definitive statement regarding PCA rules and ISAAC?
#1
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
definitive statement regarding PCA rules and ISAAC?
I got an email yesterday from the race licensing group for PCA, with the following statement:
"Also, after June 1, 2008, a head and neck restraint meeting either the standards of SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858 will be required."
Since the scrutineers at each event seem to hold the final opinion on the rules, is the ISAAC not allowed after 6/2008? It meets the crash standards of 38.1.
"Also, after June 1, 2008, a head and neck restraint meeting either the standards of SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858 will be required."
Since the scrutineers at each event seem to hold the final opinion on the rules, is the ISAAC not allowed after 6/2008? It meets the crash standards of 38.1.
#4
Super Moderator
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
I would check with ISAAC directly, but IIRC, the ISAAC exceeds SFI38.1 crash test performance, but is NOT SFI 38.1 certified (for reasons OTHER than crash test results).
800# gorillas.....got to love them.
800# gorillas.....got to love them.
#5
I think what they are after is an SFI 38.1 certified device....but if that's what they want why don't they say that? There is definitely a difference between certification and meeting the standard.
#7
Super Moderator
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
If a device meets ALL of the requirements of a standard, then it marked as such. It's the "label" they're after, that's all.
Certification and homologation isn't "a la carte"; it's all or nothing.
Tether vs damper..... a true technical no brainer ..... although it was never going to be a technical decision.
Certification and homologation isn't "a la carte"; it's all or nothing.
Tether vs damper..... a true technical no brainer ..... although it was never going to be a technical decision.
Trending Topics
#8
ltc, the marking is the certification. There could be a product that meets the standard but isn't marked by the organization. An example of this is roll bar padding. You can buy the dense FIA style or SFI style without certification tags for less $$.
I know what we're all dancing around here is whether ISAAC will be allowed (I have one and would love to use it) but even as quoted by PCA, the ISAAC doesn't comply. It meets the energy absorption standard but not some of the other SFI standards namely the single point release.
I know what we're all dancing around here is whether ISAAC will be allowed (I have one and would love to use it) but even as quoted by PCA, the ISAAC doesn't comply. It meets the energy absorption standard but not some of the other SFI standards namely the single point release.
#9
Rennlist Member
Wow.
PCA club racing finally moves into the 21st century.
Next step: ban roll bars & bolt-in cages.
#11
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Hmmmm...
As Lew said, The Isaac EXCEEDS all dynamic crash standards for SFI 38.1, but it DOES NOT meet the ceritfication requirement of a single point release. Therefore it does not meet the standard, and I would assume that it does not meet PCA specs as a result.
Have not they learned by now that loose wording is an open door? What a poorly worded edict!!!!!!!
How can you and get the info you need when it is written so poorly????
As Lew said, The Isaac EXCEEDS all dynamic crash standards for SFI 38.1, but it DOES NOT meet the ceritfication requirement of a single point release. Therefore it does not meet the standard, and I would assume that it does not meet PCA specs as a result.
Have not they learned by now that loose wording is an open door? What a poorly worded edict!!!!!!!
How can you and get the info you need when it is written so poorly????
#12
Lifetime Rennlist Member
I disagree. The evidence is that the damage to you in a frontal crash is due to hear travel, not velocity or deceleration rate. I would concede that a damper should be no worse than a tether, but there is no significant evidence that dampers prevent injuries that would have occurred with a tether. If something is adequate to prevent an injury, a design that is more than adequate does not imply less injury.
#13
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I disagree. The evidence is that the damage to you in a frontal crash is due to hear travel, not velocity or deceleration rate. I would concede that a damper should be no worse than a tether, but there is no significant evidence that dampers prevent injuries that would have occurred with a tether. If something is adequate to prevent an injury, a design that is more than adequate does not imply less injury.
I agree with your second statement, but does that not presume that all impacts are the same? Having a device that is more than merely adequate to prevent injury at, say, 35g does imply, IMO, that it has a greater chance of preventing injury in more severe impacts than a device that is merely adequate at 35g. The latter might only reduce the severity of, rather than prevent, injury in more severe impacts.
Regardless, this thread is asking about compliance to SFI or FIA standards. As ltc said - it's all or nothing. I can't see any way to interpret this statement to allow use of the ISAAC. Sorry.
That's why I have a hard time suggesting their purchase to anyone anymore, even though I use one myself - I cannot help but see a definite lifetime to the usefulness of the product, with no significant 38.1 support from the manufacturer in sight...
#14
Rennlist Member