granracing

I worked on an article which attempted to compare three of the primary head and neck restraint systems which comply with SFI 38.1 specs. The units involved were the Safety Solutions Hybrid Pro Rage, Safety Solutions R3, and HANS.

It was actually an eye opening process to discover how little concrete information we have available to make a truly knowledgeable decision. Getting real facts and sorting though the marketing agendas was impossible. For having a spec which is supposed to protect us consumers, it sure has flaws. I found it interesting the other online or print publications don't talk more about it, but understand from the concerns of backlash. I too felt this.

I'd love for you to share some of your input on the article comments, or here if you're not comfortable doing it there. Reactions have been interesting. It needed to be written from a perspective just like most of you, who don't have the massive amount of funds to conduct independent test sled studies. We need to rely on the information (or in a way lack there of) in this case.

I'm curious to hear what you have to say about it all. The article can be found here: http://www.goaheadtakethewheel.com/b...sons-politics/

dirty19

iTrader: (1)

Another excellent article Dave.

It made me pull out my HANS 20 Pro and take a look at it.
Guess what? It needs recertification.
So I'll be sending it back right to Georgia after the holidays to get recertified.

One thing I didnt like with the fitment of the Hans was the difference between the medium and the large sizes. Seems I have one of those in between sizes ... Med to Large neck.
I tried on a large, and I was swimming in it.
The medium was a bit on the snug side.
The dealer which I bought it from advised more tight than loose, this was confirmed when I actually called Hans, so I went with the medium.

After my first years use I had the tethers changed out to the sliding, and quick click.
The time to release myself from the car dramatically decreased due to the fact your helmet could be quickly disconnected from the device giving you more room to wiggle out.
http://hansdevice.com/Helmet-Attachm...c=2&category=8
Best 80.00 bux spent on an upgrade.
I have never had a belt slip on me, but I have never had an accident or anything that might cause a slippage to happen.
I do recommend the use of "Hans Ready" belts.
These belts start off 3 inches and narrow down to two inches as they reach the device and go over the shoulders.
This IMO allows the belt to stay in place, and adhere to the rubber rather than have the belt have some room to slip because the whole belt surface isnt being held in place.
Comfort for me with the belts is excellent, and that combined with a seat with side bolsters (halo) I feel very snug and safe.

914Racer

Don't even speak evil of the one sacred brand on this forum. I have seen many good people banned or leave the forum because some douchebag moderator got his feelings hurt.

rice_classic

granracing: So you've just discovered now that the SFI is a BS marketing company and doesn't care about safety?

All joking aside, or not, this how I view it and part of the reason I don't see myself motivated to do any racing with the SCCA and am very grateful there is an awesome Conference here that allows me to do lots of racing without joining the SCCA.

dirty19

iTrader: (1)

Speaking evil is a no no yes... unless your prepared to call them out and fight tooth and nail.
Advisable??? Who's to say.

Most sanctioning bodies require these certifications to run, so unless you are part of an organization that doesnt.. you have to follow the pack and become a zombie.

Valid points both of you have.

granracing

In the past I heard some grumblings about SFI, but never really did the research to confirm it myself. Since SCCA didn't have the SFI or H&NR requirement in the past, I happily used my ISAAC device. Unfortunately that doesn't comply with SFI certification criterea. No, I won't go down that road. lol

Not sure if the evil one is SFI, HANS or SCCA? Honestly at this point, my grumblings are more with SFI than HANS.

You have me wondering about the HANS sizing. With the Med, it was a little tough to get past the initial part of the yoke. Once on, it felt fine. Maybe I'd experience the same thing with the large.

Soichiro2

CAVEAT: I work for HANS Performance Products, maker of the award winning HANS Device.

I'm surprised that anyone would question the effectiveness of this proven safety product.

Politics? HANS was first mandated in 2000 by CART and was widely used in NASCAR the next year after Earnhardt's death in 2001. Let's look at the facts for 10 years before and after this date. 1991-2000: Adcox, McDuffie, Bonnet and Orr killed by basilar skull fractures in stock cars. Ratzenberger, Brayton, Rodriguez and Moore killed by basilar skull fractures in open wheelers. Petty, Irwin and Alexander killed by basilar skull fractures in stock cars. Roper dies from neck injuries. 2001- 2011: No deaths from basilar skull fractures by drivers wearing HANS Devices. Hearn survives 139G impact in IRL. Krisher survives crash and roll in NHRA. BMW credits HANS with saving Kubica's life in F1. More recently, Gordon survives huge hit at Las Vegas. Last year, Sadler survives huge hit at Pocono. Audi's Rockenfeller survives "biggest head-on crash ever seen" at Le Mans.

Those are the facts. A good head restraint should be part of your safety gear, period. If you can't get comfortable in a HANS, Simpson now makes a good product called the Hybrid. The SFI and FIA testing protocolls behind certifying these products are there for your protection.

