Fire Suits

[Greg Amy]

According to the latest Fastrack, as of 11/01/07 (yes, today), the following rule is in effect:

Effective 11/1/07: Change section 9.3.19.A as follows:
Driving suits that effectively cover the body from the neck to the ankles and wrists. One piece suits are highly recommended. All suits shall bear an SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certification label or FIA 8856-2000 homologation. Underwear of fire resistant material shall be used except with suits carrying FIA standard 8856-2000 or
SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch.

This means that unless your driving suit carries one of these certs on the suit (i.e., you must have the SFI patch and/or the FIA embroidery with this cert as a minimum) your suit is no longer legal to use in SCCA.

Thoughts?

Frankly, I think this is an abomination. I know of many good firesuits perfectly capable of providing adequate fire protection, but its maker has not bowed to the demands of the almighty SFI. Plain and simple, it looks like SCCA (and/or its legal team) is sliding in bed with a manufacturer's organization.

I cringe when I think of working Tech in '08. We're going to lose a lot of good people when they show up at their first event (especially their first schools) with a suit that doesn't meet SCCA's new "standards". I'm going to have to look these prior-to-this-moment-excited drivers and tell them they have to go home.

This is not a good thing. - GA

[dickita15]

I cringe when I think of working Tech in '08. We're going to lose a lot of good people when they show up at their first event (especially their first schools) with a suit that doesn't meet SCCA's new "standards". I'm going to have to look these prior-to-this-moment-excited drivers and tell them they have to go home.

This is not a good thing. - GA
[/b]

Boy that is exactly what I have been thinking. While I admit I have seen some suits with no documentation and no way to know how good they are this is going to really suck in tech.
I think it will be a bigger problem at regionals than at schools. I have seen plenty of guys that have no idea of rule changes happening when they have been pending for a couple of years never mind when the first mention is this late.
Hey Greg want to invest in a trackside suit dealership?

[BlueStreak]

I think there is going to be a run on counterfeit patches...

Seriously speaking, this may have been driven by insurance underwriters. I, for one, would like to know if that is the case.

If you have to prove the capabilities of your suit to the tech inspector, and it had nothing identifying the material as one of the materials approved under previous rule, and it had no patch, how is tech to know that it is good enough? I'd say what suit you wear is really none of the club's business, but since we all share the same insurance policy, if someone has $$$$ in medical bills paid by our policy because the suit they were wearing wasn't enough, rates go up, entry fees go up, so it does become some of my business.

Fact is, as long as we have lawyers, this slippery slope will continue to get steeper. The real pain will come when only one organization is respected for certification, whether that be FIA or SFI or ???, and the fix will be in as certification costs will be under a monopoly.

There will come a day when HANS is mandatory as well, for the same reasons: lawyers, insurance companies, and medical bills.

I'm still furious about the harness dating as well. I've got a harness in my car that I used SEVEN times that will be going to some autocrosser this winter because it is now a safety hazard for road racing!

Safety requirements are extremely difficult to get right. Heck, we have states where seatbelts are mandatory and motorcycle helmets are not. I can see logical arguments on both sides of these issues, but can't for the life of me figure out how the same state can logically apply both arguments.

[tom91ita]

ed,

you got to use your belts 7 times? i have given some away because i never used them.

we both need to get out more!

Just went and looked at my suit. it is a SFI 3-2A/5. could not remember. i bought it in circa 1991-2 for my first driver's school.

i remember specifically that i wanted to have a rating that would not require the long undies.

for once luck vs. planning wins out for me.

is this suit rule another attempt to cycle everyone into newer equipment or to have them go to NASA where the rules are not so tight? i really do not understand that if there are only a couple of insurance games in town for this, that the requirements can be so different.

there is a local car club (furrin group) that does autocrosses. they allow riders (that have signed teh waiver and are over 18) whereas SCCA does not. they use the same ins. co. as scca and scca cites insurance for not having riders.

and happy thanksgiving to every one! leaving in a few minutes for another annual attempt at assuring my suit does not fit next year.

tom

[924Guy]

I can see some sense and logic behind the rule change... possibly. But I definitely would like to see it expressly spelled out just what has driven this change - we shouldn't have to guess.

Another item - referenced in the other thread, it sounds as if the use of CarbonX is not interchangeable with Nomex? News to me - I have been slowly buying up some, as I do like the product... going to have to go back and check I guess the new GCR... not required that I use it, but I prefer having more than the bare minimum of protection!

[Knestis]

I just can't muster the strength to explain how pissed off I am about this.

K

[JeffYoung]

Does anyone have any idea why this was done??

[mbuskuhl]

... or to have them go to NASA where the rules are not so tight?

tom
[/b]


What NASA rules are "not so tight"?

NASA CCR "A driver is required to wear a suit that covers his or her entire body except for hands, feet, and head. Driving suits shall be one piece carrying an SFI 3.2A/1 rating or higher (3.2A/5, 3.2A/10, 3.2A/15, or 3.2A/20) or FIA 8856-2000."

Their underwear, helmet, socks, gloves, shoes rules are also the same.

NASA rules are MORE STRINGENT in my opinion. For safety, they REQUIRE a right side net or seat bolster (effective July 1, 2007) and as it stands now, January 1, 2008 will require a SFI approved head and neck restraint system (got pushed back from July 1, 2007).

http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/ccr.pdf

[BlueStreak]

ed,

you got to use your belts 7 times? i have given some away because i never used them.

we both need to get out more!

[/b]

AGREED!




and happy thanksgiving to every one! leaving in a few minutes for another annual attempt at assuring my suit does not fit next year.

tom
[/b]

THAT was funny..........is this why I keep outgrowing suits?????? :lol:

[vr6guy]

So let me get this straight.... I cant use my 3 layer omp suit, but I can go into my fathers closet and use his 2 layer suit, (because of its sfi rating meets standards) THAT WAS PURCHASED IN 1984!!!??? oh yeah I bought mine in 2001.... If this makes any "logical" sense to anyone here, in a realm of reality that isnt completely screwed up, please explain!?

the scca Hokey Pokey

take your right foot in
take your right foot out
take your right foot in
and take your shotgun out
you pull the trigger and shoot your foot right off
thats what the scca's about!!!!

Ive seen a monkey ride a bike, even a squirrel water ski!!! It would amaze me if scca makes it another ten years


:eclipsee_steering: "I wanna go fast"

Marc Rider
NER

[tom91ita]

What NASA rules are "not so tight"?

NASA CCR "A driver is required to wear a suit that covers his or her entire body except for hands, feet, and head. Driving suits shall be one piece carrying an SFI 3.2A/1 rating or higher (3.2A/5, 3.2A/10, 3.2A/15, or 3.2A/20) or FIA 8856-2000."

Their underwear, helmet, socks, gloves, shoes rules are also the same.

NASA rules are MORE STRINGENT in my opinion. For safety, they REQUIRE a right side net or seat bolster (effective July 1, 2007) and as it stands now, January 1, 2008 will require a SFI approved head and neck restraint system (got pushed back from July 1, 2007).

http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/ccr.pdf
[/b]

you are right. bad example with regards to the firesuits and misc. gear. i mean rules in general. and it may just be my perception based on what i have seen with scca events and nasa events.
<blockquote>having half of track be hot and half "cold" so that after the checker, cars and trucks can cross the track from the infield while cars are on the cool-down as opposed to waiting for the track to be completely clear of race-cars.</blockquote>
<blockquote>fewer corner workers to operate flags and fire bottles</blockquote>
<blockquote>ballast bolted to the main hoops of roll cages</blockquote>
my apologies.

tom

[vr6guy]

A little info I found on the net.... very interesting
FIA

The European recognized FIA conducts their own testing and is similar to it&#39;s American equivalent: SFI. The FIA grades only on one level, which is a higher standard than most U.S. race sanctioning organizations require a pass or fail. The FIA minimum requirement equates to just slightly below a SFI grade 10 fabric. These suits are almost equal to an SFI 3.2A/10-38 rated suit ( almost 19 seconds of protection without underwear!) however, for import reasons there is no recognized SFI rating number that falls in-between a 5-19 suit and a 10-38 suit.

So, what this all means is: any FIA approved suit will carry the label stating that the suit complies to their standards in Europe. Additionally, for the U.S. market, because the SFI rating numbers cannot be "rounded up", the suit will also carry the more recognized "lower" SFI rating label for legal reasons, even though the suit meets or exceeds the much stricter FIA demands.

That tells me my suit is just fine........ this should be looked at by all!!!

Its a no brainer, my suit exceeds the minimum requirements

[spnkzss]

I don&#39;t remember seeing anything about this prior to this coming out. That is very bothersome. I see it as a precursor to a mandatory SFI H&N restraint.

I think the least they could have done was said effective 1/1/09.

[spdmonkey]

I don&#39;t remember seeing anything about this prior to this coming out. That is very bothersome. I see it as a precursor to a mandatory SFI H&N restraint.

I think the least they could have done was said effective 1/1/09.
[/b]

As I stated in the other thread this first appeared in a Fastrack during the summer. I thought it was July although it may have been August but it definately was in Fastrack as I fired off a letter and got no response beyond the automated we got your letter deal. I know for my Sparco suit it was sold with both FIA and the SFI ratings in versions produced the following years after I bought mine. I will try contacing Sparco to see if I can get an SFI tage added to my suit. Regardless its totally bogus that my suit which is in better condition than so many others I see in use is worthless now.

db

[Andy Bettencourt]

Can someone point me to a link of a suit that doesn&#39;t meet this standard? Even the $100 G-Force stuff does...

http://www.gforce.com/products/suits.php

I don&#39;t think its the SCCA sliding in bed with the SFI, if anything, it would be an attempt at keeping insurance rates in check. Hopefully.

[vr6guy]

Can someone point me to a link of a suit that doesn&#39;t meet this standard? Even the $100 G-Force stuff does...

http://www.gforce.com/products/suits.php

I don&#39;t think its the SCCA sliding in bed with the SFI, if anything, it would be an attempt at keeping insurance rates in check. Hopefully.
[/b]


The point Im tryin to make is that my suit is far better than the basic requrements...... this isnt rocket science.
I wouldnt get into a race car wearing the bare minimum required "rating"

scca making my $800 suit for over the wall crewing..... comedic!

I can hear the hokey pokey music playin....

Marc Rider
NER ;)

[RSTPerformance]

I deleted my post... I will keep that I am pissed beyond belief. I also have a 3 layer $800+ OMP suite that I got around year 2000 and doesn&#39;t meet this new spec. I refuse to buy a new suite. How can we get this changed?

Raymond "Many asked on phone or via e-mail what my plans are for next season... I am now buyng a boat where I can wear my non spec speedo and do whatever I want where morons wont f me from behind everytime I turn around" Blethen

My reaction in no way represents RST Performance Racing... but I don&#39;t think all of you want me to create yet another "Blethen" log-in name!

Further review....

what does this line mean???

Underwear of fire resistant material shall be used except with suits carrying FIA standard 8856-2000 or SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch.

I read it as sayting that we can use our old suites but we now must also wear fire resistant undies (Most likely thongs correct)?

Raymond

[Andy Bettencourt]

HOW THE HELL does a $800 suit not carry an SFI rating?

[pfcs49]

sombebody start a longsuite!

[Greg Amy]

I read it as sayting that we can use our old suites but we now must also wear fire resistant undies (Most likely thongs correct)?[/b]

Negative. You must own an SFI "/1" suit at a minimum; if your suit is /5 or higher you don&#39;t need undies - GA

[RSTPerformance]

Andy-

My suite is an OMP bought in 2000 I think, No SFI label, only a FIA stiched label "FIA NORME 1986/1986 STANDARD 04.257. CSAI.99"

My biggest disapointment was that I didn&#39;t know this rule was going to go into effect before I bought my new helmet 2 races ago to meet that unnessasary rule, and that I bought belts 2 years ago when that unnessasry rule went into effect.

Raymond

[vr6guy]

HOW THE HELL does a $800 suit not carry an SFI rating?
[/b]

OMP has never had them...... and If you do some reading you will find that the FiA rating that my $800 suit bears is way above what the silly little sfi rating, and scca requirements for a minimum.

My suit with no underoos TPP 19 seconds
the silly sfi minimum rating deemed safe by scca TPP 3 seconds
Hmmmmm

19 vs 3? no matter how you cut it 19 is better than 3

If this doesnt get rectified Im going to smack the people who decided on this with my $800 suit filled with bricks!!! :birra:

:OLA: are these guys part of the circus?

[Knestis]

Here&#39;s the short version of how SFI works...

