If you didn't know, NASA just jumped in the SFI pool even deeper with their Head and Neck restraint rule requiring a 38.1 standard meeting device. (HANS, R3, etc,) which essentially takes what many believe is the best unit, the Issac off the shoulders of racers. Up fronty, I should point otu that I am biased, and feel the Issac delivers better protection for our type of racing and impacts.

It's interesting to me for several reasons.
1- NASA did it first. Often they follow SCCAs lead
2- Will we see other clubs (PCA, etc) folow NASAs lead?
3 - Will the SCCA decide that if NASA is doing it then they must, or they will be thought of as negligent?

Whats the IT.com take on this?

Is it a good thing to mandate a device like this?

My take is that the 38.1 approved devices are known for being good in straight on crashes, but poor performers is side and more complex hits, and to remedy that, special seats with lateral "halos" are suggested, along with specific belts, in some cases. So the requirement represents a large expenditure, roughly $1400 dollars.
The requirement also makes the use of other systems know for superior lateral performance and equal or better straight on performance illegal.
Net net is that to meet the 38.1 peformance specs, you'd need to spend $400 - $800 , but to comply with the fulll 38.1 spec, you're looking at $1400 or so,(to attain equivilent protection).

I was considering, at Dave grans urging, going to NASAs Hyperfest this year. Now, thats a definate "not going to happen". I wonder how many racers will be put in a huge financial bind by this rule?
[/b]
I like to say too late. BMW Club Racing already requires a SFI approved H&N restraint and as of last year right side nets too. So if I race with BMW club at a SCCA sanctioned event such as the Spring Vintage Festival at Laguna Seca, then I need to bring my R3 with me, and also install right side nets now. I find it silly to argue that we as roadracers don't need this type of protection as several BMW club racers have died from basial skull fractures over this organizations short history. One occured at Buttonwillow during a test and tune day, when safety checking is at a minimum. I find it rather unfortunate that the Issacs system isn't on the approved list, but I am sure that the device that I purchased will protect me as well and actually has some pluses over a standard HANS type set up, such as working with my 3" harness and also not comming loose from stretched belts. As for the deal with the SFI, it's all a legal shell game designed to shift blame and minimize risk by a de-facto risk transfer strategy. I don't like it, but if it keeps our organization and safety equiptment manufactures in bussiness, I accept it as it is.

James