Impact Racing Products, was: "Very disturbing thread"

[BruceG]

Apexspeed has a thread related to SFI severing all ties with Impact Racing since they produced fake SFI stickers for all their equipment for many years. I believe Bill Simpson is the CEO of Impact Racing. If you go to their website there is no mention of the issue.

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39279

[ddewhurst]

Per SFI:

SFI has elected not to decertify these products immediately in order to minimize the potential hardships to members of the racing community that have been brought about by Impact’s counterfeiting activities.

[dj10]

Oh boy another smear thread!!! WTF OVER

[xr4racer]

They decided not to make it immediately but the date is April 27th. I can say my Impact belts worked in over a 25g crash, sfi or not.

matt

[BruceG]

They decided not to make it immediately but the date is April 27th. I can say my Impact belts worked in over a 25g crash, sfi or not.

matt

Matt...I think the issue is "would you have purchased their equipment if you knew it was not SFI approved,knowing that you you could purchase other equipment that was" How would non SFI equipment affect your tech inspection? I don't know the answer.

[xr4racer]

Of course I would not have bought the belts without SFI as they have to be SFI or FIA to run SCCA. I can tell you if you have an annual after April 27th with Impact belts you will have to replace them before racing.

matt

[xr4racer]

The bigger one is the Impact Driver Suits will no longer be SFI.

matt

[iambhooper]

why would they do this? it makes no sense whatsoever. if you have to make product to certain standards, then they meet and pass those standards. i guess they just didn't want to pay SFI their royalty on the product.

[tom91ita]

http://www.sfifoundation.com/



March, 2010
March 26, 2010 - NOTICE OF DECERTIFICATION; NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST AND TERMINATION OF ALL CONTRACTS OF PARTICIPATION ISSUED TO IMPACT RACING
SFI Foundation, Inc., has issued a Notice of Decertification; Notice of Cease and Desist, and a notice terminating all Contracts of Participation to Impact Racing. Effective April 27, 2010, all products manufactured and/or distributed by Impact Racing pursuant to SFI Specification Programs 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1, and 16.5 are decertified. Evidence obtained by SFI shows that over a period of years Impact Racing has engaged in the production and use of counterfeit SFI conformance labels and patches, and affixed them to Impact products for use in motorsports. Under the Contracts of Participation between SFI and Impact, SFI conformance labels and patches may only be obtained from SFI and no other source. Evidence shows that Impact had counterfeit SFI labels and patches made in Asia and then affixed them to Impact products it distributed to members of the racing community. To SFI’s knowledge, Impact never advised its customers that its products contained phony SFI labels and patches. Impact never advised SFI of its systematic and longstanding practice of counterfeiting and distributing SFI patches and labeling.
Impact has been directed to cease and desist from this practice. SFI has directed Impact to immediately notify all affected customers to remove the counterfeit labeling and to offer the affected customers a full refund of the purchase price. SFI is requesting that all counterfeit conformance labels removed from Impact products be sent to SFI.
SFI has elected not to decertify these products immediately in order to minimize the potential hardships to members of the racing community that have been brought about by Impact’s counterfeiting activities.
SFI has also elected to terminate all Contracts of Participation with Impact Racing effective 90 days from March 24, 2010. Under the terms of the Contracts, either party may terminate the agreements without penalty upon 90 days notice. This means that Impact will no longer be able to participate in any SFI programs after this 90 day period.
SFI has taken these actions in the best interests of the safety and integrity of the racing community. This is in keeping with SFI’s mission and purpose.
For a downloadable .pdf of this notice, please click on the following link: Decertification Notice 03-26-10 (http://www.sfifoundation.com/DecertificationNotice03-26-10.pdf).

i still want to know what did SFI know and when. they would seem to have some responsibility in this because they should have had some idea of how many labels they sell to Impact vs. their volumes and market share.

after all, this was not SFI's first run-in with Impact.



