H&N Support Devices

[wedge]

I've been seeing a lot of discussions on other forums lately, regarding various Head and Neck supports. Since's there's an increasing number of SPDA guys starting up in rally, and road racing, and such, I figured I'd start a topic here.

With all the great technology going into modern helmets, and rollcages, and other safety devices. The number one critical racing injuries are neck injuries. Which is why these devices are becoming more important, and becoming required in just about every major motorsport.

Rally America has announced that starting in 2008, H&N Devices will be mandatory. The word on the street is that CARS will follow suit (actually, it's been speculated that CARS could still mandate them for '07 if they wanted). So, I've done a lot of research on this topic in the past week. Before I started I had no idea that there was anything else available besides the HANS device. When I found out the HANS has a $1200 price tag, that's when I started researching alternatives. :-o

The HANS device is definately the most well known, and the most popular, www.hansdevice.com. It is required for F1, WRC, and NASCAR. It seems to provide the best protection in a frontal impact. However, it is somewhat poor in a side impact. And also, apparently it is notorious for the shoulder belts slipping off the sides of it, rendering it completely ineffective. Since it's rallying that I do, I'd prefer a device with better lateral protection (refer to my Defi crash).

On the CASC-OR board, there is some discussoin about the ISAAC Device. This one seems to have the best performance numbers of any of the available devices. However, due to it's design, it is not capable of passing SFI certification. Since Rally America has said that only H&N devices with SFI cert. will be allowed, and I can only assume CARS will rule the same way. That effectively makes the ISAAC useless, no matter how safe it is. So it's not an option unfortunately.

There are 3 different devices all made by the same company: The Hutchens, Hutchens Hybrid, and the R3, www.hutchensdevice.com. These ones get nothing but rave reviews. Unlike the HANS, and the ISAAC, these ones do not rely on the shoulder belts to work. Instead, they have a solid piece that runs down your back, along your spine, and have muliple straps that go around your chest and waist and shoulders. These are definately very good, very safe products. However, they are the most complicated and time consuming to put on and off. They also seem to be the most restrictive. Which is all bad for rallying. Since you are often getting in and out of the car, sometimes with the clock still ticking. If I were running any other motorsport, my first choice would either be an R3, or a Hutchens Hybrid.

The newest device available is the Leatt Brace, www.leatt-brace.com. It is a completely different design than all the others. Every other device either uses the shoulder straps, or your own body to brace itself, then attaches to your helmet via a set of tethers. The Leatt Brace however, does not. It is more like a very technically advanced neck collar. It was originally designed for motocross riders, and they have just recently released a new model for automobiles. This is the one that I am most inclined to choose. It has many advantages, particularly for rallying. It allows more freedom of movement than any other design. It has MUCH better lateral protection than the HANS. It is also the cheapest by a large margin. This would be a no-brainer choice for me, except for one thing: Out of all the SFI certified devices, this one scored the worst for Neck Tension. It is still well within the safety margin to pass certification and prevent injury, however all the other devices scored twice as good in that one category. And that seems to be the most important category also... :-(


Has anyone else done any looking into any of these devices? Have any thoughts or opinions?

[STeveD]

Thanks for the research, Matt!

I'm thinking more and more about safety and planning for a wreck. ;-) Being that I'm stuck at the moment with a street car, anything that requres shoulder belts,

It sounds like the Hutchens Hybrid, R3 or Leatt-brace.

Another key safety factor recommended to me is a race seat with wrap-around head protection to limit lateral movement in an accident. You'll notice that most drivers are using them now, and it's only a small price increase over normal race seats.

[wedge]

STeveD wrote:
Another key safety factor recommended to me is a race seat with wrap-around head protection to limit lateral movement in an accident. You'll notice that most drivers are using them now, and it's only a small price increase over normal race seats.

I think if you're wearing any of these devices, lateral movement should be limited enough already. Probably the largest benefit of a wrap-around seat is that it helps prevent any foreign objects fromt hitting you in the head.

[wedge]

Oh, and one other thing I forgot to mention.

