New HANS device info

[jb_11]

[quote="jpetillo"][quote="Lynn"][url=http://www.isaacdirect.com/]Isaac Device[/url][/quote]
Nice, I hadn't seen this before! I knew when I hit "Gearheads click here" that they'd mess on the physics explanation. Oh well. Anyway, it appears that they found a neat way to use dampers, and have a nice product as a result.

Daryl, how easy is it to get out of the car? Do you have to reach the pins to get out and how easy is it to feel what you're doing? Without seeing one, I'm concerned about getting out fast. I use a HANS and have a hard time getting the belt over the HANS when strapping in, but the HANS doesn't seem to hinder me getting out. If my daughter races, then I'll definitely consider the Isaac![/quote]


As Kevin noted in his synopsis of the current market, the Isaac is not legal in the SCCA because it requires more than one release mechanism to extract the driver.

-JB

[Daryl]

The ISAAC is very easy to disconnect. I can release it quicker than getting out of my harness...it is quite simple. If you can close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears without missing you can do it in about the same amount of time.

As far as the ISAAC not being SCCA legal, that simply IS NOT TRUE. The ISAAC was in use at the ARRC and the RUN-OFFS and continues to be in use at many regional and national events. It is a non-issue. The current rule verbage does not make it mandatory to release the driver from thevehicle with a single point of release as some would like you to believe....if it did what would they do about window nets, radio leads, cool suit tubes, drink bottles and fresh air hoses?

I firmly believe that the ISAAC is the best choice for me. It is similarly priced to the HANS if that is a concern. One must weigh the possibility that the ISAAC may not be legal in the future with SCCA when making their purchasing decision, currently it is fine. Who knows what lies ahead ?

[jb_11]

Has the statement from the August 04 Fastrack been amended?
http://www.scca.org/documents/Fastrack/ ... strack.pdf

GCR
Item 1. There seems to be some confusion
amongst competitors and Scrutineers
regarding the requirement for all driver
restraint devices to be able to be released
by a single action. The Club Racing Board
would like to clarify that all safety devices
(including head and neck restraints), per
GCR Section 20.4, shall free the driver
from their belts and the car with a single
point of release.

BTW, This is not meant to be argumentative. I honestly do not know the answer.

[Daryl]

There have been several attempts to clarify the wording. I don't race SCCA so I don't keep real close tabs on the happenings in Fastrack nor do I have the newest GCR.

However in Nov 06 or thereabouts the clarification was "There shall be a single release common to the seat belt and shoulder harness"...

I understand that some SCCA ISAAC users were seeking a ruling with regards to 20.4 by using 13.9 However, the POSITIVE responses on inquiries through 13.9 ARE NOT PUBLISHED, only the negative ones.

What does 20.4 say in the 2008 GCR? (I don't know--I am asking not being sarcastic) As the 2008 GCR will trump all previous clarifications or member advisories, etc.

Bottom line, the ISAAC offers the best protection. It is being used today in SCCA. Should you buy one and chance what the SCCA might do regarding SFI certification would be a choice you have to make for yourself....fortunately I am confident that I will still be able to use an ISAAC for some time to come.

[kevin willmorth]

... I understand that some SCCA ISAAC users were seeking a ruling with regards to 20.4 by using 13.9 However, the POSITIVE responses on inquiries through 13.9 ARE NOT PUBLISHED, only the negative ones.

What does 20.4 say in the 2008 GCR? ...

Bottom line, the ISAAC offers the best protection. It is being used today in SCCA...

Not sure where 20.4 and 13.9 are coming from, as there are no such numbers in the GCR. However, The 2008 GCR 9.3.18.C states the following:

"....There shall be a single release common to the seat belt and shoulder harness...."

Apparantly, how this is interpreted by tech people at various clubs will play a role in whether the device is acceptable or not. I have never seen one in use in an FV car where we have raced, so have no idea whether they are accepted or not.

At the least I might offer that some form of release for the helmet attachments be made very ovious and easy to understand in an emergency. Then, hopefully the volunteer trying to pull your unconcious body out of the car realizes the need for pulling the two pins - and that the device did indeed prevent neck injury. Can you imagine having a broken neck, then having someone pull your belt release, yanking at you with your helmet still attached to the belts? How many yanks before the realize the need to pull the pins? How many pulls does it take to sever a spinal column?

