Hi Jim,

It was only my own observation. Maybe you are better at it than me. I find that reconnecting the quick disconnects requires two hands and some visualization to get the pieces oriented right without any twists.

Sliding the standard connectors on the helmet posts can be done with one hand, and also you can do both sides at the same time.

In any event, it is really a matter of convenience and preference.

-Juan

thanks, BTW will you be at BW this weekend?

Jim

Re: H&N system certification
 

Thanks.

It's not as bad as it seems. Some of the webbing-based manufacturers tend to generalize about their products' performance, but they are correct in stating that their products will help reduce injuries. For most drivers, that's good enough. For drivers such as yourself, who want more information, it can be very difficult to find and weed through all the data.

At the risk of starting an uproar, I'm going to tell you which manufacturer promotes its product by referring to a test report it knows to be inaccurate: HANS. On their Web site they refer you to SAE paper #2002-01-3304 for a comparison of the performance of the HANS device to the Hutchens and D-Cel products. What they don’t tell you is that the paper, in effect, contains a typo which leads the reader to believe that the other products reduce head loads by only 18%, when the real value is about 50%. When Dr. John Melvin presented his paper at the 2002 SAE meeting, he offered a verbal erratum. Unfortunately, his correction is not included in the paper.

Is Hubbard/Downing, Inc. lying to you? No. The paper says what it says. Does Hubbard/Downing, Inc. know they are referring you to an inaccurate report? Yes. Bob Hubbard and Jim Downing were in the audience when Dr. Melvin noted the error. I know because I was there. Personally, I don't get it. The HANS device is a good product--they have no need to mislead drivers and, by doing so, damage their credibility.

Aside from that one case, I am not aware of any inaccuracies being presented to racers.

Bottom line, products have different levels of performance and different characteristics, but there is no such thing as a bad H&N restraint. Whatever you do, do something, because anything is better than nothing.

I don't know. Helmet manufacturers want to stay away from H&N restraints because they are concerned about getting dragged into litigation in the event of an injury, so I would not expect any major moves from Snell anytime soon. Eventually, however, one would hope to see more cooperation. There was a lot of interest within SFI a few years ago, but it seems to be drifting back to the sanctioning bodies. My best guess (and that's all it is) is that individual sanctioning bodies will adopt a minimum level of Head Load Reduction they feel is appropriate for their racing series.

Hi Jim,

I'm going to be at Sears Point this weekend with SCCA. Have fun at BW!

-Juan

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your candid reply! So you are saying that the one guy that I pick out of all the marketing mumbo jumbo -- HANS -- is unfairly trashing their competition, and further they are in bed with the certification body -- FIA. :confused:

All the more reason that H&N systems need third party certification, and btw, from multiple certification bodies to keep them the certification process honest too. Until this stuff is sorted out, it seems wise to remain on guard and a skeptic!

Thus I am forced to ask why the H&N companies aren't working harder to get certifications established sooner than later? The forces of economics, politics, patents, liability, etc., almost certainly affect this. I wish I knew the details. Also, the winners and loosers in the comparisons will have different motivations for seeing standards and certification established.

-Juan

I saw that study referenced in another PP post as well. I don't get it though -- the 30 second difference doesn't jibe with my understanding of both systems. Can someone post the report so we can see how the study was done?

-Juan

Nah Juan, we don't see black helicopters. Hubbard/Downing didn't publish the flawed SAE paper, they just find it a very convenient marketing tool.

And FIA (DaimlerChrysler) funded the adaptation of the HANS device to F1 beginning in '96 or '97, so it's only natural that H/D would allow them to further develop it for that market. Having spent all those resources, the last thing FIA is going to do is throw it out in favor of something new.

Sorta like kerosene lamps and light bulbs: It works, so why bother making a change? :)

I see your point, but I also believe one can go too far relying on certifications because they aren't really necessary. As long as the product has been tested and a HLR established, it just becomes a matter of how much protection is necessary. After all, nobody has ever produced a H&N restraint that is dangerous.

Let the sanctioning bodies decide. Probably the best policy is the one adopted by SCCA Pro Racing, among others, which requries formal testing that demonstrates the product works, to one degree or another.

That's the problem, it was a private test that wasn't documented. We are looking into having them rerun it with a film crew present. They have even offered to throw in a few flames for effect.

If you want the details, I can grab the notes and go over the protocol.

Hi Greg,

Regarding that test cited in this and other posts stating that HANS took 90 seconds to extract the driver, while ISAAC took 60 seconds:

No I'd rather not muddy the waters with undocumented test results. It would be better to wait for the full scientific report.

However since the test has been cited in other posts already, and people may be taking it as valid, it would be helpful to know who did the test. Can you tell us that?

-Juan

I can send them an e-mail, with a link to this thread, and ask if they would like to offer the details. Or, I can pass them your e-mail address (send it to me at gbaker@isaacdirect.com) and you can check with them youself. Your call.

The parties involved are well qualified, to say the least.

Hi Greg,

Regarding the need for certification of H&N restraint systems:

I can't disagree with you more. As a user of the H&N systems I need to have an objective measure of the effectiveness of the H&N system that I decide on.

Leaving it up to the politics of the various sanctioning bodies to mandate standards won't get me that. NASCAR will madate their favorites, F1, theirs, SCCA theirs, etc. One body will base their decision on HLA, others on HIC, etc. Further, you might wonder whether those sanctioning bodies, especially the smaller clubs, have the expertise to make a decision in the first place.

