What are the performance trade-offs in the Icon A5 spin resistant airframe? I've been looking at the website for the Icon A5 amphibian LSA and noticed the wing section clearly has two different cross sections, presumably to facilitate the stall and spin resistance of the aircraft.  One of the videos on the site shows the wing as it stalls and the tell-tales attached to the wing clearly show the flow separation for the inboard section of the wing while the outer section still indicates attached flow.  I would guess that this wing must have either some performance trade offs or else it's a significant cost, otherwise why wouldn't most GA aircraft have this feature?  Perhaps fabrication in sheet metal would be difficult as I believe this aircraft is mostly composite construction.
Though performance details of the aircraft are not available, there seems to be a significant weight penalty associated with making the aircraft spin resistant.
It appears that the aircraft had to get a specific exemption for increased MTOW (1680 lb as against 1430 allowed) due to the incorporation of spin resistant design. Note that the weight given by the manufacturer is 1510 lb, still more than allowed.
As required in the exemption, the aircraft had to be fitted with a ballistic recovery complete-aircraft parachute system, affecting the payload. The engine power is also limited to 135 hp. The range is also low (~300nm).