Time to write those letters - Head and Neck Restraints

[StephenB]

Sorry I haven't replied in a few days... lots of work and no time.

We definetly have different view points and we should leave it at that rather than bicker. I completly see your view points and I was one that viewed it exactly as most of you do. I waited to make a purchase until this year so that I wasn't making a poor investment which in retrospec I was lucky I was never killed and really was the least safest thing to do of all! If you really want my response on the wheels and rollcage let me know and I can PM you.

I do wish to repsond to the following links attached at the bottom in hopes that I can further explain my viewpoint without getting kicked off this forum. I know I said I didn't want to bicker as I started to type this Post so please understand that I welcome your comments back but I probably will not defend myself. I just wanted to respond to your questions and try and explain my viewpoint. If you don't agree with me no harm no foul and we are each entitled to our own opinion.

First I COMPLETLY agree and wish we adopted another testing company like SNELL or anything else for that matter. BUT I feel like we cannot control that now and the decision has been made. Like it or not (Which BTW I do not like the decision)

SECOND I also think that It is not up to Issac to decide on what we as consumers purchase. However it is up to them on what they decide to sell. As stated below they can provide both units and allow for us to purchase what we want within our needs as a consumer. YES one is less safe and performs worse BUT this happens ALL THE TIME in the marketplace. Not just in safety but it still happens in the safety of us as Racers. A perfect example of this is the seat market. Some come with side impact head protection, others do not. One is safer and one is not depending on the situation and needs of the consumer. In this situation with H&N support Issac has a product that performas worse BUT meets the SFI standard. If they decided to produce ithis product we could purchase an Issac product so that we don't feel the need to purchase a HANS or Safety solutions product. If this product is as safe as the HANS and Safety Solutions would you support Issac or them? So many people say they are not going to purchase a HANS no matter what so they will most likely get a Safety Solutions brand. Is the Issac safer than those, I don't know but at least we would have options. If Issac has a customer base that supports the business model they have AND they feel a less performing product isn't an option based on the reputation and or ethical values as a company then I give them kudos and wish them well. BUT we as consumers could always send them a letter requesting they build the product and you never know... maybe they will.

I REALLY REALLY wish Issac had an SFI product and advertised that a safer option is available for sale and included a form to every person that purchased their product to write in to SFI. Imagine if Issac could sell to Nascar, NHRA, Grand-am, ALMS, etc and promoted that safer options ARE available? That is the way I see this changing for the future. At this point we need a bigger "movement" and building awarness is the only thing I think that will change it but bickering on the internet or boycotting racing isn't going to change a thing. I really think this is bigger than us or SCCA.

Stephen Blethen


PS: I only used BOLD below just to differenciate what I was typing, I screwed up the quote thing and didn't want to re-type stuff.


Stephen, think about Greggs case. He modified his product, tested it, and got inferior results to what he had, and was selling.

You DO see that a jury, in a case against him, would look at that information, and rip him a new one, as he chose to sell a product that he KNEW was inferior to the one he already sold. You have to admit, if it was YOUR life on the line in that courtroom, you'd think VERY hard before making and selling something you KNEW had issues, irregardless of the actual drivers and in field performance.
I DONT SEE IT THIS WAY AT ALL, ESPECIALLY IF THE TEST RESULTS ARE PUBLISHED AND PROVIDED WITH EACH SALE.

Bigger picture here, Stephen, if the HANS people had written the spec in a more open manner, this issue would be less likely to exist at all. But they wrote it with clear market limiting intentions, just as SFI empowers, and encourages them to do. And we, the HANS buying SCCA driver, pumps money and makes that relationship and system work, all the way to the bank, or in Arnies case, his Newport Beach CA home.
OUT OF OUR CONTROL, I CAN'T EVER CHANGE THIS. BUT I CAN PURCHASE OTHER PRODUCTS OTHER THAN A HANS IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE.


SFI acts like the white knight, parading around telling us how we are all safe, thanks to the charity of Arnie, yet, in reality, acts in ways to to limit our safety.
AGREED BUT OUT OF MY CONTOL.

