"...Hutchens failed to meet minimum standards from testing by SFI Foundation Inc" quote from NASCAR spokesman Mike Zizzo.

Full Article below
http://sports.yahoo.com/nascar...=lgns

 

I'd like to see the test results. I believe NASCAR doesn't allow Simpson products to be used either.

 

I saw a bunch of test results at PRI in 2003 (from a supposedly independent organization). It was shocking how little protection the others offered in comparison to the HANS.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SMSP &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'd like to see the test results. I believe NASCAR doesn't allow Simpson products to be used either.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Dave, you have some test results sitting on the rear dash of your civic. It might not be the results from tests conducted by SFI, however.

BTW, can you hold on to that and the magazine? I'll come by to pick them up along with a you-know-what.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by turbohappy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I saw a bunch of test results at PRI in 2003 (from a supposedly independent organization). It was shocking how little protection the others offered in comparison to the HANS.</TD></TR></TABLE>
You sure you were looking at comprehensive results by an independent body? I wasn't aware that any independent body has published any results. I beleive each of the manufacturers has put up their own funding to use the Wayne State test facility and gain their own results. They each publish data from these test results but I am not sure they do (nor should they, nor would it probably be that helpful to the end users) publish all their test data.

If its SFI 38.1 only, it only lists the following on the site:
Hubbard-Downing HANS Device - new member!
LFT Technologies R3 Device - new member!

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean as I don't believe anything aside from HANS and Hutchens were allowed in [any] NASCAR [series] prior to this. Seems like its just a swap out of Hutchens in lieu of this R3 Device. Now if this is NOT simply approval/disapproval for SFI/non-SFI products (meaning that Hutchens is out and that other product isn't allowed either), then its highly inconsistent (but I do beleive that much of this is dictated by money and personal motivations that don't necessarily put safety first).

 

There is an article in the latest (Feb.-2005) issue of SportsCar (p14) about the HANS device being the first H&N restraint certified to the newly published SFI Foundation Standard 38.1

--------

From the 2nd page of todays Charlotte Observer sports section.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Charlotte Observer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Posted on Tue, Jan. 04, 2005


Drivers to use only HANS device

NASCAR bans the Hutchens device after it fails safety tests

JIM UTTER-Knight Ridder


Competitors in NASCAR's top three series -- Nextel Cup, Busch and Truck -- will be required to wear the Head and Neck Support (HANS) device during practice, qualifying and races, NASCAR officials confirmed Monday.

Until this season, drivers could choose between the HANS (a semi-hard collar made of carbon fiber and Kevlar) and the Hutchens (primarily composed of chest and waist safety straps) to meet NASCAR's requirement of a head-and-neck restraint.

The Hutchens, however, failed to meet minimum standards during testing by SFI Foundation Inc., NASCAR spokesman Mike Zizzo said. Since the HANS remains the only approved head-and-neck safety device, its use will be required by all competitors, Zizzo said.

Most Cup drivers use the HANS, but some, such as Ryan Newman, Tony Stewart and Rusty Wallace, have preferred the Hutchens, which doesn't involve as much use with the driver's helmet.

"I've tried the HANS, but I just can't get comfortable wearing it," Wallace said. "If it's mandatory, we'll just work with it until we get it as comfortable as possible."

A spokesman for Stewart said the driver tested a HANS in one race in 2004 and used it at several test sessions, in preparation for a possible change.

SFI, based in Poway, Calif., is a nonprofit organization established to administer standards for specialty/performance automotive and racing equipment. All HANS devices have been certified.

In October 2001, NASCAR officials mandated the use of an approved head-and-neck restraint for all drivers racing in Cup, Busch or Truck series.

The Hutchens is based on straps worn outside of the driver's suit that tether onto the helmet and seat belt.</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

Phat-S

NASCAR used to allow Hutchen. I believe Tony Stewart ran Hutchens last year.

 

Andrie, what in particular did I say that suggested that I wasn't aware of this?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Phat-S &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I don't believe anything aside from HANS and Hutchens were allowed in [any] NASCAR [series] prior to this.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

Remember that SFI are the folks who said that your seat belts and shoulder harness are useless after two years. I'd really like to see how their tests are conducted.

 

Don't NASCAR and Bill Simpson hate each other? I remember reading that NASCAR basically used Bill Simpson as a scapegoat for Earnhardt's death. Simpson was forced out of his company, even though it still retains his name. Now he runs a company called Impact.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by phat-S &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Andrie, what in particular did I say that suggested that I wasn't aware of this?

