I've been out of this fray for a while but am getting caught up enough with life that I'm able to wade back in...

Different horses for different courses.

Any H&N system, like any other safety system, is going to be a compromise. We could build street cars that would protect occupants from any incident that they might encounter on the highways but we don't, because people have to use them, cost IS a consideration, etc.

What is being argued here is being put in terms of black and white, or right and wrong, when the real solution is to accommodate "different." There's no question that, in the abstract, the time or step required to disconnect an Isaac MIGHT be a problem. Equally, there's no question that - again, in the abstract - having a Hans attached to your noggin might make it difficult to get out.

The difficulty here is that we are arguing one vs. the other, when the REAL issue is whether the consumer should be allowed to make the compromise that he/she feels most comfortable with. Some will pick the Isaac's better lateral control numbers, accepting the pins. Others may feel better with decreased lateral control (or be using other elements of a system to resolve that need) and want to stay away from being connected to the harness.

SFI won't let us make that choice.

I've told this story before but years ago I was on an ad hoc committee that was tasked with writing standards for fire system agents, installation, and usage. At the time, we had the choice of Halon 1211 or Halon 1301, each of which had very different properties. Most manufacturers were wedded to one or the other so it quickly became obvious that ANY specification that preferred one over the other - even in just one type of installation, say formula cars - would be a non-starter in the market. And any specification that simply said, "both are OK for any use" wouldn't do the consumer any good...

We wisely gave up.

K