H.A.N.S. device, made by DJ Safety

[salt]

For the budget-minded racer:

1 DJ 38-1 DJS-HNS Black medium (40" - 43") Head and Neck Restraint System
(straps long enough for laydown cars) for sale. Comes with all paperwork.
Paid $438.95, two years ago.
SCTA approved.
Only used 1.3 or 5 miles at a time.

$125.00
Will bring to ElMo May Meet.

Thanks,

Willi

(818) 400 1148

[Stainless1]

That is a steal... We use one of those, works great in a laydown.

[Milwaukee Midget]

PM sent.

Hopefully in time . . .

[doug odom]

I"ll take it.   Doug      805-458-0802

[doug odom]

My son in law works in Santa Barbara. I'm in Arroyo Grande just north of Santa Maria. Let me know where we can meet.    Doug

[Milwaukee Midget]

Paypal sent.

Thanks, Bill.

[Bob Drury]

  I realize that this will reign down upon me the wrath of many (including friends), but I cannot for the life of me understand how the SCTA allows a Non-SFI approved head restraint to be legal.
  I have fought the beurocracy (spl)? long and hard over implementation of new rules which I have felt were improper or implemented without proper explanation or direction, and I don't have a issue with support of vendors whom are part of or kin to our sport.
  I  find it unacceptable that we allow a non SFI approved safety product to be used as A APROVED SFI SAFETY DEVICE IF IT IS NOT APPROVED.
  I nave nothing against DJ Safety Products and in fact use their SFI approved Safety Harness, but the bottom line is this:  Is Their Head Restraint SFI approved or not?
  If not, why do the rest of us need to have our Helmets, Seat Belts, Fire Bottles, etc. renewed or replaced periodicaly with little or no use?
  If I misunderstand the rule or rules or if this product now has a SFI rating, I apologize, but if not I would like to know the reason or reasons for the ambiguity of our rules.
                                         With due respect,      Bob Drury.

[Milwaukee Midget]

I can’t speak to the SCTA’s reasoning, but in this particular case, I am grateful that the DJ set-up is permitted.
 
And it has nothing to do with the price I got.

I’m 6’5”, I’m driving a 45” tall door slammer with an 80” wheelbase and a 10 point cage.  When I started this build, helmet restraints were not required, and I proceeded accordingly.  The record I’m running on is 123.  The car weighs 1500 lbs.  The cockpit is confining.

I’m much more concerned about fire than a collision or a roll over.

In my case, the additional bulk of a genuine Hans device makes egress in the event of a fire more difficult.  For my application, weighing the probabilities, I think the DJ system is the safer choice.

Bob, I think your argument about consistency has merit.  If the DJ system were not available to me as an option, I would use the Hans and work a little harder on my egress.  But in my case, the DJ system gives me a degree of confidence about overall survivability that a Hans doesn’t match.

Respectfully submitted,

Chris Conrad

[Bob Drury]

  Chris, my post was not meant as a vendetta nor as a deterent to its use as a safety device.
  A few years back I (along with J.D. and others) bought a device manufactured by G Force Safety who markets several SFI approved products.
  According to their speil, their device exceeded or bettered current (at that time) safety standards for the Hans Device which at that time was the only SFI approved device.
  Well, guess what, they never got SFI approval and we were all stuck with a Turd.
  Is this sour apples?  I think not.
  If you Google under Head Restaints, there are now several Brands which are not only SFI approved, but advertised as "multi-angle".
  The last person I would like to see screwed by the SFI rule would be you Chris, as I have enjoyed following your  trials and tribulations, but at some point the line has to be drawn.
  Are there in fact SFI approved "multi-angle" head restaints available?  If not, why was the Dodge rule written mandating that streamliner type vehicles use a device not currently "USABLE AS MANUFACTUED", which takes me back to my original point of how can the SCTA implement and enforce rules that they do not have a proven product known of at the time .....(think window replacement mandate with no product designated or any studies done on what chemical fumes might be released by heat or fire of any replacement windows).
  As I have stated in many previous threads, I applaud the SCTA/BNI for being very Pro-Active in the safety aspect of our sport but as I have also stated in many previous posts, I cannot agree with several rules they (meaning Us) have enacted in the last five or six years calling for or mandating rule changes without telling the competitor what product meets their acceptable standard or in this case "what good is a SFI Rating if a Non Approved product is allowed)?
                                                                                                  Bob

[salt]

Sold!
Thank you very much, Chris.

Willi

P.S. If someone needs or wants one of those "G-force Safety" restraint systems Bob mentioned, I have one that's new in the box. Guess it could be a "collector's item."
$50.00

[fastman614]

 I realize that this will reign down upon me the wrath of many (including friends), but I cannot for the life of me understand how the SCTA allows a Non-SFI approved head restraint to be legal.
  I have fought the beurocracy (spl)? long and hard over implementation of new rules which I have felt were improper or implemented without proper explanation or direction, and I don't have a issue with support of vendors whom are part of or kin to our sport.
  I  find it unacceptable that we allow a non SFI approved safety product to be used as A APROVED SFI SAFETY DEVICE IF IT IS NOT APPROVED.
  I nave nothing against DJ Safety Products and in fact use their SFI approved Safety Harness, but the bottom line is this:  Is Their Head Restraint SFI approved or not?
  If not, why do the rest of us need to have our Helmets, Seat Belts, Fire Bottles, etc. renewed or replaced periodicaly with little or no use?
  If I misunderstand the rule or rules or if this product now has a SFI rating, I apologize, but if not I would like to know the reason or reasons for the ambiguity of our rules.
                                         With due respect,      Bob Drury.

Bob, I had a lengthy converation with Joe (at DJ Safety) about this very topic.... He showed me a lot of the data that was collected from the testing lab while they were in fact testing his system....There was a "failure" of sorts during the testing.....The testing lab would NOT let Joe extend HIS testing time due to other bookings for their "rocket sleds and crash test dummies"....

When the SCTA (and many of us who bought his system) were shown ALL of the "evidence" as to the worthiness of his system, we were convinced that it WAS in fact a worthy system!....

Suffice it to say that the nature of the failure was NOT anything to do with the system itself!....We use the JD Safety system .... and I put my own brothers, cousins, kids and nephews into our cars with the JD Head & Neck Restraint System!....

[fastman614]

Bob Drury's words alSo were:
I  find it unacceptable that we allow a non SFI approved safety product to be used as A APROVED SFI SAFETY DEVICE IF IT IS NOT APPROVED.

ONE POIGNANT EXAMPLE:
With the use of engines for which there are NO SFI approved scattershields, the SCTA/BNI has, for decades, allowed SCTA approved "other" scattershields.... we use one on our Dodge R5P7 engine for which there is NO ACTUAL SFI approved scattershield made by ANYONE!

I hope my comments clarify this.....

[Buickguy3]

   I, too, have one of the units from back when all of the SFI approvals were pending,[think pending extortion payment]. It is a Simpson harness made by Safety Solutions. I was assured by Simpson that the approval was imminent. It never happened. It would be another cool museum piece. Maybe I can donate it and let the IRS help out a little.
   Doug 

[Bob Drury]

  Sorry Dave, but I don't think "we were convinced" will hold up in a Court of Law....................  Bob 

[Stan Back]

Whatayamean?

"If the device fits, you must acquit."