Landracing Forum
Fundraising, For sale, and Wanted => For Sale by Private Parties => Topic started by: salt on May 13, 2013, 07:24:36 PM
-
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
-
That is a steal... We use one of those, works great in a laydown.
-
PM sent.
Hopefully in time . . .
-
I"ll take it. Doug 805-458-0802
-
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
-
Paypal sent.
Thanks, Bill.
-
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.
-
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, 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
-
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
-
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!....
-
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.....
-
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 :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
Sorry Dave, but I don't think "we were convinced" will hold up in a Court of Law.................... Bob :wink:
-
Whatayamean?
"If the device fits, you must acquit."
-
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?).
-
Sorry Dave, but I don't think "we were convinced" will hold up in a Court of Law.................... Bob :wink:
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....
-
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
-
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
-
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! :cheers:
-
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.................. :mrgreen:
-
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.................. :mrgreen:
If you stand on top of my lot you look right at the heads so no straining! :-D
-
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. :cheers:
-
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
-
Whoa......... I just went back to their ad and read the fine print on the bottom........... They no longer sell them.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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...........
-
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?
-
Nathan, because of the prescidence (spl) this apparently sets as for safety products mandated by our Rule Book.
Although the wording in the rulebook does say "testing" and not "Certified", It appears that at no time was the DJ device "certified" and I fail to see how a product that had FAILED certification should have been acceptable.
I am not debating the point that it may or may not be a good product or whether it is better than nothing, but if it in fact was the only product available for use, I feel the Rules Committee should have followed their own rules and allowed a waiver or variation for the Lakester and Streamliner owners, not looking the other way or in escense putting the laydown racers in a position to need to buy a non certified product to be legal.
Are you telling me that these devices are now legal while other non certified products (such as Aria helmets) are not?
Then why should or did many entrants buy $1,000 buck Hans or Safety Solutions (both now Simpson) if we could have bought a $500 buck non certified brand.
I don't want any new Rule changes, I want you guy's to follow the Rules that are already in place. Bob
p.s. The Rule Book says SFI 38.1 Head and Neck Restraint System
-
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...........
It is not rigid and has some flexibility that make fit and movement better.
-
Bob, not to disagree with your point, because I don't, however.....
SCTA Rule Book page 26, 3.A.3 second paragraph.
Forward movement: "All cars and motorcycle streamliners shall have an engineered and tested SFI spec 38.1 type (Bold face by me) head and neck restraint system.
Nathan, because of the prescidence (spl) this apparently sets as for safety products mandated by our Rule Book.
Although the wording in the rulebook does say "testing" and not "Certified", It appears that at no time was the DJ device "certified" and I fail to see how a product that had FAILED certification should have been acceptable.
I am not debating the point that it may or may not be a good product or whether it is better than nothing, but if it in fact was the only product available for use, I feel the Rules Committee should have followed their own rules and allowed a waiver or variation for the Lakester and Streamliner owners, not looking the other way or in escense putting the laydown racers in a position to need to buy a non certified product to be legal.
Are you telling me that these devices are now legal while other non certified products (such as Aria helmets) are not?
Then why should or did many entrants buy $1,000 buck Hans or Safety Solutions (both now Simpson) if we could have bought a $500 buck non certified brand.
I don't want any new Rule changes, I want you guy's to follow the Rules that are already in place. Bob
p.s. The Rule Book says SFI 38.1 Head and Neck Restraint System
-
Okay Dyno, I am not a lawyer so I'll try not to be the Devil's Advocate on this one.
I think that most participants can see my point: let's just be consistant or at least Print A Disclaimer if no Certified product is available to follow any Rule rather than put the onus on the competitor to guess at a solution.
I also think we have a great rulebook, it's just some of the definitions are up to the discretion of the Inspector's and yes, I realize that Page one of our Rule Book states that.
Thanx, Bob Drury
-
Hey Bob, take your meds and stop trying to get the only device that works in small laydown cars declared illegal.
Start working your car, Speedweek is getting closer
-
Hey Bob, take your meds and stop trying to get the only device that works in small laydown cars declared illegal.
Start working your car, Speedweek is getting closer
Lay off him a bit Ss, he only has to get prepared for one run! Although the planning for backwards can be unpredictable!