Landracing Forum
Tech Information => Technical Discussion => Topic started by: Bob Ragsdale on December 10, 2008, 10:31:15 AM
-
Dan W.
Can you answere this question for me? What do you think the comp. committee would think of the D. Cell device, sold by Speedway and others? Simpson or Diest also sell a similar device. They are not SFI certified however when adjusted properly they offer good protection of fore and aft head movement. They are recommended for Sprint type car use, as you know Sprint cars crash a lot. I work tech at the local circle track, several sprint drivers use this device with no neg. results. It has a advantage over other devices not relying on race car shoulder harness as it has its own harness. I have used one of these since John Beckett crash and feel its a good system.
-
Bob,
The rule states that the restraint has to be "engineered and tested TYPE 38.1 spec". I believe the types you mention would be OK.
Again, I am no longer involved with rules. Send an email to:
rulebookinfo@scta-bni.org
DW
-
I, too have purchased a D-cel system. I bought it from Simpson, and the person on the phone assured me that it was 38.1 compliant. It works good and is not restrictive to exiting the car. After purchasing the harness from Simpson, I had to send my new helmet back to Simpson for retrofitting the cable attachments to the helmet so that there was a place to hook the restraint hooks. The system is made by Safety Solutions and they were the people involved in developing the 38.1 testing that is used for head and restraint systems. In researching the dealers for Safety Solutions I found one of their dealers shows the D-cel as 38.1 compliant, but can find no other reference to it. An e-mail to Safety Solutions has not been answered, and Simpson said they will get back to me when they hear from Safety Solutions. Simpson says that they have had no contact from SCTA regarding the matter, so I guess we will be in the dark for a while. Hope I don't have to spend another $1000 for a new system that hasn't been proven in multiple crash scenarios that you are likely to be involved in on the Salt. I think the D-cel has proven itself in Sprintcar Racing. Doug :?
-
http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,5122.0.html
The head restraint should function as part of an overall system that includes a seat with effective lateral head support.
-
No s!!
Do you have a rulebook other than 1974? Have you even read a current rulebook or does your way back machine dial stop at 1974?
DW
-
No s!!
Do you have a rulebook other than 1974? Have you even read a current rulebook or does your way back machine dial stop at 1974?
DW
The guy who crashed the red sports car at Speedweek this year, according to Fred Dannenfelzer, had no lateral head support above the center line of the helmet. As obvious from the design of the state of the art dragster and stock seats, this is not what engineers and scientists regard as effective lateral head support.
-
........Again, I am no longer involved with rules. Send an email to:
rulebookinfo@scta-bni.org
DW
I guess we forget that. I sent an e-mail..............
http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,5098.30.html
Sum
-
Once again you are wrong.
The letter from Keith Copeland, you really should know the players - get a program, which was read at last Friday's board meeting stressed the fact that the R3 device he was wearing saved his life. Check with your source, he was in attendance, you weren't.
This letter is what spurred the modifications to the rules this past weekend.
DW
-
He also had a real race seat with the side head supports. It did it's job as well.
-
Once again you are wrong.
The letter from Keith Copeland, you really should know the players - get a program, which was read at last Friday's board meeting stressed the fact that the R3 device he was wearing saved his life. Check with your source, he was in attendance, you weren't.
This letter is what spurred the modifications to the rules this past weekend.
DW
If a head restraint system in and of itself was adequate, the dragster and stock seats shown in the other thread would not be designed the way they are. These seats cocoon the head to provide lateral head support because head restraint systems by themselves are inadequate to this task.
-
Once again you are wrong.
The letter from Keith Copeland, you really should know the players - get a program, which was read at last Friday's board meeting stressed the fact that the R3 device he was wearing saved his life. Check with your source, he was in attendance, you weren't.
This letter is what spurred the modifications to the rules this past weekend.
DW
If a head restraint system in and of itself was adequate, the dragster and stock seats shown in the other thread would not be designed the way they are. These seats cocoon the head to provide lateral head support because head restraint systems by themselves are inadequate to this task.
You really, really need to get a rule book and read it before you start posting.
-
Once again you are wrong.
The letter from Keith Copeland, you really should know the players - get a program, which was read at last Friday's board meeting stressed the fact that the R3 device he was wearing saved his life. Check with your source, he was in attendance, you weren't.
This letter is what spurred the modifications to the rules this past weekend.
DW
If a head restraint system in and of itself was adequate, the dragster and stock seats shown in the other thread would not be designed the way they are. These seats cocoon the head to provide lateral head support because head restraint systems by themselves are inadequate to this task.