Because most of these devices are tethered to your helmet. They require your helmet to be modified in order to be installed. This is pretty questionable, some people raise concerns that drilling a hole in your helmet invalidates any safety certification it may have. Many helmets are now available with HANS posts from the factory. I have not seen any helmets with factory attachments for any other H&N device.
This is another advantage for the Leatt, since it does not attach to your helmet in this way, it requires no helmet modification.

[Navigator]

Matt, I did alot of reading earlier this year about the same subject. My conclusion at that time was that each system had is benifits and disadvantages. I have been waiting for something better then the hans and although the Leatt Brace may not score as high, it seems like a better all around product. I will be doing more research on this soon. Great topic by the way.

[wedge]

Here's an eye opening video to watch. This was the Silver STI driven by Robert Jekoz at Tall Pines this year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNeamTQywV4

Watch it right to the end. You can hear he's in agony while still in the car, and see him holding his lower back after he gets out. That's clearly a compression injury. He's okay now, for anyone that's concerned. But something like that could have been prevented, or at least improved.
From the performance graphs I've seen, the Leatt-Brace is the best at preventing compression injuries just like that. That sort of compression force is rare in other motorsports. But with all the jumps in rallying, even if you do land on the road, it can still sometimes be hard enough to cause something like that.
Yup, the more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards the Leatt...

Matt - How long was he injured for? That video is a real eye opener! Seems as though he clipped a high spot on the left side of the road and that flipped him due to his high speed! Dangerous spot IMO.

[RyanHuber]

He went to the hospital after they DNF'ed the rally, but he'd been walking around for quite a while before that. I don't think any kind of H&N device would have helped him there. He hit that rock almost directly under his seat, the entire weight of his upper body compacted straight down his spine. Not much you can do there.

As for that spot, it is a very dangerous corner. Thus why it's a double caution in the routebook, has caution arrows on the crest, etc. In past years that rock took out multiple cars. The co-driver was clearly behind in the notes (he's calling right deceptive as they're in the air) and the driver was clearly over-driving the car and didn't slow down when the codriver got off book and didn't slow down when he saw the caution arrows, which are only present at double or triple cautions.

[wedge]

WRX_STI wrote:
Matt - How long was he injured for? That video is a real eye opener! Seems as though he clipped a high spot on the left side of the road and that flipped him due to his high speed! Dangerous spot IMO.

I don't know how long it took for him to recover. But his codriver reported in, that they are both fine, and the car suffer mostly just cosmetic damage.

That jump/turn became infamous in 2004. It took a lot of cars out of the race that year. This crew wasn't aware of that however...
In a fast car, that's a pretty big jump. But then the road turns slightly while you are airborn. So you become completely helpless as you watch the road turn from under you. He landed the nose/front skidplate at ~140km/h on a big rock. The result is an incredibly jarring impact. They didn't flip, they sort of bounced off the rock, and back across the road.

wedge wrote:


WRX_STI wrote:
Matt - How long was he injured for? That video is a real eye opener! Seems as though he clipped a high spot on the left side of the road and that flipped him due to his high speed! Dangerous spot IMO.

I don't know how long it took for him to recover. But his codriver reported in, that they are both fine, and the car suffer mostly just cosmetic damage.

That jump/turn became infamous in 2004. It took a lot of cars out of the race that year. This crew wasn't aware of that however...
In a fast car, that's a pretty big jump. But then the road turns slightly while you are airborn. So you become completely helpless as you watch the road turn from under you. He landed the nose/front skidplate at ~140km/h on a big rock. The result is an incredibly jarring impact. They didn't flip, they sort of bounced off the rock, and back across the road.

It looked as though he flipped onto his side after he hit the rock, and then fell back on all fours. He MUST have been 2 wheelin' it for a bit.

Cosmetic damage? I think he must have understated the damage. The undercarriage must have taken a beating (unless the wheels and shocks took all of the impact), and he had smoke coming out of his hood.

If there is a slight turn after the jump, my mind would tell me to take it easy at that section (hence the double caution and signs posted all over)

All in all, I'm glad they are healthy and ready to race again!

[wedge]

RyanHuber wrote:
I don't think any kind of H&N device would have helped him there.

