What other racing organization requires SFI? [Archive]

tom91ita

01-01-2008, 10:07 AM

please note that i am not trying to take anything out of context from this other post:

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=19384&start=30

please read it at the above link. i have no issue with what Greg is stating in the above but here is an excerpt that references that others are now requiring SFI.

I just got an e-mail from another organization that I used to race with telling me that I must comply with a 38.1 certified HNR by February '08.
_________________
Greg Greenbaum
National & SoCal TT, PT, & ST Director [/b]

does anyone know what other sanctioning bodies are doing this?

if it has been mentioned here in other threads then i have either missed it or fallen victim to CRS again. i am interested in this for something that is completely divorced from the nasa debate.

tia, tom

Knestis

01-01-2008, 11:09 AM

I really liked your "irony" post there, so here's mine.

http://it2.evaluand.com/downloads/nasahansad.jpg

:)

K

JimLill

01-01-2008, 11:36 AM

http://www.trackpedia.com/photogarage/data/500/medium/icms.jpg

tom91ita

01-01-2008, 12:52 PM

I really liked your "irony" post there, so here's mine.

...snip....

K
[/b]

i completely missed that!

i am completely unaware of how the internet ads work. is that being applied to all threads or do they target a thread that has keywords like head and neck in it.

this is one of the reasons that i think a sanctioning body as a for profit business does not work well. they are selling advertising to a company that is part of the SFI that they require their racers to use.

it may not be black helicopters but it sure is one of those things that make you go hmmm.....

p.s., i do not consider ICMS to be a sanctioning body

JimLill

01-01-2008, 01:05 PM

[/b]

Nor do I, I posted that pix as part of the "irony series", note the HANS!

This doesn't answer your original question, but may be of interest

http://www.sfifoundation.com/member.html

Knestis

01-01-2008, 01:48 PM

Oh, yeah - sorry. I figured everyone involved knew that NASA and SCCA are SFI members. That's kind of part of how the system works.

K

JimLill

01-01-2008, 01:50 PM

tom91ita

01-01-2008, 02:27 PM

Jim,

thanks for the irony on that one too. i missed it.

i will ask some rally guys more about that as well.

but that one appears to be effective 1/1/08 as opposed to something happening in february.

any others?

tia, tom

spnkzss

01-01-2008, 02:45 PM

Rally America:

"D. SFI 38.1 licensed, or FIA 8858-2002 approved head and neck restraint systems are recommended, and required for all Rally America events as of 1/1/08. When fitted, these systems shall be mounted per the manufacturer's recommendations and shall not violate the single latch requirement of the occupant restraint system."
[/b]

That has to be one of the most interesting things I have seen in ALL of this. The organization feels that they NEED to specifically state the single point of release.

JimLill

01-01-2008, 02:54 PM

The 38.1 reads..........

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

JoshS

01-01-2008, 04:15 PM

BMWCCA club racing also requires 38.1 this year.

pgipson

01-01-2008, 04:23 PM

BMWCCA club racing also requires 38.1 this year. [/b]

Actually, I think BMW racing required an SFI device in 2007 (beginning in April I believe).

On the ICMS web site the HANS logo is not an ad per se. HANS is actually a sponsor of the organization.

Knestis

01-01-2008, 05:05 PM

** BMWCCA joined SFI and began requiring 38.1 devices maybe a year before SCCA made its initial move to consider the issue, on the heels of a fatality at one of their events

** A dude named Joe Marko was (maybe still is?) the BMWCCA national safety guy at the time of that move

** He runs a company that is a Hans dealer and he makes speaking appearances as a "safety expert"

K

JimLill

01-01-2008, 05:09 PM

more specifically...........

http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/photo/1/20

http://www.boston-bmwcca.org/people/JoeMarko.aspx

Grumpy

01-01-2008, 05:11 PM

Porsche Club of America

4. After June 1, 2008, a head and neck restraint meeting either the standards of either SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858 will be required.

