If it's listed as HAZMAT, it's a Federal offense to ship it without notifying the carrier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc
Period.
Printable View
If it's listed as HAZMAT, it's a Federal offense to ship it without notifying the carrier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc
Period.
Ok flogged sufficantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
So don't go out to eat twice and you have the hazmat shipping payed for, or if you are doing Fast Food, 4 times.
Point is it is a a new rule. It will cost money. But last time I checked that racing was not free, nor cheap. To get pissed off that they decided that SFI specified fire extinguisher is not worth it. The reason they have to specify something is to keep the manufactures some what honest, and to keep the lawyers off their backs. This is no worse than CARB emission certifications for every aftermarket hard part that goes on any vehicle. It is there to keep the honest people honest.
The point at which he has to cross SFI's hand with gold for a rollcage or something else that he's used being able to make a decision about himself, Derek will catch on.
When I said "you're all," DD, I meant "y'all" - the collective. For the last couple years, it's only been the "Isaac hotheads" who've been "paranoid" about SFI requirements getting foisted on them. That's going to change but you know what? (Y'all know what?) It probably won't make a difference. There's enough turnover in SCCA that the people who know "how it was" are a small enough minority that they can be dismissed under "black helicopters."
NOW, if I believed that SFI membership made us safer, I'd be totally OK with it. I don't. For those of you who haven't been around for the last 27 of these convesations, you're welcome to search the archives here to find out why but I'm feeling old and tired right now.
K
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Okay I know this is a little over the top but it does demonstrate the issue with incremental expansion of restrictions.:o
I'm not really getting the sense that this is the case (not that I'm any fan of laywers)...Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc
Sadly, SCCA seems to just be getting scared of lawsuits, and not just about safety: there was recently a big stink about some special wheels in FF, which were custom-made at great expense, for an aero advantage. They were ruled (in protest during a race weekend) as being illegal. The car owner, who paid to have all these special rims made (not directly perhaps in conflict with the rule, to be sure), filed appeals etc right up to the top. As I heard word-of-mouth, it came down to him complaining that he'd invested a great deal of money into having the rims made, and if SCCA didn't find them legal for use, he'd sue SCCA.
I think it was the Jan Fastrack that had a wheel rule change for FF to allow basically any wheel you want, covers unrestricted.
Sad, but I heard it from a trustworthy source IMO. :blink:
Seems like in this case, yes, SCCA did a decent job (or tried to, at least) - all existing cars are grandfathered. As builder of a new car in addition to owner of an existing car, I don't have a big problem with buying a new system that is approved; this IMO is a reasonable expense in my safety, and I truly do go to extensive lengths to be safe (note that I was an early adopter of ISAAC and center net).Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc
What I do have a problem with is probably an unintended consequence that SCCA didn't notice, this clause about SFI systems having to be re-inspected every 2 years. That's blatant self-interest on the part of the SFI firebottle mfgrs. Not much different that the whole BS about rewebbing your belts every 3 years. If they're made of the el-cheapo SFI webbing that degrades quickly in the sunlight, as opposed to that superior euro-spec stuff that lasts much longer.
Of course, since we're not SFI members ourselves, we have no say in the matter... sorta taxation without representation... :(
Don't hold back your hate just for the lawyers, Derek, be more even handed and spread it to people who milk things for all they are worth, and the system that allows it...
I actually have some friends in each of your "hate groups"...they just want equal love!
You say, "Hey, it's fine, it's for my safety, and racings expensive anyway"....well, sure, but the point here is that it's extra unneeded expense, extra hassle, and it basically puts money into an organizations hands that does nothing to increase my actual safety!
The SCCA is a member of SFI as far as I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by 924Guy
x2Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Raycer
As someone who has a new car build in progress, I'm very interested in seeing where/when this was published. I've got a brand new AFFF system in the garage and a car that's about 95% ready for a log book. Don't tell me that the firesystem I have is a paperweight now.
Christian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc
That is just plain silly. Don't hate the player (lawyer), hate the game (laws which allow courts to become bogged down with nothing lawsuits). Lawyers just do there job - get the most bang for the buck for their clients.
Geez Dick, what's the deal? Either your font is so big my monitor tips over or it's so small my old guy eyes can't deal with it!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by dickita15
Which does nothing to protect them from lawsuits. In fact, it probably makes them more likely to lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by 924Guy
Plantiff Attorney - "So, being fully aware of the dangers of uncertified fire systems, SCCA allowed my client to compete in a car using substandard equipment?"
SCCA - "Yes."
Plantiff Attorney - "Your honor, we ask for immediate judgement with triple damages on account of the defendents own admission of gross negligence."
