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

[Bob Drury]

  Stan, Stan, Stan.   No humor allowed...............  I just read that O.J. is back in court saying that his lawyer screwed up.
  Ain't that a Shame.*

*with apologies to Pat Boone (circa 1957?).

[fastman614]

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

You do have a point there.... although the alternative would be a NASCAR or NHRA type of system.... which would, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, relegate most of our race vehicles to the "unsafe" category and, thus, ineligible to run....

...of course, being that I am a Canadian, and therefore more used to the much higher level of proof that Canadian Courts require in liability cases, coupled with the fact that, beyond being allowed to sue for REAL losses, there is NO concept of punitve damage awards, our liability contingenies in Canada are much lower $$$ amounts than you, my American cousins, are faced with having to carry if in business....

[jl222]

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

 Chris...It will be interesting to see if you can get in the Midget [let alone out] with the DJ device.
  I had to be shoved into the 222 Camaro, a very claustrophobic feeling.
 Purchased a Necksgen device which is much smaller with low back and three angle adjustments.
 Only complaint is the pull straps for helmet release are to short, but maybe its been changed on later models.
 The lack of being able to release the hemet straps on the DJ units severely restricted head movement for getting out or in of the SCTA mandated helmet movement support system.
 I sold my DJ device to a roadster guy for $300 which worked OK for him.

     JL222

[jl222]

 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.

  Its good to know I'm not the only one standing up to the SCTA, it feels lonely and disgusting at times.

  When the Hans device was first mandated I filed a rule change to the SCTA and rules change committee.

  My complaint at the time was the high back on the devices at the time would hook and trap the drivers in
cars like the 222 Camaro resulting in DEATH.
  I understand there was a good laugh over that request. BUT has anyone noticed that the manufactures now make the low back design and most if not all Top Fuel and Funny Car use that type?
  I also protested the head support system to front of helmet, which restricts driver exit on coupes [anyone notice that NHRA Pro stock cars are not required them?] WHAT the tire shake is not so severe? Also Lexan windows that have forced retirement of cars and several aborted runs on side windows popping out.

  JL222

[Tman]

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

 Chris...It will be interesting to see if you can get in the Midget [let alone out] with the DJ device.
  I had to be shoved into the 222 Camaro, a very claustrophobic feeling.
 Purchased a Necksgen device which is much smaller with low back and three angle adjustments.
 Only complaint is the pull straps for helmet release are to short, but maybe its been changed on later models.
 The lack of being able to release the hemet straps on the DJ units severely restricted head movement for getting out or in of the SCTA mandated helmet movement support system.
 I sold my DJ device to a roadster guy for $300 which worked OK for him.

     JL222

Necksgen is nice that is why I became a dealer!

[Bob Drury]

  T-man, how many Indians have bought them, and why?
  Ah, I get it, its for the Tourist's straining to look up at Mt. Rushmore!
  Sorry, I couldn't help myself..................

[Tman]

  T-man, how many Indians have bought them, and why?
  Ah, I get it, its for the Tourist's straining to look up at Mt. Rushmore!
  Sorry, I couldn't help myself..................

If you stand on top of my lot you look right at the heads so no straining!

[Stainless1]

Personally I like the device, it is less intrusive than others we tried.  Chris you will like it... Bob, sorry you don't... I suspect it will be approved at some point, but I also hope no one ever tests its effectiveness in real life. 

[Bob Drury]

   Stainless, I never said I didn't like the D.J. restraint, I wouldn't know one if I saw it (actually that's a lie as I looked at their ad).
   I just looked on their site and it appears they are now certified (at least the model shown).
   If I did own one I would call them ASAP and see about returning it for certification tagging.
   In my mind it shouldn't cost you a dime.           
                                                                                             Bob

[Bob Drury]

  Whoa.........  I just went back to their ad and read the fine print on the bottom........... They no longer sell them.

[jdincau]

DJ got cease and desist order from Simpson. DJ's head restraint infringed on Simpsons Hutchens device patent. The device DJ now sells is a NecksGen not one they manufacture.

[Tman]

DJ got cease and desist order from Simpson. DJ's head restraint infringed on Simpsons Hutchens device patent. The device DJ now sells is a NecksGen not one they manufacture.

Lawyers, figures. That is too bad, the DJ was a nice system.

[Bob Drury]

  So the question becomes: Who in the SCTA hierarchy gave the approval to use a uncertified device?  And why?
  I feel sorry for those who were duped but why on Earth would you buy a non-certified restraint without reading the rule book?
  Those of us who had to eat our G-Force restraints faced the same outcome, but that was  before the rule was enacted (we were being Pro-active I guess), and the price was about one/third of a Hans (about a grand back then).                                                     Bob

[jimmy six]

What makes the Neckgen different than a Hans? They sure look alike.

I bought my son an adjustable Hans for his dirt car and he says when the racing starts he doesn't know he has it on and we are going to change to the 2" shoulder safety belts on the next change. I wish the adjustable was availavle when I bought my 30 degree we would only have one instead of 2....

Bob's right I have a nice mint G-Force attachment for my helmet...........

[NathanStewart]

I had not heard that DJ wasn't making his thingy any more... very interesting.  One thing to understand... the DJ thingy isn't "approved" by the SCTA, it's accepted.  The rule was written to allow engineered and tested SFI 38.1 type systems because at the time, there weren't SFI rated devices that would work on all types of vehicles.  This was specifically to allow flexibility in allowing participants to use something that would work as an effective forward head movement restraint device rather than nothing.  The DJ system had in fact been tested by SFI, and failed to meet 38.1 specs, but the data proved that it was very effective as a forward head movement restraint device and that's why it was accepted.

A reminder: the tech and safety rules as printed in the book are the SCTA's minimum standards.  Nothing says you can't go above and beyond the min specs.  Case in point: the new Dannenfelzer streamliner chassis was built from 1.75"od x 3/16" wall tubing but the min spec is 1.625"od x .125" wall.  If you were shooting for 400mph would you build to the min spec or to a higher spec that you know is probably safer?  If you wanted to potentially decrease the chances of getting killed by head/neck trauma sustained in a crash, would you use a SFI rated device or a SFI-type device?

Now that there are more and more devices available and especially ones that can work in laydown type vehicles, we might see the day where ONLY SFI rated devices are allowed.  Bob, you seem to be very concerned with this... instead of wondering who or why or this or that, why don't you submit for a rule change requiring that only SFI 38.1 rated devices be used?