</TD></TR></TABLE>

sorry, misread.

Just found out that SCCA pro only allows Head and neck device that has SFI rating. This will only mean it will trickle down in club racing soon enough. I feel bad for those people that invested in other safety devices that don't have or won't pass SFI test.

 

I certainly hope that SCCA won't require an SFI sticker or stamp on HANS devices for those of us who already own one.

I am not surprised by this NASCAR announcement. With the limited testing data that is available, it quickly becomes obvious that the only two choices for serious protection are the HANS and Isaac devices

I assume the SFI testing costs are born by the mfg of the devices. Anyone hazard a guess on how much the testing would cost?

Rick

 

NASCAR could do a lot to improve the safety of the drivers besides the HANS device and soft walls. Most other series do a lot more to protect drivers.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by turfer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I certainly hope that SCCA won't require an SFI sticker or stamp on HANS devices for those of us who already own one. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I find it hard to believe that SCCA Club Racing (not talking about SCCA Pro Racing here) would do that. Even while SCCA Pro was requiring H&N restraints (might have only been HANS, don't now recall), SCCA Club had not followed suit. Seems to me that on some things, they are very separate entities (actually most things it seems).

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by turfer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I certainly hope that SCCA won't require an SFI sticker or stamp on HANS devices for those of us who already own one. </TD></TR></TABLE>
I believe you can contact HANS and send your unit to be inspected so you get SFI sticker. ICBW.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I am not surprised by this NASCAR announcement. With the limited testing data that is available, it quickly becomes obvious that the only two choices for serious protection are the HANS and Isaac devices

I assume the SFI testing costs are born by the mfg of the devices. Anyone hazard a guess on how much the testing would cost?

Rick</TD></TR></TABLE>

I don't think ISAAC device pass SFI test (yet).

 

This is the other device that pass SFI
http://www.lfttech.com/

I don't know how comfortable is it for your back to sit on one of those thing.

 

One drawback of nylon web head/neck restraints like Hutchens, according to Dr. Melvin, is that they must be worn uncomfortably tight to be even marginally effective. HANS and ISAAC seem relatively idiot proof.

I've noticed several NASCAR users climbing in and out out of their cars with the web devices hangling loosely. Once the slack is taken up and the webbing stretches in a crash, the driver's chin is slamming into his sternum!

Perhaps the sanctioning body felt it was time to require a proven device.

I wonder if ISAAC has plans to get SFI certification?

 

Gregg Baker posted at improvedtouring.com about this issue. It's a challenge for them, given the specific nature of the SFI test.

The interesting thing about the foundation's approach to certification is that a spec (like their suit specs) are not a minimum performance standard. They are a yes/no test against a specific standard in a very regimented test. For example, when the suit manufacturer I worked with submitted samples, each different COLOR of NomexIII was a different test - with its associated fee.

I think Gregg said that they have more than 40 different configurations so they'd be in a pickle just on that fact alone.

K

 

Kirk,

isn't it more of a testament that the HANS passed SFI test even with all different tests?

I find it ISAAC comment is just an excuse or trying to discredit SFI. IMHO, we don't know enough to discredit them. Obviously people that know more about them like NASCAR and FIA now only allow HANS.

 

Sorry - no, it is not. I have to go to work right now but I do know enough about Arnie Kuhns' SFI "Foundation" works from my time with a suit manufacturer - not to discredit them as such, but to know that the situation is a heck of a lot more complex than "Passed the test, must be best."

Think about it this way - when you were in school, did you ever do poorly on a test and leave feeling like it wasn't fair? Stuff on there that you weren't told would be? Poorly written items made it hard to know what the right answer should be, even though you knew the stuff? Complicated concepts turned into lame multiple choice items where you had to choose the "best" of several responses, any of which were technically correct?

The SFI situation is like knowing everything there is to know about the influences on, political and cultural effects of, and historical context surrounding WWII and facing a pass/fail test asking what day of the week the first airplane was downed during the Battle of Leyte Gulf. A test that costs you a lot of money to take, by the way, and the results of which may limit or enable the prospects of you making any money.

I'll check in later on this with some expansion of my point.

K

 

but since the Hutchens...
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Charlotte Observer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">failed to meet minimum standards during testing by SFI Foundation Inc</TD></TR></TABLE>
How are we to know what the maximium standards are and if the HANS passed them?
Why were the ISAAC and LFT TECH restraints not tested when NASCAR had the test? Did NASCAR not want them tested?

