NASAs H&NR rule

[gsbaker]

Is this a failure of the SFI spec, or a failure of your design ? [/b]

It's a failure of the SFI design. The spec includes design criteria, remember?

Other systems have passed these tests...how can that be "the same results you get with any SFI design" ?[/b]

Because "passing the test" means only Fz and My loads under the respective thresholds, which we can do. It does not, however, give any consideration whatsoever to the other seven primary head loads, the principle loads existing in the axial, sagittal and coronal planes at the head-neck junction, nor keeping the belts on the body. Niggly stuff like that.

When you designed that system, what was your position on the system being "released" ? It certainly seems to have changed today.[/b]

We were neutral on it. Initially we were for it (pre any design or testing), then EMTs convinced us otherwise, then we thought we should give the idea a chance, then we witnessed it not working and ran away as fast as possible.

Can you direct us to that documentation ? We would all like to see it.[/b]

Well, for those inclined toward the graphic, one could start with Chad McQueen's cervical spine X-rays. For the numerically inclined, we would suggest SAE paper #2006-01-3631, from which the following are extracted:

<div align="center">



</div>

[M. Hurst]

. For the numerically inclined, we would suggest SAE paper #2006-01-3631, from which the following are extracted:....


[/b]

From SAE:

"SAE Home > Publications > Papers

SAE Technical Papers

Title: Comparative Performance of Racing Head and Neck Restraints
Document Number: 2006-01-3631

Author(s):
Gregg S. Baker "

[gsbaker]

From SAE:

"SAE Home > Publications > Papers

SAE Technical Papers

Title: Comparative Performance of Racing Head and Neck Restraints
Document Number: 2006-01-3631

Author(s):
Gregg S. Baker "
[/b]

Suggesting?

Should we ignore those papers authored by Hubbard?

[JohnRW]

It has been thoroughly documented that the SFI design is a lightweight concept from the last millennium. Please, no more e-mails suggesting how we can meet SFI specs. [/b]

I believe that M. Hurst&#39;s point is that, while you made the claim above, the only "documentation" you&#39;ve provided us is a document of YOUR presentation at an SAE conference. Where is the "thoroughly" part ?

Several posters here are in the academic world - isn&#39;t it true that it&#39;s actually considered unacceptable to cite your own work as proof/justification in your own work ? Haven&#39;t tenured professors been dismissed for precisely that ?

Your anecdotal comments aside, we can drawn no conclusions about the mechanisms of Chad McQueen&#39;s injuries, since he wasn&#39;t really a fully-instrumented test dummy, but rather just a driver involved in a horrific crash that caused him multiple grave injuries.

Your point ?

[jjjanos]

Several posters here are in the academic world - isn&#39;t it true that it&#39;s actually considered unacceptable to cite your own work as proof/justification in your own work ? [/b]

No. In many instances, a particular author may be the only person working in that area. AFAIK, there has been no article published or presented at a conference that refutes the evidence presented. That makes it definitive until challenged.

The HANS is designed to pass the "spec". Or, more accurately, the spec was designed to pass the HANS. HANS doesn&#39;t protect against lateral loads, so the spec ignores them.

[wepsbee]

Okay guys, I am totally lost. I am a Newbie in NYR with a grand total of 2 races in the books. I have a limited budget, ie no sponsors, but want to race safely. I do not have any H&R in the car now. Do I have to get a full blown system or can I reasonably become more protected with a cheaper system.

[leggwork]

here is a link to a page that discusses most of the alternatives
http://www.trackpedia.com/wiki/Head_and_Neck_Restraints

Okay guys, I am totally lost. I am a Newbie in NYR with a grand total of 2 races in the books. I have a limited budget, ie no sponsors, but want to race safely. I do not have any H&R in the car now. Do I have to get a full blown system or can I reasonably become more protected with a cheaper system.
[/b]

The HANS is designed to pass the "spec". Or, more accurately, the spec was designed to pass the HANS. HANS doesn&#39;t protect against lateral loads, so the spec ignores them.
[/b]

You know what is weird is that the earlier designs of the Hans had a large collar extending to the sides and provided lateral support. I&#39;m guessing that all the work in the 90&#39;s on formula-type cars which have inherent lateral support from the cowl got them off track (ha, ha)
bruce

[JohnRW]

No. In many instances, a particular author may be the only person working in that area. [/b]

Definitely not the case here.