1. Manufacturer joins SFI - passing the cost on to you in the form of increased prices

2. Sanctioning body joins SFI - paying for said membership with your dues.

3. SFI tests and confirms that a sample of a given suit material sandwich meets a particular SFI specificaton

4. Manufacturer agrees under the SFI membership license that it will put tags only on suits made of tested material combinations (including color) - if it wants to sell different suits, it&#39;s back to SFI with more $.

5. SFI sells the manufacturer tags (as in, one for every suit that gets sold), passing the cost on to you.

6. Sanctioning body requires SFI certification, thereby guaranteeing that we have no choice but to patronize SFI member manufacturers and line SFI&#39;s pockets.

7. Most importantly - Manufacturer, sanctioning body, and SFI play a shell game with liability for your safety, paid for by you. (Elegant, huh?) I&#39;ll find and post it when I get home but SFI specifically says that a tag is NOT certification that a suit is safe, or that it will provide any particular level of protection in the real world - ONLY that the sandwich of materials has passed a particular test. The sanctioning body gets to say that it&#39;s "following industry standards" rather than setting its own, which might open it up to liability. However, the manufacturers have all kinds of disclaimers in their brochures, etc. that "auto racing is inherently dangerous, so if you burn up it&#39;s not our fault," and besides - they&#39;ve followed the industry standards required by the sanctioning body.

8. The trade association functions - increasing revenues for all member parties - is only a secondary benefit. Isn&#39;t it? Yeah. It must be, because all three partners in the process keep telling us that all they care about is our safety.

Meanwhile, I can&#39;t wear what amounts to a funny car suit to drive my IT car.

K

EDIT - it&#39;s implicit but not specifically explained above that if a manufacturer chooses to NOT join SFI, it doesn&#39;t get to participate in a portion of its target market regardless of how good their suits are. Luckily, since the drivers are trapped in a three-legged conundrum, they have NO CHOICE but to accept the increased costs of SFI membership, so there is zero disincentive for a manufacturer to drink the KoolAid.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Write your letters. It may be possible to squash this like we did with the H&N SFI issue. Start your letter with ,"I am an IT racer..." so Jake and I can track the letter count from us.

[dj10]

Andy-

My suite is an OMP bought in 2000 I think, No SFI label, only a FIA stiched label "FIA NORME 1986/1986 STANDARD 04.257. CSAI.99"

My biggest disapointment was that I didn&#39;t know this rule was going to go into effect before I bought my new helmet 2 races ago to meet that unnessasary rule, and that I bought belts 2 years ago when that unnessasry rule went into effect.

Raymond [/b]

Raymond,

I&#39;m sure that this just an oversight & I would be willing to bet the standard your 800 OMP suit carries will be legal to race. I agree with Andy and write your letter, just in case, but by bringing it to the SCCA&#39;s attention, I&#39;m sure they will make a quick rewrite of the rule. In this case it would be hard for me to believe that common sense won&#39;t prevail. B)

[Greg Amy]

...I would be willing to bet the standard your 800 OMP suit carries will be legal to race...I&#39;m sure they will make a quick rewrite of the rule. In this case it would be hard for me to believe that common sense won&#39;t prevail.[/b]
I find your optimism quite refreshing. However, you vastly underestimate the allure of the SFI siren call... - GA

[dj10]

I find your optimism quite refreshing. However, you vastly underestimate the allure of the SFI siren call... - GA [/b]

Since I have an approved FIA seat I would inclined to believe that they would have some kind of equavilent from FIA to SFI when it comes to expensive racing suits.

Mr., the glass is half full Jones :D

[lateapex911]

DJ is just a optimistic guy these days because he finally got his ECU rule gift wrapped under the tree...;)

[dj10]

DJ is just a optimistic guy these days because he finally got his ECU rule gift wrapped under the tree... ;) [/b]

Your right Jake! If the SCCA can make this decision I&#39;m sure the can get the SFI/ FIA suit issue correct especially since the OMP FIA suit is probably equivalent to the SFI/5 or better. :D



"To keep your head when all around you are losing their&#39;s" B)

[dickita15]

It would seem to me that there are three distinct issues,
One is the nice FIA suits that are to a standard that is not in the GCR wording.
Second is I for one did not hear much chatter about this so it is asking for a big upgrade on very short notice.
And third is the whole idea of the nanny state where we have to meet a particular standard set by SFI or FIA.

[RSTPerformance]

Write your letters. It may be possible to squash this like we did with the H&N SFI issue. Start your letter with ,"I am an IT racer..." so Jake and I can track the letter count from us.
[/b]

Andy-

Are we sending letters to the [email protected], [email protected] or the itac so that you (the itac) can track them?

Raymond

[Andy Bettencourt]

CRB

[vr6guy]

Heres an idea for a future scca rule.... Fill vehicle with flame retardent gelatin, with driver inside. Wait till it becomes a solid, then go race......

[Dave Zaslow]

Dear BOD and CRB Members,

In 2007 we had:

Driving suits that effectively cover the body from the neck to the ankles and wrists, manufactured of fire resistant material, worn with underwear of a fire resistant material. One piece suits are highly recommended. All suits and underwear shall be made of the following accepted fire resistant materials: Nomex, Kynol, FPT, IWS (wool), Fiberglass, Firewear™, Durette, Fypro, PBI, Kevlar, NASAFIL, or any suit carrying an SFI 3-2A/1 or higher certification patch. Underwear of PROBAN is approved. The following specific manufacturer(s) material combinations are also recognized: Simpson Heat Shield, Leston Super Protex, FPT Linea Sport, Carbon X, and Durette X-400. Underwear is not required with three-layer suits or with suits carrying FIA standards of 8856-1986 or 8856-2000 or SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch. FIA homologated driving suits and underwear are recommended.

In 2008 this has been changed to:

Driving suits that effectively cover the body from the neck to the ankles and wrists. One piece suits are highly recommended. All suits shall bear an SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certification label or FIA 8856-2000 homologation. Underwear of fire resistant material shall be used except with suits carrying FIA standard 8856-2000 or SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch.


As I understand this, in 2007 a suit was required to be made of the listed materials. If that suit had no label, fire resistant underwear of the listed materials was required to be worn as well. If the suit had three layers but had no label, or carried certain SFI or FIA labels, then underwear was no longer required.

For 2008 there is no longer a list of approved materials, just a standard of material/construction as evidenced by a label. This is a good thing as SCCA should not be in the material approval business. So to set a performance standard, as opposed to a specific named material, that performance pass/fail test comes via an SFI or FIA label being mandatory. If that label is the latest FIA or SFI 3.2A/5 or greater spec, underwear is not only unecessary, it is not allowed (...shall be used except...)


I consider performance standards a good thing if they are well thought through. This one certainly could use some tweaking.

I also consider it an undue burden for racers to be required to do this on such short notice. Please reconsider making this mandatory for the 2008 racing year. If this is to change it must be immediatly published as a bulletin. There is scant time left in this calendar year.

Lastly, can you please tell me the differences in the old/new FIA specs as to make them now unsatisfactory for our purposes? If the SFI3.2A spec hasn&#39;t changed in years (or if it has, the numbering hasn&#39;t) why get rid of the old FIA spec? After all we are still allowed to use Snell 2000 helmets as well as 2005.

Thanks,

Dave Zaslow
#189195

[spdmonkey]

Nicely written Dave. Very similar to one I wrote months ago when this first appeared. GUYS THIS IS NOT A RULE THATS JUST SPRUNG UP. It was mentioned months ago in Fastrack and very few must have responded. I hope we can band together to get this delayed, overturned or burned(hahaha). It not just gonna go away I fear. Wait until the first races of the year. This is going to catch a ton of people out I fear.

db

[gsbaker]

What a mess, in so many ways.



Here&#39;s the short version of how SFI works...

1. Manufacturer joins SFI - passing the cost on to you in the form of increased prices

2. Sanctioning body joins SFI - paying for said membership with your dues.

3. SFI tests and confirms that a sample of a given suit material sandwich meets a particular SFI specificaton

4. Manufacturer agrees under the SFI membership license that it will put tags only on suits made of tested material combinations (including color) - if it wants to sell different suits, it&#39;s back to SFI with more $.

5. SFI sells the manufacturer tags (as in, one for every suit that gets sold), passing the cost on to you.

6. Sanctioning body requires SFI certification, thereby guaranteeing that we have no choice but to patronize SFI member manufacturers and line SFI&#39;s pockets.

7. Most importantly - Manufacturer, sanctioning body, and SFI play a shell game with liability for your safety, paid for by you. (Elegant, huh?) I&#39;ll find and post it when I get home but SFI specifically says that a tag is NOT certification that a suit is safe, or that it will provide any particular level of protection in the real world - ONLY that the sandwich of materials has passed a particular test. The sanctioning body gets to say that it&#39;s "following industry standards" rather than setting its own, which might open it up to liability. However, the manufacturers have all kinds of disclaimers in their brochures, etc. that "auto racing is inherently dangerous, so if you burn up it&#39;s not our fault," and besides - they&#39;ve followed the industry standards required by the sanctioning body.

8. The trade association functions - increasing revenues for all member parties - is only a secondary benefit. Isn&#39;t it? Yeah. It must be, because all three partners in the process keep telling us that all they care about is our safety.

Meanwhile, I can&#39;t wear what amounts to a funny car suit to drive my IT car.

K[/b]
Well done sir. However, this process works only in a rather static environment, i.e. when there is no pressure to improve safety and/or no one is coming up with new ideas. When such is the case, everything is reduced to a pass-fail commodity and the low-cost producer wins. True of any industry. Manufacturers who make cheap product love SFI; those who make the good stuff are not so enthusiastic.

The net effect of the SFI model is to hinder advances in driver safety. Allow me to pass along two examples, one real and one purely hypothetical, make-believe:


1. True story

Me, speaking to an Unnamed Executive of an Unnamed Safety Products Company, a UEUSPC for short: "I thought you were a big fan of SFI?"
UEUSPC: "I am publically, but not privately."
Me: "Why?"
UEUSPC: "I can&#39;t make a better product."
Me: "What do you mean?"
UEUSPC: "Well, we already have an SFI label, right?"
Me: "Right."
UEUSPC: "So let&#39;s say we have an idea for a fantastic new product. What happens if we spend tons of time, money and effort to develop this new product that blows away all the competition?"
Me: " You&#39;d save lives and make tons of money!"
UEUSPC: "No, we wouldn&#39;t. It would all be wasted. We&#39;d end up with the same SFI label we have now, so why bother?"


EDIT - it&#39;s implicit but not specifically explained above that if a manufacturer chooses to NOT join SFI, it doesn&#39;t get to participate in a portion of its target market regardless of how good their suits are.... there is zero disincentive for a manufacturer to drink the KoolAid. [emphasis added]
[/b]
Ah, but that is the part that is changing due to, ironically, liability.


2. A purely hypothetical, make believe example. Honest.

Let&#39;s say a safety product manufacturer works on a product for use outside of motorsports which protects "occupants" from head and neck injuries in extreme conditions. I&#39;m talking conditions so extreme that racing doesn&#39;t even come close, at speeds racing couldn&#39;t touch, and that the application is so critical that funding is unlimited--hypothetically speaking, of course.

And let&#39;s say this product was successfully tested last week at record setting speeds because, well, this is just a hypothetical and that sounds kinda cool. After all, I&#39;m just making this up as I go. Honest.

And let&#39;s say they take this king-of-the-mountain design to SFI and are told they cannot get a label because it does not meet the spec. When they discover they must detune their design to meet the lower SFI performance, their lawyers tell them, "Don&#39;t do it. There is too much liability in making an inferior design." So they don&#39;t do it, and drivers are denied a safer product.

Then things get ugly. Drivers want the safer product, their sanctioning body won&#39;t let them use it, drivers get hurt and sue the sanctioning body into oblivion. That&#39;s the second-worse scenario, behind the Feds showing up with RICO charges.

The SFI model is an asset to sanctioning bodies when it ensures drivers access to the safest designs available. When it doesn&#39;t, SFI becomes a liability--and sanctioning bodies know it. They don&#39;t need SFI; they can pick and choose what rules to apply and, frankly, SCCA does a fairly good job of this, from our perspective.

[vr6guy]

What a mess, in so many ways.
Well done sir. However, this process works only in a rather static environment, i.e. when there is no pressure to improve safety and/or no one is coming up with new ideas. When such is the case, everything is reduced to a pass-fail commodity and the low-cost producer wins. True of any industry. Manufacturers who make cheap product love SFI; those who make the good stuff are not so enthusiastic.

