I'll just address one, as I se them all as the same. - then I will step away as I am clearly in the minority.

The SFI stamp is the required certification for your H&N. Snell is the required certification for your helmet. There are plenty of other certs that have to be met.

As to the cage, you COULD build a safer one...but you are only allowed 6 points plus an optional 2 forward bars for a total of 8. If you had unlimited latitude on attachment points, do you think you could build a better unit? If you designed such unit for say, another racing series, for 1st gen RX-7's - would you then stop selling your SCCA version because it then became your 'dumbed down' version that was known not to protect as well?

I think the difference here is perception and the starting point. The 'better' product was here first so people think it's a big deal to build a different version to fit rules. Just because the first one was over-engineered to the current spec doesn't make the second one a liability. If you can't build a good one to the spec, then don't. Just because it isn't as good as the first doesn't make it crap. It just makes it the best you can do within the guidlines - just like the cages.

Again, philisopically, I am with you all. The cert needs to be fought and addressed but I just see it a different way in the end.
[/b]
Well don't step away because you are the minority by all means, it is often one person, one step, one word that starts the trip of a thousand miles (for better or worse).

The current language says an SFI stamp is the required certification for your H&N. You will go zero disagreement w/ me on that. I am suggesting that H&N devices should follow other elements defined in the GCR as having an alternate approval mechanism (see fire protection, fire bottles, cage materials, seats).

I am not saying that the SCCA must request a rewrite of SFI 38.1, I am saying that by precedent, they could say "all devices that meet SFI 38.1 are approved AND additionally, the following ..... are also approved devices." I actually think the language on fire suits and suppression is written something very much like that.

I am trying to avoid the whole chicken and egg thing (rule vs. product) because IMO, if you introduce that, I and a lot of other folks would be grandfathered in (another precedent set by SCCA's rules) by the time at which we adopted use of these safety devices with regard to the rules change (or even the GCR's "recomendation"). But to argue this makes it a self-centered argument which this really isn't for me. I think the argument should be about my and EVERYONE's safety and choices in how they persue their safety. If there are others out there - yet to purchase a H&N restraint - that feel like I do regarding the Isaac device, they should be allowed to wear it as well.

Heck, I have a Momo Nomex driver suit but would I rather have a PBI / Kevlar suit? You betcha. Luckily due to how the rules are written, PBI/Kevlar doesn't need to be detuned to meet rules. I happen to use a combination of Halon remote & Chemical handheld in-car. Nonetheless, I am happy the rules allow my friends to run AFFF too. My point here is that there are new/old/more obscure means of getting to the same result for safety - I just wish SCCA's rationale on H&N restraints followed suit.

IMO, its a nonsensical rule to ONLY allow SFI 38.1 spec - especially considering what the spec is based on (the ONLY is the important word here).

BTW, regarding the "As to the cage, you COULD build a safer one...but you are only allowed 6 points plus an optional 2 forward bars for a total of 8." This is really not applicable to the discussion as that speaks to a competitive performance advantage in several aspects. And believe me, I don't think anyone that's seen my car thinks I skimped anywhere on cage. But luckily the SCCA gave me lattitude to take full responsibility of my safety within the confines of my cage - they even had "recommendations" on what I needed. Likewise, at one point, the SCCA recommended I use a H&N restraint ... and at one point, they gave me lattitude to take full responsibility of my safety within the confines of that decision as well.