SFI

[Knestis]

Quoted from http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1...ecification.pdf (http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1_Head_Restraint_Specification.pdf) (SFI head restraint specs, bold added for emphasis, italics are my editorials)

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. - SFI certifies nothing...

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. - Manufacturers are responsible for their own testing.

1.4 ... 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. - The licensing agreement is where all of the interesting stuff seems to be. I'd LOVE to read a copy. :)

7.0 TEST REPORTS
A separate test report, or set of test reports if required, shall be submitted for each product model. If more than one test facility is required to complete all necessary tests, then a separate test report shall be submitted from each one. A test report shall be submitted for each component, if tested separately. The test facility shall assign a unique number to each test report. (SFI does no testing themselves)

10.0 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Upon demonstration of successful compliance with all the requirements of the specification and the self-certification program and upon entering the licensing agreement with SFI, the manufacturer may advertise, present and offer the Head and Neck Restraint System for sale with the representation that their product meets the SFI Specification 38.1. - Again, take a look at who is certifying what in this relationship...

14.0 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS
Testing procedures and/or standards contained in this specification are intended for use only as a guide in determining compliance with the minimum performance requirements as defined herein. The granting and assignment of the "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1" logo/designation is in no way an endorsement or certification of product performance or reliability by SFI. SFI, its officers, directors and/or members assume no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for failure or malfunctions of a product under this program. - Tell me again what SFI provides that something like RSI would NOT?

This is NOT an Isaac/Hans issue. This is representative of how SFI works "for the racer."

THINK.

K

[pgipson]

Tell me again what SFI provides that something like RSI would NOT?[/b]

I don't recall seeing any of these activities (pulled from the SFI web site) listed on the RSI web site. Agree with the process or not, this seems to be what the SFI does. Looks a lot SAE, IEEE, AEEC, and lots of other non-profit standards setting organizations. Does RSI propose to be the creator of specifications?

What Is the SFI Foundation, Inc.?

The SFI Foundation, Inc. (SFI) is a non-profit organization established to issue and administer standards for specialty/performance automotive and racing equipment.

How is the SFI Standards Program Funded?

Participating manufacturers pay for development and administration of these programs through licensing fees and/or unit charges. Also, interested associations have provided grants and donations.

How is a Standard Initiated?

The SFI Technical Committee initiates the specification process, typically at the request of the affected industry or race sanctioning body.

How is Participation Obtained?

SFI encourages industry-wide participation in the drafting of specifications. However, once a standard is enacted, participation by the manufacturer is strictly voluntary.

What About Enforcement?

Typically, there are policing provisions through contractual or licensing agreements whereby SFI may inspect the records and/or equipment of a manufacturer in order to ascertain that the product involved meets SFI Specs. Once a manufacturer has voluntarily committed to participating in the program, it must comply with the specifications in all respects.

How Are the Specs Used in Racing?

When adopted as part of the rules of a race sanctioning body, enforcement is entirely up to that organization. The manufacturer then provides the racer with product that is in compliance with the specs enforced by the sanctioning body.

[lateapex911]

Thanks Kirk, I've been a bit busy lately, and my limk to that was on my stolen laptop.

To me, it appears that all SFI does is set some minimum standards...and it does THAT with input from the manufactureres and other organizations.

If, as Howard from HANS asserts, the 38.1 spec was writtten by NASCAR, it seems rather silly that every sanctioning body needs to be driven by the NASCAR engine. I mean, who died and left NASCAR in charge? It's bad enough I have to wade through NASCAR NASCAR NASCAR on Speed for 10 months out of the year, now they are mandating what I can, and can not protect myself with? because you know how open minded NASCAR is...

And if the snctioning bodies have a say in the matter of spec writing, why can't SCCA work with SFI to create a 38.2 spec that drops some of the problematic verbage?

But I digress...

It appears that it's a shell game of liability. SFI makes the standards in conjunction with others....in a lawsuit, how are they liable? To a degree? Completley? Not at all? I would love to hear a lawyers take.

[Knestis]

No doubt, we don't know everything we need to about [RSI] yet but the simple fact that an alternative is emerging - the only alternative, it looks like - has me thinking...

If it - or any other organization or entity - put out the same public statements of purpose, etc. but functioned the way RSI is purported to, would it be an acceptable alternative?

K

EDIT - Unclear antecedent. :)

[gsbaker]

To me, it appears that all SFI does is set some minimum standards...and it does THAT with input from the manufactureres and other organizations.[/b]
Only the manufacturers vote on the spec.


