bnewport

K
I've re-edited this post. They claim they passed the SFI tests in December but they don't claim certification.

Why aren't they certified? Greg Baker from Isaac LLC says the following:

"We think there is a fundamental flaw in the SFI design. There is a section of the SFI Spec 38.1 (single point release) that calls for a specific design criteria which requires the driver to drag the restraint out the window. That's where the problem begins. The only time a head and neck restraint has trapped a driver in a car , burning or otherwise, is when is has been an SFI design. The SFI specification calls for a certain performance level. The question is are all Isaac products good enough to meet SFI test criteria and the answer is yes. We will certify Isaac products to meet or exceed SFI performance levels, but we won’t sell anything that can trap them in a burning car."

The test they did looks legit but then all marketing is supposed to do that. It looks a similar issue to why only Hans passed FIA 8858, it's the only device that can take the test. So, devices like the R3 cannot be certified.

I guess at the end of the day it doesn't matter. Until it can be certified then it can't be used. And even certfication isn't enough as the Hans looks still the only approved SFI 38.1 device for Nascar.

Sanjeevan

Where does it say it actually passed the SFI certification ?

DJF1

I think you have your facts wrong here... ISAAC is not certified, it cannot meet the standards due to the design. What they have on their site is something that was discussed here extensively and its their own independant test. It looks good for sure, but the fact remains that they are not certified.

Geo

Well, upon checking both the SFI site and the Isaac site, this does not appear to be correct. I have a very hard time believing that the Isaac site would not be up to date with this information if it were so.

bnewport

Annoying
Clever use of language, so what they are claiming is they pass but they aren't actually certified. Back to revise the page.

gbaker

The root of the problem is that SFI does not certify products, the manufacturer does. See the label on your harness belts.

Edit: And, yes, we are the Big Dog in the crash lab.

RedlineMan

Right off their home page;

This is a VAST improvement on the word play that existed there previously. I might add that it was Rennlist that called attention to the rather creative use of language that came before this. Response to the community!

What Isaac does is FAR exceed the dynamic performance minimums in reduction of neck tension set forth by SFI. In certain circumstances, it performs better than any other device. What it does not do is receive certification because of a basic design parameter; the single release clause.

SFI requires that the device itself require no additional release beyond any device that is freed by releasing the belts. The Isaac is attached AROUND the belts, and therefore has a secondary release. This does not meet SFI requirements. It is a debateable point as to whether this is important, or was indeed written to EXCLUDE any given device, but therein lies the rub for Isaac.

If you race, there is a high likelihood that your sanctioning body does or will require an SFI certified device. PURE CYA by them. If you merely want a highly competant product, you should give the Isaac a SERIOUS look.

EDIT: As Gregg says, SFI certifies that the device meets THEIR standard. If the standard were crap... It is still the manufacturers... um... neck.

kary993

Well said John!

I have been using the Isaac for the past 7 months and really like it alot compared to other devices. It does not suffer from other issues like some H&N devices do around seats and other belt positioning needs. I tried using the HANS and with my body size found it to be difficult to wear over a long period and difficult to get out of the car (and in) with it on.

John is correct in that the rules do require no additional release mechanisms but I think that is rather short sighted when you consider how much of a hinderance the HANS is if you had to get out the car window instead of opening the door, and that does not even take into consideration some race cars that have very high door bars and smaller windows.......

If some car clubs sanction only SFI certified devices they are going to open themselves up to some serious issues, but then this has already been discussed on this forum so I will not continue that thread here. Suffice it to say, I am not going to follow the crowd because of some ill thought out rules and standards that are directed at F1 style cars anyway!

bnewport

I've revised the trackpedia page now and I think it's fair right now. Looks like if you're doing HPDE then the Isaac should be right up there for students but has anyone experience with an instructor using one, moving from car to car etc. Looks like the R3 is still more suitable for that scenario.

gbaker

Aw c'mon John, it wasn't that bad. Well, okay, it was, shall we say, verbally enthusiastic. And kudos to the Rennlist crowd for noting that, while the wording was true, false conclusions could be drawn by the casual reader.

We'll probably just skip the SFI sticker and go for a big "#1!" logo.

Geo

Ahem... F1 doesn't give a rat's behind about SFI. F1 recognizes FIA homologation, not SFI. The standards have nothing to do with F1.

Z-man

Therefore, the Isaac device does NOT outperform the SFI standard. Granted, in crash tests, it meets or exceeds the SFI standard in terms of impact resistence, but you cannot say that it meets the standard when it clearly does NOT meet the 'additional release' clause of the standard. You can't even say it complies with the standard, let alone surpasses it!

Now some may argue that the 'no additional release' requirement is too stringent. Fine - then work to amend the SFI standard, instead of using word play to dance around the issue.

gbaker - are you looking to develop something that would adhere to the standard? If not, I think you would be better of stating that you cannot meet SFI certificaiton due to the additional release issue. If you would make that clear, I think folks who run in events where SFI certificaiton is not a requirement would consider your product. Honesty goes a long way...

As long as the student's car has 5/6 harnesses, I think the Isaac would work. In my experience, most beginner students do not have a 5/6 point harnesses, while intermediate students have some harness system installed.

My $0.42,
-Z-man.

bnewport

Yep
Thats what I'm concluding. I own an R3 myself and I don't see anything else besides Hutchens etc but the R3 is better than those and is compatible with 3 and 6pt harnesses.

I have seen instructors with a Hans on in my 996 with 3pt belts last year which in hindsight seems positively dangerous to me now.

Billy
http://www.trackpedia.com

gbaker

As George points out, very few serious sanctioning bodies give a rip about SFI, and it has never been a concern of ours. If we can get the sticker without endangering drivers, fine, we'll do it. If not, forget it. Drivers, not middle men, are the ones who are injured.

Your points are well-made Z, but the fact remains that we kick everyone's butt in the lab--and if anyone bothered to put a stopwatch on drivers during emergency egress, nine times out of ten (if not more) the Isaac guy is gone first. Hence, we exceed all performance requirements, regardless of what label is attached.

Z-man

Ok - I'm curious how this can be. Granted, the Hans yoke may be a bit bulky, but I can't see how the same driver would be quicker out of a car - Isaac vs. R3, for example. With the R3, it's unclick the harnesses and out. With Isaac, it's unclick the device THEN unclick the harnesses. Even with the HANS, I suspect once a driver is used to the device, a quick exit can be achieved.
-Z-man.