If the SFI rating system has a flaw... that would be quite a shame.

 

The system isn't "flawed" per se but we had better understand what it is...

The SFI Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation that fills a niche that keeps them gainfully employed and gives the sanctioning bodies and manufacturers some protection from legal exposure. They provide testing and tags for products that have passed their tests. They charge money for both.

They define a specific test for any given product, using a particular apparatus and applying particular protocols, and - agian - they sell you the testing service. A "pass" or "fail" is determined only by whether or not the sample product passes that very test, or more specifically, the threshold performance while undergoing that test.

For example, if you want to start a business making driver suits and you want SFI approval, you have provide a sample sandwich of cloth and a check to SFI. They test it against their thermal resistance standard and it either passes or it doesn't. If it does, you then have to build your suits ONLY to that spec - down to the COLOR OF NOMEX - and you are granted the opportunity to buy the label to put in that suit.

If you wonder why gray-market Sparcos that aren't SFI approved can be sold less expensively in the US, it's because they pass the cost ot the tag on to the customer, even if the suit is otherwise identical.

Another example: A simple two-layer suit from the folks that made mine (Design 500 in Seattle) has an SFI 3.2a/5 certification. My custom suit has a layer of NomexIII, one of PBI/Kevlar, one of Nomex batting, and a 4-oz. Nomex lining to hold it all together - probably six times the thermal protection - but it doesn't qualify for that same rating even though it clearly exceeds what we might think of as the "minimum defined by a two-layer suit." It never got tested.

Looking at H&N systems, the standard does NOT provide a minimum deceleration or some other figure that is generalizable - for which a test can be replicated elsewhere. I don't know all of the details but the Isaac has demonstrated excellent performance on the same sled used for a lot of testing of similar systems. The SFI test uses a different sled so the figures don't do them any good where approval is concerned.

In addition - remember the color comment above? - the Isaac comes in a bunch of different configurations. Like 40+. Each would have to be tested and approved individually. For me to get the "enduro-spec" pins in mine and still be SFI certified, Isaac would have to write another check to SFI.

At the end of the day, this system does keep a lot of people happy. The sanctioning bodies agree arbitrarily that safety equipment must meet SFI spec (so they have a defensible position in the face of a suit). They've deferred specification of the standard so it ain't their fault if someone gets hurt, as long as they enforce the "standard." For its part, SFI can say that the manufacturers endorse the certification because they buy into it. The manufacturers can put up their hands and say, "Hey - we met the standard."

If you knew exactly what questions were on a history test, would you read the entire book? SFI specifies for example precisely where a helmet is going to get hit, and with what shape hammer. I've had people who should have known tell me that Simpson redesigned its helmets in the '80s specifically to lighten them as much as possible (read their old ads about why they thought this was important), while making very sure that they didn't weaken the test points. Did that make helmets safer in the real world?

NASCAR decides what devices it is going to accept. It can take anything, anything with SFI tags, or only one option. NASCAR didn't run the H&N test - SFI did. Isaac hasn't had their units tested - I presume - because they don't want to at this point in time. I can't speak for them (I'm merely a customer) but I can imagine lots of reasons that they could decide that this was the best action at this time. All they need to do is start writing checks and they can get in the game, because of another reality of the SFI system - they sure as heck don't want to set a standard that is too high. They'd hurt their revenue stream if manufacturers didn't pass and buy those tags.

K


Modified by Knestis at 2:44 PM 1/6/2005

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Andrie &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">...I find it ISAAC comment is just an excuse or trying to discredit SFI. IMHO, we don't know enough to discredit them....</TD></TR></TABLE>

I suppose someone could read it that way Andrie, but it was our intention to let SFI--and others--know that they blew it with the Spec. If you read it you would see it is flawed. I mean, really--the manufacturer doesn't have to submit all test data? You can have 99 crash sled failures, one success and get certified? C'mon.

Kirk did an excellent job of explaining how SFI works, and there is nothing I can add. A standard is a good idea, but this isn't the one. The part about a minimum head load reduction of 67% is good. The rest of it is of no value, and potentially dangerous.

All this is costing drivers. A good example is the R3 device: Price before SFI certification? $700; price after SFI certification? $895.

The SFI Spec will get better, it's just sad to see it have to cover such a distance.

 

Gregg,

I have seen this asked, but I don't remember seeing the answer:

What are the chances that I will not be allowed to wear my Isaac at SCCA club races?

 

I believe we are safe with the ISAAC through the 2005 season for sure. There may be changes for 2006? At least, that's what I hear.