And if the snctioning bodies have a say in the matter of spec writing, why can't SCCA work with SFI to create a 38.2 spec that drops some of the problematic verbage?[/b]
They can scream from the rooftops, but they cannot vote. Only manufacturers vote.


But I digress...

It appears that it's a shell game of liability. SFI makes the standards in conjunction with others....in a lawsuit, how are they liable? To a degree? Completley? Not at all? I would love to hear a lawyers take.
[/b]
It gets very ugly. Trust me, I've been there. When someone gets killed the lawyers will throw a blanket over everyone associated with SFI, including sanctioning bodies, and drag them before a federal judge who will rule that a jury should decide.

[lateapex911]

I knew the 38.1 spec had been posted to the public domain, and it is, a bit buried, but available on the HMS Motorsports website. It's not availbale on the SFi site, at least not to me.

here is the begining...it's 9 pages. I swear I remembered the term "yoke" being used, but it appears it's actually the term "main device"....

So here it is, so we can all be on the same page.:


SFI SPECIFICATION 38.1 EFFECTIVE: OCTOBER 25, 2004*
PRODUCT: Head and Neck Restraint Systems
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.
SFI Specification 38.1 Page 1 Effective: October 25, 2004
Copyright © 2004 by the SFI Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any form without written permission of SFI is prohibited.
SFI Specification 38.1 Page 2 Effective: October 25, 2004
Copyright © 2004 by the SFI Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any form without written permission of SFI is prohibited.
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'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.
2.0 DEFINITIONS
2.1 Head and Neck Restraint: An active Head and Neck Restraint System is a protection ensemble providing an alternative load path which decreases both neck stress and head excursion during a vehicle impact without reliance on helmet impact into structures or nets.
2.2 Separate Restraining Devices:
A. Linkages attached to the helmet which transfer restraining loads directly to the helmet from the main device which is secured to the driver's shoulders, torso, etc. Methods for attachment of these linkages to the helmet and main device shall be prescribed by the manufacturer.
B. The main device shall be a mechanism held tightly to the driver's torso by seat belts or other strap systems such that the reactive load carrying components move directly with the torso and controls head, neck, and torso relative positions during forward or off-center impact situations.
2.3 Reaction Linkage: The means by which the head force necessary to limit displacement of the head with respect to the torso is reacted. Acceptable reaction linkages could include load paths to the torso or to the restraint webbing. Direct attachment to react loads to a fixed point or points on a vehicle structure or restraint webbing will not be acceptable because of the potential for torso displacements with respect to these points. Imposed loading by the reaction linkage to other areas of the body should be applied using approaches demonstrated to be practical without imposing risk of serious injury.
SFI Specification 38.1 Page 3 Effective: October 25, 2004
Copyright © 2004 by the SFI Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any form without written permission of SFI is prohibited.
2.4 The Head and Neck Restraint System must be designed and manufactured to allow freedom of movement of head, torso, arms, etc., commensurate with operating a race vehicle under all race and associated conditions.
2.5 Adjustment and release mechanism(s) shall be accessible to both the user and to external personnel such that no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System during emergency situations.
2.6 All or any portion of the Head and Neck Restraint System pertaining to this specification shall remain as constructed by the original manufacturer and not modified.
3.0 CONSTRUCTION
3.1 MATERIALS
The materials used in the construction of the Head and Neck Restraint System shall be resistant to the elements to which they are exposed in normal service. Besides environmental considerations such as heat and UV light, these elements include fluids used in and around motor vehicles that may come in contact with the restraint system. All metal rivets, bolts, buckles, adjusters, etc. shall be corrosion resistant and have sharp edges and burrs removed.[/b]

It then goes into the testing requirements and other related legal stuff.

The full version may be found here:

http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1...ecification.pdf (http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1_Head_Restraint_Specification.pdf)

[Eagle7]

If it - or any other organization or entity - put out the same public statements of purpose, etc. but functioned the way RSI is purported to, would it be an acceptable alternative?[/b] Someone has to write a spec.

[pgipson]

With regard to "alternatives" in the world of spec writing, there are always alternative standards setting bodies. But all will require the same thing, someone to write the requirements for the standard. None I am aware of or have worked with actually have the engineering staff and experience to produce credible requirements. All depend on industry (i.e. manufacturer) input and support. All have a staff function that handles the administrative details such as calling meetings and editing and publishing. And all derive income in a similar way, licensing of the committee work product (either through sales of the documents or licensing the use of labels -- i.e. Underwriters Laboratory), and through membership and donations.