It's a shame Snell isn't a broader organization, they seem to have a better model.
AGREE


08-15-2011 10:14 AM
gsbaker Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenB
So none of you think that the manufacture could have spent sometime and redesigned the product to meet the specs. This has been going on for nearly a half decade, I really think they could have done something to meet the specs if they wanted to.

Stephen

Duh.

4 May 2005, Wayne State University crash lab, Test #NC149, NASCAR offset protocol.
29 September 2005, Delphi Safety Systems crash lab, Test #IS59F010, SFI 38.1 offset protocol.
The Isaac design modified to meet the SFI spec worked rather well at the WSU lab, but not at the Delphi lab where the belts came off -- just like a HANS device.

You wouldn't detune a Ferrari to meet a Yugo spec. Why would you detune an Isaac to meet an SFI spec? What good thing happens? We sell more stuff and kill drivers? Sorry, SFI needs us more than we need SFI.
I GIVE YOUR COMPANY A LOT OF CREDIT FOR STICKING TO YOUR VALUES. I UNDERSTAND YOUR VIEW AND WISH YOU LUCK IN THE FUTURE. I WISH SFI AND OTHERS VIEWED IT THIS WAY. I ALSO WISH THAT I COULD SUPPORT YOUR COMPANY RATHER THAN HANS OR SAFETY SOULUTIONS. AT THIS TIME YOUR COMPANY DOES NOT MAKE A PRODUCT THAT MEETS MY NEEDS.

[gsbaker]

I GIVE YOUR COMPANY A LOT OF CREDIT FOR STICKING TO YOUR VALUES. I UNDERSTAND YOUR VIEW AND WISH YOU LUCK IN THE FUTURE. I WISH SFI AND OTHERS VIEWED IT THIS WAY. I ALSO WISH THAT I COULD SUPPORT YOUR COMPANY RATHER THAN HANS OR SAFETY SOULUTIONS. AT THIS TIME YOUR COMPANY DOES NOT MAKE A PRODUCT THAT MEETS MY NEEDS.

Thanks, we appreciate that and understand your position. We're doing fine, BTW, unlike everyone else in the industry. This will pass and the SCCA will get up to speed eventually. Let's just hope no one gets hurt in the meantime.

[DavidM]

I hadn't thought about it until just now, but will we now see a rash of "tech only" H&N devices? I'm sure the guys on the Grid will not be checking for SFI 38.1 stickers, so you and your buddies get one "approved" device that ends up going through annual tech multiple times.

Back in the old days you had to have a copy of the current GCR - no requirement that you had actually read it, but you had to have one. Guys would go through tech, then walk outside the building and hand their "communal" GCR to their buddy waiting in line. The same book probably went through 20 tech inspections on a given evening!

Butch is smart cookie. Of course, my SFI certified, er stickered, Isaac shouldn't have any problems.

My thoughts on the subject can be read over at the other place. My suggestion is to vote out your board member if you feel they have not served appropriately. That's the only thing that will send a message.

David

[pballance]

My suggestion is to vote out your board member if you feel they have not served appropriately. That's the only thing that will send a message.

David

This! I have made my feelings known as well and will remind my rep when it is time to vote. BTW, you want to run David? <evil smile>

Paul

[DavidM]

This! I have made my feelings known as well and will remind my rep when it is time to vote. BTW, you want to run David? <evil smile>

Paul

Heh. That's the rub. Somebody actually has to run against the incumbent in order for you to vote for them.

[theracinglawyer]

Wrong...wrong...I survived a wreck at the glen, that the Board certified Emergency Physician said if I did not have a HANS device on I would not have survived....Ever represent a quadriplegic I have and it is something that breaks your heart....Mandatory for every racer..costs less than a set of tires...Just like seat belts, if you don't want to wear them DON'T RACE.

[theracinglawyer]

I must apologize I used the word HANS..I meant to to say any devise that does the same thing...HANS has become the generic term...like xerox for copy machines and kleenex for facial tissues...any devise that will protect you and your neck in an accident should be mandatory. sorry for that miss que.