The net effect of the SFI model is to hinder advances in driver safety. Allow me to pass along two examples, one real and one purely hypothetical, make-believe:
1. True story

Me, speaking to an Unnamed Executive of an Unnamed Safety Products Company, a UEUSPC for short: "I thought you were a big fan of SFI?"
UEUSPC: "I am publically, but not privately."
Me: "Why?"
UEUSPC: "I can&#39;t make a better product."
Me: "What do you mean?"
UEUSPC: "Well, we already have an SFI label, right?"
Me: "Right."
UEUSPC: "So let&#39;s say we have an idea for a fantastic new product. What happens if we spend tons of time, money and effort to develop this new product that blows away all the competition?"
Me: " You&#39;d save lives and make tons of money!"
UEUSPC: "No, we wouldn&#39;t. It would all be wasted. We&#39;d end up with the same SFI label we have now, so why bother?"
Ah, but that is the part that is changing due to, ironically, liability.
2. A purely hypothetical, make believe example. Honest.

Let&#39;s say a safety product manufacturer works on a product for use outside of motorsports which protects "occupants" from head and neck injuries in extreme conditions. I&#39;m talking conditions so extreme that racing doesn&#39;t even come close, at speeds racing couldn&#39;t touch, and that the application is so critical that funding is unlimited--hypothetically speaking, of course.

And let&#39;s say this product was successfully tested last week at record setting speeds because, well, this is just a hypothetical and that sounds kinda cool. After all, I&#39;m just making this up as I go. Honest.

And let&#39;s say they take this king-of-the-mountain design to SFI and are told they cannot get a label because it does not meet the spec. When they discover they must detune their design to meet the lower SFI performance, their lawyers tell them, "Don&#39;t do it. There is too much liability in making an inferior design." So they don&#39;t do it, and drivers are denied a safer product.

Then things get ugly. Drivers want the safer product, their sanctioning body won&#39;t let them use it, drivers get hurt and sue the sanctioning body into oblivion. That&#39;s the second-worse scenario, behind the Feds showing up with RICO charges.

The SFI model is an asset to sanctioning bodies when it ensures drivers access to the safest designs available. When it doesn&#39;t, SFI becomes a liability--and sanctioning bodies know it. They don&#39;t need SFI; they can pick and choose what rules to apply and, frankly, SCCA does a fairly good job of this, from our perspective.
[/b]

where in all that does it explain to me that my omp fia suit is considered below the scca required fire protection? Fact is it isnt below the set standards. Personally I wouldnt race with the minimum that scca requires. The fact is, that my suit as well as many other racers,(the Blethens have the same exact suit that I have) is well above the sfi minmum requirement that scca is using. :026:

[gsbaker]

Well, I was generalizing, and I understand that the suit issue is a mess.

But both the specific and general problems are solved if the Club mandates safety products based on performance only. A manufacturer will tell you when a product should be replaced. A belt made for SFI is good for two years; that same belt made for the USAF is good for 13 years. Assuming they both meet some performance threshold, you should be able to buy either one and replace it when the manufacturer suggests.

BTW. who made this proposal to begin with? What was the logic behind it?

[Ron Earp]

HOW THE HELL does a $800 suit not carry an SFI rating?
[/b]

When it is an OMP three layer suit conforming to FIA (WORLD STANDARDS, I CAN USE IT EVERYWHERE TO RACE, BUT NOT SCCA) standard that are higher than the SFI standards. I have one, it is now a $800 pit crew suit and I have used it in England on track regulated by FIA standards. This is insane.

Now my British buddies that are licensed FIA racers that come over for the VIR 13 Hour race (three years running) now will have illegal gear in America.

In the meantime I&#39;ll be contacting my HK product person on replica SFI patches. Come see me in the alley beside my trailer at the first race.

Crap like this really does frustrate racers and certainly makes one think about moving clubs. I won&#39;t, but it definitely makes you think.

Ron

[spdmonkey]

BTW. who made this proposal to begin with? What was the logic behind it?
[/b]




HERE IS THE PROPOSAL FROM AUGUST 2007 FASTRACK

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/07-...ugust-final.pdf (http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/07-fastrack-august-final.pdf)


PROPOSED RULE CHANGES or CAR RECLASSIFICATIONS. The following subjects will be referred to the Board of Directors for approval.
Address all comments, both for and against, to the Club Racing Board. Comments may be e-mailed to [email protected].
GCR
Item 1. Effective 11/1/07: Change section 9.3.19.A as follows:
Driving suits that effectively cover the body from the neck to the ankles and wrists, manufactured of fire resistant material, worn with
underwear of a fire resistant material. One piece suits are highly recommended. All suits shall bear an SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certifica-
tion label or FIA 8856-2000 homologation. and underwear shall be made of the following accepted fire resistant materials: Nomex,
Kynol, FPT, IWS (wool), Fiberglass, FirewearTM, Durette, Fypro, PBI, Kevlar, NASAFIL, or any suit carrying an SFI 3-2A/1 or higher certi-
fication patch. Underwear of PROBAN is approved. The following specific manufacturer(s) material combinations are also recognized:
Simpson Heat Shield, Leston Super Protex, FPT Linea Sport, Carbon X, and Durette X-400. Underwear of fire resistant material shall
be used except Underwear is not requiredwith three-layer suits or withsuits carrying FIA standards of 8856-1986 or8856-2000 or
SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch. FIA homologated driving suits and underwear are recommended.


Bold is mine. Immediately after that it goes to the next issue that will catch people out and that is your fire system. Get ready for the same SFI argument there. Get ready to spend good money for the same thing you have now--except with an SFI label.....


So what happened to the 1986 Standard between this original posting in Fastrack and the now official posting??????? I questioned the wording when that was initially published as it is not clear.

db




In the meantime I&#39;ll be contacting my HK product person on replica SFI patches. Come see me in the alley beside my trailer at the first race.

Ron
[/b]

I think alot of us were thinking something similar. I have an old racequip suit with an SFI patch on it too... :018:

db

[gsbaker]

Fine, but who proposed it? That is often, if not always, included in FasTrack.

Let&#39;s keep it simple: Is this another case of SFI executives/dealers proposing SCCA force members to buy more SFI stuff?

[anrkii]

Wow,

All I can say is that If I have to replace my one year old suit because of a nonsensical wording issue with the rules, I will cut up my scca membership and go run with the other crowd.


Its no wonder theres hardly anyone my age running with the scca. (26)

Us "youngsters" arent interested in politics, only racing.

[Ron Earp]

I think alot of us were thinking something similar. I have an old racequip suit with an SFI patch on it too... :018:

db
[/b]

Yeah, well, you&#39;d think it&#39;d be a :018: to not outlaw perfectly fine fire suits overnight because the club has gotten into bed with an organization.




Wow,

All I can say is that If I have to replace my one year old suit because of a nonsensical wording issue with the rules, I will cut up my scca membership and go run with the other crowd.
Its no wonder theres hardly anyone my age running with the scca. (26)

Us "youngsters" arent interested in politics, only racing.
[/b]

And you are actually a young one! When I look around the paddock at the ripe age of 38 I know that I&#39;m sometimes one of the younger guys around. Not good for the SCCA.

[Racerlinn]

I believe the ebay search of "cheap used race suit with easily removed SFI label stitched on" may become very popular.... :(

[ScotMac]

I believe the ebay search of "cheap used race suit with easily removed SFI label stitched on" may become very popular.... :(
[/b]

Nah...Just get Ron&#39;s HK knockoff patches!!!

[JeffYoung]

While I think the new rule incredibly ill advised, upon advice of his legal counsel, there will be no Earp Knock Off patches.

[Andy Bettencourt]

When it is an OMP three layer suit conforming to FIA (WORLD STANDARDS, I CAN USE IT EVERYWHERE TO RACE, BUT NOT SCCA) standard that are higher than the SFI standards.


Ron [/b]

So it doesn&#39;t have a FIA cert on it either?

[RSTPerformance]

andy stop playing stupid... OMP suits are FIA approved. Within the last couple years they went from the 1986 spec to the 2000 spec so you won&#39;t find them on the Internet still for sale with the 1986 spec... But many of us budgeted racers that feel safety is important and bought an expensive suite a few years ago now find ourselves yet again throwing away more safe equipment that we cannot afford to replace. Many of these suites do exist without SFI flameproof patches. I have no idea where it can be proven that the suite is safer than some $100.00 piece of crap suit but I bet it can be proven if it needs to be.. I have e-mailed Bob Introne, and I am sure as the head of the BOD and as my area rep that he will get back to me. Let&#39;s hope this gets resolved before more members get turned off from SCCA.

Raymond

[JeffYoung]

Ray, settle down. Andy&#39;s not being stupid, he&#39;s asking (me and Ron) a question - what FIA cert does the OMP suit (I used to have a Trend, Ron does now) carry?

The rule allows for the SFI cert AND one FIA cert. I believe -- Andy correct me if I am wrong -- Andy was simply asking if the OMP suit carries the allowed FIA cert and is, ergo, legal.

I&#39;m going to check mine now.

[RSTPerformance]

They are now 8856-2000... A few years ago they were 1986/1986. I am guessing that was probably the maximum FIA spec at the time. Anyone know when the specs were changed with FIA?

[Matt Rowe]

2001

[JeffYoung]

Raymond, here&#39;s the rule:

All suits shall bear an SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certification label or FIA 8856-2000 homologation.

My OMP Trend was manufactured in 2002 and carries teh FIA 8856-2000 homologation. While I have replaced it with a newer SFI rated Sparco, it would be good to go this year...but for the hole in the ass.

Raymond, your suit -- what FIA cert does it carry?

Maybe the sky is not falling.

[RSTPerformance]

mine is a FIA NORME 1986/1986... I think that you will find it is what most people whom have the issue have.

It looks like the FIA made it a regulation on 6/30/05 when I do a search of the regulations on the FIA website. I can not fing any info on the 1986/1986 requirements. What I really think is important is to find the actual data on the different specs. Bob and or the CRB has to have them if they made the rule and I am sure that they will share the specs... I will e-mail them rather than search for hours and come up emptyhanded....

It also appears most pro racing overseas requires the new spec while amature series allow what I have...

Raymond

[Quickshoe]

Raymond,

The 6/30/05 date is the date that the current spec was last revised. You can look at the spec and the changes are in bold.

Matt Rowe, said "2001"....not sure how he knows that but the "2000" suffix in the spec would imply that the spec was drafted in 2000. Perhaps the suits became available in 2001.

I have an expensive OMP suit that was manufactured in 2003 it carries the 2000 spec. F--- the SFI, as long as I continue to have the option I will avoid buying products that bear the SFI label.

On another note, you asked in an earilier post on this thread what organization I race with. I race with VARA. Unfortunately (for you) all their events are in California, Nevada and Arizona. They are a Vintage racing group, but not your stereotypical parade, cars are the stars group. They have real wheel to wheel racing. Some run groups are a little more in the vintage spirit with the safety bubble stuff, but only because their cars are almost irreplaceable. The remaining 75% of the run groups are as competitive as anyone else. I&#39;d go as far to say that anyone looking to race competitively in So-Cal with a vintage legal car that is racing with the SCCA is nuts for doing so. NorPac and SFR seem to have a good program with plenty of competition--Cal Club and SoPac, not so much....sure there are exceptions but not many, that is why they are exceptions. If I offend any of the Cal Club or SoPac racers I am sure you are the exception :D Seriously, any Cal Club or SoPac guys think they are going to come out and beat up on bunch of vintage racers come on out. I&#39;ve got a cold beer and a good battle for you. #66 FProduction.

[lateapex911]

I got my Sparco in 2003 or 2004 , and it carries the FIA 2000 patch (along with an SFI/5 patch)

If the change over occured as Matt states in 2001, it is possible that the suits carrying the FIA portion of the "Or" part of the rule are all 5 years old, or older.

[Ron Earp]

Okay, finally got back to the race trailer so I can see what I have.

I&#39;ve got an OMP suit with FIA Certification sewn directly to the collar. IT reads:

"Standard 8856-2000"
RS.004.01
Year of Manufacture 2004

[Andy Bettencourt]

Geez Ray! Just trying to figure out if your FIA cert meets the current rule...

[JeffYoung]

So really what we are talking about here is essentially "outlawing" suits with an FIA rating standard that is more than 21 years old (the 1986 standard), but allowing one that applies to all suits seven years or less old?

What&#39;s the shelf life on a suit anyway? I would suspect after time (mine did, although I didn&#39;t take that good care of it) you would want to replace the thing anyway due to wear, failing seems, etc.

I&#39;m not so sure the sky is falling..........

[dickita15]

I got my Sparco in 2003 or 2004 , and it carries the FIA 2000 patch (along with an SFI/5 patch)

If the change over occured as Matt states in 2001, it is possible that the suits carrying the FIA portion of the "Or" part of the rule are all 5 years old, or older.
[/b]
Which is not very old for a well cared for suit (and Jake I am not saying you said it was). It is somewhat important to remember that a lot of SCCA drivers only race 2-4 weekends a year.