So if RSI is to become a credible, different, alternative to SFI, FIA, and Snell then it will have to create a new model. It can't just be a place to list other's work.

As to the question of the origin of 38.1, I have no doubt that nascar pushed for the current standard. But it is disingenuous of someone at HANS to imply that nascar "drove" the design. The basic HANS design has been in place since the early '90's. As I recall Jim Downing's discussion on the origin of the product, it was driven in part by the accident that took Jim Fitzgerald's life in St. Petersburg in what, 1988? If you recall, Fitz hit the jersey barrier with drivers left coming out of the corner.

It took a high profile death (Dale Sr.) to force ANY sanctioning body to decide that there was a problem that needed a resolution. HANS was in a convenient place with a well tested design that could be adopted quickly. And it still took 3 years to get the spec finalized and published.

[Bob Roth]

This string leads to something I would like other's to consider which is what are SCCA's compelling reason's for having safety rules and are they going about creating them in the right way?

I suggest that our reason for safety rules stems out of SCCA's charter to provide club racing for its members. Once one decides to have club racing, there is an implied responsibility for SCCA to organize its races with high regards to the safety of its membership. The reasons are for both the good of its members and for the self protection of SCCA in our liability environment.

I chose the "races with high regards to the safety" standard carefully. A "high regards" standard to me implies that SCCA actively evaluate and drive down the risks of racing, recognizing that whatever SCCA does, car racing is risky. To that end, I think the organization should actively monitor the type of incidents occuring, and the safety technology being invented and adopt whatever is consitent with high regards to safety.

Having said that, there is no absolute standard of safety and as such SCCA must balance its regard's to safety need with the reality and risks of club racing. By reality I mean that racing is inherently risky and that its members are freely accepting this risk. The second reality is that club racers have limited resources and that the costs of an excessive racing safety rules may eliminate the entrants and racing that SCCA is chartered to support.

In my years of racing, I have observed two club racing fatalities in Central Devision. The first was a multiple formula car rollover where a driver's helmet hooked on the other car's wing. The second was where a spun and sitting 1800 pound car was hit by a 130 mph 3000 pound competitor. In the year's since these events, I have not seen SCCA eliminate open formula cars, or limit car top speeds to say 45 mph, steps that would have likely prevented these deaths. The answer why is obvious, SCCA could make these rules, but few members would show up. As I suggest, its a balancing act that SCCA follows when it consider's what safety rules changes to make.

Here is what I hope happens is happening at SCCA rules making;
1) They actively record severe events and near misses for unacceptable risks and failures.
2) They actively evaluate safety technology for either improvements and or new information indicating previously unknown risks.
3) It considers when making safety rules changes
- Is there an observed problem that has to be solved
- Is the problem solved going to bring a clear and consistent safety improvement
- Is the severity of risk mitigated inconsistent with the inherent risks of racing
- Will the impact of the change be consistent with the expectations of club racing's membership

To that end, I would like to comment on some problems related to recent safety rules changes.

1. Adoption of 2 year SFI replacement of belts. Did somebody observe a problem that requires fixing here? Did somebody ask if could there have been a better way to weed out rumoured unsafe belts than throwing away all SFI belts at two years at $60 per year cost to each racer? My car like most cars is covered and stored all but the 20 hours per year that it is at the track. Who in SCCA determined that these belts were unsafe after two years when similar belts in cars last 30+ years without problems. Who in SCCA determined that seemingly identical FIA belts can last 5 years compared to SFI life of 2? Has there ever been a documented problem with SCCA belts or was this just a knee jerk reaction?
2. Planned phaseout of SFI 1986 suits. My OMP suit is identical in construction to FIA 2000 and SFI 3.2/5 suits. What exactly is the clear and consistant improvement resulting from banning SFI 1986 suits?
3. The upcoming consideration of H&N devices. I would encourage anybody who wants one to buy one and there is a 50/50 chance I will buy one but it is not clear that SCCA should require them. If SCCA want's to say that club racing is unsafe without H&N devices, how can it justify allowing its members to run open formula cars and accepting the much higher risks of them?
4. The death by a thousand cuts nature of recent rule safety changes. One their face, the recent spate of changes are well intentioned, but if you aggregate the cost of tow hook rules, cage rules, fire system rules, suit rules, seat belt rules, H&N, rules, window net rules, proposed right side net rules, the annual cost of keeping a car current is becoming prohibitive to a significant proportion of regional racers. Who is accountable in SCCA for making sure the cost of rules is acceptable to its membership?

