Leatt Brace Interview

[billy]

Thanks to Karl Ebel from Leatt for taking part in this interview.


Your new brace looks very interesting. It's pretty unconventional compared
with other braces on the market. Can you describe the background for its
development?



The Leatt-Brace(tm) MOTO R is designed to help prevent cervical spine
injury. The system is designed by neurosurgeon, Dr Chris Leatt, in
conjunction with top drivers. It was very important to offer a system that
would meet the most stringent driver requirements (comfort, mobility) and,
importantly, 360 degree protection. The Leatt-Brace(tm) MOTO R achieved the
SFI 38.1 standard for head and neck restraints.

_____________________________________________





Does it need a special seat belt setup? Is it compatible with 3pt belts
also?


It doesn't need a special seat belt setup, seat or a special helmet for
that matter. We don't recommend that people do track time with a three pnt
harness.


_____________________________________________





Does it offer lateral or offset impact protection?


Unlike anything available, the Leatt-Brace(tm) MOTO R offers the most
lateral or offset protection. Bear in mind this the most common motosport
crash


_____________________________________________






How does it protect the neck without a tether on the helmet?

The new Leatt-Brace(tm) MOTO R has a smart strap system (SSS). This simple
strap attaches to any helmet and offers unhindered mobility.



_____________________________________________






Does it need any helmet modifications at all?


None what so ever


_____________________________________________





How hard was passing the SFI tests? Did you make modifications to pass the
test?


With a few simple adjustments we passes the SFI 38.1 Certification


_____________________________________________





Can you tell us the test results in terms of NM of stress?



We are the only company to publish all of our test results and they are
available to view on our website at www.leatt-brace.com

_____________________________________________





Does it have any bid advantages over other tether based restraints?



Absolutely. From a drivers point of view he has unhindered mobility and
real comfort and from a safety point of view it offers the protection
against many planes of injury.

_____________________________________________





It's very attractively priced. What are the difference between the entry
level and advanced products? Are there any safety benefits with the high end
product?



We are only offering the MOTO R Sport at this point.

_____________________________________________





Can they be used in formula cars or is it for sedans only? Do you make
different products for different applications?


They are able to be used in most formula car applications. The
Leatt-Brace(tm) MOTO R is adjustable to fit a range of different seating
positions.


_____________________________________________

[Conan]

Wow! Very cool. Great post, Billy. Just from an initial look at the pictures, it seems like a great design.

[JimLill]

I was about #30 to order one last fall and expect it literally any day now.... They were to start shipping on 1/20/07

[jstecher]

Excellent interview Billy. I think that baby needs to move over to the H&NR wiki. :)

[gbaker]

Does it offer lateral or offset impact protection?


Unlike anything available, the Leatt-Brace(tm) MOTO R offers the most
lateral or offset protection. Bear in mind this the most common motosport
crash.
http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart9.GIF

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart10.GIF

[jstecher]

Greg what is the baseline number in the charts? Just trying to figure out what it means. Thanks for posting that as well...makes the above claims interesting but true if looking at the SFI certified devices.

[gbaker]

The baseline is for an unprotected driver, i.e. helmet only.

[Limitedslip]

Greg,

It seems to be popular belief that the ISAAC would have SFI certification, if only it had a single point of release.
And that the reason you have not built an SFI-approved version is because it would not perform as well as the current version. To quote from your website:

"Why not change the design to comply with 38.1?"

Because an SFI version does not work as well.


Even if that were the case, would it not still make good business sense to build an SFI approved version anyway? What good is it to build a product nobody is allowed to use?


This graph, on your website, appears to be a 30 degree frontal SFI test result:
http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart12.GIF

Firstly, that shows the Leatt Brace clearly outperforms the ISAAC in a 30 degree impact.
Secondly, it shows the ISAAC is already at the absolute limit of failure.
I'm just putting 2+2 together here... but it appears that if there were an ISAAC with a single point of release, which "does not work as well", that would put it beyond the failure limit. So either way, that product would fail SFI testing.