We have rules to stop poorly cared for suits from being used, the age alone should not be a major factor unless they can show us where performance standards have had a massive change.

I think what annoys me the most is I know of no problem that been caused by suits with no documentation.

[Greg Amy]

I think a key point you dudes are overlooking is NOT whether new stuff is certified; I think you&#39;ll find most, if not all, new stuff is either FIA or SFI certified (though I have no doubt there are exceptions).

The REAL point here is that there are a lot of folks, especially first-timers and old-timers, that show up with old(er) fire protections suits, many made prior to these regulations. Trust me: I get to see a lot of these during annual inspections, and I&#39;d estimate that a good 50% or more of the club racers out there are not using pretty new shiny Sparco, OMP, or G-Force suits, instead choosing to use standard undies and older Nomex/Prothane/etc fire protection. Up through 10.31.07 these suits were perfectly legal to use, but with a stroke of the pen today they&#39;re all not.

What this means is that a significant portion of the SCCA Club Racing community is now going to have to spend money on fire protection that may or may not be as good as what they had.

Or, more importantly, maybe they won&#39;t... - GA

[Ron Earp]

What&#39;s the shelf life on a suit anyway? I would suspect after time (mine did, although I didn&#39;t take that good care of it) you would want to replace the thing anyway due to wear, failing seems, etc.
[/b]

A suit should easily last seven years with good care, no doubt. Good care means not working on the car in it, cleaning it every weekend, etc. Yours lasted four plus years with brutal treatment - so seven plus years should be no problem with care.

Regardless it basically seems unfair that guys were perfectly legal throughout 2007 and will now be deemed illegal. And illegal based not on logical data, but illegal based on SCCA/Vendor relationships that don&#39;t have the safety of the racers as top priority, or doesn&#39;t appear to if the SFI specs are more lax than the FIA specs.

Ron

[Andy Bettencourt]

As Jake eluded to earlier, we have an ITAC call tonight and I will make sure we get any info we can from the CRB and publish it here.

[Ron Earp]

Thanks Andy, much appreciated by all I&#39;m sure.

Ron

[Knestis]

My "3.5-layer" Design 500 suit is 20 years old and is in essentially perfect condition.

I took a long sabbatical in there of course but Nomex and related aramid fibers are pretty tough and do NOT lose any of their fire/heat resistant qualities unless severely degraded by UV light. Structural integrity is another issue of course - you could mechanically wear through or blow a seam, even with normal use, if you race a LOT. Wash your suit in warm water and don&#39;t hang it in the sun.

Maybe we need to revisit the RICO idea. This SFI thing pisses me off even more, every time it raises its ugly head.

K

[JeffYoung]

If the old ones still work, and meet acceptable standards, then this is silly. Let me know what I can do to help get it changed.

[gsbaker]

If the old ones still work, and meet acceptable standards, then this is silly. Let me know what I can do to help get it changed.
[/b]
Here&#39;s a thought: Let&#39;s do a little science. Let&#39;s compare the performance of old suits to new suits. Seriously, don&#39;t throw the old ones out. I have no idea what the test protocols are, but it should not be that difficult to conduct the same test on two suits that vary only by age.

If this page weren&#39;t empty, SCCA may have another option: http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/Suits.html

We can either complain about it or do something about it.

[Greg Amy]

Let&#39;s compare the performance of old suits to new suits.[/b]
Material testing for fire resistance is easy; I had to do it some years ago for some automotive fabrics and vinyls I used in the interior of my airplane. Cost is low, too. Without going into FAA definitions here (which are as clumsy as SCCA&#39;s), I wrote a full article on the experience:

http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182839-1.html

[spdmonkey]

It seems to me there is some confusion about the dates on the FIA certification. Mine is the 1986 date and I purchased this suit from a Sparco dealer in 1998. A full 12 years after the standard was set. Now the newer suits marked 2000 have a date 18 years different but many of these suits are nowhere near that age. My suit is going on 10 years old and while a bit snugger than when I bought it you can not tell one bit that it is that age. If it did not have a couple patches you could not tell its used. Taking very good care of it and a seriously reduced number of outings in the last several years while always cleaning it after races are what works for me. Its nuts that ths suit is "bad" while a single layer suit can be marked "good" just because of a label. I&#39;ve seen more oil soaked nasty single layer suits that you can see thru get raced and usually without the underwear. I just can&#39;t fathom this.

And remember next year everybody will need to buy a SFI rated fire system per the new rules as well. I guess I can throw out my plumbed halon system. Maybe SCCA just wants us to throw out our cars too......

db

[JeffYoung]

I&#39;ll donate my oldish (2002) OMP with FIA 2000 cert for testing. Let me know.

[Greg Amy]

I&#39;ll donate my oldish (2002) OMP with FIA 2000 cert for testing. Let me know.[/b]
...and I&#39;ve got my very first driver&#39;s suit, one that was loaned to me over 20 years ago, made of FPT Linea Sport. I&#39;d hate to cut it up; it&#39;s still in almost-new shape, but it&#39;s of no value in the back of the closet, and it would be interesting to see how something so old stacks up against the current crop of SFI-certified materials... - GA

[gsbaker]

A bit out of my realm here, Greg, but isn&#39;t there some generalized bottom line measure called TPP? It seems like the reasonable thing to do is mandate suits that meet a particular TPP level of protection, and just have the manufacturer certify that level of performance, rather than branch off into FIA/SFI labeling.

Not and old-vs-new issue I know, but this whole thing sounds far more complicated than it need be.

[Greg Amy]

Gregg, I know absolutely nothing about firesuit certification, so I bow to your dealing-with-industry-certification greatness... ;)

[gsbaker]

Gregg, I know absolutely nothing about firesuit certification, so I bow to your dealing-with-industry-certification greatness... ;)
[/b]
Ha! We&#39;re all going down in flames now. :)


Hmm. Not a bad start: Clickity-click (http://www.heatrelief.com/tpptest.htm)

[vr6guy]

It&#39;s pretty amazing that every vender that sells OMP, finds it absolutely hysterical the choice scca has made. I have a few of them trying to get me the documentation for the 1986 spec line as far as burn transfer rates and such. scca, where busines comes before safety

"The rules for 2008 require a suit carrying an SFI 3.2A/1 or FIA 8856-2000 certification. The SCCA is not in a position to conduct their own suit testing so I am unable to comment on the performance of specific suits and/or materials. I have forwarded your input to the Club Racing Board."



Jeremy



this is what I received from Jeremy Thoennes and John Bauer... at least he replied, but abviously their reasoning is not for safety but sadly for business.....

[ScotMac]

Let&#39;s not go overboard and do the proverbial "throwing of the baby out w/ the bath water". The main problem here, as i see it, is that the new rules have very specifically eliminated the 1986 FIA cert. So, all that is really needed is a determination of whether the 1986 cert is still valid, and if so reinstate it.

Does anyone know the reasoning of why it was eliminated?

Edit: I just did a quick search, and there appears to be very little information on the web about the "FIA 8856-1986" standard. Also, it appears all the good stuff on the FIA Institutes web site are under the "private area". Anyone have access?

[Quickshoe]

As Kirk kind of pointed out...aramid fibers don&#39;t lose their effectiveness over time like the chemical treated fabrics (Proban for example). When new, both a proban suit and nomex suit might carry the same sfi patch, but their ability to perform over time versus each other are not linear.

Kirks&#39; 20-ish year old suit (given it&#39;s construction materials) will perform better than a brand new off the shelf SFI 3.2A/5 suit with a TPP rating of 19. It may not be as light or comfortable but it will protect.

I&#39;d be MUCH happier with a rule that required SFI3.2A/5 or better, FIA 1986 or 2000 rating as a MINIMUM with fire retardant underwear as mandatory. No chemically treated fabrics allowed unless date of manufacture can be proven to be less than 5 years old. Protect the ignorant from themselves and let the rest of us make good choices. Kind of like the ISAAC situation :D

[pballance]

And remember next year everybody will need to buy a SFI rated fire system per the new rules as well. I guess I can throw out my plumbed halon system. Maybe SCCA just wants us to throw out our cars too......

db
[/b]

Did I miss something, I don&#39;t recall reading that. I hope that is tongue in cheek and I didn&#39;t miss that in Fastrack.

[Racerlinn]

And actually if you want to read the exact way the end of the rule is written:

"Underwear of fire resistant material shall be used except with suits carrying FIA standards of 8856-1986 or 8856-2000 or SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch."

Unless I missed it already, this would mean I CANNOT wear underwear because my suit is 3-2A/5 (tongue firmly in cheek). :blink:



Did I miss something, I don&#39;t recall reading that. I hope that is tongue in cheek and I didn&#39;t miss that in Fastrack.
[/b]

I *think* Item 2 of the Fastrack is basically grandfathering in all existing systems, including hand held bottles. It states that cars registered after 1/1/09 shall comply.
Did I miss where hand-helds are no longer legal?

[Knestis]

Let&#39;s not go overboard and do the proverbial "throwing of the baby out w/ the bath water". The main problem here, as i see it, is that the new rules have very specifically eliminated the 1986 FIA cert. ...[/b]
Not so fast there, Speed. More drivers are likely to be impacted by this because they are using older but still completely serviceable Nomex, PBI, or other suits that don&#39;t have any SFI or FIA certification, than are likely to get trapped with only 1986 FIA-spec suits.

K

[Matt Rowe]

Not so fast there, Speed. More drivers are likely to be impacted by this because they are using older but still completely serviceable Nomex, PBI, or other suits that don&#39;t have any SFI or FIA certification, than are likely to get trapped with only 1986 FIA-spec suits.[/b]
Right, but if you don&#39;t put a spec on the suits what requires a suit to be fireproof? And by that I mean new suits as well. Under the current rule you could go out and make your own suit and as long as you use the right material you can use it. even though it may fall apart in a fire.

The entire point of having an SFI or FIA cert on the suit is to demonstrate the suit has been tested. I dislike the SFI "process" as much as the next guy but in this case requiring some testing seems like a good thing to me.

[Quickshoe]

Under the current rule you could go out and make your own suit and as long as you use the right material you can use it even though it may fall apart in a fire.

The entire point of having an SFI or FIA cert on the suit is to demonstrate the suit has been tested. [/b]

Matt,

Ignorance is bliss ain&#39;t it? That isn&#39;t an insult, I felt a lot better about a lot of things until I knew better. There are plenty of things that still make me happy...please don&#39;t ruin those for me.

SFI doesn&#39;t test the suits, only sample sized batches of the materials are tested, including colors--for example the shiny nomex colors aren&#39;t as protective as the duller colors.

The tests are destructive, they can&#39;t test a suit, say it passed and then sell it. It will only "work" once. The manufacturers are only verifying (by applying the appropriate SFI patch) that the materials used in the suit bearing the patch are of the same sandwich that meet the corresponding test parameters.

[Knestis]

...but if you don&#39;t put a spec on the suits what requires a suit to be fireproof? ...[/b]

We lived for DECADES with rules that described how many layers (2 or more) of what materials, before we got all SFI&#39;d.

Define what it has to be made of.

Define a TPP standard and require the manufacturer to certify performance.

But DON&#39;T put us in bed with just one company that limits innovation and competition, and forces us to into patronizing companies willing to put profit ahead of our safety.

And give me the right - and the responsibility - to make my own decision. Some newby might quite rightly think that SFI and SCCA would only have his safety in mind and actually BELIEVE that the minimum standard is all that&#39;s really required.

K

[Knestis]

I thought I had some documentation on the SFI suit testing regime, but I could only find the head and neck restraint system doc. This gives you some idea of how their system works, though...

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 This SFI Specification establishes uniform test procedures and minimum standards for evaluating and determining performance capabilities for Head and Neck Restraint Systems used by individuals engaged in competitive motorsports.

1.2 The procedures, test evaluations and standards contained herein, are intended only as minimum guidelines for construction and evaluation of products. Certification that products meet such minimum standards is made by the product manufacturer and products are not certified, endorsed or approved by SFI under this program.

1.3 Use of the "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1" logo/designation, the authorized artwork style, or conventional lettering by a manufacturer, on a subject product, is intended only to indicate that the manufacturer of the product has represented that they have submitted the product to the recommended tests, with positive results, in compliance with the standards established herein.

1.4 This SFI Specification requires a demonstration that the product of a manufacturer meets or exceeds the requirements when the manufacturer enters the program, and on a periodic basis thereafter. Any manufacturer may participate in the program by providing Head and Neck Restraint Systems that meet or exceed the SFI Specification 38.1 test standards, by complying with the requirements of the SFI Specification 38.1 program, and by signing a licensing agreement with the SFI Foundation, Inc.

