Head and Neck Haters...Watch This

[chuck baader]

Self explanatory:

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum....php?t=1753248


Scroll down to video....on third page are pictures of the aftermath. Now, tell me you don't need a H&N device??? Chuck

[Greg Amy]

Haven't watched the video, but can already tell you I don't need an H&NR device.

GA, whose HANS came FLYING out from under the shoulder harnesses after the first hit during a high speed wreck at Watkins Glen, right before hitting the wall two more times. Having to choose between HNR or tight belts when hitting the wall? Priceless.

[pitbull113]

Self explanatory:

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum....php?t=1753248


Scroll down to video....on third page are pictures of the aftermath. Now, tell me you don't need a H&N device??? Chuck

[LD71]

Haven't watched the video, but can already tell you I don't need an H&NR device.

GA, whose HANS came FLYING out from under the shoulder harnesses after the first hit during a high speed wreck at Watkins Glen, right before hitting the wall two more times. Having to choose between HNR or tight belts when hitting the wall? Priceless.

Greg,
I've always wondered about that, sounds serious in your case---so what will you be doing in 2012 when the rule says H&N mandatory?
LD71

[Greg Amy]

I've always wondered about that, sounds serious in your case---so what will you be doing in 2012 when the rule says H&N mandatory?

Wearing a used HANS*, what else can I do?

* and using Velcro straps across them to keep the belts on.

[jjjanos]

Self explanatory:

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum....php?t=1753248


Scroll down to video....on third page are pictures of the aftermath. Now, tell me you don't need a H&N device??? Chuck

I don't need a H&N device.

Neither the video nor the photos demonstrate the need for such a device... i.e. what were the g forces?

Most importanly, even if the video demonstrated the need for a H&N device, it certainly doesn't demonstrate the need for a SFI 38.1 device.

[BruceG]

I don't need a H&N device.

Neither the video nor the photos demonstrate the need for such a device... i.e. what were the g forces?

Most importanly, even if the video demonstrated the need for a H&N device, it certainly doesn't demonstrate the need for a SFI 38.1 device.

My only run in with a wall was during 3 day racing school in a Formula Skip Barber at LRP. went thru 11 too hot, let up on the throttle. hung the tail out(rear engine) and came around. Hit the outside tire wall sideways at 80+. No HANS but my head and neck were ok, despite all the lateral movement. Broke a couple ribs. don't know what would have happened without a H&N if I had hit the tire wall head on...but I guess an OZ of prevention(HANS,ETC) might be worth a LB of cure. Obviously, it didn't help Greg when it failed to work correctly!!

[TStiles]

Haven't watched the video, but can already tell you I don't need an H&NR device.

GA, whose HANS came FLYING out from under the shoulder harnesses after the first hit during a high speed wreck at Watkins Glen, right before hitting the wall two more times. Having to choose between HNR or tight belts when hitting the wall? Priceless.

I've always wondered about that ... My Ultrashield harness has a velcro attachment from shoulder belt to shoulder belt

Think that would prevent the Hans flying out ?

FWIW : I live with neck pain every day that started after a pre HANS crash. In my case the HANS would not have helped ( hard RR impact into concrete wall on an oval ) , but I choose to be as safe as possible for the next time.

[chuck baader]

jjj..The wrecked E30 is a friend of mine. He calculated the G load in excess of 160Gs. The H$N made the wreck survivable....period. If you can't see that I feel sorry for you. Chuck (Someone who has hit/been hit 5 separate impacts while wearing the HANS.)

[Greg Amy]

He calculated the G load in excess of 160Gs.

Bullshit. Simple, outright, unmitigated bullshit.

[jjjanos]

jjj..The wrecked E30 is a friend of mine. He calculated the G load in excess of 160Gs.

He speaks from the dead?

The H made the wreck survivable....period. If you can't see that I feel sorry for you.

What specifically from the video, other than it being a hard hit -- which is not evidence of non H&N survivability --, is evidence that the crash would have been fatal without a H&N? You see what you want to see. If I show a priest a particularly interesting pattern on a loaf of bread, he's going to see Christ. An oven repair technician will see an oven that heats uneven.

Chuck (Someone who has hit/been hit 5 separate impacts while wearing the HANS.)

I had 3 before I got the device I can use for 3 more weeks. After that, nada. Obviously the Isaac is superior to your device as mine actually prevents impacts based on the evidence we both have presented.