Don't get me wrong here Greg. I think your product is a very good concept, with lots of potential. But it's pretty obvious that it needs some more R&D.
You're posting charts and graphs, trying to show your product is better. When in fact it's really not. You're only showing the things the ISAAC is better at, and not showing the whole picture. Kinda like how HANS and LFT only ever show Fz. But don't get me started on those guys...

[billy]

Can you post the information on Hans and LFT?

[Limitedslip]

Can you post the information on Hans and LFT?

I can't, because they've never publicly stated any such information.
The only thing I've ever been able to find is a set of crash test results in a Formula SAE car here (http://www.testing-expo.com/usa/06conf/txna_pdfs/day_3_2/david_rising.pdf). It was tested with and without the HANS. The test parameters are completely different from SFI's test parameters. So it can't be directly compared to any SFI results. But there is still a TON of useful and interesting information in there.
Most notably, is that the wearing of a HANS increased Flexion by 90%-130% depending on the test.
It obviously doesn't perform that way in all circumstances. If it performed like that in SFI testing, it might not even pass. However, it certainly performs like that in *some* circumstances. Which is a scary thing. No two crashes are the same. And no crash occurs exactly as it does in testing.

[cavlino]

Billy so you ask "Limitedslip" to post a reply, he does and then for some reason his reply is marked to be Moderated, what gives? I have approved his post so you can see his response.

[billy]

All users with few posts are automatically moderated if the post has a link, it's how we control the spam. Once he has a certain number of posts then this is turned off automatically.

This system is working, spam is basically gone on the forums now.

[gbaker]

Greg,

It seems to be popular belief that the ISAAC would have SFI certification, if only it had a single point of release. And that the reason you have not built an SFI-approved version is because it would not perform as well as the current version.It would not perform as well because of the risk of losing the belts. If the belts stayed in place the load value would be the same.

Even if that were the case, would it not still make good business sense to build an SFI approved version anyway?Are you seriously suggesting we could make more money if we killed a few drivers?

This graph, on your website, appears to be a 30 degree frontal SFI test result:
http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart12.GIF

Firstly, that shows the Leatt Brace clearly outperforms the ISAAC in a 30 degree impact.
Secondly, it shows the ISAAC is already at the absolute limit of failure.
I'm just putting 2+2 together here... but it appears that if there were an ISAAC with a single point of release, which "does not work as well", that would put it beyond the failure limit. So either way, that product would fail SFI testing.You need to read SAE paper # 2006-01-3631 to which that chart relates, which notes that the helmet mounts were too far posterior, thereby increasing the My moment which is a component of Nij. In other words, those load measures would be more favorable if the mounts were positioned according to the manufacturer's instructions.

Don't get me wrong here Greg. I think your product is a very good concept, with lots of potential. But it's pretty obvious that it needs some more R&D.We can politely disagree. There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that any product outperforms an Isaac system.

[Limitedslip]

It would not perform as well because of the risk of losing the belts. If the belts stayed in place the load value would be the same.

Fair enough. You might want to be more clear about that in the first place though.

Are you seriously suggesting we could make more money if we killed a few drivers?

I'm just asking a question. I have no doubt you could find a way to make it safe.

You need to read SAE paper # 2006-01-3631 to which that chart relates, which notes that the helmet mounts were too far posterior, thereby increasing the My moment which is a component of Nij. In other words, those load measures would be more favorable if the mounts were positioned according to the manufacturer's instructions.

Was that same helmet used to obtain the rest of the SFI test results shown on your site?

We can politely disagree. There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that any product outperforms an Isaac system.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable.
But this looks a lot like evidence to me:
http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart3.GIF
http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart5.GIF
http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart7.GIF
http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart8.GIF
http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart14.GIF

[gbaker]

I have no doubt you could find a way to make it safe.We have every doubt that anyone could make it safe, especially since we have already built and tested at both WSU and Delphi an "SFI certifiable" design. It has the same problems the HANS and all other "SFI certified" designs have: the belts can come off. In other words, it is dangerous. Therefore, we will not produce it.

