Neck Safety Device Comparison (Page 3 of 6)

I bought my HANS last year and it had the lip.  Hence the "HANS" belts which are 2 inch wide instead of 3 and fit right in the channel.  I did some more research (yes I was bored at work, long story) but unfortunately I could not find an exact date as to when this lip became part of the HANS or if it was always on it or not.  As per HANS both 2 and 3 inch belts are fine with it and were tested to SFI spec.  Also I had seen discussion about the smaller belts to fit in the channel as far back as 2005, thats not to say it was any longer. 

I do agree that with out the lip, I am no scientist but it seems possible.  That said, the source that its coming from (Issac), I think is BS.  Also I am always skeptical when I hear 3rd hand information.  As discussed earlier, we don't know if the person who had these issues didn't tighten their belts all the way or what.  The couple of complaints from people involved in actual accidents that I could find posted online involved people breaking their collar bones, and one guy who said that even though it worked right he still had a brain injury due to his brain bouncing around in his head.  Physics, its a bitch.

No matter what, if one were to buy a new HANS today, they are getting a device with belt channels in it, so the concern is moot.  I believe the Defender has similar channels as well, so that device should not have this concern either.

I still think the belts are too loose in that Issac test, and I still think the company is BS.  Other devices pass the SFI rating and aren't HANS, and the way the guy conducts himself is shady(contradicting himself, jumping on unrelated threads to hawk product, etc), heck having that IMO "set-up" test on their main webpage (which looks like something someone made with HTMLEdit in 6th grade) as a downloadable mpg (because in trying to find their tests on youtube I had found they've all been removed), would make me leery about handing them $895 of racing money for their device.

I know you don't like that device. I don't care about that device. I would encourage all to be skeptical of all parties involved however and not hold a bias for one that you would not apply to the other.

As for the loose belts, did you look at the full speed video? I saw nothing that would indicate the belts were loose.

I saw you mentioned you were a fireman? As such you may spend some time at the scene of accidents and know what sort of forces are involved first hand? I'm an ER nurse and spent two year on a mobile ICU and responded to my share of MVCs and saw the same things. given what I see and hear and take in, I feel my reservations and fears are plausible.

I for one liked the Defender the most as well and can't get one now. It also had a few issues in my eyes but overall I liked the package a lot.

It's going to be difficult to find anyone in the racing industry who comes out and says "We are advising that you do not use Product Y because we have found that it could cause injury".  As I stated before, USAC dropped the requirement for SFI rated head and neck restraints.  Unofficially, this was due to the jump in neck/shoulder injuries that started immediately after they were mandated but no one will ever publically admit it.  So the best that I can do is to show you a comparison of the old and new rules.

2009 USAC Rulebook

http://www.usacracing.com/assets/files/ … LEBOOK.pdf

Section 326.6

"F.      A SFI approved head and neck restraint system is required"

2012 USAC Rulebook

http://www.usacracing.com/assets/files/ … Sprint.pdf

Section 323.7

"A SFI approved head and neck restraint is highly suggested"

I guess you have to ask yourself, why would a sanctioning body relax its rules on a safety item?  I suppose one could suggest that the devices were improperly used but I'm fairly confident that the design of some was a direct cause in some of these shoulder injuries only because of the higher than normal numbers of them.

I offer this up not as an indictment of head and neck  restraints but as a counterpoint to some of the suggestions that Brand X is the only way to go.  If nothing else (and discounting anything that I have contributed), I guarantee that this thread has educated some people and directly caused some people to investigate safety devices more thoroughly.  I see nothing wrong with that.

lips shmips... a couple tiewraps and the shoulder straps aren't going anywhere... *g*

My 2¢ on head & neck restraints:
There are many more impacts in racing that are relatively minor which can (do) result in neck injuries than there are 50g+ splats into things resulting in internal decapitations.
With that in mind, I'd lean toward something that is simple and effective in most situations. (instead of those horse collars that are trying to leaver my head off...)

A good picture showing the size of the lips holding the belts in place:

A pretty thorough review of the Hybrid Rage:

http://www.drivenasacentral.com/forum/s … review....

I wouldn't have ever thought about the different designs tapping against the helmets...but I can totally see that being a major annoyance if they do.

Safety Solutions/Simpson sold a device called the "D-Cel" that was similar to the Hutchens, but without a hard part. It's a harness you wear around your legs and chest. You attach a short wire to two points on each side of the helmet, and short tethers from the front and back of each shoulder attach to each wire using a quick-release clip.

The pros for Lemons are that the design stays with the driver and doesn't rely on any attachments to the car or seatbelts, so it doesn't interfere with driver changes. The multiple attachment points, combined with the fact that it remains attached to the driver means it tends to work better in multiple impact or side/roll-over crashes (supposedly).

The cons are that you WILL notice when you're wearing it, as it anchors to the pelvis (place those straps carefully...). You have to drill into the helmet in four places to mount the wires, and in different places than Hans anchors. Also, since it's all webbing, it technically has a limited lifespan.

It seems like a good solution for someone like me, who wants some form of meaningful protection that's fairly easy to use (just have to cinch-down or "seat" the straps after getting belted-in) but isn't ready to plunk down the money for a Hans etc.

Here is something else for you all to read and debate.  It is written by David Gran from Go Ahead Take the Wheel.  Good read regarding the SFI rating and how the restraints are tested.

http://www.goaheadtakethewheel.com/blog … -politics/

This was the graphic that mentioned the SRS-1:

I think the DefNder is DOA.

R3 is the direction I may go.

Another amazing site:

http://www.trackpedia.com/wiki/Head_and_Neck_Restraints