JimLill

01-01-2008, 05:18 PM

NASR July 1 2008

http://www.nasr.com.au/head&Neck.html

and good info here from their site http://www.nasr.com.au/PDF/H&NRestraintsApr07.pdf

ADRL as of 2007

http://www.adrl.us/index.php/main/insidepage/rules/

JimLill

01-01-2008, 05:50 PM

NHRA as of 2007

http://www.nhra.com/content/news.asp?artic...=17364&zoneid=8 (http://www.nhra.com/content/news.asp?articleid=17364&zoneid=8)

Greg Amy

01-01-2008, 06:00 PM

NHRA as of 2007[/b]
Quite amusing, looking through that vast list of SFI-spec products that NHRA is requiring this year.

Hell, I'm kinda shocked they're not requiring SFI-spec taillights...

JimLill

01-01-2008, 06:02 PM

NHRA begat SEMA begat SFI..........

leggwork

01-01-2008, 09:57 PM

I like the SFI spec 7.2 diapers ... (aka, lower engine containment device)

Quite amusing, looking through that vast list of SFI-spec products that NHRA is requiring this year.

Hell, I'm kinda shocked they're not requiring SFI-spec taillights...
[/b]

gsbaker

01-01-2008, 10:09 PM

i am interested in this for something that is completely divorced from the nasa debate.[/b]
Curious minds want to know. :)

lateapex911

01-02-2008, 11:54 AM

Jeeez, these SFI guys have a feakin monopoly going, and we're all being held hostage.

gsbaker

01-02-2008, 01:43 PM

Now you know why RSI is such a popular idea among sanctioning bodies.

Mike Guenther

01-02-2008, 11:42 PM

Greg, forgive my ignorance, but what is RSI?

Thanks,

tom91ita

01-03-2008, 12:06 AM

Racing Safety Institute

http://racingsafetyinstitute.org/index.html

M. Hurst

01-03-2008, 12:33 AM

Greg, forgive my ignorance, but what is RSI?

Thanks,
[/b]

What is their phone number? There is none listed on the site.

What is the street address? There is none listed on the site.

BTW;

FIA Institute for Motor Sport Safety
8, Place de la Concorde, 75008 Paris, France
Telephone: +33 1 43 12 44 55
Facsimile: +33 1 43 12 44 66
[email protected]

SFI Foundation, Inc.
15708 Pomerado Road, Suite N208
Poway, CA 92064
USA
Phone 858-451-8868 Fax 858-451-9268
Email [email protected]

Knestis

01-03-2008, 11:06 AM

RSI isn't a place, Mike - it's an idea. Argue that what is being proposed isn't valid, make your case for why you believe that's so (i.e., participate substantially in the discussion) and that's fine. Arguing that in essence, because it's fundamentally wrong because it's brand new and safety has never been done that way, and you're just being disingenuous.

And please read and understand what IS BEING PROPOSED as well, before you argue against it. Most of the criticisms of the idea seem to move from misconceptions about how RSI might function, how SFI does function, or both.

Is your argument for the value of SFI that they have a mailing address...? I would love to have someone explain what the benefit of the Foundation is to racers, beyond what would be provided by an RSI-like model.

K

JohnRW

01-03-2008, 12:05 PM

Actually, what IS RSI ? It's not a standards-setting organization. From their own statement of mission:

1. Confirms that test results for safety products are certified by independent testing laboratories.
2. Summarizes test results in a manner useful to consumers, be they racers or sanctioning bodies, with references to industry standards where applicable.[/b]

Think "consultant". Someone who, when you ask them what time it is, asks to borrow your watch.

That's not a replacement for what SFI should be, which is a standards-setting organization that would adhere to a clear process for creation and maintenance of motorsport safety standards. SFI ain't that now, and RSI doesn't propose to be that, so what's the point of RSI ?

