h/n restraint

[ker]

eventually this will be a discussion.

i use an isaac device and for many reasons (mostly revolving around fire).

here is an intresting video.

Dear Isaac User,

In addition to wishing you a Holiday greeting, we are pleased to announce that the Isaac(r) system was recently successfully crash tested at the Delphi Safety Systems Test Center in Vandalia, Ohio. The test protocol used was the SFI 38.1 specification in the 30 degree offset condition.

A video of this test series is available on our home page at http://www.isaacdirect.com/

Thank you for being Isaac users, and have a happy Holiday season!

Sincerely,
The Pit Crew at Isaac, LLC

[leggwork]

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=5791

interesting hnr discussion.
bruce

[ker]

i read the 6 pages. i know several of the folks involved in the conversation. as i have pointed out in other forums on this subject, i think it unfair that any sanctioning body profit financially without appropriate disclosure (which to my knowledge none have), or a supplier of a particular product not disclose such arrangements (which was not done in the 6 page conversation). some professional santioning bodies (in my opinion) have accepted financial payments for approval and one club sanctioning body (NOT nasa) has taken financial payments to indicate it favors the hans device (none of which have been disclosed when discussing the hns they "approve"). regardless, of which device is best regardless of anything else, to not disclose arrangements that are not third party and at an arms length arrangement is dishonest and misleading. i work in the financial industry and if such arrangements are not disclosed, legal ramifications exist. this seems not the case in this instance. these are my opinons. i will still go with the isaac for the better protection and less chance of getting trapped in a car. after all, it's my neck. please note that my posts always have the isaac link - i am disclosing my preference.

[ker]

btw, i am in the camp that a hns device should be used as long as it is serving the purpose it is designed for. i have many friends who use the hans device and i appluad them for using a hns device period. in most cases, they use the hans because the sanctioning bodies have implied it's the only acceptable device (i disagree) but they wanted to spend the money only once.

so, in this case, (IMO) something is better than nothing. i am not condeming the hans or anyone that chooses it over something else. i just think it patently unfair that one product (because it was the first, and not nessecerily the best) entrench itself (and sanctioning bodies allow it) over any other possibility.