As a manufacturer, at some point you have to ask yourself whether you are designing a safety product to save drivers, or to meet someone else's flawed design spec--not a performance spec, a design spec.

Was that same helmet used to obtain the rest of the SFI test results shown on your site?I don't believe that helmet is shown in any still photos. It is on the video, of course.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable.
But this looks a lot like evidence to me:
http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart3.GIF
http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart5.GIF
http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart7.GIF
http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart8.GIF
http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart14.GIF
Now you are doing what you accused me of, cherry picking the load measures.

The net loads are determined by an analysis of principle stresses (or loads in this case), which you failed to post. They are:

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/TestGraphs/Chart17.GIF

This graph is the most complete summary available anywhere in the solar system of the net upper neck forces generated by each product. If anyone has any information to the contrary, we would love to see it.

[Limitedslip]

We have every doubt that anyone could make it safe, especially since we have already built and tested at both WSU and Delphi an "SFI certifiable" design. It has the same problems the HANS and all other "SFI certified" designs have: the belts can come off. In other words, it is dangerous. Therefore, we will not produce it.

I had a paragraph typed up, but I want to be clear about something first.
What do you mean by dangerous? Are you saying they simply do not provide protection if the belts slip off? Or that they introduce an additional danger which would not inheritly exist if the belts slip off?


I don't believe that helmet is shown in any still photos. It is on the video, of course.

That's not what I asked.


Now you are doing what you accused me of, cherry picking the load measures.

Lol. I like this discussion. :D
You said: "no evidence exists anywhere". So I showed you evidence.

I wasn't trying to prove or disprove that the ISAAC is the greatest H&N restraint existence. I was only disproving your statement.

[gbaker]

I had a paragraph typed up, but I want to be clear about something first.
What do you mean by dangerous? Are you saying they simply do not provide protection if the belts slip off? Or that they introduce an additional danger which would not inheritly exist if the belts slip off?

It is simpler than that: Losing a shoulder belt is dangerous. We're not talking about head and neck issues, we are talking body issues. If the SFI design spec does not allow a product, like the ISAAC system, to retain the belts, that spec is inherently more dangerous.

How are you safer in a crash if you lose your belts?

That's not what I asked.Correct. My mistake. The answer is yes.

Lol. I like this discussion. :D
You said: "no evidence exists anywhere". So I showed you evidence.No, you didn't. You selected only those load measures where the ISAAC system was not the lowest, but did not post the summary load measure. That's like concentrating on individual track segment speeds but ignoring the lap times.

I wasn't trying to prove or disprove that the ISAAC is the greatest H&N restraint existence. I was only disproving your statement.Keep trying.

[Limitedslip]

It is simpler than that: Losing a shoulder belt is dangerous. We're not talking about head and neck issues, we are talking body issues. If the SFI design spec does not allow a product, like the ISAAC system, to retain the belts, that spec is inherently more dangerous.

How are you safer in a crash if you lose your belts?

But that's not what happens. This video shows it very clearly: http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/Video/SFIBoth.mpg
The HANS slips out from under the belt. But the belt itself barely moves. It certainly does not come off entirely.

Besides, a slippage like that is impossible for all other SFI certified designs, except for the HANS. So don't say it can't be done.

As a manufacturer, at some point you have to ask yourself whether you are designing a safety product to save drivers, or to meet someone else's flawed design spec--not a performance spec, a design spec.

SFI 38.1 is not a design spec. It potentially limits certain designs yes. But it does not specify any type of design. As for pass/fail criteria, it measures nothing but performance.
FIA 8858-2002 on the other hand, now THAT is a design spec.


The answer is yes.