Why shouldn't we demand that any organization creating standards, used by sanctioning bodies we participate with, be required to conform to ANSI and ISO standards protocols ? What would this get you ? Well, to sample from ANSI's own "statement of mission" (see here -http://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/overview/overview.aspx?menuid=3 ):

The process to create these voluntary standards is guided by the Institute’s cardinal principles of consensus, due process and openness and depends heavily upon data gathering and compromises among a diverse range of stakeholders. The Institute ensures that access to the standards process, including an appeals mechanism, is made available to anyone directly or materially affected by a standard that is under development.[/b]

Multi-billion dollar industries rely on these standards...and have faith that there was logic and equity involved in the development of those standards. Why shouldn't WE have those same benefits ? I can't think of any reason why SFI shouldn't be able to conform their standards practices to ANSI/ISO standards....the big question would be "Do they want to ?"

ANSI & ISO standards development info can be found on-line at:

http://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/d...w.aspx?menuid=3 (http://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/domestic_programs/overview.aspx?menuid=3)

http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development.htm

Is it sometimes a pain in the ass to conform to all the requirements ? Yup. Same pain in the ass to endure an audit of your standards developement processes ? Yup. Big time. Seen it myself a lot.

It would take the mystery out of SFI processes...(we'd know more about the "2 year belts" thing)...and maybe take away the "black helicopters" arguments from the conspiracists.

SCCA members are part of a "members-driven" organization. Members, in sufficient number, could demand that any adoption of a "standard" by the club be a "standard" from a ANSI/ISO-certified standards organization. Anybody like the flavor of that ? I do.

But that's just my opinion.

BTW - M.Hurst...does "Cute Car" mean anything to you ? You got Karl/Gail's old car ?

M. Hurst

01-03-2008, 12:15 PM

RSI isn't a place, Mike - it's an idea.
[/b]

OK, but..on Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:25 am:

GBaker said on NASAForums:

".....certification of test results by an independent testing laboratory. (Isaac products are RSI certified.) "

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=...er=asc&start=30 (http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=18831&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30)

BTW - M.Hurst...does "Cute Car" mean anything to you ? You got Karl/Gail's old car ?
[/b]

No, that's Mike Halley from Oklahoma.

JohnRW

01-03-2008, 12:24 PM

No, that's Mike Halley from Oklahoma.
[/b]

Halley...Hurst...almost the same, right ? Just was talking to Gail last week....

leggwork

01-03-2008, 12:42 PM

I'm sure you also read the post 10 posts down from that one Mike....
http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=...er=asc&start=40 (http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=18831&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40)
where it was stated quite clearly what RSI is and isn't
bruce

OK, but..on Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:25 am:

GBaker said on NASAForums:

".....certification of test results by an independent testing laboratory. (Isaac products are RSI certified.) "

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=...er=asc&start=30 (http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=18831&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30)
No, that's Mike Halley from Oklahoma.
[/b]

JimLill

01-03-2008, 12:46 PM

Halley...Hurst...almost the same, right ? Just was talking to Gail last week....
[/b]

The Halley NB is for sale IIRC.........

Knestis

01-03-2008, 05:19 PM

OK, but..on Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:25 am:

GBaker said on NASAForums:

".....certification of test results by an independent testing laboratory. (Isaac products are RSI certified.) " ...
[/b]
I agree with you Mike, that language might be contributing to confusion rather than clarity. This conversation REALLY spins around definitions. I'd suggest - based on what I know of the idea - that "RSI listed" might be a term more descriptive of what is being proposed. RSI no more tests stuff than does SFI - all that is handled by the labs, as should be the case.

John - you get NO argument from me re: what SFI SHOULD be. If it were what you describe, I wouldn't have the hairball that i do over the issue. Problem is, SFI isn't that. It's a trade organization first and foremost, in the sheep's clothing of "safety for the racer." I continue to be pissed off about that.

RSI (again, as I get it) would serve as a clearinghouse and data repository, to get the information we really need out to racers and sanctioning bodies, without the encumbrances and costs associated with marketing/licensing agreements, etc.