SCCA rules must benefit is racer members first. There is no place for SCCA to knee jerk copy NASA, NASCAR and just blanket adopt whatever SFI/FIA gets it into its head to adopt. SCCA should make its rules based upon the problems it can document, consistent with its charter to promote racing, and always with a high regard for safety. Unless we look out for our members, present SCCA rulesmaking trends may result in a club where the safety of its racing is substantially unchanged from years past, but the cost of those rules prevents most racers from participating.

thanks for listening
bob

[lateapex911]

SCCAs response, Bob, will likely be that it must align itself with "industry standards" and that if NASA does it, SCCA will be considered negligent if it does not.

Whats sad in the HNR matter is that the spec was derived in a ratehr suspicios manner, it stifles innovation, and products which have better performance will be made illegal...in essence, safety will take a back seat.

The belt rule was a highly suspicious as well, and i would love to know the real facts behind the rule change.

[RSTPerformance]

bob- well written...

Question to all- has anyone considered filing a lawsuit against SCCA for requiring or recomending the use of "less safe safety equipment? I am not however I do feel like as a member driven organization we members are being forced to do what only a few select people want without real explination, justification, or reasoning. I can't understand why we are forced to use equient that is less safe??? I fear that if someone like greg or Isaac wanted to sue we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Just my fustrated opinion...

Raymond

Ps: I don't have a problem with SFI, I think it is a good organization with its own political goals. I do have a problem with SCCA and how they have made poor decisions to require SFI specifications at the risk of our safety and the ultimate results of members being less safe.

[pgipson]

I don't have a problem with SFI, I think it is a good organization with its own political goals. I do have a problem with SCCA and how they have made poor decisions to require SFI specifications at the risk of our safety and the ultimate results of members being less safe.[/b]

I'm sorry Raymond, but I gotta throw the flag on this statement. Name ONE thing that SCCA has required that has a "more safe" non-SFI associated alternative that isn't allowed.

[RSTPerformance]

I'm sorry Raymond, but I gotta throw the flag on this statement. Name ONE thing that SCCA has required that has a "more safe" non-SFI associated alternative that isn't allowed.
[/b]

I should change the statment... I don't like how SCCA has used SFI specs to try and make us more safe, because I don't think that it is working.

SCCA isn't the only organization I wonder about getting sued... NASCAR and every other professional racing series certainly comes to mind with the required HANS device vs any other device. NASA I havn't a clue about because I have no interest in racing in that organization at this time. I only mentioned SCCA above because that is where I play and where I have concerns. Here is my list of 3 things right off the top of my head...

In 2009 my 1986/1986 FIA OMP triple layer drivers suite VS a single layer SFI rated suite.

Currently 3 year old used 1 time belts vs someone elses belts that have been used 20 times in 1 season.

The recomended HANS device vs. the Issac

Here are some future areas of concern:

Roll Bar Padding

Window Net

Passenger side drivers net thing

Driver shoes

Driver Gloves

Drivers seat

Fire System

Fuel Cell

Roll Cage

Helmets

and the list cold go on...

[pgipson]

I should change the statment... I don't like how SCCA has used SFI specs to try and make us more safe, because I don't think that it is working.

SCCA isn't the only organization I wonder about getting sued... NASCAR and every other professional racing series certainly comes to mind with the required HANS device vs any other device. NASA I havn't a clue about because I have no interest in racing in that organization at this time. I only mentioned SCCA above because that is where I play and where I have concerns. Here is my list of 3 things right off the top of my head...

In 2009 my 1986/1986 FIA OMP triple layer drivers suite VS a single layer SFI rated suite.

Currently 3 year old used 1 time belts vs someone elses belts that have been used 20 times in 1 season.

The recomended HANS device vs. the Issac [/b]


SCCA has neither required or recommended any specific H&NR system. The use of A system is recommended, but the choice is the drivers.

I don't understand the dropping of the 1986 FIA spec suits either. The only thing I can find is that FIA has rescinded the 1986 spec. If they also rescinded all the certifications that were issued for that spec (pure supposition on my part) then the legal authority for someone to reference that specification in rules may be rescinded as well. I agree we need an explanation on that (and I need to check my suit to see what is on it).

Changing the belt life from 5 to 2 yrs is still a sore a point with a lot of people, including me. But it's hard to argue that the change has made anyone "less safe".

