in my car will do a better job of restraint than any HNRS on the market. again, the way the rule has been changed i would have to use an SFI certified device. any such device will not fit in my cockpit and even if it would, i would not be able to exit. seems to me like there has been some over reaction. i support the concept, just not the application as written in the new rule. let me know if i can be of any help.
We need to keep the issues clear. First, the HNRS has not been raised as an issue in this thread. We were told about its possible implementation two years ago and 1 year ago it was announced to be mandatory in 2011. That is hardly an unreasonable approach by SCTA. Many used the HNRS all of last year. Most of the comments in this thread are about the new lateral movement rule
“at a minimum extend to the forward most portion of the helmet”. That is not an SFI spec. It is SCTA’s modification to the existing lateral movement requirement that has been in effect since last year and is probably why your system is as you describe. All you have to do is extend your lateral supports to the end of your helmet. Repeat: that is
not SFI but a new SCTA rule change. In many cases welding an extension will solve the problem
(if there is space for it)!The discussion is hardly an
overreaction. Using words like that just polarizes people and accomplishes nothing. Just as in your case, this change will make egress virtually impossible for many cars! It is quite possible that the full implication of this change was missed by SCTA and we want to be sure the comsequences are fully understood.
PS: In some cases the HNRS, in conjunction with the new rule, make egress about impossible. In other cases even without a HNRS the extension still makes egress impossible.
