+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: $99 Head and Neck Restraints (/showthread.php?tid=7937)
Pages:
1
2
$99 Head and Neck Restraints - Mike - 01-18-2009
The gist: Made by Isaac. Need 4+ point harnesses.
Pic: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.iammike.org/cutenews/data/upimages/DSCN1095.jpg">http://www.iammike.org/cutenews/data/up ... CN1095.jpg</a><!-- m -->
Read this whole thread: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=20133">http://roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=20133</a><!-- m -->
It'll give you info on the design, testing results, and how to order it. I chose to not throw up ordering instructions on purpose.
The club ought to think of purchasing one or two.
- Ole - 01-19-2009
Are these approved for racing in NASA or SCCA? I thought there was an issue with these......maybe I'm mistaken.
- .RJ - 01-19-2009
SCCA does not have a H&N restraint requirement so you can use whatever you like.
- Mike - 01-19-2009
Ole Wrote:Are these approved for racing in NASA or SCCA? I thought there was an issue with these......maybe I'm mistaken.
According to most everyone in that thread, NASA has a somewhat backwards requirement. No, these are not approved for racing in NASA.
RSI certified.
Meets SFI and FIA requirements, but paying for the cert would bump the price too much so they're not bothering.
- Ole - 01-20-2009
I'm not buying that first or second statement. This guy has been arguing this point on specmiata.com for the past 5 years. The sales would increse dramatically if they obtained it.
FYI: Gregg Baker is RSI. Kind of strange?
Read more here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://forum.specmiata.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/31/150/2.html">http://forum.specmiata.com/cgi-bin/ulti ... 150/2.html</a><!-- m -->
Personally, I have lost all faith in Gregg since he has been arguing this point for many years and has never disclosed that HE is RSI.
I have the fastest and winningest SM in the country as certified by WWR, wanna buy it? WWR certifies that you will win all races (at least those that Evan also races in).......
hock:
- .RJ - 01-20-2009
Ole Wrote:Personally, I have lost all faith in Gregg since he has been arguing this point for many years and has never disclosed that HE is RSI.
Gregg has a large hand in getting RSI moving, yes, but the idea is that RSI is supposed to be transparent and not a marketing organization like SFI. I dont get whats strange here, other than gregg being abrasive.
Edit: those SM racers are really, really dense. Wow.
- Ole - 01-20-2009
Well in 5 years of claiming RSI cert. he has never disclosed this fact until now, when someone called him out on it.
- Apoc - 01-20-2009
I can agree NASA does have somewhat of a weird requirement for H&N but this whole thing seems shady. Wouldn't it just be better to spend extra money and get something you know works and is approved?
- .RJ - 01-20-2009
Ole Wrote:Well in 5 years of claiming RSI cert
RSI doesnt certify anything.
I'll dig up a thread on rr-ax later where he talks about how RSI works and how its different from SFI. I think its a great alternative, but it doesnt really have any momentum behind it right now.
- .RJ - 01-20-2009
Apoc Wrote:and is approved?
Approved by a marketing organization?
Really, a H&N restraint, ANY H&N restraint is a good idea. If a simple $100 device keeps your head from flying off in an impact there's little reason not to use one.
From this thread: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=20133">http://roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=20133</a><!-- m -->
Quote:
Summary
1. Both configurations exceed industry performance standards.
2. Both configurations perform better than expected.
3. The performance difference between the two configurations is greater than expected, but probably excessive (see notes below).
4. It's hard to find a bar with WiFi.
Test #1 (chin strap)
Max Fz: Actual = 2984; my estimate = 3380
Max Nij: Actual = 0.70; my estimate = 0.85
Max Mx (lateral torque): Actual = 36; my estimate = 50
Good numbers all the way around, especially for such a simple gizmo.
Now, hang on to your hats...
Test #2 (HANS "post")
Max Fz: Actual = 1831; my estimate = 2820
Max Nij: Actual = 0.78; my estimate = 0.95
Max Mx (lateral torque): Actual = 17; my estimtate = 40
Yeah. It beat everything. Jaws were hitting the floor.
However, re the HANS configuration,
1. I believe it was too tight. We had to select between two positions on the webbing and went with the tighter one. Drivers might find that too restrictive, so the those numbers are probably very optimistic. Still,...
