Isaac H&N claims they exceed SFI 38.1 requirements
#1
Isaac H&N claims they exceed SFI 38.1 requirements
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.
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.
Last edited by bnewport; 02-05-2006 at 01:19 PM.
#3
Originally Posted by bnewport
Looks like this passed SFI 38.1 in flying style providing the best ever test results.
Check out our H&N page for more information.
Check out our H&N page for more information.
#4
Originally Posted by bnewport
Looks like this passed SFI 38.1 in flying style providing the best ever test results.
Check out our H&N page for more information.
Check out our H&N page for more information.
#7
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.
The Isaac® head and neck restraint system meets or exceeds the performance requirements of SFI Specification 38.1. Going beyond the SFI specs, the Isaac® system is the only product that reduces lateral head torque by up to 85% and retains the belts on the driver's shoulders in side impacts.
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.
Trending Topics
#8
Originally Posted by 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 must be released FROM the belts, and so does not meet that requirement. 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.
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 must be released FROM the belts, and so does not meet that requirement. 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.
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!
#9
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.
#10
Originally Posted by RedlineMan
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!
We'll probably just skip the SFI sticker and go for a big "#1!" logo.
#11
Originally Posted by kary993
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!
#12
Originally Posted by Redlineman
SFI requires that the device itself require no additional release beyond any device that is freed by releasing the belts.
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...
Originally Posted by bnewport
...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.
My $0.42,
-Z-man.
#13
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
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
#14
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.
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.
#15
Originally Posted by gbaker
--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.