It's impossible to know just how much of an improvement an H&N would have had. But I think it would have helped, certainly it would be better than nothing. A conventional H&N, like a HANS would certainly have done little or nothing. Because the tethers only tighten when the head moves forward, or to the side. When the head is pushed down, the tethers do nothing.
This is a quote from Leatt's website as something it protects against:

Axial loading: compression of the spinal column due to the effect of force on the helmet
In that sort of impact, the spine gets sandwitched in between your butt and your head. It's the force of your head/helmet pushing down that causes the injury. The Leatt brace spreads out the weight of your head, instead of pushing straight down onto the spine, it's spread onto a wider area.

[wedge]

WRX_STI wrote:

Cosmetic damage? I think he must have understated the damage.

Don't quote me on that! That's what his codriver posted on specialstage :-D

You just have to realize that there's a lot of damage rally guys consider "cosmetic", that most normal people would scrap a car due to. ;-)

He probably wrecked the front bumper, and cracked the rad, and will need to hammer the floor straight again... my guess is that's about it.

[STeveD]

WRX_STI wrote:

Cosmetic damage? I think he must have understated the damage.

I think the steam was just water that hit the rad or engine on impact. Broken rads create a lot more steam than that.

STeveD wrote:


WRX_STI wrote:

Cosmetic damage? I think he must have understated the damage.

I think the steam was just water that hit the rad or engine on impact. Broken rads create a lot more steam than that.

You're probobly right. I don't know if you noticed or not, but he also lost his lightbar and lights when he landed! That was a very serious impact that looked like it wasn't as bad as it was.

[wedge]

Navigator wrote:
Matt, I did alot of reading earlier this year about the same subject. My conclusion at that time was that each system had is benifits and disadvantages. I have been waiting for something better then the hans and although the Leatt Brace may not score as high, it seems like a better all around product. I will be doing more research on this soon. Great topic by the way.

I just had a thought, the Leatt Brace might not be good for co-drivers. The 'front upper member' sticks out from your chest, and might get in the way of your trying to read the notes. But you'd have to try one on to know that for sure.

[STeveD]

FYI: HANS approached Fourstar about handling their sales in the rally world for NE US and SE Canada last week. Obviously HANS is strict about vendors "low-balling safety", so no vendor can discount prices much at all. But, there will be local support with rally experience.

[wedge]

Just thought I'd give an update. My research has been ongoing. I've actually been in communication with the manufacturer's of these devices, and some have been extremely helpful.
So far, I've been speaking with Trevor Ashline, inventor of the Hutchens devices, and the R3. I've also been in contact with Karl Ebel, president of the Leatt company, and his cheif engineer.
They are all glad to be of help. I've asked some imformed questions, and received very detailed answers. I really appreciate their effort.
The HANS company responded to my first email, with a one-liner response, refusing to answer.
The ISAAC company so far has not responded at all.

One very interesting thing that I've picked up on, is the criteria, and testing procedure behind FIA-approved H&N Restraints. I knew that HANS was the only device with FIA approval, but I've only recently learned why. In fact, it has nothing to do with the safety provided to the user. The reason, is that the FIA has designed several testing apparatus, which the device must fit into to be tested. These apparatus were designed specifically to test the HANS. Unfortunately, no other device is the same shape as the HANS, so no other device is even capable of being tested for FIA approval. Until their rules change (if their rules change), there can never be any device with FIA approval, except for the HANS.

SFI testing procedures however, are much more universal. They measure the forces applied to the wearer's neck during a 70g impact (that is a huge impact!). To put it in very simple terms, the measured results must be below the level where injury can occur. This is a very strict testing procedure, there are only 5 devices that have passed, and many more that have failed.

[craigS]

You can contact Gregg Baker of ISAAC on Rennlist.com . There's a ton of good (and bad) safety info in the threads there as well. Note that much of it may not be applicable to Subies (or most rally cars).

The best source of research is, well, reading the (peer-reviewed) research. Most of the manufacturers have published papers in SAE journals, or made presentations at conferences.

As for SFI, I have little faith in them. They do absolutely zero compliance testing, so as far as I'm concerned, an SFI sticker stands for squat just for that reason. It also seems like if they don't want to pass a manufacturer's H & N restraint - particularly if the manufacturer isn't a member of SFI - then the SFI standard is seemingly revised just enough to exclude that product. Coincidence? ...