1.5 Compliance with this specification is entirely voluntary. However, when a manufacturer provides Head and Neck Restraint Systems in compliance with all requirements of the SFI Specification 38.1 and enters into the licensing agreement with the SFI Foundation, Inc., they may certify that compliance with such standards is in accordance with the guidelines established herein.

1.6 Manufacturers wishing to participate in the program, in addition to the other requirements of this specification, must label each of their products with the manufacturer&#39;s name, trademark or symbol as well as the date of manufacture of the product.

1.7 No manufacturer may display the SFI logo/designation on their product unless the manufacturer has signed a licensing agreement with SFI and has successfully complied with all the requirements of this specification and the self-certification program.

I took the liberty of putting some of the more interesting bits in bold.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just got off the ITAC call. CRB members are convinced 100% that this is a mistake. Goal was to clean up the wording (remove all specific approved materials for underwear etc). It was NOT to change the spec in any way.

We are on it.

[RSTPerformance]

Andy-

I want to thank you for looking into this. I sometimes bitch (Ok I bitch a lot) and sometimes I disagree with you (ECU rules) but I have to hand it to you... You are certainly one of the people that keep SCCA together and heading in the right direction.

I would imagine this new suit rule has little to no effect on you as you generally have "new stuff" but you still took the time to get more info, address the issue with people whom probably don&#39;t want to or wont listen to us, then give us feedback.

Thank you again, this is one of many important topics you always seem to address;

Raymond

[Matt Rowe]

Matt,

Ignorance is bliss ain&#39;t it? That isn&#39;t an insult, I felt a lot better about a lot of things until I knew better. There are plenty of things that still make me happy...please don&#39;t ruin those for me.

SFI doesn&#39;t test the suits, only sample sized batches of the materials are tested, including colors--for example the shiny nomex colors aren&#39;t as protective as the duller colors.

The tests are destructive, they can&#39;t test a suit, say it passed and then sell it. It will only "work" once. The manufacturers are only verifying (by applying the appropriate SFI patch) that the materials used in the suit bearing the patch are of the same sandwich that meet the corresponding test parameters.
[/b]
No need to be rude, I&#39;m just pointing out that under the current wording utterly no testing would be required. At least if there is a spec the manufacturer has to test to something. Personally I&#39;m glad that the option remains to allow either SFI or FIA at least we have an option. But again they are a published spec that the mfg MUST certify to.

And please don&#39;t make it sound like I think every suit is tested but every suit design and material IS tested which is not what the old wording allowed. It allowed "Joe Blow Racer" to sell you a suit design that was NEVER tested. Grab a sewing machine and see what you get, no TPP rating, no gaurantee that the thing would protect you on a sunny day much less a 9.5 second fire.

The old wording allowed a false sense of security as absoultely no testing was required.

I just bought a suit. I did my research, I knew what the specs were, what testing was required and even what the proposed rule was for SCCA. But I don&#39;t think the average racer just trying to get started is going to know all that. He is going to read the rulebook and a lot of them are going to a low cost model that meets the rule. Under the old wording that allowed untested/uncertified suits and so that loophole has been closed.

Now for the guys with FIA 1986 specs suits that are apparently left out in the cold I feel for you and think SCCA should rethink the effect of the rule. But for those without any SFI or FIA note on the suit how do you really know it&#39;s any good? Seriously?

[Knestis]

... But for those without any SFI or FIA note on the suit how do you really know it&#39;s any good? Seriously? [/b]
Uh, I spent a couple of years working for a suit manufacturer (including doing heat transfer and thermal failure testing) and I designed it myself, to optimize the efficacy of all of the material options available?

That&#39;s a little bit encouraging, Andy but I&#39;m still not convinced that we shouldn&#39;t be very worried.

K

[ScotMac]

Just got off the ITAC call. CRB members are convinced 100% that this is a mistake. Goal was to clean up the wording (remove all specific approved materials for underwear etc). It was NOT to change the spec in any way.

We are on it.
[/b]

Andy, as Kirk and others have pointed out (to me specifically), the "approved materials" were *not* just for underwear. ie, if the "cleanup" was meant to remove the "approved materials", it will still have the affect of disallowing a substantial amount of previously allowed suits. ie, anything that doesn&#39;t necessarily have an approved cert, but is made of "Nomex, Kynol, FPT, IWS (wool), Fiberglass, Firewear™, Durette, Fypro, PBI, Kevlar, NASAFIL".

There are really (atleast) two issues:

1. Removal of the old approved materials for suits and underwear.

2. Removal of FIA 8856-1986 certification.

For #1, it is probably a good idea to have a standards organization homologating the suits. Kirk, regardless of an individual&#39;s experience in safety suit manufacturing, tech workers need a *systematic* way of evaluating the suitability of each individual suit. And that systematic procedure can NOT involve them attempting to verify each individual suit manufacturers expertise/credentials (be it OMP or Kirk&#39;s-Sewing-Sweat-Shop). The suits must be previously homologated by the standards process, the approval of which needs to be easily verifiable by the tech worker, via patches or some variation of them. Note, nothing (other than money) stops you from having the standards org approve your home-brewed suit.

BTW, SFI claims to be both independent and non-profit. Take it for what it is worth.

For #2, as i said earlier, we should look into FIA 8856-1986 Spec, and verify if it is "up to snuff".

[Andy Bettencourt]

I was told they were trying to clean up the list of approved materials. I asked &#39;why change anything?&#39;...they said that Jeremy is doing a gerneral cleaning up of the GCR and since nobody can identify those materials in a tech line ANYWAY, they wanted to get rid of the wording.

From my understanding the CRB know NOTHING of a desire to change the spec from 1996 to 2000. We have the ITAC &#39;suit expert&#39; making a call to Jeremy today to get this ironed out.

So again, it is my undrstanding that ANY change in the actual SPEC was a mistake.

[jjjanos]

The old wording allowed a false sense of security as absoultely no testing was required.[/b]

Some might maintain that the new wording creates a false sense of security or that the fire suit itself creates a false sense of security.

3.2A/5 - Time to 2nd degree burn: 10 Seconds

How long does it take you to get out of your car in a hurry?
Now add a minimum of 7-10 seconds to that because what ever you hit hard enough to create a fire where you need a suit has also rung your bell bad enough that its going to take you some time to reboot the main frame in your skull.

Not arguing for eliminating the requirement. Just pointing out that the actual requirement doesn&#39;t offer all that much protection.

[JeffYoung]

That&#39;s more than enough time to have the ghost of Dale Earnhardt appear and pull you from the flaming wreckage.

[Kolin Aspegren]

Well like everyone else out there I went home last night and checked my driving suit. Come to find out
I have the FIA 8856-1986 spec on the back of the collar and the SFI patch 3-2A/5 on the sleeve. Seems
a little strange since these are contrary to the spec. Can anybody shed some light on this.

Suit itself is about an 8 year old Momo

K

[Knestis]

There&#39;s no actual equivalents between SFI/FIA standards, Kolin.


BTW, SFI claims to be both independent and non-profit. Take it for what it is worth.[/b]

...which means nada. Non-profit is simply an organizational tax status. Arnie Kuhns is lining his pockets with our money and manufacturers are buying access to the market of SCCA racers through restraints on trade made possible by a collaboration among the SFI, manufacturers, and sanctioning bodies. I&#39;m not against standards, Scot. I&#39;m just against the system as perpetrated by SFI.

Yeah, they&#39;re independent. Independent of any responsibility, transparency, or oversight.

If we had a system whereby manufacturers tested their suits (or had them tested) and simply published the test results, we could indeed have a set of minimum standards AND not lose the incentives for drivers to learn more and manufacturers to make better suits. The point here is that SFI 3.2A/1 is NOT a standard - it&#39;s a licensing agreement, whereby the manufacturer buys the right to use that patch. The actual TEST standards - whatever the hell they are, I can&#39;t find it anywhere - could VERY easily be applied across the board, by any manufacturer, without putting SFI in the role of intermediary.

From the manufacturers&#39; and sanctioning bodies&#39; position, all the SFI does is add another walnut to the liability shell game, I think.

Kirk (who was involved in conversations two decades ago at SEMA, where Kuhns tried to help us understand the "value" of a manufacturer becoming a Foundation member - it was clearly in commercial terms and foreshadowed exactly where we are today)

[gsbaker]

If we had a system whereby manufacturers tested their suits (or had them tested) and simply published the test results, we could indeed have a set of minimum standards AND not lose the incentives for drivers to learn more and manufacturers to make better suits. The point here is that SFI 3.2A/1 is NOT a standard - it&#39;s a licensing agreement, whereby the manufacturer buys the right to use that patch. The actual TEST standards - whatever the hell they are, I can&#39;t find it anywhere - could VERY easily be applied across the board, by any manufacturer, without putting SFI in the role of intermediary.[/b]
RSI already does that. The word just needs to get out.

And, yes, "non profit" means nothing, it&#39;s just an accounting/tax issue. You can run any organizational structure on a for- or non-profit basis.



Just got off the ITAC call. CRB members are convinced 100% that this is a mistake. Goal was to clean up the wording (remove all specific approved materials for underwear etc). It was NOT to change the spec in any way.

We are on it.
[/b]
You da man! Or, youse guys da mens! Yeah, that&#39;s it.

:OLA:

[JIgou]

When I saw the initial Fastrack listing back in August or whatever, I remember looking at the FIA patch on my OMP suit and thinking "Well, I guess I&#39;m OK...." when I saw the 1986 stitching. And yes, there is no SFI tag on it.

While there may have been some cleanup of the wording intended, it&#39;s a very specific chunk of text that was left out of the new rule concerning the FIA 1986 standard. And while that may be "old," I think we&#39;ve already covered the fact that there are older SFI-rated suits that are in use - legally - today.

While I want a lighter-weight driving suit, this isn&#39;t the way I want to be "convinced" to buy it. Gee, I hope some guy named Vinny isn&#39;t waiting for me by my truck tonight after I send my letter to the CRB later today.....

Jarrod

[1stGenBoy]

Just got off the ITAC call. CRB members are convinced 100% that this is a mistake. Goal was to clean up the wording (remove all specific approved materials for underwear etc). It was NOT to change the spec in any way.

We are on it.
[/b]

Here is what I wrote this morning to the CRB and Jeremy at SCCA headquarters.

Hi Jeremy,
I see in the 08 GCR there has been a rewrite of section 9.3.19.a regarding a change in the drivers suit requirements. I understand that you are trying to clean up the wording in the GCR but I, think something was left off in the translation. There also does seem to be some confusion over this rule. One such item that has come up is: If the suit has a SFI 3-2A/5 patch and a FIA rating of 8856-1986 is it legal and is it legal without underwear? One other issue would be an old single layer suit that has a SFI 3-2A/1 patch that has been hanging in a closet for awhile and would be still good but a FIA 8856-1986 that is 6-7 years old would be obsolete. I think you can see what I mean. I do also realize that this proposed changes was in Fastrack earlier this year. The current rule is:

"A. Driving suits that effectively cover the body from the neck to the ankles and wrists. One piece suits are highly recommended. All suits shall bear an SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certification label or FIA 8856-2000 homologation. Underwear of fire resistant material shall be used except with suits carrying FIA standard 8856-2000 or SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch."

I would propose the follwing instead:

"A. Driving suits that effectively cover the body from the neck to the ankles and wrists manufactured of fire resistant material, worn with underwear of a fire resistant material . One piece suits are highly recommended. All suits shall bear an SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certification label or FIA 8856-1986 or 8856-2000 homologation. Underwear of fire resistant material is not required with suits carrying FIA 8856-1986 or 8856-2000 homologation or SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch."

Regards,

Bob Clark
Pegasus Auto Racing Supplies
[email protected]
262-317-1225
Member #112413
SCCA ITAC Member

[ScotMac]

Non-profit does mean *something*. There are restrictions on what you can and can&#39;t do, if you are incorporated non-profit. However, it is true that there a lot of loopholes, large enough to drive a SPO car through, the largest of which is the ability to internalize the profits via salaries, etc. But if you REALLY want to take advantage of the system, call yourself a church!!!

I have no problem choosing a different standard, and having independent laboratories do the testing. RSI is fine step in that direction (another "not-for-profit"). However, how is RSI supposed to work. They verify that the testing was done in an independent laboratory...great, but what testing, to what standard/specification? ie, you have to have a "specified" goal and procedures for the testing, and RSI specifically says that they do not write specifications. Also, for suits RSI is clearly not there yet, as was pointed out earlier:

http://racingsafetyinstitute.org/Suits.html

In the meantime, i agree w/ Bob&#39;s wording (assuming FIA 8856-1986 is determined acceptable):

"A. Driving suits that effectively cover the body from the neck to the ankles and wrists manufactured of fire resistant material, worn with underwear of a fire resistant material . One piece suits are highly recommended. All suits shall bear an SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certification label or FIA 8856-1986 or 8856-2000 homologation. Underwear of fire resistant material is not required with suits carrying FIA 8856-1986 or 8856-2000 homologation or SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch."

