Anybody know anything about the Isaac Head Restraint? (Other than the info on their website)
Printable View
Anybody know anything about the Isaac Head Restraint? (Other than the info on their website)
David, could you please cite what page this fastrack clarification can be found? Is the ISAAC specifically addressed? If it is not and the 'logic' is that the by releasing the single point you are not free from the car, how are radios, drink tubes, cool suits and fresh air systems being dealt with?Quote:
Originally Posted by David Ferguson
What kind of information are you looking for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Coury
I can tell you I love mine. I won't wear anything less. That probably doesn't answer your questions though.
I considered only the HANS and the ISAAC as I felt they were much better than the rest. I chose the ISAAC because I liked the manner it which it controlled the head loads, the fact that it was less likely to have harnesses slip off in an offset crash. It offered some protection in a 90 degree impact, in which a HANS offers zero and I don't need a different model for each car. I was also turned off by the misleading advertising claims made by HANS folks that emphasize that is the best device tested, with aboslutely no mention that the ISAAC was specifically not included in those tests.
We pay lots of attention to our shock valving to control rate and position. If we were only concerned about position we would only run bump stops and droop limiters so why is anyone okay with a bump stop and droop limiter on your head? Aren't we concerned with both position and deceleration?
Gregg Baker at ISAAC is very helpful and patient, he will answer all the questions about his product you have.
Gentlemen,
1) The Isaac system is approved for SCCA Pro Racing.
2) All head and neck restraints are illegal in the SCCA because the helmet attachment voids the Snell certification, except the Isaac system when used with the optional adhesive.
I met with Kurt Weiss (Chairman, SCCA Club Racing Board) two weeks ago at the SAE's Motorsports Engineering Conference in Dearborn on this subject. Long story short, he knows the GCR is a mess re the single-point release issue and noted that it will be fixed in time--too late for the 2005 GCR which is already in print. He is also acutely aware that if a racer is denied the use of any H&N restraint because of rules noncompliance and that racer is injured/killed while driving, the SCCA will be owned by that racer's attorneys.
The Isaac system is as legal as any other head and neck restraint in SCCA.
The Isaac system when used with adhesive for the helmet mounts is the only head and neck restraint in the world that retains helmet certifications from both Snell and FIA.
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
Recent research indicates that the single worst cause of brain injury is shear loads. Mr. Horgas' injury was probably caused by rotational shear.
Range of motion is irrelevant.
Range of motion is irrelevant? You have to be able to turn your head to see mirrors and maximize peripheral vision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg Baker
Incidentally I have purchased a HANS and have a tucker head restraint for sale. More info at www.teamtechmotorsports.com
Thanks,
Jeff
Please, no misinformation. The Snell certification is NOT voided when a HANS is installed. I corresponded directly with the Snell Foundation, and to make a sort story shorter, it has no effect on certification if you install per the Hubbard-Downing instructions.
You can easily test this yourself with an email to Snell.
Regards,
Agreed. I was referring to the belief some have that the position of the head causes injury. This is not true; loads cause injuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS Motorsport
Occasionally a driver is injured when the steering column penetrates the eyeport, but it is generally acknowledged that the driver is going to hit the wheel anyway in a big crash regardless of what product they are using.
Greg,Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Mercurio
This is old territory. From the Snell Web site:
"Cosmetic changes to certified headgear are permissible. Such changes are generally limited to marking or trimming the headgear with manufacturer approved paint or tape.
Otherwise, modification of certified headgear creates new headgear which will not have the confidence and certification of the Foundation until samples have been submitted and evaluated....
After-market modifiers of such certified headgear should be aware that any structural modification may adversely affect a helmet's protective capability and therefore invalidate the certification." (Emphasis added)
A blanket statement re the HANS device and Snell is valid only if every model of every manufacturer's helmet has been retested with the HANS mounts installed. I doubt this has happened. In fact, as of recently the FIA had approved only a limited number of helmets for use with the HANS device.
If Snell is saying, in effect, "Yeah, the HANS device invalidates our certification, but that's okay with us because it improves safety," it is on par with the SCCA saying, "Yeah, the Isaac sytem works with the belts, but that's okay with us because it improves safety."
Gregg M,
Did you get something in writing from SNELL stating that drilling holes in your helmet to attach the HANS per their instructions doesn't void the Snell rating?
I believe the G-Force unit is still Snell approved when used with their helmet as they submitted their helmet for testing with the attachment points. 1 helmet--no problem.