[ITEGT]

Wrong...wrong...I survived a wreck at the glen, that the Board certified Emergency Physician said if I did not have a HANS device on I would not have survived....Ever represent a quadriplegic I have and it is something that breaks your heart....Mandatory for every racer..costs less than a set of tires...Just like seat belts, if you don't want to wear them DON'T RACE.

If you did not have on a HANS specifically or an equivalent H&N restraint? Thank you for the above post, you answered my question before I could hit the reply button.

For me its not the fact that a H&N restraint is going to be mandatory next season but that we as racers have been rail roaded into two choices of which restraint we can buy and be legal.

[JLawton]

Wrong...wrong...I survived a wreck at the glen, that the Board certified Emergency Physician said if I did not have a HANS device on I would not have survived....Ever represent a quadriplegic I have and it is something that breaks your heart....Mandatory for every racer..costs less than a set of tires...Just like seat belts, if you don't want to wear them DON'T RACE.

Mike,
these days not many people are arguing that they should have to wear one, but the fact that we are being mandated to wear only certain manufactures. Manufacturers that have been tested to be less safe than those that are not allowed. It's all about how the manufacturers are tied into SFI. It's all about the money.......... not safety.

[CRallo]

Mike,
these days not many people are arguing that they should have to wear one, but the fact that we are being mandated to wear only certain manufactures. Manufacturers that have been tested to be less safe than those that are not allowed. It's all about how the manufacturers are tied into SFI. It's all about the money.......... not safety.

Very well put Jeff!

[JS154]

Good post, Dave. To me, my HANS was like other required car equipment...roll cage, racing seat, etc. You sure don't want to spend the money, but you know damn well you need it. QUITYOURBITCHING and get one. Chuck (who has worn a HANS for 3 years)

I concur fully. The HANS or similar type device can certainly make the difference between a survivable crash or one that is not, or the difference between a crash that you walk away from, vs on that you don't walk after, ever.

What happens if you go straight off at turn 10 in someone's fluid? There's about 2 feet of runoff there and it;s a 100 mph corner. I have a friend who is walking and talking today becuase of this exact scenario, and he was wearing a Hans.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk6HV-3iyi8[/ame]

[JS154]

Wrong...wrong...I survived a wreck at the glen, that the Board certified Emergency Physician said if I did not have a HANS device on I would not have survived....Ever represent a quadriplegic I have and it is something that breaks your heart....Mandatory for every racer..costs less than a set of tires...Just like seat belts, if you don't want to wear them DON'T RACE.

CONCUR!!!

Replacement tethers are cheap, and you can get sliding tethers that make a big difference in turning your head.

[theracinglawyer]

I am one who likes a choice, my object in making the post was to make a choice for safety..whatever the devise you choose..just make sure it works.....may you all be safe and even if you do crash...may you be safe in the crash...love you all....I do not want to offend anyone.....Mike

[BruceG]

Wow...that is compelling video!!

[mgyip]

If I understand this thread, many folks agree that a H&N device is a good thing BUT they want to be able to wear whatever device they feel is safe, correct?

That's quite understandable but wholly unrealistic - if that were the case, you'd see anything from a "worthless" SFI 38.1 device to a stellar, home-engineered bungee-cord/rubberband neck-breaker. Without a certifiable standard, there would be no way to determine which device is theoretically safe and what devices are potentially lethal.

The argument of "mine is better than yours" is about as valid as "I'm faster than you because I'm touched and you're not". Based on the SFI 38.1 specs (regardless of what anyone things about how they were developed), an H&N device is afforded a standard that the sanctioning bodies and their legal eagles can use as a base-line. Is it the perfect test of an H&N device? For the scenario set forth by SFI, the answer is yes. That having been said, is their such a thing as a perfect "text book" crash? Probably one in a million...