Here are the test standards for those interested:
http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_3 ... cation.pdf
Note that while the strap systems do not pass, they only miss by a very small margin (4000 neck tension metric.)

Interesting enough, the SFI 16.5 standard for seat belts is inconsistent with 38.1, with known issues of belts breaking during 38.1 testing... oops...

I do not buy that any of the systems are the "best" universally. Each has advantages and disadvantages. I personally don't like the hardware of the Isaac, and its location on the shoulder. Looks like an injury waiting to happen to me, from other than a head-on impact. Also, if I had the space to use it, I'd also have the space for the Hans or Hybrid, which would be my preference. None will fit, I personally wanted a system that is not dependent on the belts, so made a different choice - which to me is best... for me. There are good choices, all adding a level of protection worth considering... and to suit a wide range of preferences... IMHO anyway.

[Daryl]

Kevin,

"13.9" is now "8.1.4" exact same words. Not sure when the numbering changed.

"20.4" appears to now be 9.13.8.C as you guessed. IMO it doesn't speak to the driver being free from the car with a single point of release, nor even the seat, only that the lap belts and shoulder harness must be free from each other with a single release. Poorly worded and not sure what they were trying to accomplish with that wording.

Initially I had the same concerns about the ISAAC not being familiar enough that it might cause some confussion should a corner worker have to remove my unconcious butt from a burning car. I started wearing an ISAAC a little more than 3 years ago, at the first race I approached all the workers at their Sat AM meeting to show them the device and how it released "just in case" I was basically told they won't pull anybody from a car unless that racers' life is in immediate danger. They will wait until EMT's/Ambulance is on scene with people properly trained to remove me from the car (immobilize the head, back brace or whatever is required). This is true whether you are wearing an ISAAC, HANS, R3, whatever or nothing. IF my butt is in immediate danger they will remove me as quickly as possible, anything that slows that process gets sliced (shoulder harnesses, shoe laces on gear shifts, drink tubes, cool suit hoses, radio leads, window nets holding the HANS yoke) whatever...they won't spend time unhooking anything.

Agreed there isn't a best device for ALL situations. Some are better than others at certain things, some are even better at most things.

Something is better than nothing.

The main disadvantages IMHO of the two that offer the most protection under ideal test conditions are:

ISAAC ---- not SFI compliant which concerns me that its' use won't always be permitted and at $900 I would hope to be able to use it for a couple of seasons.

HANS ---- Offers little protection in offset impacts and there are infinately more offset angles than straight on angles of impact.
Issues with harnesses slipping off the device which could ADD to the injury and really gets ugly in secondary impacts.


Now that I have a tin top, issues of egress and window nets scare the hell out of me.

I wish ISAAC would liscense the use of the patented dampers to HANS. I wish that the HANS would capture the belts and that it stayed in the car so egress isn't a concern. Or better yet the SFI requirement for the head and neck restraint system to be released with a single motion dropped. Currently the ISAAC is the best choice for me. YMMV

[kevin willmorth]

... IF my butt is in immediate danger they will remove me as quickly as possible...
ISAAC ---- not SFI compliant which concerns me that its' use won't always be permitted and at $900 I would hope to be able to use it for a couple of seasons.
HANS ---- Offers little protection in offset impacts and there are infinately more offset angles than straight on angles of impact.
Issues with harnesses slipping off the device which could ADD to the injury and really gets ugly in secondary impacts....

The enectdotes against the Hans based on improper belt fitment that causes it to escape the belts is over-played. If the occurances were as common as proposed by Hans competitors, it is highly unlikely that any sanctioning body would support it. A similar demonstration could be presented of an improperly fitted driver and roll bar combination, whose helmet strikes the ground, ramming the Isaac device into the shoulder of the driver, or of an improper seat design that collapeses in an impact, releasing the driver from any restraint using the belts as an anchor. Hans is a target, because they are very large in the radar, not because they are producing a bad device. The reality is, proper fitment of the driver and car's other safety components is required to attain any level of protection.