AFAIK, there has been no article published or presented at a conference that refutes the evidence presented. That makes it definitive until challenged.[/b]

"IT" being what, exactly ? Nobody is challenging any data in his presentation. Mr. Baker made this statement:

It has been thoroughly documented that the SFI design is a lightweight concept from the last millennium. [/b]

OK...where is the thorough documentation ? Just his own paper presented at a conference ? Really ? That&#39;s it ?

I&#39;m curious about your statement here:

The HANS is designed to pass the "spec". Or, more accurately, the spec was designed to pass the HANS. HANS doesn&#39;t protect against lateral loads, so the spec ignores them.[/b]

I have previously been active in a large industry ANSI/ISO international standards organization, including serving several terms on it&#39;s international BOD. I&#39;m a little familiar with how standards evolve. That would be a pretty grave violation of standards development protocol. Yeah...I know...SFI doesn&#39;t claim to conform to ANSI or ISO requirements. But...you&#39;re suggesting an intentional act where lives (and not just money) are at stake. Is your statement above factual, or just a guess ? When the spec process started, did they even care about lateral loads ? Do they now ?

Regardless of whatever conspiracies we can imagine, I still have a fundamental problem (and apparently, SFI does too) with having your head & neck connected to the vehicle by a separate system that may not be as elastic as the rest of the "driver containment system".

[gsbaker]

"IT" being what, exactly ? Nobody is challenging any data in his presentation. Mr. Baker made this statement:
OK...where is the thorough documentation ? Just his own paper presented at a conference ? Really ? That&#39;s it ?[/b]

You didn&#39;t read it, did you? We did no testing whatsoever for that paper. It is a compilation of data from previous papers, most authored by Hubbard and Melvin, with a sprinkling of other tests thrown in.

I still have a fundamental problem (and apparently, SFI does too) with having your head & neck connected to the vehicle by a separate system that may not be as elastic as the rest of the "driver containment system".[/b]

Having a little trouble with the Fd=Cd*v part?

[wepsbee]

leggwork
Thanks for the help!!

[JimLill]

John,

Your writing bring up an interesting idea. Why shouldn&#39;t SFI be ISO 9000 certified? That would bring some independent oversight to this whole thing.........

ISO 9000 cert is not ISO standards, see

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/manag...0_iso_14000.htm

After all, SFI is about what amounts to safety quality, quality is what ISO 9000 is all about

[gsbaker]

SFI isn&#39;t certified. I love it.

[JimLill]

You didn&#39;t read it, did you? We did no testing whatsoever. It is a compilation of data from previous papers, most authored by Hubbard and Melvin.
[/b]

While I know you can&#39;t post the entire paper due to the stingy SAE, as author surely you can post the Reference: listing

[JohnRW]

It has been thoroughly documented that the SFI design is a lightweight concept from the last millennium. [/b]

The statement above is, apparently, your own conclusion. Do any of the other authors in this discipline come to this same conclusion, including those you cite in your presentation ? If not, then "thoroughly documented" really falls apart.

Don&#39;t get smarmy. You made a very broad statement, and I asked to justify that broad statement. Who else actively working in this area has made the claim that 38.1 is a "lightweight concept from the last millennium" ?

Your writing bring up an interesting idea. Why shouldn&#39;t SFI be ISO 9000 certified? That would bring some independent oversight to this whole thing.........
[/b]

That&#39;s why I brought it up. IMO, SFI should be able to survive an ANSI audit on its standards processes. Can they ? Who knows. They would certainly be more credible if they carried an ANSI or ISO certification.