Thank you for the opportunity to post in this forum. Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions you might have about head restraints.

PS: The HANS Device is sized to be comfortable once it's fully in place around your neck. It's narrow at the front so it does not impede arm motion in tight corners. Any size will work just fine in an impact, so get the one that is most comfortable. Comfort is very important in any safety product. Thanks again and good luck at the track!

Gary Milgrom
HANS Performance Products
gmilgrom(at)hansdevice.com
770-457-1046

granracing

Gary, IMO, some of the politics stem from how the H&NR system was made THEN the certification was developed with the assistance of those involved with HANS. I admit there were few other devices out there at the time (maybe none?) so the initial involvement makes sense. However the SFI specs are so limiting, and should be modified over time to allow for innovations.

A HUGE knock on the certification levels are how the testing is completed by the manufacturer, and not SFI. Even the HANS site which has a graph (for others benefit http://hansdevice.com/s.nl/sc.5/category.67/.f ) of some other H&NR systems states "rest assured, we have never published our best results". I have to image that at least in some way, HANS would benefit by having a third party conduct the sled tests. Safety Solutions provided their results which IMO, are hard not to question what it represents. They claim that both the R3 AND Hybrid Pro Rage perform better than the HANS.

The problem becomes we as consumers, have no way of really knowing other than taking the word of a manufacturer selling the product. I don't question that either of these products provide safety protection. I question which one does a better job at it. I and others would love to make a decision based on facts, not marketing department figures. For the record, I have more faith in numbers HANS lists but don't know for sure.

***This post is not meant to put you on a defensive stance and appreciate you posting here. I'll take you up on your offer and will call you. Hopefully these types of discussions can lead to providing consumers better facts.

Soichiro2

Dave thanks for your reply. Note we did not write the SFI standard - we have one vote on various SFI proposals, as did other safety companies like Simspon, Leatt, Safety Solutions and defNder. Also the SFI does attend every test. We actually advocated stricter standards than were eventually adopted. Why? Because we are confident only HANS can meet such safety goals.

However we did work with the FIA in the establishment of their standard 8858. This came about when the FIA were researching frontal impacts in 1994 and were astonished to find the HANS system worked much better than the airbags they were testing. Mercedes Benz and the FIA were both involved in reducing the size of the product, testing and eventually writing a performance standard for similar products to meet.

granracing

What I'd love to somehow do is have the HANS and Safety Solutions product tested by an independant party.

Gary and I had a nice converstation this morning, and a part of that he stated the HANS would be willing to have their product be a part of the testing. I recognize this would not be inexpensive to accomplish, but maybe there's a way to make it happen. I believe it would be interesting and a step in the right direction.

Thanks again for your time Gary.

914Racer

Perhaps we should go into the discussion about how HANS actively prosecutes their competitors in court. Wonder why Defender isn't in business anymore? HANS may have been the first device and hence they helped write the SFI standard that everyone else has to play to. If you don't like the competition, legislate them out of the market. I refuse to ever use or recommend a HANS product because of their business practices.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forum...ad.php?t=29766
http://www.gt40s.com/forum/race-trac...hans-scca.html

Lots of history here:
http://www.improvedtouring.com/forum...&highlight=sfi

granracing

Not sure the truth behind this, maybe Gary can chime in? I was told by a non-invested party (meaning not HANS) that due to patent law, HANS needed to file the suit of they could risk losing their patent rights.

I also spoke with the owner of DefNder and that wasn't the sole reasoning for them shutting their doors. The guy owns two other businesses which I have to assume are much more profitable. Seems like the suit and multiple hurdles wasn't worth it in the end.

Soichiro2

The defNder company was formed by employees who left Leatt Corporation. They were charged with theft of intellectual property by that company and lost a 200K lawsuit to Leatt. This is what put them out of business. After this fact, defNder admitted their design contravened the HANS Device patent and agreed to stop manufacturing and selling this product.

HANS will continue to enforce and protect its intellectual property, including patents. Why wouldn't we? 914Racer, I guess you think Apple, Microsoft et al should not have any patent rights either?

Dr. Hubbard and Mr. Downing had a wonderful idea in 1981 and their invention has saved thousands of people from injury or worse. People seem to forget they funded the company personally, losing money for TWENTY YEARS before the invention gained acceptance. The racing community owes inventors like these a debt of gratitude, not criticism over defending themselves from others who would copy and profit from their invention.

Soichiro2

I don't understand comments such as above accusing HANS of legislating others out of the market.

For example, defNder asked they be allowed to sell their remaining inventory after agreeing to cease production. Even though we were completely within our rights to refuse such a request, we granted it. That shows the type of people who are behind the HANS Device.

And what part of "we did not write the SFI standard" do you not understand?