As for side impact loads... my bet is that seat and roll cage design and specifications will likely address this more productively than attempting to make a tether system function at multiple angles. NASCAR and the NHRA have addressed this, as have most sports car series, and modern formula car cockpit designs. I know in my own car, my helmet has very little lateral space to move when I am belted in, certainly less distance than what any tether system will work within. Seats for sedans like the one below solve lateral head movement effectively in sedans, totally independant of other restraints:
[ external image ]
Or removable padded openings for formula cars. Both of these added to the forward protection of a restraint system, in combination makes sense for increasing safety, IMHO... Weekly NASCAR crashes and most relevent to us here - the Kubica crash - are pretty dramatic evidence that this works, including the Hans staying put in a multiple side and massive frontal impact at speed:
[ external image ]

But more important that all this foo-fah - This thread has been hijacked!

The original subject was on the new Hans offering of a lower cost alternative. The device, from what I can see, is identical to the original units, and appears to be identical in function, but at almost half the cost of the pro system. Seems to me a very good alternative to anyone who feels this is the right device for them, where a few extra ounces are less of a concern than cost.

While diddling with the new gadget at the PRI show, I also saw that they have a quick disconnect device:
[ external image ]

This seems like a great option to address the concern of escaping the tethers in a hurry - leaving the Hans behind, which addresses comments made that the yoke might get tangled up and keep a driver from escaping his/her car quickly.

Now, on to other topics!

[SR Racing]

BTW, At the PRI show an important point was made by a demonstrator to me. While the new Econ Hans is heavier, this is of just about zero consequence to us. It isn't a comfort issue. Since the belts pull the unit down on to your shoulders the driver will notice nothing additional. However, the pro venue guys are more than willing to pay big dollars to save those ounces on the weight of the car. I am not ready, willing or see the need to save a few ounces at the $ differential. So unless you REALLY need to drop weight, the ECON unit is the best option.

Jim

[ShirleyMacIII]

What's disturbing is that SCCA is going to be lulled into a "spec" safety device from ONE manufacturer because of salemanship and outside perception.What's next on the list, Simpson only belts? Arai only helmets? G-Force only suits? Momo only driving shoes or only Mountney steering wheels? What happened to free enterprise and freedom of personnel choice for ones own safety? Make the rule mandantory sure, not the manufacturer.

Since DE's death it's been nothing but HAns Hans Hans and it's being forced down our throats. Head restraints were not a new idea after Dales death. But Hans sure did jump on the opportunity and is still using his death for marketing. That turns me off Hans as much as I hate Wal-Mart.

[SR Racing]

What's disturbing is that SCCA is going to be lulled into a "spec" safety device from ONE manufacturer because of salemanship and outside perception.What's next on the list, Simpson only belts? Arai only helmets? G-Force only suits?..... That turns me off Hans as much as I hate Wal-Mart.

At this point the SCCA hasn't forced us into any single manufacturer. (And I think they probably won't, but they will require some form of certified device.) The unique thing with the Hans is that they have the patent on a device that has unique certification. Helmets, Firesuits and Steering wheels don't have any unique patent protection. if you are opposed to patent law that is a different issue, but without it we would have far worse issues.

I don't like Wal-Mart much either, but they are receiving the majority vote in a free market and aren't doing anything illegal to get it. Of course if we get rid of patent law we could have $200 Chinese Hans devices (CHANS ?) from Wal-Mart.

Jim

[ShirleyMacIII]

I don't know where you get the idea I'm against patent law. And, you are wrong on seatbelts, suits and helmets. Look again at latch mechanisms, materials and design.

Of course, you as a reseller would love the idea of only having to stock one item that hundreds of competitors would be forced to buy at a guaranteed mark-up. What, 15%...25%? Of course maybe SCCA Enterprises would be able to work out a deal with Hans to be sole distributor for it's mandated SCCA Certified Hans device? Design a device around a SCCA spec that only one mfg can supply?

My point is, if you open the door you never know where it may lead.

[SR Racing]

I don't know where you get the idea I'm against patent law. And, you are wrong on seatbelts, suits and helmets. Look again at latch mechanisms, materials and design. .

I never said you were against patent law. I only stated "if you were"
While there are patents on other items, they are not unique in the sense that any are required to meet certification.

Of course, you as a reseller would love the idea of only having to stock one item that hundreds of competitors would be forced to buy at a guaranteed mark-up. What, 15%...25%?

That don't make me evil. However, I have not supported Hans in any atempt to make the device madatory or set their pricing levels.
Also, if you look at my comments here re: ANY rule change that increases the price of racing, you will see that I certainly have not voted with my profit margins in mind. (Cam Gear change as an example. Not to mention my support of FST which has effectively opened the market to dozens of vendors for components and drastically dropped profit margins on every one.)