Snell Foundation seems to have ANSI certification (they allude to ANSI in some of their documents)...why shouldn&#39;t SFI ?

[gsbaker]

The statement above is, apparently, your own conclusion. Do any of the other authors in this discipline come to this same conclusion, including those you cite in your presentation ? If not, then "thoroughly documented" really falls apart.

Don&#39;t get smarmy. You made a very broad statement, and I asked to justify that broad statement. Who else actively working in this area has made the claim that 38.1 is a "lightweight concept from the last millennium" ?
[/b]

It&#39;s clearly a lightweight performance, and it&#39;s clearly from the last millennium. We&#39;re talking facts.

[Darryl Pritchett]

[quote]SFI isn&#39;t certified. I love it.

My question is Issacs ISO 9000 certified? They are in a manufactures role which is where the true origin of ISO9000 was founded.

[gsbaker]

While I know you can&#39;t post the entire paper due to the stingy SAE, as author surely you can post the Reference: listing
[/b]

Sources for Wayne State University Bioengineering Center tests:
1. Baseline: SAE Paper 2004-01-3516, Melvin et al
2. Hutchens: SAE Paper 2004-01-3516, Melvin et al
3. D-Cel: SAE Paper 2004-01-3516, Melvin et al
4. Wright: WSU test NCRST – 76
5. G-Force: Company advertising
6. White: Catchfence article of 6 August 2002
7. Isaac® Link™: WSU test NCRST – 148
8. HANS®: SAE Paper 2004-01-3516, Melvin et al
9. Isaac®: SAE Paper 2002-01-3306, Baker

Sources for SFI-Dlphi tests:
1. Baseline: Product Brochure, LFT Tech, Inc.
2. White: Delphi Test #IS2CF014
3. Leatt: Delphi Test #XXXXXXX
4. Isaac®: Delphi Test #IS5AF044
5. HANS®: Delphi Test #IS5BF006

These are the most recent papers. Their bibliographies reference works dating back 15-20 years.

[JohnRW]

It&#39;s clearly a lightweight performance, and it&#39;s clearly from the last millennium. We&#39;re talking facts.
[/b]

That&#39;s not an answer. You&#39;re good at non-answers. Are you being recreationally evasive, or do you have some "dirty little secret" ?

I&#39;m actually stunned that you&#39;re just discovering that SFI doesn&#39;t have ANSI or ISO standards certification. Is this Isaac thing a part-time job for you ?

[gsbaker]

That&#39;s not an answer.[/b]

You can&#39;t look at data and come to a scientific conclusion on your own? 90% of the readers here look at those load charts and say to themselves, "Damn, even the Leatt beats the HANS..." You wouldn&#39;t call that lightweight?

[Knestis]

Got my Happy New Year letter from NASA Mid Atlantic today. Here&#39;s my response to competition@, chris@, and [email protected]...

>> Racers, please remember that all NASA Competition Licenses expired on December 31st!!!

While I certainly don&#39;t expect that it will change anyone&#39;s mind about the policy, I&#39;m disappointed that the SFI H&N system mandate is going to keep me from competing in NASA events for the foreseeable future.

It might be that I know too much about SFI from past experiences with them but at the end of the day I&#39;m simply not comfortable under the circumstances, compromising the tested superior levels of performance afforded by my current system to "backdate" to an inferior product as demanded by the new rule. While my personal experience in the racing safety business tells me that it&#39;s not a critically considered decision, I do recognize the rationale behind the rule change and further understand that it&#39;s entirely my choice to not participate in NASA MA races. I&#39;m choosing my personal safety over races - and racers - that I&#39;ve enjoyed in the past, and I will miss them.

Under the circumstances, it really doesn&#39;t make sense to renew my membership and license either so I&#39;ll be letting both lapse. I remain hopeful that circumstances will change in the future and despite my deep doubts, sincerely wish that this situation works out for the best for all involved.

Regards,

Kirk Knestis