HANS Question

#31

A. Jones wrote:

Quote:

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:21:40 +1100, "Chad" <cbstun (AT) safemail (DOT) com
wrote:

during a front on accident the seat will decelerate at a very
different rate to the driver and his belts. The idea of the HANS is
to keep head deceleration at the same rate as the body (in
particular the spine).

So the HANS needs to be part of the body/belt "mass" so that it can
match the head deceleration to the body.

If the helmet was just mounted to the seat a persons body would
decelerate a lot slower than the helmet/seat/head, putting some
level of pressure on the neck.

I don't know how far a drivers body does move forward compared to
the seat, but I'd guess anything more than an inch or two suddenly,
at 8gs, would be enough to really hurt something in there.

I've considered all that and believe a head harness could be tuned to
sync with the body during each given degree and direction of impact.

This is the sort of line that makes people give up. I genuinely can't
conceive any possible way to do that but of course have no option but
concede it could be possible if I wish to remain reasonable.

But why should I? I spent 5 minutes typing out a reasoned argument, that you
could easily have found for yourself if you wanted, and instead of giving
an inch yourself, you constuct a "what if" scenario that comes across as
nothing more than a combative challenge to bow to your superior intellect.

Quote:

I'm not saying the HANS is a bad device, or entirely bogus. It's just
that I think Vandar brought up a good question. The question is why
not, and I'm not satisfied with anything I've seen so far. Should that
make me a bad person or someone to revile and insult?

You're starting to sound a bit like a profressional victim. I promise not to
question your parentage, inherent goodness or call you rude names. (can't
promise not to rag on you if you act like a dick though!)

Quote:

Let me ask, why are you here? Are you here to think about and discuss
the topics, or is everyone supposed to get in unison lockstep with
each other and agree with everything everyone says? Let's agree to
simply disagree in a civilized manner.

You do realise this is usenet eh? ;-)

--
Chad

#32

A. Jones wrote:

Quote:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:46:32 -0400, TS02_05champ
tonystewart02_05champ (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

If it were as simple as attaching the helmet to the seat, don't you
think it would have been done by now? Years of research went into the
HANS before it was ready for prime time.

Or, is the cost of the current device more justifiable.

If you want to engage ina reasonable argument you really need to define this
low cost alternative device a little better.

Or are you still proposing the idea of attaching the helmet directly to the
seat as the alternative here?

Quote:

On top of that, it's just one more thing that would have to be
unhooked to get out of the car. Sometimes these guys are in a hurry
to get out ya know.

I can understand that. Good point. Last thing they need is something
else to unfasten, unplug, pullout, unhook, or takedown. But is that
reason enough for the current device. I'm thinking probably not.

I'd be very very surprised if ease of getting in and out the car quickly
wasn't one of the primary design requirements.

Your helmet to seat straps will definitely need a way to get them off fast
if they want to compete with HANS. (you still need to come up with some way
for them to prevent a basilar skull fracture too btw)

--
Chad

#33

A. Jones wrote:

Quote:

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:00:49 +1100, "Chad" <cbstun (AT) safemail (DOT) com
wrote:

This is the sort of line that makes people give up. I genuinely can't

Then give up if that's what you want to do.

conceive any possible way to do that but of course have no option but
concede it could be possible if I wish to remain reasonable.

But why should I? I spent 5 minutes typing out a reasoned argument, that you
could easily have found for yourself if you wanted, and instead of giving
an inch yourself, you constuct a "what if" scenario that comes across as
nothing more than a combative challenge to bow to your superior intellect.

My supposed superior intellect, or your inferiority complex.

You're starting to sound a bit like a profressional victim. I promise not to
question your parentage, inherent goodness or call you rude names. (can't
promise not to rag on you if you act like a dick though!)

You do realise this is usenet eh? ;-)

In the past, you have seemed like a nicer person than this. I hope
maybe you've just had a few beers. And, dude really, why do you keep
winking at me.

Beer? Depending on what part of Australia he lives in, it's am.

#34

"A. Jones" wrote in message

Quote:

I'm not saying the HANS is a bad device, or entirely bogus.

Dr. Hubbard will be pleased to hear this.

#35

A. Jones wrote:

Quote:

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:00:49 +1100, "Chad" <cbstun (AT) safemail (DOT) com
wrote:

This is the sort of line that makes people give up. I genuinely can't

Then give up if that's what you want to do.

conceive any possible way to do that but of course have no option but
concede it could be possible if I wish to remain reasonable.