If you want to take a REAL profit margin to issue, take a look at the AMB transponders. Racers are forced to buy a $25 item at $350. (and retailers make literally nothing on them when we buy 10 at a time, and AMB is increasing their prices again this year.

But, that's another thread

Jim

[Martinracing98]

Any idea when they patented the device. By law it had to be done within the first year the device was shown to anyone outside the company. I think most patents can not be extended beyond about 15 years. I would suspect they have used up 2/3rds or more of their patent. It will not be that far off when someone makes the same thing.

[SR Racing]

On the device the patent numbers are 4638510 and 6009566.

The first granted in 1990 (filed 1985) and the 2nd granted in 2001 (filed 1999). Typically they are protected for 17 years from issue.

Jim

[hardingfv32-1]

Is it interesting that the HANS has been around since 1985 and it has only recently found acceptance. The cars must be much faster and the drivers much more safety conscious, but then they were pretty fast in '85 and we had J. Stewart and others on a safety kick. I guess we can thank Dale and the tanks he drove.

Brian

[VDF1]

Bob - Please don't feel that way. (When I started writing this post Bob Van Dyke had a post that said: I'm sorry I started this thread) I for one got a great deal out of this thread. Thanks to Kevin for posting all the links to these gadgets and I've looked at all of them and learned a bunch. With that said--I won't be buying any of them. Some wouldn't fit my car and some are so Rube Goldberg like that they made me laugh--I understand this says nothing about their ability to do the job for which they're intended--it's just a remark about my reaction upon seeing some of them for the first time. I will make two changes in my car because of this thread.

Last year I had occasion to run into a concrete wall almost head on. The wall had one row of tires lining it and for that I'm thankful. In fact I suggested on the Left Coast site that two rows of tires be installed at that location primarily for cars that are much faster than FVs. I don't know how fast I was going when I finally collected the wall but it bent the ride side of my beam back about 20-degrees and bent everything on the right side except the spindle (I had the spindle strengtheners). I guessed at the time I was still moving 25-35 mph (it was after a very long slide through water-logged grass on slicks). I wasn't wearing any kind of neck support and the crash hurt. I was surprised at how hard my head snapped forward and how hard the helmet hit my chest--but I wasn't injured--not even a sore neck.

I'm nearly fully reclined in my car with the bottom front of my helmet about two inches from my chest. The crash woke me up enough to start using my neck collar (I had one at the time of the crash but it was in my basement at home). I had to trim about a half-inch off the thickness of the collar as purchased because I couldn't move my head far enough forward to see the track and I think that's why I hadn't used it in the first place. I have padded bars beside my helmet (you can see them in the avatar) that limit lateral movement to about one inch on each side.

On one of the sites they talked about neck collars and the fact that they may slip to the point where they're not below the helmet when you need them. Good point and I'm going to put velcro on the neck collar and my suit to keep the collar in place while driving. I'm also going to revise the padding on the bars for even less lateral movement. I believe these changes will keep me as safe as possible.

I watched the Billy Alley video on the Hutchins site and I believe my head/helmet, because of my severe reclined position in the car, will move about a quarter of the distance his did--and he's wearing the device!

What we do is dangerous. As Jim said early in this thread we all must make choices that work for us as individuals as we weigh the risks of racing. I'm posting this because I've been thinking about it for several days and I wanted to offer another perspective.

[Martinracing98]

On the device the patent numbers are 4638510 and 6009566.

The first granted in 1990 (filed 1985) and the 2nd granted in 2001 (filed 1999). Typically they are protected for 17 years from issue.

Jim

My memory, which could easily be wrong, on an electronic product I have a patent for was that the patent was good for up to 17 years, but only if the patent was renewed at 10 years.

[SR Racing]

About 20 years ago I spent some time on assignment with IBM in the Proprietory rights area, including copyrights, patents and trademarks. Patent law is very complex, and has been modified greatly in the Chemical/Drug and Process/Software patents, but the application for the Hans looks like it's pretty normal stuff. This means 17 years (maybe 20). I am not aware of any requirement to renew. Most companies often do make some minor changes to try and protect it longer. (You may be refering to renewal fees which are Due at 3½, 7½ and 11 years)

Actually when looking at the patent ap it looks like one that could be challenged in court. The concept is innovative, but the device itself has nothing outside the realm of normal physical application. This is why things like "Weed Eaters" which were patented initially, but lost the patent in later contests. (It was creative, but didn't use any unique design and the courts considered centrifugal force as public domain. <g>)

Many patents simply protect the deisgner from cheap knock-offs. However, if a big money guy wants to come in duplicate the device he challenges the patent in court. When the court case looks to risky or to costly, the patent holder licenses the patent to the duplicator at some reasonable price and everyone makes money.