As for HANS pricing, everybody has to advertise the same price. Actually paying that price is an entirely different matter ... :-D

[wedge]

They do absolutely zero compliance testing

I'm not sure what you mean by that...


It also seems like if they don't want to pass a manufacturer's H & N restraint - particularly if the manufacturer isn't a member of SFI - then the SFI standard is seemingly revised just enough to exclude that product. Coincidence? ...

SFI standard 38.1 for head and neck restraints has never been revised since its creation. I've seen that there's a lot of people who feel there is a conspiracy behind that standard. For example, the fact that the G-Force SRS failed by just 10N. But that truely is a coincidence. When Neck Tension is >4000N, that is the point where injury can occur. That number is an international safety standard, it was not determined by the SFI. G-Force scored 4010N, therefore it simply doesn't provide effective protection. No conspiracy there, just facts.
Some people feel the Isaac is unfairly excluded also. It meets all the safety standards, but fails because it does not have a single point of release. That particular rule might be questionable, but personally I agree with it.
This standard certainly isn't perfect, mainly because the technology is new and everyone is still learning. In any case, between the current FIA and SFI standards for head and neck restraints. I still think SFI does a better job.
Since no sanctioning body has the ability to allow or disallow products on a case-by-case basis. They must rely on one of the existing standards.

[craigS]

wedge wrote:

They do absolutely zero compliance testing

I'm not sure what you mean by that...

",,, to randomly select test samples from the marketplace and test them to the minimum performance requirements of the applicable standard..."
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/comply/Mission/1_ovsc_1.html

FIA does it.
Snell does it.

No compliance testing means that the design passed the standard. Compliance testing makes it possible to calculate the odds that what I actually buy will meet the standard.

Although Snell doesn't publicize failures (AFAIK, last time I looked), the FIA does - and models from respected manufacturers have had their certification lifted. No compliance testing means that would never happen.

Please note that I am not saying the manufacturers in question deliberately did this. However, I do find it very comforting that someone is watching. I don't get that feeling with SFI.

As for gForce and ISAAC - you are right, the facts that you state are indisputable. The differences are in the timeline of events and in analysis.

Good luck with your search, I am very interested in what restraint you end up with!

[wedge]

Copied and pasted from SFI 38.1:


9.0 PERIODIC REVALIDATION
Test reports with successful test results must be submitted to SFI at least once every 12 month period following the date of the initial design validation test for each model of Head and Neck Restraint System manufactured by the participant. If multiple test reports are required to obtain all test results, then the earliest test date shall be used to determine when the periodic revalidation reports are due. Also, SFI shall retain the option to conduct random audit reviews. SFI shall purchase the product on a commercial basis and test for compliance to the specification. The submitting manufacturer shall reimburse SFI for all audit costs.

10.0 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Upon demonstration of successful compliance with all the requirements of the specification and the self-certification program and upon entering the licensing agreement with SFI, the manufacturer may advertise, present and offer the Head and Neck Restraint System for sale with the representation that their product meets the SFI Specification 38.1. Continuing certification is contingent upon the following additional considerations: (1) the product shall be resubmitted for testing following any change in design, materials and/or methods of manufacturing not specifically excluded, and (2) periodic revalidation test reports are submitted when due to SFI.

SFI claims they will purchase the product and re-test it periodically. Whether they actually do that or not... I have no idea. But I would think the threat of it would be enough to keep most manufacturers in check.
Devices must also be recertified after any changes in design. How well that is enforced, I have no idea.



I am very interested in what restraint you end up with!

Me too! :-? It turns out, we might have no say in the matter afterall...

[wedge]

Here's a quote which I completely agree with. Particularly the part in bold.


Quoted from: http://www.catchfence.com/html/2005/mt111005.html

... It struck me that a SFI certification is valuable to a degree, but, that it's not truly a performance measure. It is, in fact, an endorsement, but, it's an endorsment that a particular piece of safety equipment will do a particular thing under a particular set of test conditions."