So, if that whole set of tests was done with an anchorage installation that did not follow manufacturers instructions. Does that not make the ENTIRE set of results completely invalid?
How can you justify comparing those results to any others? As you've already said, some values were impacted negatively, such as My. But how do we know that other values weren't artificially improved as a result?


No, you didn't. You selected only those load measures where the ISAAC system was not the lowest, but did not post the summary load measure. That's like concentrating on individual track segment speeds but ignoring the lap times.

Firstly, it's evidence, not proof.
Secondly, what are you saying about summary load values? That it's the #1 determining factor for the performance of the device?

I think most of us will agree that the most important factor for any safety device, should be how well it reduces the chance of injury. Which I believe is measured by Nij, when discussing neck injuries.

[JimLill]

As a buyer of a Leatt, I find this interesting.............

We know who Greg is of course.... Limitedslip, are you an end-user or are you affiliated with a manuf. or group?

[jstecher]

Just wanted to post here really quick and get you to introduce yourself Limitedslip because I think given the normally heated debates that go on around H&N restraints its always nice to know the people involved in the conversations background.

I think these discussion are great to really bring out the differences in products and tests and want to thank Greg and you for your input.

[Limitedslip]

I'm just a racer. Rallyist to be specific. I don't own any H&N restraint yet. I'm still in the process of deciding which to choose. Hence all the information I've gathered on the subject. I'm not the type to just blindly follow everyone else. Far too often I've been given the phrase: "Just get a HANS".

Have you recieved your Leatt yet? I would like to hear your thoughts on it. Comfort, easy of use, how much it limits normal movement, etc.

Also, moderators: my last post is blocked again because I put a link in it. If you could please give it the thumbs up for me...

[JimLill]

your post is approved....

I expect to get my Leatt sometime this month. I'll do as full of review as being in the middle of the winter permits!

[gbaker]

But that's not what happens. This video shows it very clearly: http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/Video/SFIBoth.mpg
The HANS slips out from under the belt. But the belt itself barely moves. It certainly does not come off entirely.The belt slides into the gap between the arm and the shoulder, said gap not existing in humans.

Besides, a slippage like that is impossible for all other SFI certified designs, except for the HANS.Then why does it happen? Where do you get this stuff?

SFI 38.1 is not a design spec. It potentially limits certain designs yes. But it does not specify any type of design. As for pass/fail criteria, it measures nothing but performance.It should measure only performance. Who cares how the load is reduced?

FIA 8858-2002 on the other hand, now THAT is a design spec.Amen, brother.

So, if that whole set of tests was done with an anchorage installation that did not follow manufacturers instructions. Does that not make the ENTIRE set of results completely invalid?Don't go down that road. It's the case with other "SFI certified " products. Any responsible design team tests to the worst case scenario. How confident would you feel with a product that was tested only under circumstances that made it look as good as possible?

How can you justify comparing those results to any others? As you've already said, some values were impacted negatively, such as My. But how do we know that other values weren't artificially improved as a result?How do we know? Well, let's see. Laws of physics, mathematics, stuff like that...

Let's do it this way: What loads would increase with the mounts positioned more anterior?

Secondly, what are you saying about summary load values? That it's the #1 determining factor for the performance of the device?Yup. At least that's what my Mechanics of Solids professors would say, along with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the Orthopaedic Research Society and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. But what do they know.

I think most of us will agree that the most important factor for any safety device, should be how well it reduces the chance of injury.Yup.

Which I believe is measured by Nij, when discussing neck injuries.Nope.

There are three axes which can sustain axial, shear and bending loads. That's a total of nine load measures. Nij is calculated using only two (neither of which consider lateral loads). Should we just ignore the other seven?

[gbaker]

your post is approved....

I expect to get my Leatt sometime this month. I'll do as full of review as being in the middle of the winter permits!Jim,

Don't forget to do the "vroom, vroom" sounds in the garage. It always helps put me in the mood. ;)

[Limitedslip]

The belt slides into the gap between the arm and the shoulder, said gap not existing in humans.