But why should I? I spent 5 minutes typing out a reasoned argument,
that you could easily have found for yourself if you wanted, and
instead of giving an inch yourself, you constuct a "what if"
scenario that comes across as nothing more than a combative
challenge to bow to your superior intellect.

My supposed superior intellect, or your inferiority complex.

You're starting to sound a bit like a profressional victim. I
promise not to question your parentage, inherent goodness or call
you rude names. (can't promise not to rag on you if you act like a
dick though!)

You do realise this is usenet eh? ;-)

In the past, you have seemed like a nicer person than this. I hope
maybe you've just had a few beers. And, dude really, why do you keep
winking at me.

LOL... you fall over fast when challenged to a reasonable debate don't you!
(pathetic snippage btw)

I definitely over-estimated you. I'd point out the irony of your "play the
man" post coming from someone whinging everyone attacks him instead of
discussing differing opinions and agreeing to disagree and such, but today
you seem to have proven worthy of all the derision you get here for being a
buffoon, so wouldn't see it anyway.

But you still could redeem yourself, grab a little kudos and a heartfelt
apology from me if you indeed are as smart as you say here;

"I've considered all that [how HANS works] and believe a head harness could
be tuned to sync with the body during each given degree and direction of
impact."

Feel free to make up technology or imaginary materials if you feel you need
to, I'd really like to see you come up with an idea for a workable design to
do this. But I'm sure you can't.

It would be nice if it was cheaper than HANS, which seems to be your chief
argument for the idea, but you can ignore that too if you wish.

Now, will you continue to criticise me or are you up for the challenge?

--
Chad

#36

"Chad" <cbstun (AT) safemail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

It would be nice if it was cheaper than HANS, which seems to be your chief
argument for the idea, but you can ignore that too if you wish.

Now, will you continue to criticise me or are you up for the challenge?

http://www.nyxracing.com/team-tech-horse-collar-helmet-support-p-13151.html

What do I win?

#37

"A. Jones" <ajones (AT) intrtek (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:50:43 -0400, "Anna Khonda"
Anna_Khonda (AT) nospaming (DOT) com> wrote:

"A. Jones" wrote in message

I'm not saying the HANS is a bad device, or entirely bogus.

Dr. Hubbard will be pleased to hear this.

Do you really think so?

Sarcasm isn't your strong suit, Janal. You should just stick with stupid.
It's what you do best.

#38

armpit wrote:

Quote:

"A. Jones" <ajones (AT) intrtek (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:fivkd51phdqn71l7sj4q2eho9rc8c973il (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:50:43 -0400, "Anna Khonda"
Anna_Khonda (AT) nospaming (DOT) com> wrote:

"A. Jones" wrote in message

I'm not saying the HANS is a bad device, or entirely bogus.
Dr. Hubbard will be pleased to hear this.
Do you really think so?

Sarcasm isn't your strong suit, Janal. You should just stick with stupid.
It's what you do best.

Aren't you on his (AJ's) "don't see list"? lol

#39

armpit wrote:

Quote:

"Chad" <cbstun (AT) safemail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:4ada77e8 (AT) news (DOT) x-privat.org...

It would be nice if it was cheaper than HANS, which seems to be your
chief argument for the idea, but you can ignore that too if you wish.

Now, will you continue to criticise me or are you up for the
challenge?

http://www.nyxracing.com/team-tech-horse-collar-helmet-support-p-13151.html

What do I win?

hehe. Nice one. I'd forgotten that solution!

Still more expensive than Alan's helmet to seat straps though, so we'd
better give him the opportunity to flesh out his idea before handing out the
trophies. ;-)

--
Chad
*the exessive winkie fiend*

#40

A. Jones wrote:

Quote:

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:05:29 +1100, "Chad" <cbstun (AT) safemail (DOT) com
wrote:

Now, will you continue to criticise me or are you up for the challenge?

There's an interesting curiosity with those who say I'm full of it,
don't know what I'm talking about, have no credibility, am just making
stuff up. Those same people get so worked up over the slightest thing
I may say. If what I say doesn't matter, add up, why do you take what
I say so seriously?

Chad, no one is right or wrong in this discussion. I wanted to be
open-minded with Vandar's question. That's all.

Another reason why Vander's suggestion wouldn't work is because the
HANS' strap slides from side to side.

IOW, the driver can move his head 90 degrees to the left and right, but
it is still very secure.

I can't see that happening if the helmet is attached to the seat.