July, 2009
July 19, 2009 - NOTICE OF TEMPORARY PRODUCT DECERTIFICATION. Effective July 9, 2009: Pursuant to SFI Test Laboratory reports, SFI Foundation, Inc. has reason to believe that certain Impact Racing products manufactured in the year 2007 do not fully comply with the minimum standards set forth in the SFI Specification 3.2A Program. Therefore, pursuant to Section 12.0 of the program, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, and UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, any and all driver suits, pants, and jackets manufactured by Impact Racing pursuant to SFI Spec 3.2A/15 and 3.2A/20 at any time during the year 2007 are hereby TEMPORARILY DECERTIFIED by SFI Foundation, Inc. This temporary decertification applies to all such products whether or not they have been updated, upgraded, rebadged, or recertified by Impact Racing. This temporary decertification applies even if the product now has a 2009 SFI label affixed to the product. The date of manufacture of the product is determinative.
This decertification is temporary and will remain in effect until further notice from SFI. The manufacturer has challenged SFI’s findings in this matter and is conducting its own review of the findings and the full compliance of the products in question. SFI’s investigation continues. This decertification may be modified, withdrawn, or made permanent



March, 2009
March 20, 2009 - IMPACT RACING PRODUCT RECALL. Any and all driver suits, pants, jackets, shoes and boots manufactured by Impact Racing pursuant to SFI Specifications 3.2A/15, 3.2A/20, 3.3/15 and 3.3/20 at any time during the year 2008 have been decertified by SFI Foundation, Inc. and must be immediately returned to Impact Racing offices or an Impact representative. Impact Racing has reason to believe that these products do not fully comply with the stated SFI Specifications and therefore do not meet SFI manufacturer certification requirements. This recall applies to all such products whether or not they have been updated, rebadged, or recertified by Impact Racing. This recall applies even if the product now has a 2009 SFI patch or label affixed to the product. All applicable sanctioning bodies have been notified by Impact of this noncompliance. Please contact www.impactraceproducts.com (http://www.impactraceproducts.com/) for information or contact Impact Racing directly

[Daryl]

SFI would have no idea how many items Impact is selling. Now, if Impact didn't buy ANY labels from SFI....

This may be a really ugly mark on Impact, however it just goes to further show how broken the "SFI system" really is.

[Knestis]

OMG - no ways...!

K

[dj10]

I think we need to hear from SCCA. LOL I just sent Impact my belts to recertify. :~)

[joeg]

How many here saw the SFI suit label patch on eBay a while ago??

[gizmo83]

Does anyone know if this effects Helmets and gloves? I see it specifies shoes. All my equipment is from race season 2008, which has a manufacturing date of 2007!! Luckily Impact didn't have a suit to fit me and I went to Sabelt!

[Knestis]

How many here saw the SFI suit label patch on eBay a while ago??

OMG - no ways...!!!ii!

I have one that's just taking up space next to my FIA certification...

K

[xr4racer]

It says in the release helmets are not in the decertification.

matt

[tderonne]

Item # 120535300063

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/SFI-Patch-ALMS-IMSA-SCCA-NASCAR-INDY-KART-SFI-FIA_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem1c1076b7dfQQitemZ12 0535300063QQptZApparelQ5fMerchandise

[Knestis]

LOL - "6 available"

K

[Hoof Hearted]

I always thought it was odd to name your personal safety racing gear company "Impact"... ...in racing, isn't that something you want to avoid? It's like naming an energy drink "Narcolepsy" or tooth paste "Decay".

[dj10]

I should be able to get my belts back from Imapct before the 90 day deadline expires. :~) I for one trust Bill Simpson's products.

[dickita15]

Don’t anybody do anything rash. Give us a week or so to see how this plays out. I have already heard rumors that there may be a solution.
As mentioned helmet are not affected they are Snell not SFI. This involves suits, nets and belts.
Dick Patullo

[BruceG]

Guess it's time to sell Bill Simpson an M3 Bimmer that is actually a Ford Fusion but has M3 tags on it......LOL.

[tom91ita]

i am likely not the only one but i sent an e-mail to John Bauer (SCCA Club Racing Technical Manager)




John,

Could you please provide me with a list of SFI certified products that will acceptable to SCCA for the useful life of the products?

For example:

Belts for 2 years as per the GCR.

Suits as normal wear allows.

Given that SFI can de-certify its previously certified products after my purchase, I want to ensure that I am buying something that both meets the rules and can be utilized for its expected useful life.