As to your other "future areas of concern" some of those have either or both SFI and FIA specs already referenced in the SCCA rules (and have for years). And some others (gloves for instance) have existing standards that SCCA doesn't mandate.

Don't get me wrong, the process for approval of safety equipment is not transparent to the primary user and that is a problem for a lot of people. But the process itself is not any different than lots of other industries use for setting standards. People that design products think that having objective performance standards that their product can be measured against is a good thing. And they will continue to develop standards for their new products.

The challenge for all suppliers to any industry is to not allow the standards to become stale. When that happens then the prospect of liability raises it's ugly head. When the "state of the art" has bypassed a standard it is incumbent on the suppliers, their association and the users to acknowledge and respond by updating and incorporating the new information. Failure to do that is what opens the door to the "gross negligence" charge.

[leggwork]

as another example of how SFI isn't helping ... how's this for a timeline of events...

- in 2006, the Leatt Brace gets SFI 38.1 certification and announce a $395 "club model" HNR - (wow, I thought, that should help spur adoption and some price competition...)

- at the PRI 2006 meeting, the SFI 38.1 committee (which includes manufacturer reps) discuss lowering the allowable neck tension to 2500N from 4000N (Leatt is about 2600N, NHTSA mandates 4170N for passenger vehicles - not sure why our necks are more fragile on the track than they are on the open road)

- sometime mid 2007, Leatt announces that they won't be offering the club model for road racers but only the Sport model at $695 (but they still to this day offer the $395 club model in their motorcycle and karting neck brace lines)

- at an early summer 2007 meeting, the SFI 38.1 committee lowers the allowable neck tension to 3200N (I haven't heard the scientific justification for that yet)

- at PRI 2007, Hubbard-Downing and Safety Solutions both announce $695 versions of their HNRs (well, at least we got some price competition)

(I have no inside knowledge of what really transpired, and these could just be, uhhh, coincidences - yeah, coincidences, that's the ticket)

On the other hand, I guess SFI has never hidden the fact that they are manufacturer funded ...

It also bugs me that the 38.1 committee continues to be focused on frontal impacts when offset and side impacts are seemingly more likely in road racing as are multiple impact hits that tend to loosen the belts and lessen the effectiveness of some designs that rely on the tightness of the belts to work.

And, one more note in response to somebody saying earlier that the 38.1 spec isn't available on the sfi website - I don't know why they don't post all of them, but any of them can be requested by sending an email to [email protected] .
bruce

[JimLill]

does anybody know what the NHRA is doing on HNR, they have sway in SFI

[M. Hurst]

Head And Neck Restraint System

Effective Jan. 1, 2007, NHRA will require all competitors in Top Fuel, Funny Car, Pro Stock, Top Alcohol Dragster, and Top Alcohol Funny Car to utilize an SFI Spec 38.1 head and neck restraint system. Certain classes in Comp (A/D, A/DA, B/D, B/DA, H/D, A/ED, AA/AM, AA/AT, BB/AT, CC/AT, A/AP, A/A, A/AA, B/AA, A/PM, and AA/PM) and any alternative sanctioning organization vehicles that run 200.00 mph or faster must also have a head and neck restraint system meeting SFI Spec 38.1 for the 2007 season.

[gsbaker]

http://www.nhra.com/content/news/19197.htm

[pgipson]

http://www.nhra.com/content/news/19197.htm

[/b]

That's pretty cold and not in keeping with what this discussion is about.

[leggwork]

interesting follow up http://www.catchfence.com/html/2007/mt060407.html



http://www.nhra.com/content/news/19197.htm

[/b]

[gsbaker]

That's pretty cold and not in keeping with what this discussion is about.
[/b]
True. It was in poor taste and has been edited. My apologies.

FWIW, this was not a simple event.

[its66]

Bob Roth,
Excellent post. I'm certain that you've just expressed the sentiment of many club racers. Kudo's...