Call me a cynical again, but I can see that fragmenting the market by having the individual sanctioning bodies decide is a useful strategy for the challengers of the incumbent in the market. Unfortunately, it does not help the users of the H&N system, and only serves to obscure the facts.

As a user of an H&N system, I want to know how the system that I might choose compares to the alternatives -- am I buying a 3 second fire suit or a 5 second? I can't do that by looking the glossy bar charts from the various companies of the various metrics (HLA, HIC, G force, 30 degree impact, etc.) -- it's much more complicated than that, and I don't really have the knowledge to interpret that data. I certainly don't want to find out that I made a poor decision after an impact! Further there are other factors to consider, like egress, use, aging, etc. I need for an independent body that has the expertise make sense of it all and have a scientific basis for its conclusion, i.e. an independent certification organizations.

The products that test out the best have the most to gain by a fair certification process!

-Juan

Hi Greg,

Regarding the paramedic extrication test, like I said, I would rather not add to the confusion by publishing the undocumented (or incompletely documented) test results. That can only damage the credibility of the H&N products by calling into question the validity of the tests.

I just want to know who ran the test, since it has been cited already and some people have already presumed its validity. I look forward to seeing the full scientific test results when they are available.

-Juan

Juan,

I understand. Let me see what we can do on this end.

I think the biggest issue here is money, if you can't make money at this, you can't afford extensive testing and funding an independnent standards committe. But if you are making money at it, then you are compelled to decide where the risk/reward point it, the old big three car manf debate, what is the cost to correct verses the loss in revenue from lawsuits.

I could argue that unless you can prove that some device I am selling as an H&N restraint caused injury, you can't sue me, so I will offer a stuffed toy to put on our dash and tell you its presence will save you. Since most involved can not launch a lawsuit, my stuff toy will allow me to make money for the forseeable future without challenge...unless there is an independent committee.

I will counter that by saying I have no reason to believe anyone currently manufacturing devices is trying to decieve and all are infact providing the best solution they can think of to save lives a noble task, but without standards, I agree with Juan, there is room for folly and errors, even standards don't prevent that.

I am still smarting from having to replace my belts and window net after two years because NASA joined SFI, I can just see me having to own one of each kind for each of the various organizations I race with.

rambling thoughts...take nothing to seriously and no offence intended.

jim

The extrication debate is a tough thing to test since every crew/ stiuation will be different. I tried on each H&N restraint(Isaac and HANS) and came to the same conclusions that the test did. The HANS makes it rather difficult to get out of a 911 in the best circumstances. Having had the experience of removing folks from cars I believe it's imperative to give the EMS community a thorough demonstration of how each system works. Something that I can see coming out of this are new protocols for EMS crews regarding neck braces and backboard modifications. IMO, the HANS presents alot of logistical and procedural issues regarding spinal imobilization that the Isaac does not.

Cheers, James

Juan,

I believe we agree more than not.

Amen, brother! We are all for that. Few things would make me happier than for a qualified, unbiased objective certification organization to rank all products based on their effectiveness. Unfortunately, there aren't any. FIA is very good at what they do, but, insofar as H&N restraints are concerned, they have an interest in one product and refuse to test others. Snell also does a good job, but the helmet manufacturers who pay the bills do not want anything to do with H&N restraints. I hope that this will change over time, but for now Snell is not playing a role. SFI is the last hope, but it's a slow process--and one it may leave to its members.

I also agree that very few of the 400 racing "clubs" in the U.S. are qualified to pass judgment (no offense to those club members who may be experts).

So where does that leave us? There is no certification available for H&N restraint products, although there may be in the future. Research has determined the mechanism by which fatal injuries are caused, and all H&N restraint products have been tested under the same crash protocol to document their efficacy.

Result? The driver has to make a decision.

You do. It is referred to as the F-sub-z load and is available in the professional, peer-reviewed publications of SAE papers #2002-01-3304 and 2002-01-3306 for the Isaac system, the HANS device, the Hutchens device and the D-Cel device. Any F-sub-z value in excess of 4.0kN can be injurious. As you note, there are other issues, but this is #1.

I'm not pleased about the present situation either, Juan, but that's all we have.

James,

I was not aware that you had this much experience in the EMS area. Others in the field have looked at this issue and come to the same conclusion. It is rarely discussed and, as you say, difficult to study in any scientific fashion.

Hi Gregg,

Thanks for all your posts on this subject. It is unfortunate that we don't currently have better independent evaluations and standards for the different systems. Even independent publications, like the recent one in SCCA Sports Car Magazine, do not give any substantive evaluations.

So the racer is left with the job of interpreting the raw data, and weighing the various marketing, economic, political, and other forces at work. This is of course why I have ended up with such a skeptical approach to my inquiry.

Please don't take my questions or skepticism as specific to ISAAC or any other specific product. I would really like to understand the up tradeoffs of all the products, as that is what we really need.

Actually, I'm heading out shortly for the weekend, so I won't be following up on this thread until I return next week.

-Juan

PS, My apologies for misspelling your name in my previous posts! I just realized the error while composing this post.

Juan,

I understand completely. We share the same frustration, and I agree that with all the noise out there it is best to maintain a healthy skepticism.

Have a good weekend.

Gregg

P.S. Don't worry about the name thing, it happens all the time. :)

I hadn't thought about that aspect of it. Is the idea that the truss would have to be remvoved before you could get the neck immobilized on a backboard?