Hubbard and Downing invented the head restraint after a friend's death, to give something back to the racing community. Every head restraint marketed since then has been made for the purpose of cashing in on the market they created. That's great, and we welcome competition; but think about that when you are looking to criticize businesses involved in the safety industry.

dirty19

iTrader: (1)

WORD!

914Racer

I have no problem with a company defending their patent rights. That is good business. I have a problem with a company that doesn't let their product quality and attributes stand by themselves, instead using the legislative system to impose sanctions against their competitors and using a trade organization to write a safety standard that benefits their product and eliminates other competitors. HANS is a fine product, its their business practices that I oppose. HANS is acting like other business and professional organizations that require licensing for people that want to practice in the trade. if your product is good, it will stand all by itself.


http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...301/299827/16/
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...1301/299827/78

For all racers, a head and neck restraint is a great investment, just look at the company with which you do business.

rice_classic

After the SFI, SCCA, 38.1 drama I'm over it. At this point I agree with 914Racer but my beef isn't specifically with HANS, it's with the SFI which I feel is the greater evil. I'm not going to waste my time typing it all out because it's all in those threads that 914Racer linked.

So what''s next? SFI certified wheels in 2013? SFI certified quick-release hubs to the highest bidder?

Actually Soichiro2: your MS/Apple reference isn't a good one. With the default implant of IE in early versions of Windows the government stepped with Anti-trust violations. This isn't identical but frighteningly close to a vertical price fixing scheme through the act of collusion between SFI and Hubbard/Downing.

Nothing pisses me off more than thinking about the SFI (starting with their asinine 2 year seat belt rule!).

granracing

WHAT??? You mean the guy in FL who left his belts exposed to the elements doesn't merit everyone replacing their belts every two years? I do agree with you, the complaint is much more so with SFI.

However, with the H&NR, manufacturers who belong to SFI vote on potential changes. I can not see any motivation from HANS or Safety Solutions to open the spec up further.

914Racer

I am going to start pushing for certified roll cages and I will be the only one to produce those cages. Yes they will require a recert every two years and replacement every 10. All to be done by me and those licensed to do so. F the free market.

known

iTrader: (1)

Sounds like a lot of bs and opinions.

I have a Hans and Im fine with using it.

Dave, thanks again for your hard work and efforts.

914Racer

Ask what a protection a HANS will provide at a 15deg offset collision?

Didn't say their product was in any way faulty.

lateapex911

Actually, it's not BS.
SFI is a closed, member driven organization. I was naive and assumed early on that it was an angel doing great work to keep us racers safe. If fact, its a company that generates a pretty fair profit.

To start with, they certify nothing. Manufacturers are chosen to join, they pay membership dues, and they can add an SFI label on the product for a per label fee. The manufacturer certifies that his product meets the SFI required standards for that genre of product.
Who comes up with those standards? The members who manufacturer the products in question, to large degree. Read the SFI's legal agreements and you'll have a better understanding.

The manufacturer contracts with the testing lab, and the lab conducts the tests. In the past, SFI has not been at all tests, but Gary says they are, so perhaps that's a new policy. Regardless, when the tests are concluded, the manufacturer who paid for the tests gets the results. They own them. They can do with them as they please. IF the results are appropriate, the product and the results are submitted to SFI for approval.

If the SFI accepts the company, (which they reserve the right to refuse for any reason), and approves the product, they are free to sell the item to the public. The test results are not available to be shared though, unless the manufacturer releases them.

SFI merely states that: The product meets the objective criteria that is set forth in the spec, the manufacturer has been deemed acceptable by the SFI to do business with, they have signed the licensee agreement and paid their dues, and the product has met or exceeded the minimum standards of the spec.

So, it is not open to any company. It is a club that can pick and choose its members. It is not transparent. Standards are written and the SFI can chose to release who wrote the standard ...or not. It is about profit. Not that that is bad, but lets not kid ourselves, this is a very different set up than, say Snell.

The problem I see is that if it LOOKS like there MIGHT be hanky panky going on behind the doors, and the people behind those doors are profiting financially, yours and my best interests may not be the highest priority. (And it's costing us a lot of $$. Everyone trots out the 'safety card", when the subject of expenditure comes up. "Are you afraid to spend a little money to protect your family from a tragic loss!?? they plead. And Gary points to a number of basilar skull fractures that have happened in higher echelon forms of racing. But, in the world of SCCA club racing, I can only recall one death from such an impact, and I believe he was wearing a HANS. Details are VERY hard to find, but my understanding was that the driver didn't die of BSF, that's not my point...I'm not trying to bash HANS....the point is that BSF threatening incidents are very rare. SCCA has had far far more deaths from on track health incidents. ( Heart attacks, seizures, etc) yet has done nothing significant to improve health screening of drivers. Yet, they insist we spend thousands to protect ourselves against potential incidents that have no history. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the guy who sees the contradiction, then has to write a large check, especially when his choices are so limited, and he MUST do business in a less than open market)

Think back a few years to the belt rule change. I had never heard of the issue that was cited: belt weakening and failure due to excessive exposure to a combination of UV exposure, constant wetting and drying. My understanding was that an SFI Member company approached SFI requesting to change the spec because of the potential issue it had discovered.