Head And Neck Restraint System

Effective Jan. 1, 2007, NHRA will require all competitors in Top Fuel, Funny Car, Pro Stock, Top Alcohol Dragster, and Top Alcohol Funny Car to utilize an SFI Spec 38.1 head and neck restraint system. Certain classes in Comp (A/D, A/DA, B/D, B/DA, H/D, A/ED, AA/AM, AA/AT, BB/AT, CC/AT, A/AP, A/A, A/AA, B/AA, A/PM, and AA/PM) and any alternative sanctioning organization vehicles that run 200.00 mph or faster must also have a head and neck restraint system meeting SFI Spec 38.1 for the 2007 season.
[/b]

I think we have missed something in here. NHRA seems smarter than I gave them credit for. Notice, they have drawn a line in the sand and basically said "if your car is this fast, then you must do XXX" This fall in line with the progressive nature of almost all of NHRA's safety regs, which become increasingly more stringent as the vehicle's speed increases. (driveshaft loops, fire suits, fuel cells, etc) NHRA didn't say that ALL competitors, regardless of class or speed, or design of the vehicle must utilize 38.1. I realize that this may open the liability doorway if someone has an injury that may have been prevented by 38.1, yet was in a class/speed not required.

IMHO, SCCA, NASA, and any sanctioning body should evaluate the cars/classes/construction/speed potential before making blanket rules. There is a big difference between an ITD Yugo with factory crumple zones hitting the wall, and a 700 hp, 3300 lb GT1 car with countless steel tubes (specifically designed NOT to yield) running to the front corner. Huge difference.

If I am misinformed, or making erroneous assumptions, feel free to share. I do think the H & N restraint issue is a very serious one that deserves the attention of every racer.

[RSTPerformance]

Bob Roth,
Excellent post. I'm certain that you've just expressed the sentiment of many club racers. Kudo's...
I think we have missed something in here. NHRA seems smarter than I gave them credit for. Notice, they have drawn a line in the sand and basically said "if your car is this fast, then you must do XXX" This fall in line with the progressive nature of almost all of NHRA's safety regs, which become increasingly more stringent as the vehicle's speed increases. (driveshaft loops, fire suits, fuel cells, etc) NHRA didn't say that ALL competitors, regardless of class or speed, or design of the vehicle must utilize 38.1. I realize that this may open the liability doorway if someone has an injury that may have been prevented by 38.1, yet was in a class/speed not required.

IMHO, SCCA, NASA, and any sanctioning body should evaluate the cars/classes/construction/speed potential before making blanket rules. There is a big difference between an ITD Yugo with factory crumple zones hitting the wall, and a 700 hp, 3300 lb GT1 car with countless steel tubes (specifically designed NOT to yield) running to the front corner. Huge difference.

If I am misinformed, or making erroneous assumptions, feel free to share. I do think the H & N restraint issue is a very serious one that deserves the attention of every racer.
[/b]


Jim-

Good point... SCCA does have different rules on some things, such as fuel cells and cages, however it is not diferentiating other things such as drivers gear... Can anyone name the first time or last time anyone in an IT car got burned or would have got burned should they have had on a non sfi certified driver suite?

Raymond

[Knestis]

We should NEVER have to use "someone got burned" as rationale for any driver's suit specification. We know enough about these technologies to make smart decisions to prevent someone from getting hurt. That's the whole point.

If we collectively decide that a particular TPP rating - an actual measure of insulation performance, replicable in lab settings - is "enough," then we just need a process that provides reasonable assurances to drivers that when they buy a "15," they get a "15." If I want a "20" instead, then that's my right - or my obligation to my loved ones. (I put those numbers in quotes because they are meaningless, just in included for illustrative purposes.)

Under a process that puts the SFI between me and my decisions...

** There's little motive for a manufacturer to make a "20," if the testing and reporting protocols don't differentiate it from a "15."

** I can't TELL if one suit is a 15 or a 20, if they are both under the threshold for whatever SFI spec they exceed.

** If 2 layers of Superinsufiber have a demonstrated TPP rating of 18, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that 3 layers of the same stuff exceeds that level of performance - so should be allowed. Similarly, if a single layer of Corning Pink-O-Safe meets the performance benchmark, a manufacturer should be able to add one layer of Ultracarbondeluxe as an added measure, without having to re-test to demonstrate they meet the minimum. Of course, they COULD have a lab test the new sandwich to achieve a higher number that they could use in their advertising.

K

[gsbaker]

Similarly, if a single layer of Corning Pink-O-Safe meets the performance benchmark, a manufacturer should be able to add one layer of Ultracarbondeluxe as an added measure, without having to re-test to demonstrate they meet the minimum. Of course, they COULD have a lab test the new sandwich to achieve a higher number that they could use in their advertising.

K
[/b]
Whoa, now hold on just a minute there, Kirk. If we go down that road, the next thing you know people will be getting creative, coming up with new ideas for safer products. What's next, more choice and cost efficiencies? It's a slippery slope.

:blink:

;)