K

LMan

01-03-2008, 05:50 PM

M. Hurst

01-03-2008, 07:35 PM

The Halley NB is for sale IIRC.........
[/b]
Actually I believe it's now owned by freesyle motoX rider (and rally driver) "Cowboy" Kenny Bartram, I'm surprised he and his buddy Travis P. haven't subjected the "Cute Car" car to a flaming double backflip into the Grand Canyon,... or some other similar fate.

Grumpy

01-03-2008, 08:43 PM

RSI isn't a place, Mike - it's an idea.K
[/b]

Who would I talk to to learn more about this idea. So far we have heard only what others know about RSI. I would like to get it from the "horse's mouth" so I can better understand the idea and concept of RSI.

lateapex911

01-03-2008, 08:57 PM

that's all well and good, but until RSI is accepted by the legal community as having legal/procedural weight, nothing will substantively change. It all boils down to exposure and liability in the case of a lawsuit. This world is run by lawyers/judges/juries, for good or ill.

It shouldn't be that way but it is what it is. [/b]

I'll ask again. (For teh billionth time...here and elsewhere)

IS SFI accepted by the legal community?? Or isit a "better than nothing" situation? In actual trials, have SFI standards actually been tested and have they actually protected any liabilities?

I ask, because in reading SFIs own site and description and limitations, it appears they bear little responsbility for anything, and go so far as to state as much. The standards they create are done at the request of the sanctioning and manufacturer members, and to the needs of those members...it appears to me that its more of a service to the membership.

What real legal protection have they really served??

Knestis

01-03-2008, 09:01 PM

that's all well and good, but until RSI is accepted by the legal community as having legal/procedural weight, nothing will substantively change. It all boils down to exposure and liability in the case of a lawsuit. This world is run by lawyers/judges/juries, for good or ill.

It shouldn't be that way but it is what it is.
[/b]
With respect, you SEVERELY overestimate SFI's role and influence in that respect.

It's not your fault, though. There are a lot of popular misconceptions about functions of SFI, that have been allowed to promulgate encouraged by their market positioning and relationships with manufacturers. You are allowed to make incorrect assumptions and nobody who has a vested interest in your confidence in the system will do anything to dispel them.

K

Grumpy

01-03-2008, 09:22 PM

Who would I talk to to learn more about this idea. So far we have heard only what others know about RSI. I would like to get it from the "horse's mouth" so I can better understand the idea and concept of RSI.
[/b]

Nobody knows???? If I were a racing organization and wanted to use RSI, who do I speak with??

Kirk?? Greg?? Anybody??

lateapex911

01-03-2008, 09:24 PM

Jim, it's been 45 minutes.(since you posted the request) Maybe the answer men aren't posting/reading now, during dinner time, etc.
Perhaps sending an email via their website might work?

Grumpy

01-03-2008, 10:49 PM

Jim, it's been 45 minutes.(since you posted the request) Maybe the answer men aren't posting/reading now, during dinner time, etc.
Perhaps sending an email via their website might work?
[/b]

Thanks for the suggestion. E-mail sent.

Mad Mike

01-04-2008, 12:19 AM

Actually I believe it's now owned by freesyle motoX rider (and rally driver) "Cowboy" Kenny Bartram, I'm surprised he and his buddy Travis P. haven't subjected the "Cute Car" car to a flaming double backflip into the Grand Canyon,... or some other similar fate.
[/b]

One comment to support a minor threadjack - Bartram MAY still own the world's first New Beetle rally car but when we chatted in Stillwater a week ago he said he thought it was sold and headed back to New York (Oswego this time) soon.

And a comment on the HNR topic. Does anyone really believe that any amount of debate on any forum anywhere is going to make any sanctioning organization change their requirements from those already published?

lateapex911

01-04-2008, 11:22 AM

Mike, that's a defeatist attitude. I for one want to understand the issue better. Second, certain organizations haven't made their move....yet. Fianlly, yes, mountains can be moved, although it is rare. You probably don't know the history of Improved Touring, but many who knew their stuff predicted years ago that certain things would "never happen"...yet here we are today, and they have been accomplished.