Especially with regards to new equipment such as Head & Neck Restraints that have been recently mandated.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could reply or post an advisory of SFI's policy implementation and its impact to our club.

Thanks,

Tom


with link to SFI and quoted their release.

i have a hard time believing that equipment bought before the "de-certification" date can retroactively be de-certified.

but since SCCA essentially mandates several SFI approved pieces of safety equipment, i want to know what ones are SCCA approved pieces of SFI approved pieces.

[lateapex911]

Note that the SFI claim is over fake labels, and it specifically does NOT state that the products don't actually meet the certification standards...just that the LABELS didn't come from SFI.

Now, the products COULD be unsafe.... or not.

[Mike Mackaman]

As a Quality Manager in an ISO 9001:2008 certified facility, this is very distressing. I hope that this can be resolved positively, but it doesn't look good. An old friend once told me that integrity is a gift you give to yourself.

Mike

[dj10]

I heard that NASCAR owns SFI, Is this true?

[RSTPerformance]

Just an FYI...

An e-mail went out to 80 or so SCCA Stewards with the notice from SFI. I wrote back to all and asked a few questions on how we were to respond to issues at the track.

The reply I received was that at this point this was an issue between SFI and Impace Performance Parts. SCCA Club Racing office is aware of the issues and will determine if there is any reason for members to question the validility of Impact labeled equipment and/or parts. Until that time we have been instructed to treat the SFI labels as legitimate.

IMO the items have been tested and passed the standards to meet the certification process. It doesn't matter where the labels come from as long as the equipment meets the performance standards. I don't think SFI should have the right to make a share of the profit on EVERY piece of racing equipent being sold in the market. To me I feel that this is just another reason that SCCA should have a (non-profit) department checking to see if equipment meets our club (our busines) and our insurance companies standards.

Raymond

[lateapex911]

Raymond, go to the SFI site and read how the whole 'Certification" thing is done. In some cases (most, I think) the manufacturer takes full responsibility that his products meet the requirements set forth by the SFI standards. The SFI does little actual testing. The manufacturer provides the SFI with independent lab reports as proof that the item meets the minimum standards....and that all items manufactured will as well.

In the case of Impact, there has been cases where independent tests have been conducted on suits, and they failed to meet the standards which the label claimed they would.

While at this point, SFI has 'caught" Impact in a counterfeiting situation, and that is all that is alleged at this point, it DOES raise questions as to whether that is the ONLY suspect part of the product. The past history isn't helping the Impact companies situation either.

It's good that SCCA isn't jumping to conclusions, but I'd also be cautious in assuming the products are up to snuff as well.

The cost of labels isn't huge..a couple bucks per suit, IIRC, and if you are willing to go to the trouble of commissioning counterfeit versions to save that amount, what does it say about your desire to cut costs in other areas?

My jury is out.

[RSTPerformance]

Raymond, go to the SFI site and read how the whole 'Certification" thing is done. In some cases (most, I think) the manufacturer takes full responsibility that his products meet the requirements set forth by the SFI standards. The SFI does little actual testing. The manufacturer provides the SFI with independent lab reports as proof that the item meets the minimum standards....and that all items manufactured will as well.

In the case of Impact, there has been cases where independent tests have been conducted on suits, and they failed to meet the standards which the label claimed they would.

While at this point, SFI has 'caught" Impact in a counterfeiting situation, and that is all that is alleged at this point, it DOES raise questions as to whether that is the ONLY suspect part of the product. The past history isn't helping the Impact companies situation either.

It's good that SCCA isn't jumping to conclusions, but I'd also be cautious in assuming the products are up to snuff as well.

The cost of labels isn't huge..a couple bucks per suit, IIRC, and if you are willing to go to the trouble of commissioning counterfeit versions to save that amount, what does it say about your desire to cut costs in other areas?

My jury is out.

Jake-

I certainly don't disagree with you...

I just want to let people know that as of right now your equipment will pass tech even if it is an annual tech or if you show up at the track with it.

I also don't agree with the "SFI" label requirement. That requirement IMO doesn't mean that any products other than the ones tested meet the specs. To me it only means that A] the product is legal for competition because it has the label and B] SFI made a couple bucks on the sale of EVERY item. I just don't think a third party should have so much power or that it should be making a profit on others sales.