[JeffYoung]

You don&#39;t solve Kirk&#39;s problem, which is the existence of a large number of suits made of acceptable materials that are not spec&#39;ed by FIA or SFI.

[gsbaker]

I have no problem choosing a different standard, and having independent laboratories do the testing. RSI is fine step in that direction (another "not-for-profit"). However, how is RSI supposed to work. They verify that the testing was done in an independent laboratory...great, but what testing, to what standard/specification?[/b]
To the standard(s) referenced. In the case of head and neck restraints they report both Wayne State and SFI 38.1 test results. In the case of harnesses, the general test protocol is described on that page.

Bottom line is that the testing satisfies both scientific mandates, that it be valid and repeatable. In other words, the test(s) measures are relevant to the subject, and the protocol is sufficiently documented that anyone can repeat it. That makes it completely transparent and ensures that no one is blowing smoke.


...and RSI specifically says that they do not write specifications...[/b]
Specs are used to write manufacturers out. As a customer, you don&#39;t want a spec; you want a label that says the product has been tested. That is all SFI and FIA provide sanctioning bodies, and RSI does the same but without $ changing hands.

[ScotMac]

As a customer, you don&#39;t want a spec; you want a label that says the product has been tested.
[/b]
Tested how?

No, i want a spec (of standard) describing the testing required for a particular label/patch. A label/patch means nothing, w/out the spec behind it.

Actually, it appears we agree, and the only problem is wording/semantics. In fact, what you describe for harnesses is obviously what is needed for suits. However, as i mentioned, i don&#39;t believe it is going to be set in place in time in the near future. In the absence of that, ... (see above new wording)

Oh, BTW, i have been following your thread on your new head-and-neck restraint harness. Is it available yet? Price?

[vr6guy]

Well like everyone else out there I went home last night and checked my driving suit. Come to find out
I have the FIA 8856-1986 spec on the back of the collar and the SFI patch 3-2A/5 on the sleeve. Seems
a little strange since these are contrary to the spec. Can anybody shed some light on this.

Suit itself is about an 8 year old Momo
this should shed some light
K
[/b]


A little info I found on the net.... very interesting
FIA

The European recognized FIA conducts their own testing and is similar to it&#39;s American equivalent: SFI. The FIA grades only on one level, which is a higher standard than most U.S. race sanctioning organizations require a pass or fail. The FIA minimum requirement equates to just slightly below a SFI grade 10 fabric. These suits are almost equal to an SFI 3.2A/10-38 rated suit ( almost 19 seconds of protection without underwear!) however, for import reasons there is no recognized SFI rating number that falls in-between a 5-19 suit and a 10-38 suit.

So, what this all means is: any FIA approved suit will carry the label stating that the suit complies to their standards in Europe. Additionally, for the U.S. market, because the SFI rating numbers cannot be "rounded up", the suit will also carry the more recognized "lower" SFI rating label for legal reasons, even though the suit meets or exceeds the much stricter FIA demands.
That tells me my suit is just fine........ this should be looked at by all!!!

Its a no brainer, my suit exceeds the minimum requirements
[/b]

[jjjanos]

You don&#39;t solve Kirk&#39;s problem, which is the existence of a large number of suits made of acceptable materials that are not spec&#39;ed by FIA or SFI.[/b]

Ignoring the tautological answer - the materials aren&#39;t acceptable because they haven&#39;t been spec&#39;d...

How do we know the materials meet "the standard", where standard is whatever you determine it to be?

Using only your senses, can you determine an acceptable material at the track? Then again, using only your senses, will a tech inspector know whether I removed the SFI patch from my nomex and put it on a cotton overall? I.e. if the patch is all that matters, then ANYTHING with the patch is acceptable because there is no way to determine whether the patch actually came with the garment. :bash_1_:

I think we&#39;re getting into a larger question of whether SCCA should mandate the minimum safety equipment required to obtain insurance coverage for the organization and keep the event flowing or whether it should require "extra" safety items beyond these.

For example - insurance companies don&#39;t require tow hooks, but we do for obvious reasons.

[gsbaker]

Actually, it appears we agree, and the only problem is wording/semantics.[/b]
Yeah, we do. Both drivers and sanctioning bodies want some kind of label on a safety product that proves it meets a minimum level of performance.


Oh, BTW, i have been following your thread on your new head-and-neck restraint harness. Is it available yet? Price?[/b]
Not yet. Well, it is but we are awaiting testing. It will replace the original Link, at $295.

[Quickshoe]

Matt Rowe,

I wasn&#39;t trying to be rude. My apologies that it came across that way.

I was attempting to illustrate that there are things that we all make assumptions about. This situation may bring to light some things that some of us took for granted.

I don&#39;t know you, I don&#39;t know where you are coming from, apparently I incorrectly assumed that you thought anything with an SFI patch was tested and you were "safe".





Maybe this discussion will make someone re-evaluate their own personal safety equipment. How many knew that what they are wearing might be good for 10 seconds before 2nd degree burns? The accident that causes the fire with you totally concious right next to a corner station is the best option next to no fire at all. But what about the unlikely burst into flames as you are going down the straight due to a fuel line failure. Can you activate the halon and come to a stop and get out of the car prior to the 10 seconds elapsing? Any idea how quickly the corner worker can do the 100 yard dash to you? Now how quickly carrying a fire bottle? What about the safety worker truck how quickly can it cover the 1/4 mile after they&#39;ve determined they need to get to you and it is safe to do so? With my gear I might have 20-25 seconds and I am not so certain that is enough....

Does it bother anybody else that the current SFI 3.2a/10 and above specs have expiration dates of 5 years? How long before the SFI enforces expiration dates on /5 suits?

[Knestis]

No, i want a spec (of standard) describing the testing required for a particular label/patch. A label/patch means nothing, w/out the spec behind it. ...[/b]

Now you&#39;re talking. Here&#39;s the rub, though - if I could get my SweatShop brand suits tested using exactly the same protocol as SFI&#39;s test, and achieve the level of performance in that test that earns their 3.2a/10 patch, I CAN&#39;T simply say, "meets the performance standards of SFI 3.2a/10" and have the SCCA let people use my suit. No pay, no play - if I don&#39;t buy into the "licensing agreement," pay SFI for their test, and buy the patch, I don&#39;t get one. And if we let the sanctioning bodies get caught up in the patch, that&#39;s the end of the conversation where other options are concerned.

And that&#39;s really the whole point: We don&#39;t need the trade association functions inherent to SFI (see also, "5 year expiration") to get the benefits afforded by some standard. PLUS, if we focus on something consistent (like "seconds of protection before 2nd-degree burn," then there IS an incentive for manufacturers to build better suits (a 22 is better than a 20), racers know what they are really buying, and we don&#39;t have the SFI membership costs handed to us as consumers. Yeah, suit manufacturers still have to pay for testing but it would be far less than it is now.

To head this one off at the pass, having manufacturers certify that their suits meet their claimed test standards is exactly the same as having them certify that all of the suits they make are exactly like the sample tested by SFI and granted permission to show the patch.

Finally (and this is kind of like the VIN rule arguments), if tech can&#39;t tell by looking at my suit (which has Nomex III and manufacturer&#39;s labels in it) that it&#39;s made of the right stuff, can we expect them to be able to look at it and tell that I didn&#39;t transplant an SFI patch off of a refueler&#39;s suit onto it? Or that the patch is in fact authentic? I bought an Izod shirt on the beach in Italy and damned if it didn&#39;t turn out to be a knock-off! How&#39;d that happen?? :)

K

[spdmonkey]

While it seems that there may have been mistake in what was written in the GCR regarding the 1986 spec suits I guess i&#39;ll just say that if that is truly the case why was it never addressed (and still not?) when I know that I sent multiple letters to various committees and SCCA officials asking for clarification on that standard. I&#39;m hopeful it was a simple clerical error in that part of the standard was accidentally deleted, but something doesn&#39;t make sense. There is no way I was the only person that wrote in about that when it was first published. We shall see I guess. Since I have done some racing in Europe I always needed the FIA rated suits. I guess in the future I need to be more deliberate in my search and buy a suit with both ratings.

db

[Bob Roth]

To Bob Clark -

Re your proposed proposal, there is still a problem with OMP suits; My 2001 OMP suit Label is "FIA NORME 1986/1986 Standard 04.257.CSAI.99". My bet is that that&#39;s another way to say FIA 8856-1986 but what I think is not going to fly with a tech inspector. Is there any documentation to suggest that an OMP FIA 1986/1986 is not the same as 8856-1986? If not, I accordingly suggest/request that your suggestion to Jeremy be revised to read " or FIA 1986 or 2000 homologation" as shown below.

"A. Driving suits that effectively cover the body from the neck to the ankles and wrists manufactured of fire resistant material, worn with underwear of a fire resistant material . One piece suits are highly recommended. All suits shall bear an SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certification label or FIA <strike>8856-</strike>1986 or <strike>8856-</strike>2000 homologation. Underwear of fire resistant material is not required with suits carrying FIA <strike>8856-</strike>1986 or <strike>8856-</strike>2000 homologation or SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch."

thanks
Bob

[ScotMac]

To Bob Clark -

Re your proposed proposal, there is still a problem with OMP suits; My 2001 OMP suit Label is "FIA NORME 1986/1986 Standard 04.257.CSAI.99". My bet is that that&#39;s another way to say FIA 8856-1986 but what I think is not going to fly with a tech inspector. Is there any documentation to suggest that an OMP FIA 1986/1986 is not the same as 8856-1986? If not, I accordingly suggest/request that your suggestion to Jeremy be revised to read " or FIA 1986 or 2000 homologation" as shown below.

"A. Driving suits that effectively cover the body from the neck to the ankles and wrists manufactured of fire resistant material, worn with underwear of a fire resistant material . One piece suits are highly recommended. All suits shall bear an SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certification label or FIA <strike>8856-</strike>1986 or <strike>8856-</strike>2000 homologation. Underwear of fire resistant material is not required with suits carrying FIA <strike>8856-</strike>1986 or <strike>8856-</strike>2000 homologation or SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch."

thanks
Bob
[/b]

Interesting. Sounds like you got one of those knockoff FAI labels...maybe you can trade it for Kirk&#39;s Izod shirt!! ;)

[vr6guy]

Interesting. Sounds like you got one of those knockoff FAI labels...maybe you can trade it for Kirk&#39;s Izod shirt!! ;)
[/b]

its not a knock off label..... I have Kevin from northstar motorsports doin alot of footwork for us on this one. The wording must be changed.......

[1stGenBoy]

To Bob Clark -

Re your proposed proposal, there is still a problem with OMP suits; My 2001 OMP suit Label is "FIA NORME 1986/1986 Standard 04.257.CSAI.99". My bet is that that&#39;s another way to say FIA 8856-1986 but what I think is not going to fly with a tech inspector. Is there any documentation to suggest that an OMP FIA 1986/1986 is not the same as 8856-1986? If not, I accordingly suggest/request that your suggestion to Jeremy be revised to read " or FIA 1986 or 2000 homologation" as shown below.

"A. Driving suits that effectively cover the body from the neck to the ankles and wrists manufactured of fire resistant material, worn with underwear of a fire resistant material . One piece suits are highly recommended. All suits shall bear an SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certification label or FIA <strike>8856-</strike>1986 or <strike>8856-</strike>2000 homologation. Underwear of fire resistant material is not required with suits carrying FIA <strike>8856-</strike>1986 or <strike>8856-</strike>2000 homologation or SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch."

thanks
Bob
[/b]

Bob,
As long as it says 1986 and is to FIA spec then that is a 1986 FIA suit. I beleive there was only one spec. I could be wrong though. I just copied the "8856-1986" part from the 07 GCR and maybe that was wrong with regards to how the 1986 spec is listed on the suits. I checked and my suit says the same as yours and I have never had a problem with it in tech.

[Bob Roth]

Two points to pay attention to;
1) As the rule has been revised, FIA 1986 suits are not recognized even though my FIA 1986 suit is just 6 years old.
2) There seems to be some confusion regarding how manufacturs tag FIA suit. In 2001 OMP Taged theirs as FIA 1986/1986. The rule change proposed by Bob Clark proposes 8856-1986 which was what the previous rule said. I suggest simplifying this by just describing them as FIA 1986 or 2000 suits and not get into the standard descriptor. Worrying about the standard descriptor number seems pretty silly as OMP would have big problems if they claimed their suit was FIA 1986 but was testing to the wrong FIA standard.