M. Hurst

01-04-2008, 11:55 AM

.... RSI no more tests stuff than does SFI - all that is handled by the labs, as should be the case.
[/b]

SFI does test safety equipment, in house. They explode flywheels and test bell housings, do pull tests on belts and burn firesuits, etc..

They don't have a 68G sled, nobody does except Delphi (and maybe Mercedes-Benz?), they do have a staff engineer who attends the tests at Delphi.

Benefits to the sanctioning body is that the FIA and SFI have a structure and process, which results in (yes), a legally accepted definition of "generally accepted industry practice", which is critical with regard to liability law.

An imperfect process?..well, nothing's perfect, but it's still pretty efficient if you can buy an SFI set of belts for $69.95, or a stick of SFI roll cage padding for $23.99. The FIA's processes are much less democratic (and more expensive) than the SFI's.

For the competitor, the benefit is some protection from unscrupulous manufacturer who markets items based on their own claims, incomplete testing, conspiracy theories, half truths, childish challenges, threats of litigation, and a certification "institute" that only exists as a webpage and e-mail address....hypothetical of course, that would not apply to anyone we know!

lateapex911

01-04-2008, 01:43 PM

For the competitor, the benefit is some protection from an unscrupulous manufacturer who markets items based on their own claims, incomplete testing, conspiracy theories, half truths, childish challenges, threats of litigation, and a certification "institute" that only exists as a webpage and e-mail address....hypothetical of course, that would not apply to anyone we know! [/b]

I am assuming you forgot a word there. I added it for you...hope I understood what I think you meant. I am assuming you have a specific manufacturer in mind, right?

If so, I'd like the hear more, esp the name of the meanufacturer, and the incomplete testing....

...otherwise, if it's hypothetical, there is no benefit to the competitor, following your logic.

Knestis

01-04-2008, 02:06 PM

Mike's made his personal feelings about the Isaac known in very clear ways elsewhere. No amount of logic or rhetoric is going to change his mind.

Rally America even codified their own little "single point of release" clause, in addition to requiring 38.1 tags, to give him the ammo to effectively exclude that choice regardless of SFI's or anyone else's actions.

Kirk (who has the honor of having crashed out of his only rally as a driver while wearing an Isaac)

gsbaker

01-04-2008, 03:26 PM

For the competitor, the benefit is some protection from unscrupulous manufacturer who markets items based on their own claims, incomplete testing, conspiracy theories, half truths, childish challenges, threats of litigation...
[/b]
Oh c'mon, Mike. The SFI guys aren't that bad.

Kirk (who has the honor of having crashed out of his only rally as a driver while wearing an Isaac)
[/b]
Which means you are still stuck in the car, right?

Mike's made his personal feelings about the Isaac known in very clear ways elsewhere. No amount of logic or rhetoric is going to change his mind.
[/b]
Mike is not what one would call an early adopter, but we love him anyway.

ddewhurst

01-04-2008, 03:29 PM

***If so, I'd like the hear more, esp the name of the........meanufacturer,........and the incomplete testing....***

Nice Jake, it fits the Mike subject, I think. :happy204:

JohnRW

01-04-2008, 04:05 PM

Just to provide a little perspective about the "evil SFI single-point-of-release" canard (which implies that it is a recent "gotcha" conjured up by the standards-setting body):

The "single/common release" language has existed in the GCR for a long time...likely it was there when some of the participants in this discussion were pooping in their Pampers...you know, the previous millenium. Dig out those old GCRs and look for yourselves.

I don't really save the old GCRs, but more recent ones, like the mid-90's one I dragged out last night, require that the harness completely release with a single, common release. Plain language. That language in the GCR (and similar language in other sanctioning bodies rules) might even pre-date SFI itself.

Someplace, I think I've got some GCRs from the early-mid 80's...gotta remember where I saw them, but I'm sure you rules-nerd old-timers have stuff older than that.