I also agree however that somehow we need to govern the safety inspections to ensure our safety is met when using any company's products. A label sent to the manufacturer doesn't meet my standards for compliance checks.

Raymond

[Bill Miller]

Jake-



I also don't agree with the "SFI" label requirement. That requirement IMO doesn't mean that any products other than the ones tested meet the specs. To me it only means that A] the product is legal for competition because it has the label and B] SFI made a couple bucks on the sale of EVERY item. I just don't think a third party should have so much power or that it should be making a profit on others sales.

I also agree however that somehow we need to govern the safety inspections to ensure our safety is met when using any company's products. A label sent to the manufacturer doesn't meet my standards for compliance checks.

Raymond

BINGO!

Well stated Raymond.

[mgyip]

If a 3rd Party shouldn't have the power to say "yay" or "nay" on a product, then who should? Does this mean that we need a truly independent regulating body who makes its money elsewhere?

If I understand what's being said, SFI is just a "club" - pay your dues and you're "in. Therefore, any certs such as from Snell, SFI or FIA are bulls**t and that they shouldn't mean anything other than the manufacturer has paid their "dues" and that the products have been rubber stamped.

Just food for thought...

[Matt Rowe]

I am not completely clear on this but follow the logic for a moment.

It appears the FIA process does have at least one fundamental difference. FIA products (or at least the suits) have their cert stitched directly into the suit. This would imply no label, therefore no fee for the label and therefore no benefit to the FIA if 1 suit or 1,000,000 is sold.

Again, it's just a guess based on some circumstantial evidence but if correct it would imply the FIA is fundamentally only interested in the certification of the initial product line. Whereas SFI actually makes money based on the volume of individual sales and is therefore more eager to see more products sold or life limited and replaced.

[Greg Amy]

Sent to me via Scrutineering channels. It was noted this will be posted on SCCA's web site:

Technical Services
RACING MEMO
DATE: March 31, 2010
NUMBER: RM 10-04
FROM: Club Racing Board
TO: All Participants
SUBJECT: SFI Decertification of Impact Products

SCCA is aware of the action taken by SFI against Impact Racing. We are in the process of determining what action (if any) will be needed for our drivers. We will communicate the outcome to our drivers, tech personnel and stewards via member email and website posting when the answers have been determined. Until further notice, it is business as usual and as long as your safety products have SFI certification (patch/sticker) that meets our current GCR requirements, you would be considered compliant.

SPORTS CAR CLUB OF AMERICA, INC
PO Box 19400, Topeka, KS 66619-0400
(800) 770-2055 Fax (785) 232-7214 www.scca.com

[Z3_GoCar]

I found this in my in-box from 4:10pm PST from BMWCCA-CR



[This announcement is being sent to all Club Racers - It is not unsolicited email]


Effective 4/27/2010, programs involving 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1 and 16.1 with Impact are decertified (harness belts and driver suits). Further information and updates available on sfifoundation.com (http://sfifoundation.com).


NoticeofImpactRacingDecertificationbySFI03-26-10.pdf (http://www.bmwccaclubracing.com/_uploads/EmailBulletins/NoticeofImpactRacingDecertificationbySFI03-26-10.pdf)


UpdateonImpactProductDecertification03-29-10.pdf (http://www.bmwccaclubracing.com/_uploads/EmailBulletins/UpdateonImpactProductDecertification03-29-10.pdf)


For more information about BMW CCA Club Racing, or to find out how your organization can become a sponsor, contact Gary Davis at [email protected] (http://www.improvedtouring.com/mc/[email protected]), or check out our website at http://www.bmwccaclubracing.com.

BMW CCA Club Racing Title Sponsors:
BMW CCA Club Racing Series: Tirerack.com (http://www.tirerack.com)
BMW CCA Club Racing Schools: BimmerWorld (http://www.bimmerworld.com)

Premier Sponsors
evosport (http://www.evosport.com)
HMS Motorsport (http://www.hmsmotorsport.com) (and Official Supplier of Safety Equipment)
UUC Motorwerks (http://www.uucmotorwerks.com)
VAC Motorsports (http://www.vacmotorsports.com)

Associate Sponsor
Grassroots Motorsports Magazine (http://www.grmotorsports.com)


You received this message because you are affiliated with BMW Club Racing. Please direct any questions or comments about this email to [email protected] (http://www.improvedtouring.com/mc/[email protected])



BMW CCA Club Racing || 640 South Main Street, Suite 201 || Greenville, SC 29601 || www.bmwccaclubracing.com (http://www.bmwccaclubracing.com)

[mgyip]

I am not completely clear on this but follow the logic for a moment.