I see the gap you're talking about. But doesn't that just introduce a whole extra margin for error? Perhaps if that gap wasn't there, the belts wouldn't slip off in the first place. Have you considered that?

Then why does it happen? Where do you get this stuff?

It happens to the HANS because it's not really attached to anything. It's merely sandwitched between the belts and the wearer.
It can't happen with LFT's products because they are not held in place by the belts at all. And the Leatt has a set of massive wings to retain the belts in place.

It should measure only performance. Who cares how the load is reduced?

Now you're contradicting yourself. First, you're trying to convince us that every design except yours is dangerous because they don't retain the belts. And now you're saying who cares about the design as long as it works?

There is the possibilty that some designs can cause harm under the right circumstances. That's why whatever specification is used, there must be limits.

Don't go down that road. It's the case with other "SFI certified " products. Any responsible design team tests to the worst case scenario. How confident would you feel with a product that was tested only under circumstances that made it look as good as possible?

There's no question, you are right it is important to test such scenario's.
However, you are misleading people to think it was a valid SFI test, when in fact it was not.

How do we know? Well, let's see. Laws of physics, mathematics, stuff like that...

That's all well and good. But things don't always work out in reality the same way they do on paper. Especially in dealing with a crash scenario. There are just far too many variables involved. That's why actual crash testing is used in the first place.

Let's do it this way: What loads would increase with the mounts positioned more anterior?

I'm sorry, but the burdon of proof is on you my friend. You can't perform a test incorrectly, and then leave it up to us to figure out how it would have turned out had it been done right.


At least that's what my Mechanics of Solids professors would say, along with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the Orthopaedic Research Society and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. But what do they know.

There are three axes which can sustain axial, shear and bending loads. That's a total of nine load measures. Nij is calculated using only two (neither of which consider lateral loads). Should we just ignore the other seven?

It's true that all things should be considered. One of my original points is that you must always look at the whole picture.
However, when calculating Nij, the two values that are used are weighted. Which means that one of those values is more likely to cause injury than the other. Does the same not hold true for each other load type? Some are much more likely to cause injury than others. So while they can't be ignored, they are of lesser importance, that must be kept in mind when looking at results.

[gbaker]

I'm not going to spend time going around in circles.

So while they can't be ignored, they are of lesser importance, that must be kept in mind when looking at results.They are of lesser importance only if you hit things head on. In a side impact Nij is of zero importance. To recognize that a crash can be a complex combination of forces and then evaluate designs based solely on head-on measures is nonsensical.

[Limitedslip]

I'm not going to spend time going around in circles.

I don't think we're going in circles at all. We're both bringing up new points with each post. This is very good.
I am getting a lot out of this in fact, I would think most readers are too.

[gbaker]

I don't think we're going in circles at all. We're both bringing up new points with each post....You are not acknowledging the science, just searching for debate points.

[Limitedslip]

I'll admit my arguments are based more on logic, than on science. But I don't think I've said anything that is untrue, although some of it might be open to interpretation. And if you look at it from my point of view; in several instances you are avoiding the questions or just making excuses.
I think the real problem is we both want to have the last word. :p

[gangstafoot]

Leatt needs to get in bed with some marketing people because this Bible-banging approach is appealing to less and less people. If the standard needs to be revised in light of a truly superior product, then lobby the sanctioning bodies to revise the standard. If the hope is to rally the troops from the ranks and overturn a bad rule, talking down to them isn't the approach I'd use.

[admin]

Leatt or Issac?

[leggwork]

I think you mean Isaac here.