[vr6guy]

omp 1986 testing is the same testing that they do for the 200o testing.... fabric to withstand 1800 degrees for 11.8 seconds. The materials havent changed either, both nomex,3 layers, and box quilted.

Im gonna buy a $99 SFI suit that is deemed safe,(I crewed for the 24 at nelson this year and refused to wear the 1 layer suit to refuel!) by scca and just wear it over my existing suit. i Challenge any tech inspector to not say my equiptment is safe. kinda like the tech guy that tells you you have to be sitting in the drivers seat for post race weight, when you can easily sit on the door sill. Your weight is still there. They usually dont like to be challenged and get cranky...... Not saying you greg, but in the passed it had been an issue :P

[Quickshoe]

Im gonna buy a $99 SFI suit that is deemed safe,(I crewed for the 24 at nelson this year and refused to wear the 1 layer suit to refuel!) by scca and just wear it over my existing suit. [/b]

Now there you go :happy204: . Just hope you didn&#39;t buy a lightweight fancy FIA suit that breathes well cause all that is going to hell in a handbasket.

[vr6guy]

Now there you go :happy204: . Just hope you didn&#39;t buy a lightweight fancy FIA suit that breathes well cause all that is going to hell in a handbasket.
[/b]

My FIA suit is a 3 layer nomex suit that is in mint condition OMP
but I heard from one of my sources that the only thing thats gonna be changed is scca is not going to allow the 3.2a/1 suit,(finally some common sense) but sadly my in perfect condition FIA 2001 1986 spec suit is not legal...... even though its the same material, same construction, and was submited to the same FIA test as the 2000 spec... once again get a clue scca

I have a friend that owns a embroidery shop. All he needs is a photo of the 2000 spec embroidery and im all set :P

[gsbaker]

Has anyone published test data for these suits, or any suits for that matter?

[Quickshoe]

Gregg,

I am not so sure you&#39;ll find the actual test data published by any manufacturers.

Simpson uses the model number of their suit to correspond with the TPP rating. A "19" is supposed to have a TPP rating of 19.

As far as the test standards they are summarized in a easy to read table on the spectorracing website.

In a nutshell the 1986 vs 2000 FIA test methods changed. In the 86 standard the thermocouple was 3mm away from the fabric (air is a good insulator) and was required to last more than 12 seconds. It now has to touch the material and is required to last a little more than 11 seconds. So which is actually tougher?

The 2000 standard also requires some different construction of the suit. Note to the tech folks: If the suit doesn&#39;t have epaulettes it can&#39;t be an FIA 2000 suit. It could have an SFI 3.2A/15 patch and 1986 FIA standard though. B)

The FIA testing procedures are ISO 14460 and ISO 9151 if anyone really cares to know what they are. No I don&#39;t have them....sorry.

[Bob Roth]

I still am not seeing a reason to disallow FIA 1986 suits.

If you were lucky enough to own a 1986 FIA Momo suit, it had had a cross reference on its tag to SFI 3.2A/5. If you have a 6 year old OMP suit , SCCA says tough luck. Its not because the suit is 22 years old. As others have said There was no such thing as a FIA 2000 suit until approximately 2002.

You need to change this rule or a good 20% of your racers, many with the most expensive suits in the Paddock, will be forced to throw away their FIA 1986 suits for no demonstrated reason. Do not understimate the disgust for SCCA that this will create.

Can somebody in authority say;
1) that this rule will be changed to allow FIA 1986 suits.
2) That OMP suits and others whose embroaderied label says FIA 1986/1986 will be accepted.

I hear a lot of talking, but no proposals to change this flawed rule here.

[spdmonkey]

Bob said it very well. Thats all I really want to know on this.

db

[1stGenBoy]

I still am not seeing a reason to disallow FIA 1986 suits.

If you were lucky enough to own a 1986 FIA Momo suit, it had had a cross reference on its tag to SFI 3.2A/5. If you have a 6 year old OMP suit , SCCA says tough luck. Its not because the suit is 22 years old. As others have said There was no such thing as a FIA 2000 suit until approximately 2002.

You need to change this rule or a good 20% of your racers, many with the most expensive suits in the Paddock, will be forced to throw away their FIA 1986 suits for no demonstrated reason. Do not understimate the disgust for SCCA that this will create.

Can somebody in authority say;
1) that this rule will be changed to allow FIA 1986 suits.
2) That OMP suits and others whose embroaderied label says FIA 1986/1986 will be accepted.

I hear a lot of talking, but no proposals to change this flawed rule here.
[/b]

Bob,
No one here can say for sure the rule will be reversed. The letter I wrote I, also submitted to SCCA. I have not heard anything back yet. I did mention this rule to my area director before he left for the BOD meeting in Topeka this weekend. Only SCCA can change this rule. Please write to SCCA if you do not like the new rule and feel free to copy my post if you wish. Suits with a SFI 3-2a/1 would still be legal as long as you have fire resistant underwear on.

Bob Clark

[gsbaker]

Gregg,

I am not so sure you&#39;ll find the actual test data published by any manufacturers.

Simpson uses the model number of their suit to correspond with the TPP rating. A "19" is supposed to have a TPP rating of 19.

As far as the test standards they are summarized in a easy to read table on the spectorracing website.

In a nutshell the 1986 vs 2000 FIA test methods changed. In the 86 standard the thermocouple was 3mm away from the fabric (air is a good insulator) and was required to last more than 12 seconds. It now has to touch the material and is required to last a little more than 11 seconds. So which is actually tougher?

The 2000 standard also requires some different construction of the suit. Note to the tech folks: If the suit doesn&#39;t have epaulets it can&#39;t be an FIA 2000 suit. It could have an SFI 3.2A/15 patch and 1986 FIA standard though. B)

The FIA testing procedures are ISO 14460 and ISO 9151 if anyone really cares to know what they are. No I don&#39;t have them....sorry.
[/b]
Now we are getting somewhere.

If the TPP is an acknowledged measure of performance (and it is), why the additional specs? Who really cares about epaulets?

[spdmonkey]

Now we are getting somewhere.

If the TPP is an acknowledged measure of performance (and it is), why the additional specs? Who really cares about epaulets?
[/b]

just an FYI...the epaulets were put in the FIA 2000 standard as a requirement for open wheel racing. In theory they are used by safety workers to pull the driver out of the car when he/she is unable. They were not required on the 1986 FIA standard. It has nothing to do with protection of the driver only for evacuation.

db

[Quickshoe]

Gregg,

I understand your concerns about a standard including both performance and design parameters. I think this is a little different than other SFI and FIA design standards :D

I can&#39;t seem to access the FIA standards currently but I did know that "back when" the type of closure was specified in the FIA spec while some SFI suits had plastic closures. Or flammable material next to the zippers with a nomex flap over the zipper. I also know that SFI suits were permitted to have short collars and leg cuffs that were above the ankle (hidden) with the pant leg drooping down over the cuff....they were commonly referred to as NASCAR cuffs.

In this case, because of the coverage issues I am thankful that the FIA standard is stricter about the area of coverage. What I do wish is they offered suits that offered protection closer to the SFI 3.2A/10 level....a two-tiered performance standard if you will.

[jjjanos]

It has nothing to do with protection of the driver only for evacuation. [/b]

Shouldn&#39;t they be in the crotch and butt then?

[spdmonkey]

Shouldn&#39;t they be in the crotch and butt then?
[/b]

Nah that would be for elimination...

db

[vr6guy]

so once again, Ill buy A $99 SFI CHEAPO 3.2a/1 suit and simply wear it over my 3 layer omp 1986 spec suit..... challenge me, you will be in for a debate of your life... :014: At the annual tech inspection ill be the one wearing a clown suit. literally a clown suit with the red nose and everything. Maybe I can learn to jugle by then! suddenly I hear carnival music in the background

[gsbaker]

just an FYI...the epaulets were put in the FIA 2000 standard as a requirement for open wheel racing. In theory they are used by safety workers to pull the driver out of the car...[/b]
I figured it would be something like that.

[gsbaker]

Gregg,

I understand your concerns about a standard including both performance and design parameters. I think this is a little different than other SFI and FIA design standards...[/b]
Different perhaps, but it has the common problem of someone taking a proven performance criteria applicable to all racers, applying design tweaks that they think might help their particular racing series, and negatively affecting everyone who was using a perfectly safe product.

[RSTPerformance]

Just got off the ITAC call. CRB members are convinced 100% that this is a mistake. Goal was to clean up the wording (remove all specific approved materials for underwear etc). It was NOT to change the spec in any way.

We are on it.
[/b]
I have been away... Or busy I should say. Lots of good reading since I last left off. Andy do you have any updates? Have you talked to anyone further? I never recieved an e-mail back so I am very much wondering where we stand.

Thanks again;

Raymond

[Bob Roth]

In all this discussion, I haven&#39;t seen an explaination of why 1986 FIA suits have been dumped. Can somebody address that? I am writing a letter to CRB asking that this be considered an error or omission.

There seems to be knowledgeable people on this string. If there is a reason that SCCA believes that a 6 year old FIA 1986 rated suit is worse than a SFI 3.2A/5 suit. Lets here it.

thanks
bob

[JS154]

Hi gang,

I actually race with BMW CCA - considering moving over to SCCA for ITR (E30 M3)

BMW CCA Club Racing has the same wording regarding fire suits.

Just for more info, here&#39;s a link I found on a British motorsports forum with a little extra info regarding FIA 1986 vs FIA 2000

http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/archive/in...hp/t-70370.html (http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-70370.html)


Eric Heinrich
BMW CCA Club Racing
J-Stock #10
GULF E30 M3

[Bob Roth]

I liked this quote;

"Part of the "2000" standard is manditory epilets - so I think you may be right - the fireproof material may not be different at all. I can imagine my fancy "1986" standard suit would actually pass the "2000" test but as it isn&#39;t labelled as such, I&#39;ve got to buy a new one for International races :("


Doesn&#39;t sound like there&#39;s a difference other then epilets, and of course my OMP suite has epilets. Does anybody know how long SFI 3.2 has been around?

[vr6guy]

Any news????

[Dave Ebersole]

Still no news? I guess I&#39;m looking at a new suit to replace my perfectly good OMP FIA 1986 suit. What&#39;s another $800 - 1000 dollar expenditure, right? :(

[vr6guy]

someone stop the carnival.... im gonna wear the 3.2/1, my omp, and my undies... wait a minute thats 5 layers!! that cant be safe :026:

[RacerBill]

someone stop the carnival.... im gonna wear the 3.2/1, my omp, and my undies... wait a minute thats 5 layers!! that cant be safe :026:
[/b]

Probably look like Randy in &#39;The Christmas Story&#39;!

[Joe Craven]

I believe that one of the items that SFI seems to be specifying in their standards is an expiration from the original date of manufacture.

In regards to seat belts, NASA has gone with SFI&#39;s 2 year expiration date (SCCA with a modified 2+ year date) and FIA with a 5 year date. For now, I only will buy FIA certified seat belts and now it won&#39;t surprise me to see if there will be an expiration date for unused firesuits.

Joe Craven

[vr6guy]

so FIA seatbelts have a longer eligibilty time period than the sfi ones..... but my fathers suit from the 80&#39;s is still legal according to the ruleset. All the while my 2001 Fia suit is not legal, even know its 3 layers, box quilted, nomex and has a burn transfer rate of 19 seconds?! DOes anyone comprehend? Ill have to get a ferris wheel installed for a steering wheel in order to steer my car with all those layers on...... wake up scca :bash_1_:

[Dave Ebersole]

It would seem SCCA is more interested in promoting the welfare of sfi than it&#39;s racers. :(

[Knestis]

SFI is more concerned with promoting the interests of its members - and therefore its own.

K

[Joe Craven]

I believe the NASA suit requirements are nearly identical to the SCCA requirements, I&#39;ll alert them to this thread so they can look into the 1986 FIA issue. NASA has required SFI or FIA compliance for race suits as long as I&#39;ve known, never have known of an issue where someone bought one that wasn&#39;t certified. They are definitely more strict in regards to enforcement of the SFI seat belt expiration which is 2 years from the date of certification which definitely pisses me off. However, since FIA certifies for 5 years and NASA accepts FIA certification , that solves my problem and I purchase the usually more expensive belts that meet the FIA specs.

Now, anyone know what the written FIA/SFI specs for suits are....I am interested to see what the expiration date for their certification date is if they exist. You know, these manufacturers need to sell more suits, even if the ones we buy sit in someones air conditioned and heated closet for many years.