I'm more than a bit embarrassed that SCCA is the last sanctioning body to mandate the use of an H&N device of any sort. It was painful to see SCCA taking out the long pearl-handled revolver, loading the silver bullets and pointing the barrel directly their their collective behinds. Apparently the concept of "risk adverse" spills over to "controversy adverse" as well. The harsh reality for SCCA (as it is for Stewards who must be the "Bad Guy" on occasion) is that not everyone will every be happy with every decision. Some people will scream and threaten, others will grumble under their breath and the vast majority will simply say "Thank you, may I have another".

The letter I'll write to SCCA is "It's about damn time you made a decision - ANY decision".

Matthew (chief rabble-rouser)

[tom91ita]

If I understand this thread, many folks agree that a H&N device is a good thing BUT they want to be able to wear whatever device they feel is safe, correct?

no. we want to be able to wear whatever device we choose that has been certified by an independent testing facility.

SCCA still has liability, they just transferred it to the non-SFI non-FIA cage design that they allow the system to be anchored to and to the tech inspectors. most harness installations do not meet the HANS requirements yet SCCA still allows it (i.e., grants log books and cars to go on track). and i met HANS and not H&NR.

my plans for 2012 are to continue to use an Isaac device and run with the Midwest Council of Sports Car Clubs. think of it as win/win. i can be safer and SCCA has reduced risk exposure because they will have fewer racers.

but seriously, why so narrow minded to think it has to be only SFI? in a rule book the size of SCCA's they could not have added a few more words to craft something that could meet the neck force performance standards in SFI at a list of crash labs?

as an engineer, i like the idea of the most direct means to an end. instead of adding an intermediate device between the helmet and the belts to transfer the force to the harness, why not take out the middle man so to speak? the Isaac is just more elegant.

i think this is just as compelling a video:

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/Video/SFIBoth.mpg

i think this side impact test data from the Delphi test labs is compelling as well:

[StephenB]

The letter I'll write to SCCA is "It's about damn time you made a decision - ANY decision".

Matthew (chief rabble-rouser)

+1

Originally Posted by JLawton
Mike,
these days not many people are arguing that they should have to wear one, but the fact that we are being mandated to wear only certain manufactures. Manufacturers that have been tested to be less safe than those that are not allowed. It's all about how the manufacturers are tied into SFI. It's all about the money.......... not safety. )

Jeff I would encourage you to look further into this. Isaac DID produce a product that met the standard and SCCA would have allowed that Isaac device just like all other SFI certified devices. Isaac themselves decided not to produce this product for us, the decision to only allow certain manufactures had nothing to do with SCCA and had everything to do with the manufactures themselves.

[StephenB]

no. we want to be able to wear whatever device we choose that has been certified by an independent testing facility.


but seriously, why so narrow minded to think it has to be only SFI? in a rule book the size of SCCA's they could not have added a few more words to craft something that could meet the neck force performance standards in SFI at a list of crash labs?

+1 to this as well! I WISH this it what they decided but sadly they did not.

[Knestis]

+1



Jeff I would encourage you to look further into this. Isaac DID produce a product that met the standard and SCCA would have allowed that Isaac device just like all other SFI certified devices. Isaac themselves decided not to produce this product for us, the decision to only allow certain manufactures had nothing to do with SCCA and had everything to do with the manufactures themselves.

...and I would encourage you to either explain the entire story or stop sharing half-truths. Or limit your opinions to things you understand.

K

[StephenB]

Duh.

• 4 May 2005, Wayne State University crash lab, Test #NC149, NASCAR offset protocol.
• 29 September 2005, Delphi Safety Systems crash lab, Test #IS59F010, SFI 38.1 offset protocol.

The Isaac design modified to meet the SFI spec worked rather well at the WSU lab, but not at the Delphi lab where the belts came off -- just like a HANS device.

You wouldn't detune a Ferrari to meet a Yugo spec. Why would you detune an Isaac to meet an SFI spec? What good thing happens? We sell more stuff and kill drivers? Sorry, SFI needs us more than we need SFI.

I am not arguing less safe verses more safe... I am only stating the fact that any manufacturer can make a product that meets the SFI regulation.