When the ISAAC mounts are bonded to the helmet, the Snell rating is still intact--ANY SNELL SA helmet is okay.
The FIA only recognizes the legality of the HANS, because the FIA specs require design features which are pattented by HANS. The HANS is only FIA approved when used with a handful of helmet models that HANS submitted for FIA testing. Basically 1 model from each manufacturer.
And what's that other contraption that attaches to the helmet eyeport, that shouldn't void the Snell certification?
Daryl: Yes I did, via email correspondence with the Snell Foundation, and 2 follow-up phone calls.
Gregg: Parsing is a no-no.
All: The single point release requirement is not likely to change. The ISAAC is non-compliant to the GCR and as such is not allowed in Club Racing.
I encourage all of you who want the truth regarding Snell Certification/voiding thereof to call or email the Snell foundation regarding this issue.
http:\\www.smf.org
But logic prevails.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Mercurio
So which is it, Greg? Did all the helmet manufacturers retest every model, or did Snell just say, "Yeah, the HANS device invalidates the certification and, hence, makes the helmet noncompliant to the GCR, but we are confident it will work so we'll give it a pass."? It's one or the other.
We'll tell Topeka your decision is final.Quote:
All: The single point release requirement is not likely to change. The ISAAC is non-compliant to the GCR and as such is not allowed in Club Racing.
Please be serious. The SCCA BOD did make their decision final as posted in Fastrack. As was your request to the CRB to set aside the single point release requirement. For reference, I was one of many Race Officials who questioned the application of the single point release requirement as regards ISAAC devices. There were enough letters and emails that the BOD made a clarification statement. I applaud your efforts to set aside the requirement, although I disagree with it.
Obfuscation is unneccessary. Must we start another running gun battle over ISAAC/HANS/Hutchens? For most of us, it's already been sorted out. Your attempts at supplying additional dis-information is a disservice to the drivers on this board.
Perhaps there's just a disconnect with our motives. Mine is to add to our collective knowledge base if I can. Yours is to sell your device, and that requires a rules change. Don't care a bit with the outcome. I will enforce the rules as published. Should you prevail with the CRB and BOD, I will happily enforce the newly changed rules as well.
Finally, aside from providing lunchtime entertainment for my fellow competitors, this thread is pointless. And as I bet another FF racer lunch that YOU would be the one who re-opened it, now I'm out lunch. It's good that he's on Atkins, it won't hurt much. :~)
See ya.
Greg,
That’s sad. You’ve added nothing to the discussion, failed to address pending questions and made errors of fact.
For the record, we could easily present a single-point release version of the Isaac system but we hesitate to do so because any worn device is dangerous, especially in a tin top.
Also, don’t tell me what my motives are. I am listed as inventor or co-inventor on probably 50+ domestic and foreign patents dealing with structural implants. If we were interested only in money we would not waste our time saving lives in some Mickey Mouse $5MM racing market. We are here to help. If you have some socialist aversion to capitalism, please keep it to yourself. The rest of us don’t want to hear it.
Lastly, a “pointless” thread does not receive five stars from the viewers.
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
While I appreciate all the "healthy" debate, the input of those with a vested interest would naturally be to speak in favor of their product. after all, whoever puts a safety product out there has a lot of time effort and money invested in it and that must be respected. Just because someone does not favor that particular device is no reason to get in a pissing contest with them. that is not what this is supposed to be about.
Mr. Mercurio, please lay off Mr. Baker. No one has any right to expect Mr. Baker to do anything to support the effectiveness of his device. He developed what he believes was the best way to do it, and it is pretty much universally approved by sanctioning bodies that do not mandate a specific device.
As far as the single point release, one could make a very strong case that the sternum strap violates that rule, yet I am not aware of any ruling that makes it not allowed in SCCA racing.
The email correspondence would satisfy me as far as putting it with my logbook in case any gear issues came up at tech about my helmet not being SNELL certified. However, I don't think I'd feel real comfortable with an e-mail holding up in any more serious instances, especially when their site and literature contradicts the email.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Mercurio
I might be reading too much into your answer, but I want to make certain that I understand you: The 2 follow-up phone calls, were those to clarify something in your mind that wasn't clear in the e-mail ? Like I said, I could be wrong, but I don't see a reason for one follow up call, much less two if the e-mail was clear that the HANS didn't void the Snell cert.
I am not trying to beat you up about your pro-HANS position. I am only interested in getting all the facts out in the open for everyone to make their own educated decision.