It appears the FIA process does have at least one fundamental difference. FIA products (or at least the suits) have their cert stitched directly into the suit. This would imply no label, therefore no fee for the label and therefore no benefit to the FIA if 1 suit or 1,000,000 is sold.

Again, it's just a guess based on some circumstantial evidence but if correct it would imply the FIA is fundamentally only interested in the certification of the initial product line. Whereas SFI actually makes money based on the volume of individual sales and is therefore more eager to see more products sold or life limited and replaced.

Regardless of the fee for a label, the discussion on this thread has been "SFI only cares about a label - they don't certify after the initial product test". From what I can tell from FIA, the same holds true - there is no random sampling of product nor is there production oversight which allows an unscrupulous manufacturer to produce substandard product after the initial certifications are approved.

Unfortunately, there isn't a good way to test any questionable product without destroying it but bear in mind that Impact is the same company that was using knock-off HANS anchors - unlike the SFI debacle, this issue was about product rather than a silly label. It certainly raise questions about a company's integrity when they start knocking off a product, right down to the FIA certifcation... For more info: http://hansdevice.com/s.nl/sc.12/category.60/.f

Lastly, this entire issue revolves around Contract Law - SFI's contract is that manufacturers purchase labels from them. Yes, it's like a pyramid scheme but that's beside the point - the issue at hand is that the contract has certain requirements which Impact chose to ignore. From a strictly legal standpoint, Impact is in violation of their contract. The concerns about safety, which IMHO are well founded, are a separate matter entirely.

[BruceG]

Regardless of the fee for a label, the discussion on this thread has been "SFI only cares about a label - they don't certify after the initial product test". From what I can tell from FIA, the same holds true - there is no random sampling of product nor is there production oversight which allows an unscrupulous manufacturer to produce substandard product after the initial certifications are approved.

Unfortunately, there isn't a good way to test any questionable product without destroying it but bear in mind that Impact is the same company that was using knock-off HANS anchors - unlike the SFI debacle, this issue was about product rather than a silly label. It certainly raise questions about a company's integrity when they start knocking off a product, right down to the FIA certifcation... For more info: http://hansdevice.com/s.nl/sc.12/category.60/.f

Lastly, this entire issue revolves around Contract Law - SFI's contract is that manufacturers purchase labels from them. Yes, it's like a pyramid scheme but that's beside the point - the issue at hand is that the contract has certain requirements which Impact chose to ignore. From a strictly legal standpoint, Impact is in violation of their contract. The concerns about safety, which IMHO are well founded, are a separate matter entirely.

Very well said....Thanks!!

[tom91ita]

stupid question but what about the whole "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" stuff?

[mgyip]

stupid question but what about the whole "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" stuff?

That's what Impact's lawyers have been doing this week - if this were an isolated incident of impropriety or if the CEO hadn't admitted that they were producing their own SFI labels, they'd probably have a good chance of having the action rescinded. Then again, this is the US legal system where a thief can trespass into your house, injure themselves in the process and sue YOU for not keeping them safe (during a criminal act).

[betamotorsports]

A this point the outcome of the SFI/Impact legal battle is moot except for people that own Impact merchandise. The confidence in Impact products among racers is pretty much gone and when it comes time to purchase new belts, suits, and nets I think a large part of the racing community will shop elsewhere.

[mgyip]

A this point the outcome of the SFI/Impact legal battle is moot except for people that own Impact merchandise. The confidence in Impact products among racers is pretty much gone and when it comes time to purchase new belts, suits, and nets I think a large part of the racing community will shop elsewhere.

A sizable part of Impact's business is/was in kids' safety equipment - in other words, buyers who want absolutely NO QUESTION about the quality and performance of the equipment. The sanctioning bodies that see the most Impact equipment only recognize SFI (b/c FIA is a furrin' company run by Frogs) - as a result, the de-certification hits them very hard and almost immediately.