Remember that SFI is made up of/paid by member organizations who are trying to defend their market share. They are not inclined to modify the "standard" to allow more kids into the sandbox - in fact there is a move afoot to arbitrarily change the standard to exclude the new low cost player... The standard is actually quite badly written (requirements in the Definitions section, no test procedures associated with requirements, etc) and hasn't been fixed since it was introduced, so that doesn't bode well for arguments based on logic to have it modified.

and if you want to see what big-boy "marketing" does, AKA "going around in circles", try editing the H&NR wiki to be more truthful/balanced while a hans-cheerleader has access to a keyboard... :miffed: (thankfully, the admins stepped in ...)
cheers,
bruce


Leatt needs to get in bed with some marketing people because this Bible-banging approach is appealing to less and less people. If the standard needs to be revised in light of a truly superior product, then lobby the sanctioning bodies to revise the standard. If the hope is to rally the troops from the ranks and overturn a bad rule, talking down to them isn't the approach I'd use.

[leggwork]

anybody been watching LEAT stock lately? - if only I'd bought it last month at 5 cents (now 45 :stupid: ), I could have bought a whole bunch of H&NR's! (but expect to see the price drift back down as herd interest wanes)
cheers,
bruce

[gbaker]

Gangstafoot makes a good point but, as Bruce notes, it is not the sanctioning bodies that vote on spec changes. There were 20 + entites represented at the December SFI meeting on the 38.1 spec--most being sanctioning bodies--and only three (the manufacturers) will vote on any changes. It will be interesting to see if the Leatt gets "decertified". Drivers and sanctioning bodies can pound the table all day long, but they have no direct ability to change anything. Drivers and sanctioning bodies are not pleased with this arrangement, as you can well imagine.

(The observation on our "Bible banging" is appreciated, BTW.)

I should also explain that I wasn't so much talking down to Mr. X/Limitedslip as attempting to flush him out. He is, I believe, Mike Hurst of Rally American, who has made very derogatory comments about Isaac, LLC and its products, all with little understanding of biomechanics I might add. He has apparently, subsequent to warnings about legal action, decided to sign up for forums and post anonymously. Actually, Mike's heart is in the right place so we won't go too hard on him.

and if you want to see what big-boy "marketing" does, AKA "going around in circles", try editing the H&NR wiki to be more truthful/balanced while a hans-cheerleader has access to a keyboard...

150 HANS dealers makes for a lot of keyboards. :)

[JimLill]

FWIW, here is a pix of the Leatt Moto-X model for sports such as cycling etc.

http://www.racerxill.com/images/articles/large/0000004332.jpeg

[Stack]

Damn this is an entertaining and informative thread

Jim... still no Leatte yet?

[leggwork]

I hadn't noticed the use of the chest strap on the Moto-X before.
When I asked Karl about the use of the Moto-R with a 3 pt belt, he said use with harnesses was the only recommended configuration. Without a chest belt to hold it is place I can see why. Maybe they could make a Moto-R version with that belt for DE/Instructor type use.
cheers,
bruce

[JimLill]

Would a MotoX with a 3-point be better than no HNR at all?

[Conan]

What's up with the pricing on the Moto-R?? I was looking last week and the prices were there, now there gone. What gives? :confused:

[JimLill]

There's appears to be some delay in the R. They were to have have a big run start shipping the end of Jan. That didn't happen from what I can tell. Maybe Moto-X demand too high. Moto-X is the NBT in Motocross racing from what I can tell.

[JimLill]

I have been in verbal contact with Leatt/USA and e-mail with South Africa office today. Demand for Moto-X has been overwhelming. Moto-R is just now starting to ship. Stock should arrive in USA next month.

I'll ask about $$

[jstecher]

Is there a North American distributor or is it direct order.

[JimLill]

No news on NA distributor. There has been a revision in the Moto-R model line-up and pricing however. I continue to Q&A them and hope to have all the facts by next week.

[JimLill]

a good picture of the Moto-R car version (I think!)

http://www.racerxvt.com/virtual_trainer/TFS_Doc_Bodnar/leatt_brace.jpg

[JimLill]

No news on NA distributor. There has been a revision in the Moto-R model line-up and pricing however. I continue to Q&A them and hope to have all the facts by next week.