"So what ?" you ask. Well...a little history might tone down some of the hyperbolic assertions.

lateapex911

01-04-2008, 04:11 PM

John, you are, of course, correct. Harness release has always been a single point, as far back as I can remember, which is to the 80s.

Where it gets gray for many people, I think is, "Why is it OK that I have more than one thing to release (window net, interior net, cables, tubes, wheel, etc) to get out of my car, yet THIS one has been singled out?"

gsbaker

01-04-2008, 04:33 PM

Why is getting out of the seat important, but getting out of the car is not? Doesn't someone have that backwards?

lateapex911

01-04-2008, 04:38 PM

That's always been my thought, and one I used against my father when he claimed you would only get trapped in aburning car if you were forced to wear seatbelts, back when nobody wore them.

I might be mistaken, but, Kirks post seems to allude to the fact that Mike Hurst is involved in Rally America, (and this link confims that: http://www.rally-america.com/contact.php ) so if that's the case, I'd like to propose he answer the question directly.

LMan

01-04-2008, 04:52 PM

With respect, you SEVERELY overestimate SFI's role and influence in that respect.

[/b]

Kirk, kudos to you for running the traps on this important topic. You/others, regardless of the HNR side of the debate, are shedding a great deal of light on what SFI actually is.

I type my thoughts imperfectly, and you and Jake correctly call me on that. I don't personally ascribe any more weight to SFI than you do , but as Jake posts, its my assessment that the amorphous 'world of liability', in their inability to judge what a jury in a trial would do, has cast about for some sense of an industry standard that would offer at least a credible deflection of liability in the event of a catastrophic, sanctioning-body-killing award. Does SFI really fulfill that job description? No, you've shown that clearly, and the thinking amateur racer must agree. But most importantly would a jury, basically uneducated in these matters and wanting assurance by a defense attorney that the sanc-body at least tried to perform 'due diligence' and required the racer to wear one, decide that the GRA had done all it could? Possibly. That question is what fancy lawyers get a lot of money to advise on. Yeah - GRA, IMO, is taking a gamble here, and I have serious doubts about the outcome (especially once a John Edwards-clone explains how SFI really works). Hopefully the 'doomsday scenario' is never tested. But who knows?

Im trying to be realistic and think that is it safety? Yeah, but ultimately its all about survival as a sanctioning body. When/if that day comes, thay jury is going to want to hear, "we made him wear a HNR, and it met the prevailing industry standard at the time. How can we say its the standard? Because these 5,000 other orgs use it too, starting with NASCAR, NHRA, yada yada." Now, ask yourself: in any prospective jury....what would the percentage of amateur road-race enthusiasts be to, say, percentage who heard of/watched NASCAR? Is that right? No. But right and legal liability in this country intersect only periodically.

What RSI presents is not just an option, its a paradigm shift. Its my opinion that RSI must get some as-yet undetermined number of orgs to sign up to its alternative process to achieve critical mass. Then, perhaps a typical jury would buy it as a reasonable industry standard. That's kind of what I meant by 'legal weight'. Poor language on my part.

Im not defending SFI here. IMO the fraidy-cat world of liability (thanks, John Edwards, et al) makes otherwise-rational people scurry for cover, including under hole-filled ratty blankets that arent really made for the purpose. I hope RSI gets off the ground and changes the environment. I really do.

lateapex911

01-04-2008, 05:00 PM

Well said.

Of course, the issue with RSI is a chicken and egg one, sort of. Somebody has to be first, but, as you point out, in the world of scaredy cat legal advisors, that's a tall order.

Knestis

01-05-2008, 01:16 AM

You've brought something back into the conversation that hasn't been touched on recently, John. That history IS important but as Jake points out, it's been inconsistently applied and misappropriated to support particular interests.

I'll say it again: If we really care about egress - and we should - we can do something about it and address the entire range of potential entanglements we put in our race cars, by requiring that we all demonstrate how quickly we can get GTFO. Make it part of the annual and do spot checks in post-race impound. Heck - do surprise inspections by meatballing people on the last lap of a session, then telling them to bail out under a stopwatch at the black flag station in the pits.