The certification increases your safety, if and only if, SFI conducts random and unannounced testing of both completed product and the manufacturing process. Anything else and the only two things you are relying upon are the willingness of the manufacturer to pay SFI's protection money and the manufacturer's reputation. W/o certification, you are relying on the manufacturer's reputation. I.e. no delta.Quote:
As builder of a new car in addition to owner of an existing car, I don't have a big problem with buying a new system that is approved; this IMO is a reasonable expense in my safety, and I truly do go to extensive lengths to be safe (note that I was an early adopter of ISAAC and center net).
I won't tell you that. What you have is a very effective fire system that you can continue to use.... as long as you have a fire bottle in your car (assuming it is IT).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian
"Everybody who thinks that companies getting full bottles shipped to them for recertification will simply ship them back w/o discharge but with the recharge fee - raise your hand."
Not on my watch!!!!! Every FIA bottle or any bottle we recieve for recertification or a recharge goes through the WHOLE process. No short cuts!
AFFF bottles and FIA bottles have always had to have recertification every two years.
The kicker is the manufactures will not allow us to recertify a bottle if it is more than two years out of the service date and the bottles are only good for 10 years.
As a licensed and UPS certified HAZ shipper I can tell you the Fed's do not take kindly to shipping things like this without the proper documents. Fines start at $10K and go up fast. People have been caught and it is not pretty amd don't even think about shipping by the postal service for these .
Not my rules so don't flame me.....
Bob
Christian is yuor system on this list? Mine is I have the SPA system. If it is listed you are ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian
http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public...her_system.pdf
So Jeff, what is your solution if SFI and FIA are not enough?
PS- Don't even suggest yet another standards instatution. You already have 2, what is your solution above and beyond the two that already exist. Adding a 3rd is not a solution.
OK, I'll throw a little gas on this fire (pun intended!).
We have to have our fire systems certified/checked/whataver every two years?
If you have an FIA rated cell (as called for in the GCR for most other classes), the FIA certification expires after 5 years and the cell needs to be recertified. None of us do that of course, nor have I ever heard of a tech inspector even asking.
Don't worry about a fire from an old cell, you have a safe fire system!
(And SFI has specs for cages (that we don't use).......but that is another topic.)
That looks like the route I'm going to have to go...Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjanos
I didn't see it... I've got this one: http://www.ioportracing.com/Merchant...egory_Code=ESS But don't remember if it has the "extra" $10 upgrade to SFI... the system was bought middle of last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by ekim952522000
F*ck. Is this enough to get me racing with NASA? Definitely getting closer to going somewhere else.
Christian
It is not that SFI and FIA are not enough. It is that SFI and FIA are too much, or more accurately, the SFI system creates, for them, a powerful set of incentives that undermine the stated purpose for their existence, i.e. driver safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesB
1. Direct conflict of interest. I believe that SFI gets a fee on each certified unit that is sold. SFI's incentive is now maximizing units sold and no longer devising the best standard.
2. Direct conflict of interest. SFI only collects a fee if there is a standard. When examining whether a standard needs to be established, SFI will always determine it is needed.
3. Indirect conflict of interest. The companies being regulated by SFI write the regulations. Problem - the standard will be written to the lowest level needed to obtain standard's committee approval. No member sitting on the committee will support a standard that negatively impacts their business. (I don't recall what safety item this was about, but I seem to recall SFI trying to write standards for a product in which the industry was split about 50/50 between two technologies. Group A wants to outlaw group B. Group B wants to outlaw group A. Result - no standard.)
4. AFAIK, lack of verification. Does SFI do random checks of both finished product and quality control?
Solutions:
1. SCCA simply states the minimum requirement for safety equipment (see roll bars) and put the responsibility back on the consumer who purchases the item.
2. Disband SFI. Replace with an organization similar to Underwriters Lab which, I believe, does not have income dependent on the sales of certified products. Eliminate the involvement of manufacturers from the standards process.
Hey Christian, on that link you provided to the IOPort system you bought it says this.....
New rules for the SCCA Club Racing in 2009 requires a SFI 17.1 Certified fire system in all newly logbooked cars in classes requiring fire systems. Upgrade to a SFI 17.1 fire system for just $10.00. Additionally, SCCA will allow the club racer to use the ESS refill kits without requiring any re-certification. This is a great advantage for the club racer over any other system since if they are fired, they must be sent back to the factory to be refilled and re-certified.
So is that true? And if so, doesn't that bypass the issue? I realize that that we are talking about re-certifing every two years, but come on....If I can refill myself?
Unless it says so in the GCR, I wouldn't count on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Smith