[jimmyc]

A this point the outcome of the SFI/Impact legal battle is moot except for people that own Impact merchandise. The confidence in Impact products among racers is pretty much gone and when it comes time to purchase new belts, suits, and nets I think a large part of the racing community will shop elsewhere.

short memory? Don't pay attention? Didn't do research?

This is the 3rd time in recent years bill has pulled something like this...

[BruceG]

Gee....Haven't heard a word from Bill or Impact on any forums with any kind of rebutal of these issues

[dj10]

go to impact website.

[jumbojimbo]

Technically I am just stirring the sh*t here because I have nothing in this one side or the other. And I analyze requirements documents for a living so I can't help myself when I see bad wording.

I pretty much agree that SCCA is doing the right thing, let's wait and see what happens. Baby and bathwater. But the wording of the message is unfortunate.

"...as long as your safety products have SFI certification (patch/sticker) that meets our current GCR requirements [regardless of whether it is counterfeit or not], you would be considered compliant."

I'm not sure how else they could say it "as long as your equipement was at one time certified and is now only decertified by a contractual licencing dispute..." or "please don't make your own tags and then try to claim we said it was ok."

[lateapex911]

Latest news:



April, 2010

JOINT PRESS RELEASE

April 1, 2010 - Impact Racing, LLC and SFI Foundation, Inc., in the litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, have agreed that:

1. Impact Racing, LLC has provided sworn testimony that, upon review and investigation, no counterfeit SFI Conformance Labels have been used on Impact Racing products during the production years of 2009 and 2010.

2. Impact Racing, LLC has provided sworn testimony that, upon review and investigation, all Impact Racing products manufactured and sold during the production years 2009 and 2010 meet SFI specifications.

3. Based upon this sworn testimony, the decertification against Impact Racing products for the production years 2009 and 2010 is lifted. The decertification of the production years prior to 2009 and 2010 remains in effect. The parties will continue to work cooperatively in an effort to resolve the issues relating to decertification in these years.

4. Impact Racing stands behind the safety of all products it has manufactured and to which SFI Conformance Labels have been affixed. SFI will continue to monitor compliance with product specifications.

5. Impact Racing, LLC and SFI Foundation, Inc. will cooperate in determining whether any Impact Racing product bears a counterfeit SFI Conformance Label and if any safety issue exists in regard to products manufactured prior to 2009 and 2010.

6. If any Impact Racing product does not bear the date of manufacture the purchaser or user is instructed to immediately contact Impact Racing who will provide verification of the date of manufacture. Impact Racing, LLC will immediately notify SFI Foundation, Inc. of this occurrence. Impact Racing, LLC and SFI Foundation, Inc. will work with the sanctioning bodies to determine the best method for product users to present verification of the date of manufacture.

For a downloadable .pdf of this press release, please click on the following link: Joint Press Release 04-01-10.

Sounds like Impact has agreed that they have been bad boys, but only in 2008 and earlier, and of course, there might be favors sent to Arnie, that's all un the table, no doubt, ....

Now, what that doesn't say is WHAT about everything up to 2009??

[tom91ita]

Jake,

with regards to the belts prior to 2009, they are effectively due to replaced anyways thanks to the 2 year limitation.

i missed that when i first saw the post at rr-ax.com

[lateapex911]

Belts, yes, but suits? Sounds like those aren't out of the woods.

SCCAs stance is cool, but it IS a bit surprising, and I do wonder if they aren't leaving themselves open. I'm sure counsel has looked at it, and he's way sharper than I.

[jlucas]

I think you are reading too much into the SCCA statement.
They are just not doing anything yet.

Finally they will have to follow SFI as they are member. No?

[tom91ita]

I think you are reading too much into the SCCA statement.
They are just not doing anything yet.

Finally they will have to follow SFI as they are member. No?

now that would have made a great April's fool thread:




SFI Decertifies SCCA

SCCA, the Secret Car Club of America has been disbanded following an investigation by SFI.