No updates on availability of price revision.........

a video of a Moto-R test

http://www.leatt-brace.com/av/av_r_70g_frontal_SFI.htm

[gbaker]

Jim,

I think that's the bike version--I should say "non-shoulderbelt" version. The car version seems to be here:

http://www.leatt-brace.com/r_product.asp

Like you, I'm not sure.

[billy]

Greg,
Does it really all come down to the chin strap in the end regardless of the device used? The chin strap is what slows the head.

[Conan]

Recieved this today via email:
The Leatt-BraceT MOTO R will be available by the end of April. Please contact me then.

Regards

Karl Ebel
Marketing
Leatt Corporation Inc.

[JimLill]

Club Model will not be sold, expect a price on Sport Model of ~ $650

[leggwork]

we'll never know for sure, but I wonder if there was some 'negotiation' involved in that decision - they raise their price and the SFI members don't push for the proposed change to the 38.1 head load criteria that would have eliminated Leatt...
bruce

[Rob.wisniewski]

sounds about right.. let's not make things affordable. that would be.. i dunno.. good for the sport or something.

[JimLill]

My impression is that orders to date on the Car model have been lukewarm..........

[gbaker]

Greg,
Does it really all come down to the chin strap in the end regardless of the device used? The chin strap is what slows the head.
I suspect most of the load is transfered through the forehead, i.e. the system holds the helmet back as it's tilted forward. We have a customer who has crashed with both an Isaac system and a HANS. With the latter he could feel the load at the forehead and at the cheekbones. He described the Isaac load as being more distributed.

[gbaker]

Club Model will not be sold, expect a price on Sport Model of ~ $650
The Yuan/Dollar exchange rate is not helping.

[gbaker]

we'll never know for sure, but I wonder if there was some 'negotiation' involved in that decision - they raise their price and the SFI members don't push for the proposed change to the 38.1 head load criteria that would have eliminated Leatt...
bruce
Oh c'mon, Bruce. I'm certain it's the exchange rate. The SEC halting their stock trading may have been factored into the decision making also.

BTW, has anyone received the car model--anywhere? We've yet to see a final version.

[leggwork]

the SEC trading halt was a probe into the practices of a group of companies that were apparently spamming people with pitches about stocks. Not sure if it was Leatt or someone else that was doing it.
cheers,
bruce
(conspiracy theorist)

Oh c'mon, Bruce. I'm certain it's the exchange rate. The SEC halting their stock trading may have been factored into the decision making also.

BTW, has anyone received the car model--anywhere? We've yet to see a final version.

[gbaker]

the SEC trading halt was a probe into the practices of a group of companies that were apparently spamming people with pitches about stocks. Not sure if it was Leatt or someone else that was doing it.
cheers,
bruce
(conspiracy theorist)
Dear Conspiracy Theorist, ;)

Yeah, I read that. Leatt may well have been an innocent victim of someone's plan to run up the stock. I believe the Street term is "pump and dump."

Everyone have a good weekend.

[leggwork]

just traded some emails with Karl Ebel of Leatt this morning...

- the Moto-R (restraint) version will be shipping within a month. They just signed off on the production samples and production is a go.
- to simplify things, they will only offer the Sport model at $699


Leatt stock is still cheap ;-)

bruce

[Conan]

just traded some emails with Karl Ebel of Leatt this morning...

- the Moto-R (restraint) version will be shipping within a month. They just signed off on the production samples and production is a go.
- to simplify things, they will only offer the Sport model at $699Count me out. They should have never posted those original prices, because I'm not about to pay 100% markup from that.

[Rob.wisniewski]

Agreed.. less is more in these cases. Gotta keep your trap shut sometimes. If I hadn't heard anything about it until now then $700 would be a refreshing discount.

[JimLill]

The Club model was the least expensive one. I know they had to do some changes when they went into production. It may well also be the the SFI was on the Sport one only. IIRC, That was $650 at the start.