"So, it struck me that the defined test protocol was wonderful in terms of repeatability, but, SFI tests are so narrowly defined to be repeatable, that the point becomes passing the tests at, potentially, the expense of performance out in the real world under real conditions. The simple fact of the matter is, an auto racing incident is a massively complex situation. The kind of crash, for example, that I might be involved in in my racing car on a road course is going to be very different than the kind of incident I might be involved in in that same exact car at a performance rally out in the woods."

In order to understand how this applies to head and neck restraints. It is nessesary for you to understand what forces are applied to the neck in a crash.

First, there is Neck Tension, and Compression. These are vertical forces. Tension is the force pulling the head upward (this is the primary cause of basal skull fractures). Compression is the opposite, it is a vertical downward force. These two forces are measured in Newtons.
Second, there is Neck Flexion, and Extension. These are known as Bending Moments, and they are measured in Newton-meters (Torque). Flexion is the amount of force trying to bend the neck straight forward. Extension is the force trying to bend the neck straight backward.
There are many other forces involved, but these are the most likely causes of neck injury.

Now, if you're thinking, you might ask the question: "But in a frontal car crash, there is no upward force on the neck. So how can Tension be the primary cause of injury?". Good question. It's because Tension, and Flexion work together to cause injury. Picture a zero degree frontal impact. The neck bends forward due to Flexion, now the head is pointing forward, and the force from the impact actually IS pulling the head "upward" and causing Tension on the neck.

So, the idea behind reducing Neck Tension in an impact is pretty simple actually. Just keep the head as upright as possible. Theoretically, it's probably possible to build a device which reduces neck tension almost down to zero. It would be unusable because it would basically involve completely immobilizing the head.

That is basically how the HANS and Hutchens devices work. When the neck bends forward, the tethers limit how far forward the neck can bend. Thus keeping the head relatively upright and reducing tension. The difficult part is to do it without unduely sacrificing mobility under normal circumstances.
These two companies seem to be in fierce competition with each other. It appears to me, that they are trying to reduce Neck Tension at all costs, simply for marketing purposes. The amount of Neck Tension that causes injury is 4000N. Both HANS and Hutchens now have that down to ~1000N. They continue to try to improve that number, simply to outdo each other. But at what cost?

Both HANS, and Hutchens have never released any testing results which show any data except for Neck Tension.
Go back to the bolded quote above. That's exactly what I feel is happening here. These guys seem to be trying to improve test results, while possibly sacrificing real world performance.
I do have evidence of this, but I won't post it publicly.


So, if I had to make a choice right now. I would definately choose the Leatt Brace. So far, they are the only company who has enough confidence in their product to publicly post a complete set of test results (http://www.leatt-brace.com/av/r_0_b.jpg). Their neck tension results are not as low as their competition. But it is still well within the margin of safety. They have stated that if they wanted to reduce that number further, they could have, but it would sacrifice performance in other areas.
I believe the Leatt Brace has the best real world performance, in any/all types of impact. Not to mention the various other smaller advantages over its competitors.


Quoted from: Leatt Brace website
The Leatt-Brace™ not only limits neck tension, but reduces other neck forces too.


Quoted from Karl Ebel:
May it be known that our intention was never to have the lowest Fz (tension) otherwise our test results would have shown this. Quite the contrary, our company's philosophy has always been to provide the "Gold Standard" for neck protection, which means the best protection for the head and neck in all impact cases, catering for all forms of motorsport with the least restriction to the user.

Complete quote here. (http://www.specialstage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24747&page=4)

[wedge]

Here's something VERY interesting that I just found out! I wish I'd known this a year ago, it could really have influenced my picks in the WRC pool.

Seb Loeb did not drive for a factory team in 2006. Which meant he was not required to wear a HANS device. It turns out he chose not to wear one during several events.
A good example is Cyprus, a rally known for its very tight and twisty roads. Loeb went without a HANS device for that event and beat Gronholm (who was required to wear a HANS) by 20 seconds.
However, in Finland, where the roads are much straighter, the disadvantage is less. Marcus beat Seb by over a minute.

I just find that very interesting...

[STeveD]

Is that why Subaru is so slow? ;-) Their drivers must be wearing an extra-ginormous big and clumsy HANS.