"SCCA's lack of support of our decertification of Impact combined with them considering SFI belts for more than two years is reprehensible" per SFI's latest press release

[jjjanos]

I think you are reading too much into the SCCA statement.
They are just not doing anything yet.

Finally they will have to follow SFI as they are member. No?

Nope. SCCA is free to adopt any standards it wants. E.g. until the BoD screwed us over on H&N Restraints, SCCA had no requirement.

[jlucas]

Time will tell

[Bob Roth]

I do not know if this is the case but if SFI works like another trade organization that I work with, they are funded as a % of sales of certified products. The certifying organization tracks sales by selling their labels. Soooo, if Mr Simpson provides his own labels, SFI doesn't know how much he is producing, therefore he isn't assessed the SFI fee's for his production.

Of course there could be other reasons, such as SFI had a delay on supplying labels. Or maybe they were producing materials in china and they didn't want to bother with shipping labels over there. Who knows. The one thing is for sure is that there was a SFI listing for the product, as the listing on the SFI site is the controlling aspect, not the label. If Impact was making products without listing, they would quite possibly be looking at criminal charges. But I doubt it, that's just too stupid/crooked.

I come back to the most reasonable answer is either they did it to avoid fees, or to deal with some label supply or timing problem. If that was they case, the materials produced are likely just like the certified ones, but SFI didn't get their fees for them, hence their anger. My expectation is that Impact will settle acounts with SFI and all will be forgiven.

[Greg Amy]

Please read the attached.

From SCCA:


Per the attached press release, products manufactured by Impact Racing, LLC prior to 2009 are decertified and do not meet the criteria for SCCA competition as required by our General Competition Rules (GCR). Drivers who have purchased items from Impact Racing, LLC that do not have a date in them should contact Impact Racing, LLC to obtain a letter confirming the manufactured date of their items. If the date of manufacture is prior to 2009, it is the driver’s responsibility to correct the situation. SCCA is delaying enforcement of the decertification pending further evaluation. More information will be shared as it becomes available. In the interim each driver should evaluate their personal use of the affected equipment.

[Matt Rowe]

Note that I did ask the question of products that carried both SFI and FIA certification. National was not aware of that situation (I know of at least one driver's suit, mine) and is looking into what the ruling might be.

[dickita15]

Note that I did ask the question of products that carried both SFI and FIA certification. National was not aware of that situation (I know of at least one driver's suit, mine) and is looking into what the ruling might be.

If it has a FIA certification then it does not matter if the SFI sticker is valid or not. You are very lucky.

[Matt Rowe]

The wording on the press release is a little vague, although I know you and National are working on how to best clarify that.

And luck has nothing to do with it, I paid extra when I bought the suit to have the FIA certification sewn in. Seemed like cheap insurance considering the issues that seem to swirl around SFI.

[tom91ita]

if i had a $500 suit that i thought was good from a performance perspective but was being tossed because of a labeling fee issue, i would drop $50 and have a local embroidery shop add a FIA logo........

i guess the lesson from this is to only buy equipment with both logos because you never know.

[dj10]

Do you realize that Bill Simpson was one of the founding fathers of the SFI? Ironic isn't it?

[tom91ita]

............. My expectation is that Impact will settle acounts with SFI and all will be forgiven.

not quite but this looks pretty close?

from Racerlinn's post at the sandbox:


Maybe this got missed, but:

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-impact-racing-receives-court-stay/

"This ruling means all Impact products manufactured in 2009 and 2010, currently certified as SFI compliant, remain certified. In addition, after June 22, 2010, Impact can continue to manufacture and certify its products as SFI compliant."

"Monday’s decision follows a hearing last month in Indianapolis, which Simpson and several high profile witnesses such as Tony George, Johnny Rutherford and Chip Ganassi spoke on his behalf and raised questions about SFI’s procedures."

not sure what the author meant about "business as usual":blink:

[EdForrest]

What is the most recent information on IMPACT? While I am not much of a NASCAR person...I do see IMPACT products being used.

Has IMPACT made any statement of and / or settlement regarding belts? Is this about actual safety of the product or noise about SFI's labels being produced?

Do we know what is happening???

[gsbaker]

Is this about actual safety of the product or noise about SFI's labels being produced?
SFI will not tell anyone how safe a product is. It's all about the label.