WAY off the subject, but a tiny company developed a magnetic head for a disc unit that we wanted to put into an IBM device. They wanted something like 30Mil for the rights. They also had a small portfolio of other patents. Their outstanding stock price was in the 25M area. We just bought the company, took the portfolio and resold the company. Everybody made money. <g>

Jim

[Bill_Bonow]

About 20 years ago.....

Not to be a smarty pants (yea, right), but I believe that the patent laws have been changed in more recent years. I think the goverment saw it as another potential source of income and "redesigned" the concept of a patent so that just about anyone with cash and a patent lawyer can get one (I've got 3). Years ago, getting a patent was the real deal because people were actually inventing (things like light bulbs, airplanes, computors, ect). Most "inventions" these days are more along the lines of "process improvement".

Now there are (7) patent types; Utility Patent, Decorative Patent, Design Patent, Plant Patent, Reissue Patent, Defensive Publication Patent, Statutory Invention Registration Patent. The ultimate patent to get is the utility patent, very tough to get, but it covers the application of the invention

I've been away from that stuff for 6 years, but Todd is correct other than the term is dependant on the patent type. The more common design patent has a 10-year limit with the option of a 7-year extension. That's the only one I know about the term.

Most of them these days are all BS, change a few minor details (I.E. bolt in lew of a stud and nut type stuff) and your good to go. I've even seen copies of patented products get a patent themselves! Why not, more fees for the patent office

Now, what was this thread about again?

[SR Racing]

Maybe the laws have changed again? <g> According to the Patent office, a Utility Patent (most common) is 20 years, a Design Patent is 14 Years.

And I don't own a single patent, but the dept I managed had dozens of them. INCLUDING, the famous Tactile Feedback Mouse.

Jim

[ShirleyMacIII]

Some have mentioned they would like to see a Hans device that stays in the car for ease of egress. I don't know about you, but if my body is trying to depart the car I would like my head to come along for the ride as well and not be stuck in the car with the Hans.

Maybe we could get "Mythbusters" to test all of the available head restraints in a mock small Formula Car crash.

[SR Racing]

Maybe we could get "Mythbusters" to test all of the available head restraints in a mock small Formula Car crash.

Excellent idea, but if it doesn't explode on impact, they probably aren't interested.

[Daryl]

Some have mentioned they would like to see a HANS device that stays in the car for ease of egress. I don't know about you, but if my body is trying to depart the car I would like my head to come along for the ride as well and not be stuck in the car with the Hans.

The quick release tethers that the HANS now has available addresses the egress concerns I HAD with the device. The idea is that I don't want the HANS keeping my head stuck in the car while my body is trying to escape. Hubbard-Downing probably listened loud and clear to Joey Hand or that NASCAR driver (name escapes me because I am not a NASCAR fan) that had his HANS stuck on the window net of his burning car while he was standing outside of it unable to get more than 2' away until the net gave away.

Now if they could mold into the device something that captures the harnesses I'd feel even better about the HANS, but that will probably take a real world crash to duplicate what has happened on sled tests to make that happen. When that happens hopefully he lives and is pissed off and vocal enough about it that HANS changes the verbage of SFI 38.1 AND their device.

Oh yeah, get rid of the tethers and replace them with dampers. I feel safer bungee jumping with a bungee cord instead of a rope. They both will stretch, and they both will keep me from hitting the ground, but one will decelerate in a much more linear fashion.

This talk about patents makes me wonder if we will see an ISAAC with a HANS type yoke or a HANS with some dampers on it in the future or someone else picking up the ball and doing both.

Hopefully we don't have another high profile death before someone takes more action.

[RacerGeek]

Now if they could mold into the device something that captures the harnesses I'd feel even better about the HANS,

Daryl,

The photo in the first post of this thread shows small wings molded in which I assume are for the purpose you describe.

[SR Racing]

The wings do help to maintain the belts at the proper position. However the harness mounting points might have to be moved closer together so that they are not pulling them off your hans.

Jim