[chuck baader]

Ok, Greg....show us your mad math skills. 80mph to stop in about 18" is how many Gs? Copied from another forum:

a=V^2/2d.

a= 5194ft/sec^2. That's about 162g's.

[chuck baader]

All of my hits have been side impact save 1.

jjj, you are correct, the data does not show non survivability from the impact without a deceive. However, it does show a damn good possibility. That's good enough for me.

Greg, the newer HANS with the wings and use of a 2" shoulder belt solves the problem. I have had no such issues with mine, and I have given it a very fair chance. Chuck

[Greg Amy]

Ok, Greg....show us your mad math skills...

No, you show us the data. Anything else is bullshit*.

GA

* Or semi-religious faith to an ideal that does not need proof.

On edit:

Greg, the newer HANS with the wings and use of a 2" shoulder belt solves the problem...

So what you're sayin' is, the prior version of the bible wasn't as good as it should have been -- despite its industry approvals -- and may actually have been more dangerous, and that if I just forget that one and spend more money on the new bible, everything will now be okay? What happens when the next edition comes out due to inconsistencies in v2...just keep swallowing?

Gotcha.

[chuck baader]

Greg, obviously you missed this: "Ok, Greg....show us your mad math skills. 80mph to stop in about 18" is how many Gs? Copied from another forum:

a=V^2/2d.

a= 5194ft/sec^2. That's about 162g's." (Oh, yea...make that -160Gs)

You know the track and the speeds in that area. I feel 80mph is a reasonable assumption...and yes, I know what assumption means.

Most people, when designing items, improve the items over time. That is just the way it is. Real life does not model on a computer or drawing board. That is why there are other items available. Sorry you had a bad experience, but haters are gonna hate. Accept this thread for what it was intended....an example of what can and does happen to good people. BTW, I don't think Scott was using a HANS but another device. Chuck

[Simon T.]

His H&N system could have helped or it may not have mattered.

Either way it was a hard impact, we've seen people hit that wall at that angle before without any H&N system at higher speeds and get right out, but is it worth trying if you can be better prepared with a H&N system?

[jjjanos]

Ok, Greg....show us your mad math skills. 80mph to stop in about 18" is how many Gs? Copied from another forum:

a=V^2/2d.

a= 5194ft/sec^2. That's about 162g's.

Assuming 80MPH (which, unless I see the data logger, is probably a gross overestimation of the speed at impact) ...

80MPH = 117.333 feet/second initial velocity
0MPH = 0 feet/second terminal velocity

Delta = 117.333 feet/second
Delta ^2 = 13,767.11
Distance = 1.5 feet
Delta ^2/(2xDistance) = 4589.037
1Gee = 32 Feet/second^2

Gamma/Gee = 4589.037/32 = 143.4074 "Gees"

And if he had taken that deceleration, he would have had more significant internal injuries from the force of his organs and other soft tissues slamming into his body.

You know the track and the speeds in that area. I feel 80mph is a reasonable assumption...and yes, I know what assumption means.

How many seconds was he sliding sideways? You scrub alot of speed off when the tires aren't rolling. At 60MpH, the deceleration is 80.67 gees. At 40MpH, the deceleration is 35.85 gees .

And my ISAAC still remains superior as I have had zero crashes where it would have been useful while wearing it and you have had 1 where yours was useful. Obviously, the reasoning the ISAAC is a better device is that it works premptively and actually prevents impacts....

[Greg Amy]

Greg, obviously you missed this:

No, I ignored it, because it makes too many assumptions, and ignores too many other factors to be of anything other than an Internet argument. I'm an engineer, I know better.

Show me the data*. Otherwise, it's bullshit.

GA

* As in, data acquisition, proving your position rather than relying on Internet math.

[downingracing]

And here is a video of that same device trapping someone in a car (1 minute mark). Covered in gas and can't get out of the car.... [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEtCGO9atzM[/ame]

And I'm not the best driver - but I saw that car dumping fluid and saw the crash coming way before it happened. I'm glad the driver is OK.

[Simon T.]

And here is a video of that same device trapping someone in a car (1 minute mark). Covered in gas and can't get out of the car.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEtCGO9atzM

And I'm not the best driver - but I saw that car dumping fluid and saw the crash coming way before it happened. I'm glad the driver is OK.

Yeah but do you see that wreck or a heavy frontal impact more on any given race weekend? I'd bet you're far more likely to experience a nice front bang than a massive rollover.