SFI reportedly consulted the other member companies, and lo and behold, they voted to change the spec to 2 years replacement cycle from 5. Shock! I'm sure the fact that all their sales would increase 2.5 times had no bearing on their position.

Now, I never saw the tests, or any actual failure... nor has anyone I know. So, when a closed organization changes it's rule which ends up doubling the cost to the paying public, it just smells funny.


I have no doubt that HANS' pioneers, Messrs Downing and Hubbard, have done great work in advancing the concept of keeping our skulls attached. And I understand their desire to protect their intellectual property.
But, if you read the spec 38.1, it is very narrowly written. It's not just about the performance standards, it's about the device architecture itself. It's very limiting. Now, no doubt the writers feel that they know the narrow description will produce products that will work similarly to the HANS. (The defacto standard when the spec was written. ) And thats fine, and good, the HANS works. But, the spec should be read by interested parties, and can be found here:http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SF...ec_7-19-07.pdf
(Thanks HMS!)
It includes phrases like "Main unit" that essentially describe a yoke of sorts.
I find it unfortunate that the spec couldn't be written with more of an open architecture. It's as though UL said, right after the first light bulb glowed, "All future artificial light sources will use a heated filament in vacuum contained in a glass globe, with a screw base." We wouldn't have HID, sodium vapor, fluorescents, or LEDs.!
The spec serves to stifle innovation. There are many ways to skin a cat, but there's no impetus to innovate with restrictive specs.
It also appears to protect the HANS and the SFI business method furthers that appearance. I think that's a reasonable, if somewhat conservative way of stating that situation....

I'm glad you use a H&NR, and I'm glad you like it. I've used one for 7 or so years now. (Full disclosure, not a HANS.). In most of our club racing situations it's just extra gear, but, in rare situations, it's another important part of our safety arsenal.

My issue is that we are being forced to use devices that could be so much better. We don't have any idea, really, how they all compare to one another. Would you buy a car if they said, "Hey, it'll go 0-60 in less than 10 seconds? " No, you'd want to know what your money was buying...

We're performance people, yet we've all bought into this system where we buy stuff having no idea how it really performs. We do it because we are addicted to the crack of performance driving and racing, but I for one, feel used.

This H&NR /SFI stuff is a really unfortunate rats nest.
Please, Snell, or SAE, come to our aid!

known

iTrader: (1)

I have read a lot of bs and opinions on this subject is what I should have said.

Speculation on this and that without having real facts outside of just hearsay or research, not many of us know what goes on behind closed doors.

I havent seen anyone stand up against it outside of a couple here and there that say they wont run with scca because of it or they will buy xyz brand.

SFI is CAPITALIZING, this happens with a lot of aspects of goods/services when there is a lot of profit to be made.

I dont see it changing unless there is a huge movement, say gathering all of the best drivers right before the championship or something in scca and not running because of it....you know what Im saying. That might not even bother them either, scca is a part of the problem too.

lwnslw

I use HANS and feel comfortable doing it. I guess it is better to have some protection that none. Other products like it , I don't know since I have not tried them yet. Mainly because they look less comfortable than hans.
Until somebody comes with a better idea of how to protect my noodle and neck if I'm in an impact, "which I have been in a roll over", I will keep using as much as possible.
Maybe the hans offers the same protection as the prayer I do before the race but you know what, I feel protected by both and actually there is data to support the hans not the prayer.
I don't care about SFI or what kind of practices they have. The product has proven itself many times over and over. Like I said , until there is something better out there I don't care if its certified by whoever. I don't have my hans on hand but I'm sure it has a FIA certification, since it is used in F1 and all the FIA sanctioned races.

Now to think that SFI should do all this for charity it is completely naive from all of you. It would be the same as to think that pharmaceutical companies are out there to help people and not profit from their products.
If you want anything from certifications to rights to whateverer you want you need to belong to the "club" and pay your dues.
If anyone is in business you know that BBB is just a whole bunch of BS but everybody keeps calling them to ask for reviews about a business.
Also internationally , ISO 9000 , you have to belong to the group or you don't sell your products anywhere. so yes they are there for profit.
I use the product to protect myself and go back to my family at the end of the day. I leave the politics to the people that create the law.

lateapex911

Lnsw:

How do you feel about your helmet? Pretty important part of the protection plan, right? It's got a sticker on it too.
But Snell does it right.