You really, really need to get a rule book and read it before you start posting.
I've REALLY REALLY seen what gets past tech inspection.
http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,5122.0.html
Nothing REMOTELY resembling what constitutes effective lateral head support was visible in the rollcage of that red sportscar.
-
Once again you are wrong.
The letter from Keith Copeland, you really should know the players - get a program, which was read at last Friday's board meeting stressed the fact that the R3 device he was wearing saved his life. Check with your source, he was in attendance, you weren't.
This letter is what spurred the modifications to the rules this past weekend.
DW
If a head restraint system in and of itself was adequate, the dragster and stock seats shown in the other thread would not be designed the way they are. These seats cocoon the head to provide lateral head support because head restraint systems by themselves are inadequate to this task.
You really, really need to get a rule book and read it before you start posting.
I've REALLY REALLY seen what gets past tech inspection.
That's a very dangerous comment to be making. We all know the rules and regs as they stand now and a simple email to the appropriate people clarifies any potential areas of difficulty with said rules and reg.
You seem to be suggesting in your reply that the inspectors allow sub standard safety equipment to pass tech......as if they would ever compromise our safety.
Anyway, back on topic. I have recently been emailing Dan Wright to clarify on seat safety and he was very definite on what is an acceptable MINIMUM standard and the seats and restraining systems are certainly up to the standards of all other motorsports, in some cases exceeding them by a country mile.
Bob, is there a link I can look at a D-cell device in as that sounds like exactly the sort of system I want for the MG.
-
Once again you are wrong.
The letter from Keith Copeland, you really should know the players - get a program, which was read at last Friday's board meeting stressed the fact that the R3 device he was wearing saved his life. Check with your source, he was in attendance, you weren't.
This letter is what spurred the modifications to the rules this past weekend.
DW
If a head restraint system in and of itself was adequate, the dragster and stock seats shown in the other thread would not be designed the way they are. These seats cocoon the head to provide lateral head support because head restraint systems by themselves are inadequate to this task.
You really, really need to get a rule book and read it before you start posting.
I've REALLY REALLY seen what gets past tech inspection.
That's a very dangerous comment to be making. We all know the rules and regs as they stand now and a simple email to the appropriate people clarifies any potential areas of difficulty with said rules and reg.
You seem to be suggesting in your reply that the inspectors allow sub standard safety equipment to pass tech......as if they would ever compromise our safety.
Anyway, back on topic. I have recently been emailing Dan Wright to clarify on seat safety and he was very definite on what is an acceptable MINIMUM standard and the seats and restraining systems are certainly up to the standards of all other motorsports, in some cases exceeding them by a country mile.
Bob, is there a link I can look at a D-cell device in as that sounds like exactly the sort of system I want for the MG.
In the attached photos I can see past the driver's head out the back of the rollcage. In such a wide rollcage, how does THAT count as effective lateral head support?
-
In the bottom picture it looks like he has some sort of padding near his left cheek, if it is then there is probably another one on the opposite side. Can't tell for sure if it is padding but it could be, also if it is it is too low for sure. Padding like that should be centerling with the eyes. :?
-
Here is the only site that I found any reference to 38.1 for the D-cel which I was searching for. They call it in their site: Hutchens I Device. and reference the 38.1 spec. www.cp-racing.com . I searched for the Safety Solutions D-cel. Simpson said that theirs were made by Safety Solutions. [I am still awaiting a call-back from both Simpson and Safety Solutions. I'll pass on anything that I find from either. Doug
-
Here is the only site that I found any reference to 38.1 for the D-cel which I was searching for. They call it in their site: Hutchens I Device. and reference the 38.1 spec. www.cp-racing.com . I searched for the Safety Solutions D-cel. Simpson said that theirs were made by Safety Solutions. [I am still awaiting a call-back from both Simpson and Safety Solutions. I'll pass on anything that I find from either. Doug
Thank you, that's appreciated. 8-)
-
I've just recieved my D-cell head restraint system. It has no SFI tag. I did not expect one. It is dated. Looking forward to trying it out in the car.I'm stripping the lakester down for paint now. It looks like a good system to me and a practical one for my application. I bought this for it's design not it's price. Hutchens has another that is cheaper and would probably do the job just as well except it looked like the D-cell might allow for a smoother, quicker exit. I'm going to feel safer in this set up than any I've seen. That why I bought it.
Hitz