I am still interested in the FASTRACK issue, because if it was one of the canned "rule clear as written, no clarification required" BS responses I don't see how you can be so adamant about the ISAAC not being legal. Further, what are you doing in your region about radios, drink tubes, cool suit hoses and fresh air systems? Each of those still have you attached to the car in some manner until you release them separate from your single point.
Why were there other non-single point of attachments devices allowed at the Ruboffs and ARRC?
Daryl: The reason for 2 follow up calls is simple, we played phone tag for the first round and talked the second. To get the same or similar response I got from the Snell Foundation, follow the link above, make your request and get it in writing directly. Better yet, why doesn't someone query the Snell Foundation and post the reply here? I'd do it but I think I'm the Dan Rather in this discussion.
Steve: As far as sternum straps are concerned, they are non-compliant if they do not release with the harness buckle. As I haven't seen one in the SF Region, I have not had to deal with it as an issue, but may in the future.
As regards radio harnesses, drink tube and cool suit hoses, air supply hoses, they are designed as frangible links.
As regards the balance of this thread, I have represented not just my point of view, but what has been published in Fastrack as well. Only a few minutes of research in the back issues will net you the content discussed.
As far as socialism/capitalism goes, I'm somewhere between Goldwater and Perot.
On the patent issue, you win by a landslide. I only have 2 making you at least 25x smarter than me, so now I'll slink back to my cave and whimper for my supper.
As regards 5 stars from the audience, I believe we get Co-Oscars for Entertainer of the year. We're at least as funny as Michael Moore! (And I'm better lookin')
So now it's back to work on the Van Diemen, a much more satisfying pursuit.
Y'all need to lighten up, it's Christmas, not too late to order that new MOMO steering wheel, PI dash, or OZ Wheels for the racer on your Christmas list. Just in case I'm on yours, I'll take the wheels please. ;~)
Greg M,
I did query the Snell foundation prior to your last response. I will post their response word for word.
The Dan Rather comment shows you have some sort of sense of humor but your obvious affection for Gregg Baker and your constant attacks on his credibility is tiring. Perhaps we should all remember it is the Holiday Season.
on edit--maybe I am too tired, or maybe just stupid or some combination thereof. I have been through all fastracks from the last seven months from F-73 to F-272 and didn't see anywhere where this clarification was made...can anyone point me to the page?
The "clarification" appeared in the Aug, 04 issue of Fastracknews. It was a Member Advisory "to alert the membership to the Club Racing Board's plans regarding...." in this case, an interpretation of GCR Sec 20.4, that being: "CRB would like to clarify that all safety devices (including head and neck restraints) shall free the driver from their belts and the car with a single point of release"
This interpretation of GCR 20.4 is quite a bit more than what the GCR actually states, which is: "There shall be a single release common to the seat belt and shoulder harness." I'm sure that 20.4 was written before and without thought of head and neck restraints, or sternum straps, or window nets, etc. Taken literally, without extrapolation, GCR does not make items which are not seat belts or shoulder harnesses non-compliant.
It would be a disservice to the safety of competitors to adopt this interpretation and prohibit the Isaac device, or sternum straps, or window nets (elsewhere in GCR actually required) or other supposedly "frangible links" which serve practical and safety purposes. Fortunately, the Board Of Directors has not seen fit so far to adopt this interpretation, as the latest actual updates to the GCR, sec 20, do not change or expand on the single sentence quoted above. I have written, and encourage others to write or e-mail the BOD, not to prohibit or require the use of any of the well developed head and neck restraint systems. I would also hope that local stewards not "legislate from the bench" on this. This is too important to play favorites or politics with.
Do your own due diligence, make a choice based on your needs and useage, then wear a head and neck restraint voluntarily and as the manufacturer recomends. Then leave those who choose otherwise the heck alone!
Thanks Fleetdude,
I was looking everywhere for a rule change, not an ADVISORY
Anyone else looking for this "final decision" the exact wording and the context can be found on F-164.
Excellent post! My letter will be sent off soon.
Still haven't had a response from SNELL.
Hi Daryl: Thanks for taking the time to contact the Snell Foundation. It took me about a month to get a reply, so be patient. It'll be interesting to see if their position has changed since February.
As an aside, please re-read the posts I made earlier in this thread. I did not attack Mr. Baker, I attacked his statement that Snell certs were voided. I have a ton of respect for anyone with a PE in their title, it's proof that they have persevered past the point most of us engineers stop.
However, bad information is still bad information, regardless of the source.
