$99 Head and Neck Restraints

[.RJ]

This?

We've built and tested SFI "certifiable" designs at both Wayne State and Delphi, and they exhibit the same flaws as an SFI design, i.e. they lose the belts and you can get stuck in the window on the way out.

Nope not that but this:

2.3
... Direct attachment to react loads to a fixed point or points on a
vehicle structure or restraint webbing will not be acceptable because of the
potential for torso displacements with respect to these points. ...

Same thing That, and the single point of release spec also votes the isaac out for NASA... unless that 2.3 spec infers single point of release, I havent read the whole SFI spec for H&N restraints.

[Ole]

I think we should all have to wear one of these: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3CzYw5-qdA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3CzYw5-qdA</a><!-- m -->

[Evan]

If you read the thread at sm.com, you will see the main reason Gregg does not obtain SFI cert.

because SFI dictates design, not just performance.
if you can skip the ad hominem, you will see that RSI is SFI, without the design restrictions/requirements. Gregg at ISAAC will not sell an inferior and less safe device with the design restrictions of SFI.

But if you want to talk about conflict of interests, HANS is on the SFI board who wrote the specifications.
Pretty brilliant actually, write the specification such that it excludes your competitors and makes it very hard for them to create a product that is not a direct copy of yours. (and then ya got patents.....HANS is currently suing a company for creating a similar device)
actual performance and saftey be damned!

also, keep in mind that SFI does not certify anything. A company pays to join SFI and then is allowed to put an SFI tag on a product if they say it meets the SFI specification. SFI does not do any testing.