2. The configuration was so effective that the assembly was severely loaded. We're talking bent metal and stretched webbing. It hung in there for 68Gs, but that's about as far as it will go.
3. M-sub-y moments were very high but the Fz was so low it still passed the Nij threshold.
Regarding the configuration connecting to the chinstrap, it worked very smoothly with no surprises. Not as effective at load reduction, but fewer structural problems.
This product will be coming to market ASAP.
![[Image: Chart1.GIF]](http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart1.GIF)
- Ole - 01-20-2009
And that data is from who?
- .RJ - 01-20-2009
The graph data is from an SAE paper. I dont know how much of the data was contributed by Gregg/ISAAC, but I imagine most of it is since they have tested all their competitors products. The other data was posted by Gregg.
HANS and a lot of other manufacturers do not release data, so all you know is that it meets the SFI spec. One of the reasons I like RSI is that all of the data is published.
- Ole - 01-20-2009
If you read the thread at sm.com, you will see the main reason Gregg does not obtain SFI cert. even he does not argue this point.
If you want to use this product, more power to you. I hope no-one ever gets into a stuation where they need any type of HNR device. If you are seeing (as I did) that most sanctioning bodies are moving toward requiring these, I would suggest you get one that will most likely be approved. My safety is most important when I get in my cars, thus the cost is not important to me.
SCCA has not yet required these, but they are leaning in that direction. NASA already requires them for racing and this one does not meet NASA's requirements. I saw (3 years ago) that these were getting close to being required. I purchased what I believed to be the best one. YMMV
I am sure that any device may be better than none. 'nuff said (by me at least).
- Mike - 01-20-2009
god damn it... this is why i asked people to read the thread.
Testing was done here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-21-2003/0001951248&EDATE=">http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stori ... 248&EDATE=</a><!-- m -->
Yes, he very well may be lying...
- .RJ - 01-20-2009
Ole Wrote:If you read the thread at sm.com, you will see the main reason Gregg does not obtain SFI cert. even he does not argue this point.
This?
gregg Wrote:We've built and tested SFI "certifiable" designs at both Wayne State and Delphi, and they exhibit the same flaws as an SFI design, i.e. they lose the belts and you can get stuck in the window on the way out.
The big problem is that SFI does not only mandate a performance spec, they also mandate a design spec limiting the type of device that can be built - and when another company (I think it was called Defender?) built something that looked too similar to the HANS, they got sued. Go figure.
Ole Wrote:SCCA has not yet required these, but they are leaning in that direction
SCCA has put it up for member discussion twice, and both times decided not to put anything in the rulebooks based on member feedback. NASA and some vintage racing organizations require SFI 38.1 though so it is becoming much more common.
- CaptainHenreh - 01-20-2009
I understand the RSI point. It's nice to know exactly what the specs are, and not *just* that they meet some minimum requirement.
On the other hand, I get where NASA is coming from. RSI isn't SFI, and while the numbers are interesting, it doesn't mean shit.
- Apoc - 01-20-2009
.RJ Wrote:Apoc Wrote:and is approved?
Approved by a marketing organization?
Approved for racing in the organization you may eventually race in.
- Ole - 01-20-2009
.RJ Wrote:Ole Wrote:If you read the thread at sm.com, you will see the main reason Gregg does not obtain SFI cert. even he does not argue this point.
This?
gregg Wrote:We've built and tested SFI "certifiable" designs at both Wayne State and Delphi, and they exhibit the same flaws as an SFI design, i.e. they lose the belts and you can get stuck in the window on the way out.
Nope not that but this:
2.3
... Direct attachment to react loads to a fixed point or points on a
vehicle structure or restraint webbing will not be acceptable because of the
potential for torso displacements with respect to these points. ...
Go ahead and use it if you want. As I stated earleir, it is probably better than nothing, but not for me.
Regards
- Mike - 01-20-2009
We could argue this certification stuff for days.
Bottom line: This cannot be worn my NASA racers. However, if you trust ISAAC, an HPDE'r now has a $99 device that's nearly as good as the many dollar ones. Easy to install, no drilling... I wasn't going to go to the track without an HNR this year... No I don't have to worry about it.
- Ole - 01-20-2009
Amen.