Fleetdude: I agree with your course of action. It's the way the GCR gets modified. The latest Fastrack, on Pg F6 or F7 under GCR lists an additional rejected request to set aside the single point requirement based on the 5 letters they received. Keep trying, and perhaps you'll prevail. This BOD and CRB appears to be more racer friendly than those in the past.
Here is the response I received from SNELL: (emphasis in bold is mine)
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________
Thank you for your question regarding helmet modifications. The short
answer to whether modifications invalidate Snell certification is "not
necessarily." But if someone with an interest in the helmet like the owner
or a track safety inspector examines the helmet and says that it is no
longer reliable crash protection, we're not going to contradict.
Snell certification apllies to the helmet in its as-manufactured condition.
We test identical samples in order to admit the model into the Snell program
and we continue to test new samples afterward to determine that the model
continues to meet Snell requirements. The samples we test are destroyed in
the process but once we have the results, we can claim to know something
about all the identical units rolling out of production. However, once a
new helmet is put into service, it starts to change. As wear and tear
accumulate, that helmet becomes unique. At some point we can no longer have
any confidence about its crash protective capabilities. The helmet may
still be protective but it may not. We just won't know.
The Foundation figures the process takes about five years and recommends
routine replacement for all Snell certified headgear after five years of
use. But a poorly considered modification or a crash can accomplish the
same thing in a much shorter time. A well executed modification may have no
effect on protective performance but a bad one can reduce a helmet to trash.
Since we won't get any samples, and we'd need a bunch modified by the same
guys in the same way, we won't be able to render any valid judgment.
Many manufacturers produce Snell certified HANS(r) ready configurations.
I'd recommend anyone interested in HANS(r) consider one of these first.
We've had a chance to examine and test samples and we have a reliable basis
for certifying the whole structure including the HANS(r) tether mounts. If
you've exhausted these possibilities, the next alternative is an aftermarket
installation. Hubbard Downing has kits including the Post tether mount
hardware and detailed instructions for adding it to a helmet. A competent
installation need not have any effect on Snell test performance. But since
we will know nothing about the installer and the reliability of his work, we
cannot reasonably certify the result.
Thanks for your interest.
Ed Becker
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
My comments--
In short, it sounds like a properly installed head and neck restraint system may not effect the real world performance/integrity of your helmet. But SNELL certainly isn't going to go out on a limb and say sure, just follow the instructions and we'll still certify it. So, modifying the helmet certainly DOES invalidate the certification.
Whoa Quikshoe...
I read that note from Ed Becker and he said "not necessarily".
Somehow from that note you interpreted it to say it "DOES" invalidate the certificate.
I'm worried that the direction this thread is taking is going to generate a whole bunch of "the sky is falling reaction", and novice readers are going to get un-necessarily alarmed. I'm worried about agendas. IMHO this seems to be a tempest in a teapot.
I prefer to believe there is a certain amount of sane reasonableness in the tech inspection process. Besides which, it stands to reason that if a driver has enough sense of safety to purchase and install a Hans device, then he is probably going to follow through with a decent job of installing the posts.
My interpretation is from "not necessarily" and "Snell certification apllies to the helmet in its as-manufactured condition." and "we cannot reasonably certify the result."...not a far leap in my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
IF his response was "not necessarily" combined with "when installed per the manufacturers' instructions the SNELL certification shall remain intact" and delete the "as-manufactured condition" it would be a different story.
Regarding agenda, mine is to keep the facts straight. I don't really care whether the installation voids the SNELL warranty or not. More importantly there are those who might.
Lastly, the SCCA doesn't care whether your SNELL certification has been voided or not.
Fastrack F80 RM04-05:
"SCCA technical inspectors/scrutineers and other SCCA officicals are advised that it is not within the authority or the technical ability of the SCCA or SCCA officials to determine if a helmet certification (Snell, etc.) has been voided by modifications made to a helmet that is worn by an SCCA competitor..."
Thanks for the research 'Shoe.
I read an item that I picked up at the PRI show. It is about a device (can't remember the name) that uses a carbon fiber yoke, but instead of going under the shoulder belts it is strapped to the driver. I will not get involved in the pros and cons, but it did say that SFI stated that if the drilling for the installation of tethere is below the "line of testing" that it would not affect the SFI certicication of the helmet. It also said that the SFI site has details on it's web site. The crux was that installation of a helmet restraint system with the anchors placed fairly low, would not void the SFI certification.
That is the "R2" model (IIRC) from the folks who developed the Hutchens/D-Cel product line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter