that site?

[gsbaker]

Gregg, did you just create that site?

I have a good idea where it came from: http://www.forthepeople.com/

[mr. black]

GBaker I see your point but what is the problem with having your equipment certified? I honestly don't know. It would seem if you did, from your perspective you would and do have the best product out there and a SFI rating would seal the deal.

As for your points

1. No one will take away anybody's equipment
2. Yes you would be forced to use SFI if you want to play in the sandbox, just like our suits, gloves, helmets etc.
3. Side impact worries me for the same reasons as gran racing, if your belts come off (as you said) you have bigger issues to contend with and that would make the Rage a better product than all of them, and as for fire; that's why even in the current issue of Grassroots, practicing egress is stressed. The racer (forget name) got out with burns to his hands. But he got out. You really shouldn't find out that you have problem getting out with a SFI H&N during an actual fire.
4. Maybe with pratice 4 can be skipped. But no amount of equipment takes that out of the equation. If it did, most of would probally just go ride roller coasters instead anyway.
5-8. I find a stretch considering how long the SCCA has been around and how much safety stuff has happened.

Again, what's the deal with getting your product certified? Expensive?

[Darryl Pritchett]

(Was the SCCA driver who burned to death at Daytona last year was using an SFI design?)

In regards to the driver who burned to death at Daytona. It was in no way a result of any kind of head & neck restraint system. I was there and my wife saw him pulled out of the car. His issue was he had tie wrapped his onboard fire system lever and could not pull it and was reluctant to stop the car when he first knew of the fire. He started catching fire in turn 3 and proceeded all the way around to pit entrance. Not sure if he kept trying to pull the lever and when he realized he could not it was already too late. But to throw that into a comment that it might have been his head & neck restraint system that caused him not to be able to get out of the car is just wrong.

[gsbaker]

GBaker I see your point but what is the problem with having your equipment certified? I honestly don't know. It would seem if you did, from your perspective you would and do have the best product out there and a SFI rating would seal the deal.

The two are mutually exclusive. The SFI spec is low performance; it is the equivalent to putting a propeller on a jet engine. All the data proves it. We would have to detune our design to meet that spec.

As for your points

1. No one will take away anybody's equipment
2. Yes you would be forced to use SFI if you want to play in the sandbox, just like our suits, gloves, helmets etc.

So, which is it? You can't have it both ways. If there is an SFI-only mandate, SCCA drivers will have their Isaac systems taken away.

3. Side impact worries me for the same reasons as gran racing, if your belts come off (as you said) you have bigger issues to contend with and that would make the Rage a better product than all of them

The manufacturer will not release test data for the Rage. For all we know it increases head loads.

...and as for fire; that's why even in the current issue of Grassroots, practicing egress is stressed. The racer (forget name) got out with burns to his hands. But he got out. You really shouldn't find out that you have problem getting out with a SFI H&N during an actual fire.

Agreed. Most people who have a problem getting out with an SFI design find out day one, then hope they don't have a fire.

5-8. I find a stretch considering how long the SCCA has been around and how much safety stuff has happened.

That's an interesting point. In an simple scenario I would tend to agree, and plaintiff lawyers will normally start something like this with a test case or two. But if they believe they can convince a jury that parties have colluded to trade safety for money (which is how they would pitch it), the SCCA will only be a co-defendant. GM, which did testing stateside, Daimler, which did testing in Europe, every manufacturer/member of SFI, every sanctioning body/member of SFI, all 200+ HANS distributors, and the guy trying to sell you that Rage will be co-defendants.

Sure that's the extreme case, but if the target is juicy enough any mildly competent plantiff firm will do it because it costs nothing to add a name to the list. Trust me; I've been involved in 100+ mass tort cases on the defendant side.

Why take the risk?

Again, what's the deal with getting your product certified? Expensive?

Racing is cheap. Our background is aerospace and medical devices, where getting something out the door for less than $1MM is a good day. The data, from both the test labs and the track, forces us to conclude that the SFI design is dangerous vis-a-vis our design. It's very simple: We are not going to kill drivers just to make a buck.