Let's see:

Option 1 - Leave the rule the way it is. H&N are recommended and a SFI labeled (I refuse to say certified) device is recommended. We'd like you to wear a H&N, but you don't have to and, if you do, it be nice if it was SFI, but doesn't have to be.

Option 2 - H&N are required and SFI is recommended. You have to wear a H&N device and SFI is nice, but not required.

Option 3 - H&N are required and here is the list of allowed devices. You have to wear a H&N device and here are the devices we allow you to use.

Option 4 - H&N are required and the device has to be "certified" (whatever that means) by the SFI, FIA, or RSI.

Option 5 - H&N restraints are required and the device has to meet the SFI performance specification (and here are a list of devices that meet this spec). You have to wear a H&N device and that device has to meet a certain level of performance. [ Note: This does not require the device to have a SFI label, just that it has been proven to meet the performance requirements of SFI.]


Any of these would allow the Issac and other non-SFI devices. Option 4 seems shaky to me as RSI doesn't appear to be much of an organization at this point and it would probably be hard to show the "power" of their certification. Options 1 and 2 essentially allows you to use whatever device you want. Option 3 would give SCCA control over what devices are allowed, but means SCCA has to come up with some criteria for allowing said devices. Option 5 is similar to 3, but implies the use of the SFI performance criteria to be on the approved list.

I personally don't think H&N restraints should be mandated. I don't think it's smart to not use one, but I don't think it should be mandated. I could see changing the wording to "highly recommended", but stop short of requiring, and leave the recommended for SFI. If SCCA wants to require H&N restraints then I think there are several methods to allowing devices other than just SFI ones.

David