Just disentangle the policies so we know what's supposed to accomplish what.

K

Grumpy

01-05-2008, 11:11 AM

Make it part of the annual and do spot checks in post-race impound. Heck - do surprise inspections by meatballing people on the last lap of a session, then telling them to bail out under a stopwatch at the black flag station in the pits.

K
[/b]

NASA-MA currently does this, perhaps not enough. I will be asking more and more drivers to do this. After all, just the drill itself will enlighten the drivers.

Andy Bettencourt

01-05-2008, 11:22 AM

What is the NASA requirment in this space? IIRC, SWC allows you 14-15 seconds or you don't get your tech.

Grumpy

01-05-2008, 11:36 AM

What is the NASA requirment in this space? IIRC, SWC allows you 14-15 seconds or you don't get your tech.
[/b]

16.2.2 Emergency Exit Time
The car must be setup to allow drivers to exit the car quickly in an emergency. Drivers
should be tested from time to time to ensure that they can meet the specified time for
exiting the car in the event of an emergency. The driver must demonstrate the ability to
exit their car within ten (10) seconds by opening the door (for cars with doors) or formula
/ sports racers; and within fifteen (15) seconds by way of the window opening for
sedans. Drivers must be wearing all of their required driver’s gear and be tightly belted
into the driver’s seat when the clock starts. Anyone that fails this test may be penalized
with penalties ranging from a warning to exclusion from participation until corrections are
made. Note- passing the Emergency Exit Time test does in no way guarantee anything,
as many different situations may present themselves in a real emergency. The test is an
exercise for the driver as well as functioning to demonstrate the ability to exit the vehicle.

Knestis

01-05-2008, 03:09 PM

16.2.2 Emergency Exit Time

... Drivers must be wearing all of their required driver’s gear and be tightly belted
into the driver’s seat when the clock starts. ... [/b]
That should probably be something like "all driver's gear that will be used during sanctioned practice, qualifying, and/or race sessions." Much of what we hang on ourselves isn't required and may potentially serve as an impediment.

Your point about opening the drivers' eyes is an excellent one, Jim.

K

lateapex911

01-05-2008, 03:22 PM

I once tried to do and "egress" in my garage all stapped in with Isaac with my eyes closed, figuring that would be the best way I could fake an upside down or smoke filled car. (Highly unlikely, but whatever). The first try wasn't pretty. (It wasn't the Isaac that was the issue, it was the window net). Eye opening, indeed!

Grumpy

01-05-2008, 03:50 PM

That should probably be something like "all driver's gear that will be used during sanctioned practice, qualifying, and/or race sessions." Much of what we hang on ourselves isn't required and may potentially serve as an impediment.

K
[/b]

I agree and will suggest a change to Jerry.

JoshS

01-05-2008, 03:56 PM

Of course, these rules aren't just about driver's getting themselves out of a car quickly; they are also about workers getting a driver out of a car quickly.

I know Jake said that his worker friends said they'd cut the belts. I know that EMTs would likely do that, but last I checked, a knife sharp enough for that is not standard issue volunteer equipment ... I know I wouldn't count on that!

I think there ought to be a rule that ALL items constraining the driver have bright orange releases, or something to that effect.

cafcwest

01-10-2008, 10:24 PM

i have no issue with what Greg is stating in the above but here is an excerpt that references that others are now requiring SFI.
does anyone know what other sanctioning bodies are doing this?
[/b]

Greg posted a few pages later, stating it was the following....:

It is the Porsche Owner's Club out here in California.
_________________
Greg Greenbaum
National & SoCal TT, PT, & ST Director
DRG Racing
[email protected]

[/b]

...for whatever that's worth. Because guys with 300+hp, $30k racecars that hit 150mph are SOOOOO similar to my $3k IT car that would struggle to hit 120mph with a Spec Miata pushing it down the front straight.