[vr6guy]

I have never heard of a suit having an "epiration date". Thats where the owner of the suit has to make a good judgement on the condition of the suit they wear. Also abviously the tech inspector. If you saw my suit you would think it came directly from the factory. Maybe they should modify all tracks like the ones at big amusement parks. Ya know go carts that have the middle track in the middle to keep you on course? SO that way we cant crash, or catch on fire, so we can just wear shorts and a t-shirt....... Sports car business of america.... I want the "CLUB" back

The funny thing about contacting anyone at Topeka, they simply cant, and wont explain about this rule change. Even had one person,(that i will leave nameless) said he didnt know what I was talking about!?

word for this upcoming year in the scca..... "contumacious"

[Quickshoe]

SFI 3.2A/10 and higher rated suits expire no more than 4 years after date of manufacture.

[Knestis]

Suits done expire but SFI approvals might. I really hate this whole issue.

K

[Dave Burchfield]

The way to remove SFI from the whole mix is to only buy safety equipment that is FIA approved. Might be a few more dollars on the front end, but over the life of the equipment, it could be much less expensive. Belts are a perfect example. I will be certain to communicate with any vendor that I buy from that I have no interest in SFI approval and will only buy FIA approved, and if they have nothing that fits my needs, sorry.

Is my thinking flawed here?

[Quickshoe]

It certainly wouldn&#39;t hurt Dave. Unfortunately the drag racers, roundy-round and desert guys have lots of SFI required equipment and their numbers are larger than ours.

[vr6guy]

Suits done expire but SFI approvals might. I really hate this whole issue.

K
[/b]


Im right there with ya on that one!!

scca is acting like a 15 year old boy who climbs into bed with anything that hikes up their skirt,(SFI).

[Bob Roth]

From what I learned SFI-5 requires a TPP of 19 per the following table

SFI
Rating TPP Time to 2nd degree burn

3.2A/1 6 3.0 Sec.
3.2A/3 14 7.0 Sec.
3.2A/5 19 9.5 Sec.
3.2A/10 38 19.0 Sec.
3.2A/15 60 30.0 Sec.
32A/20 80 40.0 Sec.


In addition look at this site. http://www.spectorracing.com/customer/pages.php?pageid=4

I don&#39;t know who did the testing but the conclusion is that for the same suit with a two layer fabric like my quilted fabric OMP 2001 FIA 1986, you can test it either SFI, FIA 1986 or FIA 2000 standards and regardless of the testing method the result is well over a TPP of 19 which is what SCCA will accept as a minimum when they require SFI 3.2/5.

This is what I have thought all along, the FIA testing standards changed but the fire protection of the suits that SCCA has always accepted did not change. The only other thing was FIA 2000 requires Epilets which my suit has. So, if a 2001 FIA 1986 suit is equivalent if not superior to SFI 3.2/5 suits, why is SCCA saying that they are not acceptible? I will bet 40% of the two layer suits that went through tech last year were FIA 1986. Speaking for the guys who are looking at spending $700 for replacing a suit that we have used maybe 20 times since new, we are still waiting for an explanation......

[Joe Harlan]

http://www.scca.com/documents/Club%20Rules...provedbyBoD.pdf (http://www.scca.com/documents/Club%20Rules/RuleChangesApprovedbyBoD.pdf)


The issue has a temporary resolution.

[Dave Zaslow]

Dear BOD,



I note that you have elected not to change the driving suit rule for 2008, but have elected to revise the rule for 2009. As published the rule will be:



Effective 1/1/09: change section 9.3.19.A as follows:

Driving suits that effectively cover the body from the neck to the ankles and wrists,

<strike>manufactured of fire resistant material, worn with underwear of a fire resistant material.</strike>

One piece suits are highly recommended. All suits shall bear an SFI 3.2A/1 or higher

certification label or FIA 8856-2000 homologation. <strike>and underwear shall be made of the

following accepted fire resistant materials: Nomex, Kynol, FPT, IWS (wool), Fiberglass,

Firewear™, Durette, Fypro, PBI, Kevlar, NASAFIL, or any suit carrying an SFI 3-2A/1 or

higher certification patch. Underwear of PROBAN is approved. The following specific

manufacturer(s) material combinations are also recognized: Simpson Heat Shield, Leston

Super Protex, FPT Linea Sport, Carbon X, and Durette X-400. </strike> Underwear of fire resistant

material shall be used except <strike>Underwear is not required </strike> with <strike>three-layer suits or with </strike> suits

carrying FIA standards <strike>of 8856-1986 </strike> or 8856-2000 or SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15,

/20) Certification Patch. <strike>FIA homologated driving suits and underwear are recommended.</strike>



I thank you for deferring this change but would like to note the following two items:



1. The sentence that states "Underwear of fire resistant material shall be used except with suits carrying FIA standards 8856-2000 or SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15,/20) Certification Patch." precludes wearing fire resistant underwear. Is this really your intent? If I see a driver wearing underwear and a suit rated higher than SFI 3/2A/1 may I ask the grid workers to make them strip off the underwear before being let out onto the track?



2. As the previous FIA 1986 spec is, at the very least, functionally equivalent to SFI 3.2A/5, why will those suits no longer be allowed?



Yours,



Dave Zaslow

189195

[lateapex911]

Good letter, Dave

[Joe Craven]

I just looked up the 2008 NASA CCR up on the NASA website

http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/ccr.pdf under 15.17.1

Here is the text

15.17.1 Driving Suits
A driver is required to wear a suit that covers his or her entire body except for hands,
feet, and head. Driving suits shall be one piece carrying an SFI 3.2A/1 rating or higher
(3.2A/5, 3.2A/10, 3.2A/15, or 3.2A/20) or FIA 8856-2000, FIA NORME 1986/1986, or FIA
8856-1986.

It looks like FIA suits are good to go at NASA events for the foreseeable future. From the above SCCA update, they are good for 2008 SCCA events too.

Thanks everyone.

[vr6guy]

http://www.scca.com/documents/Club%20Rules...provedbyBoD.pdf (http://www.scca.com/documents/Club%20Rules/RuleChangesApprovedbyBoD.pdf)
The issue has a temporary resolution.
[/b]


this resolution should not be temporary!! Ill just wear my fathers suit from the 80&#39;s, after all it has an all mighty "sfi" patch......... this whole subject is a joke..... off to nasa

[JIgou]

So in a year when my suit is officially deemed "junk" I can choose to spend $700 on a new suit and stay with SCCA or spend $700 on a new H&N restraint to replace my Isaac and race with NASA.

Meanwhile, both of the items I currently own provide levels of protection beyond the minimum required by the specifications for such items for each sanctioning body.

*sigh*

Letter asking for explanation sent.

Jarrod

[RSTPerformance]

Jarrod;

I couldn&#39;t agree more with your fustrations on this topic... This entire issue has caused me to loose interest in racing and think about getting a boat next year. We need to keep the sport at our level affordable and fun. I think that SCCA is trying to take Regional/National racing to a more "pro level" wich in some cases is great and will certainly attract some racers but I think that it will loose more than it will gain...

Raymond

[lateapex911]

Raymond, i don&#39;t think that&#39;s the intent at all. You&#39;re seeing black helicopters, man!

50 years ago, they were racing in what we considered "skull buckets". Things have come a long way. The club needs to balance the risk side with the fun side.

Sometimes, they trip over themselves in that process.....But it&#39;s not about ousting the "little guy".

Small circle tracks operate in different environments, and have different rules, accordingly. Our club is a large organization, with a lot to lose.

That said, i am all for common sense being used in these decisions. Write your BoD person with a well researched and well reasoned letter, and you will be heard.

[ScotMac]

Raymond, i don&#39;t think that&#39;s the intent at all. You&#39;re seeing black helicopters, man!

50 years ago, they were racing in what we considered "skull buckets". Things have come a long way. The club needs to balance the risk side with the fun side.

Sometimes, they trip over themselves in that process.....But it&#39;s not about ousting the "little guy".

Small circle tracks operate in different environments, and have different rules, accordingly. Our club is a large organization, with a lot to lose.

That said, i am all for common sense being used in these decisions. Write your BoD person with a well researched and well reasoned letter, and you will be heard.
[/b]

Right. Let&#39;s get off the "SCCA is going down the drain", "SCCA is in bed w/ SFI", "NASA here i come", ..., band wagon. They made a mistake, which they recognized, have fixed for 2008, and are (probably) in the process of fixing permanently.

EDIT: I see they have gone back to the original (no FIA 1986) wording for 09...ok, go back to regularly scheduled bashing. Geez.

[spdmonkey]

What has me a bit puzzled is that according to the minutes of the CRB meeting, my letter was the only one submitted on the 1986 FIA standard. Does anybody really read Fastrack anymore? Is it because its not in Sportscar? I sent my original letter to both the CRB and BoD within minutes of the original posting in Fastrack over the summer. I&#39;m hopeful that after all these posts in this and the other few threads here that people are writing to the SCCA as well as posting. All the online chatter mean absolutely nothing to the SCCA. The only stuff on the record is what doesn&#39;t get lost after it hits the SCCA mailroom... and a lot of it does get lost. Please write the letters whether it effects you or not as next time it just might be your bottom line thats changing. I&#39;m happy for the one year, but we need to get this changed for a longer period of time. There is nothing the SCCA can say to me that makes me believe a single layer suit with an SFI tag is better than my triple and double layer FIA suits. Nothing!

Dave Brown

Write the letters to the CRB!!!

[RSTPerformance]

Looks like we have been given a 2nd chance to give our input, lets be sure to send our letters of support to get this rule changed back to something more realistic! I know I send one before, but I am giong to do it again!!!

June Fastrack News is requesting your input... E-Mail [email protected] and support one of the newest proposed rules that allow FIA 8856/1986 driver suites.

Raymond

[dickita15]

While this proposal is a lot more reasonable that what was proposed last year in that it allows either an SFI suit or the two latest FIA specs, I still have to wonder if a certification is needed. There are drivers using suits with no certification and I question if there has been problem because of that.

[spdmonkey]

While this proposal is a lot more reasonable that what was proposed last year in that it allows either an SFI suit or the two latest FIA specs, I still have to wonder if a certification is needed. There are drivers using suits with no certification and I question if there has been problem because of that.

Not sure exactly what you mean. The FIA suits are certified. The "issue" is there is no expiration on suits. Just like SFI maybe? I ended up buying a new FIA suit anyways as the hassle was not worth it. I will still write more letters in support as in the hot summer its nice to have a couple suits so you are not jumping into a hot stinky suit that never dries in the humidity. YMMV.

[Greg Amy]

Raymond, et al...

You're missing the point on the rule proposal. Re-read that rule and this ENTIRE TOPIC and you'll see that the issue is NOT that additional certified suits are allowed, it's that certified suits would be REQUIRED.

Go to your GCR and read the list of suits that are currently allowed. Note that many of those, especially those that have worked perfectly fine for years, will, at the stroke of a pen, become illegal for use in SCCA. I have, for example, a very high-quality Italian FPT Linea Sport suit in my closet that would not be usable.

So, again, re-read that proposal in Fastrack. If you wish to unilaterally prohibit the use of a large percentage of suits currently in use, then by all means write in your support on the matter. But, if you, like me, believe that the current standards are more than adequate, I encourage you to write in opposition to such regulations.

Greg

[dickita15]

monkey I assume Greg's post cleared up any confusion. he is spot on.

[Rick Starkweather]

Greg:

Interesting to hear about the Linea Sport suit. I've still got some Linea Sport underwear and a dual eye port balaclava from way back when I use from time to time.

My issue is my 2-layer Simpson suit is 25+ years old. I bought it in 1981 I think. Still looks like new (though a bit more snug than back in 1981)... But, no labels at all.

I've thought about contacting Simpson about retrofitting a label, but I suspect they will laugh at me.

Time to buy a new one me thinks. Probably a good thing as I believe some amount of air between me and the suit as an insulator is probably a good thing.

Rick

[JS154]

This is a bit late of a follow-up, but BMW CCA CR has revised the wording of the firesiut rules to align with NASA. This was a result of the same wording change initially that started this whole thread.

Here is the updated language, if it helps anyone:

08-0022 Jan 23, 2008 Safety SAFETY Are FIA 1986 3 layer Nomex fire suits manufactured after 2000 with shoulder epaulettes allowed? BMW CCA Club Racing Rules as written require only specify FIA 8856.

>>
1. Driving suits shall carry a rating of SFI 3.2A/1 rating or higher (3.2A/5, 3.2A/10, 3.2A/15, or 3.2A/20) or FIA 8856-2000, FIA NORME 1986/1986, or FIA 8856-1986.
a. SFI suits rated 3.2A/1 must be worn in conjunction with full length upper and lower fire rate underwear. This update is in the 2008 Rules V13.2.