[Navigator]

Matt, thanks for all the updates. I will have to get a restraint system this year, it seems to be getting tougher to pick though. This thread is gonna get pinned at the top, it has alot of good info.

[wedge]

Looks like the Hutchens Hybrid has been approved for use by NASCAR.
For the past 2 years, the only device they've allowed has been the HANS.

http://www.lfttech.com/prod_images/79.jpg

[Navigator]

July 13, 2007? Why the wait?

[wedge]

There's no exact reason stated anywhere...
But it will be allowed during testing effective immediately. Just not yet during competition. My guess is the delay is to allow all the teams that want to change, to have time to make whatever adaptations to theirs cars are needed, and get used to the new system before trying to compete with it.

[JayC]

Hey Wedge, I don't know if you already have a H&N device but I have a defNder if you (or anyone else) wants to take a look at it.

[Navigator]

I would like to see it JayC, Ill send you a message.

[STeveD]

Is CARS going to recognize SFI 38.1? Last I heard, it was only FIA homologated devices?

[wedge]

I've been bugging several people at CARS for years. There is no way they'll ever accept SFI 38.1.

But the good news is that the FIA is in the process of rewriting their standard. Once that's done, they should be able to accept almost any device which provides adequate protection.
So I'm holding out until then before I make my purchase.

BTW, there's a fantastic magazine article here (http://www.safetysolutionsracing.com/sitefiles/uploads/files/HNR.pdf).
It compares several devices, how easy they are to use, comfort, price, ease of getting in/out of the car, etc. It makes a point of NOT trying to compare safety. Since they are only comparing devices with some kind of approval, so they say each one has already been deemed 'safe'. So the purpose of the article is to find all the differences between each one.

[racecartech]

I have used a HANS all last year on oval tracks. I have a Defender now. I wish they had been available when I bought the HANS. Much more comfortable. Call J C at trackmart to take a look.

[JayC]

wedge wrote:
I've been bugging several people at CARS for years. There is no way they'll ever accept SFI 38.1.


I was talking to someone yesterday and I was told that CARS is a member of SFI and therefore should recognize SFI. Anyone know if they are members or have a link?

[STeveD]

CARS lists only FIA and ASN Canada on the Links page.

http://www.carsrally.ca/CARSRally/Default.aspx?tabid=37

Helmet, harness, roll bar padding all list the FIA standard first.

SFI therefore lists CARS as an "Affiliate" on their website.

[wedge]

Some good news from CARS released today:

<quote>NRR I A.7: Head and Neck Restraints –wording modifications
Rewrite first paragraph: “Each competitor must wear a head and neck restraint system which conforms to FIA standard 8858-2002. It is also strongly recommended (required January 1, 2010) to use homologated tethers that are identified by an FIA 8858-2002 label sewn on them. The head and neck restraint device should be considered as an ensemble which involves the seat, the harnesses, the head and neck restraint unit, its tethers and helmet.”

Insert new 2nd paragraph: “Effective April 1, 2009, competitors may wear the Hutchens Hybrid device, made by Safety Solutions. (This device has been approved for use by CARS based on projected FIA approval of this head and neck restraint device in 2009.)”

Original 2nd paragraph retained as paragraph 3.</quote

[wedge]

After CARS announced they'd be allowing the Hutchins Hybrid, I ordered mine right away. And it just arrived today! Here's a quick review:
First impression is that it's a nice looking unit.

A test fit in the car with the belts tightened down, and you really don't notice the device at all. It's like it becomes part of the seat. At first I thought I felt some pressure down on my shoulders from the c/f, but then I realized I was only feeling my harnesses. It really does just vanish, like it's not even there.

I noticed that SSG sometimes got in the way when trying to close the quick disconnects. Which slowed me down trying to attach everything. But that should improve with practice.

After adjusting the tethers to fit, I could turn my head and have a full field of vision. I could turn far enough to see the B-pillars. I'm glad now to have the SSG, when I tilted my head to the side, that was fully tight before my helmet touched the rollcage (which has been an ongoing problem in my car). I figure those are a decent alternative to having a seat with the side head supports.

So those are my first impressions. My first event with it will be Lanark this weekend. So we'll see how that goes!