Head & Shoulder Restraint Kit

[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]

(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.

We heard that too, but we also heard from witnesses that there may have been an egress issue once he stopped. This is all second-hand info at best, so it doesn't help the discussion.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that drivers have been trapped in burning cars when forced to wear a H&N restraint. Had there been an egress issue at Daytona and the SFI mandate were in effect, the survivors could have brought a claim. Had an SFI mandate been in effect when Dr. Zimmerman was killed, the survivors could have brought a claim. Had an SFI mandate been in effect when the NASA driver broke his neck, he could have brought a claim, precisely because our design is excluded by the spec.

Every single time a driver has been trapped in a burning car by a H&N restraint it has been an SFI design, whereas an Isaac product can be left behind. What makes this difficult to understand?

The present SCCA rule must go back 40 years and has not kept pace with safety advances. Does SCCA ban inside nets? They require an extra release if you need to bail out the passenger side, right? If it would just accept RSI specs all the problems go away. All of them.

[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.

[AjG]

How exactly is the Isaac released? Can the two push pins on the helmet just be pulled or do the buttons have to be pushed to unlock the pins? Is there video somewhere of someone getting out of a car with the Isaac system?

[924Guy]

How exactly is the Isaac released? Can the two push pins on the helmet just be pulled or do the buttons have to be pushed to unlock the pins? Is there video somewhere of someone getting out of a car with the Isaac system?

There are different flavours of the pins available; I have the older, more costly style with the push-to-pull pins, where the center button must be pushed to release the pins. As I recall, straight pull pins are also available, for a slightly lower cost (IIRC).

Never bothered taking a video of crawling out of the car - it's a non-event, as Gregg has pointed out.

[gran racing]

While watching the Rolex 24 (I know, it's taking me a while to get through with the wife not enjoying quite as much as me lol) and noticed that the TRG cars have two window nets mounted. There's the traditional window net AND one of the triangle nets used for head protection. So in order to get out of the drivers door, both of those need to come down. Interesting how we're hung up on (ha, ha!) two release points for H&NR but that's okay.

[lateapex911]

The Isaac is released by pulling two rings. They have lanyards on them, or can be modified in anyway that the wearer likes. One thing that makes the Isaac easy to releases is that the pins are on the helmet, and you always find them there, so it's easy to do no matter your position. It's like reaching for your ear. AND, every single time you get out of the car, you release them. THAT's a major difference compared to say the HANS. I see the HANS guys leaving the thing attached to the helmet because it's easier that way. Too much fumbling to get it back in place and ready to roll. Trouble is, THAT becomes 'The habit" and when you need to get out NOW, after an endo when your brain is rattled (see Mid Ohio video of Joey Hand), you don't change the 'habit" and go for the quick releases. (That incident could have ended much differently if there had been one less flip and an aggressive fire developed.).

For those who are asking why the Isaac can't just be changed, it performs as well as it does because of it's design. The SFI spec MANDATES certain design, or architecture parameters be met. It requires that the loads be transferred to the body, and that means some form of S&M strapping or some yoke like thing. The issue is that the belts are now not captive, and the devices can slip free. (See numerous videos, including one of Greg Amy at Watkins Glen)

I think that, for Greg's company, it presents a very real predicament. IF they changed the design to a yoke like thing, such as the HANS or DEFENDER, but with some cool roller track and the dampers, it would indeed ROCK. BUT, it would have the same weakness* that he has clearly shown he is aware of, that the things come off the belts. So, if a guy crashes, bounces of some wall, dislodges the yoke, then slams into a concrete pillar and dies, his wife may decide that something went wrong. He was SUPPOSED to live, he was wearing this device that was SUPPOSED to save him, and WHY did he die? Didn't the device maker know this would happen? In Greg's case, he's clearly said it can and will happen. At least with the others, they're looking the other way and there's no easy fishing for a lawyer.

* It has the same weakness because our club insists that all the other crap we hook to ourselves doesn't restrain us, and that the belts MUST be free with one action.**

**I can 'see' a belt device that uses the cam lock release action and has two cables that release the Isaac pins...but I just can't design them. Even if I could, I'd have to go get such a thing certified by the SFI, which would suck, not only because it would cost a ton, but because it would be a big gamble. If they feel the design doesn't meet their criteria, you're out tens of thousands of dollars. I don't know if, knowing what I know about the politics of it all, that I'd gamble that amount.

[mr. black]

Is there anyway to make sure that the belts dont' slip?

[Steven McWilliams Jr]

I have and highly reccommend a defNder. It is adjustable so I can move from my FV to my ITA car easily, just adjust the angle. Also, it is easy to get out with, you just have to make sure to flip the belts off, or pull the tabs and twist your head while buckled in to leave the DefNder behind, then hop out. People getting stuck in cars is mostly from not practicing getting out. If you practice getting out of your car quickly just a few times, you'll be able to get out in a hurry when it really matters.

Steven

[mr. black]

I liked the Dfendr much better for an overall purchase. But I have a short neck which did allow for enough clearance. In the end I got the HANS.