Fire Suits

[vr6guy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jjjanos]

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

Ignoring the tautological answer - the materials aren't acceptable because they haven't been spec'd...

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

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

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

For example - insurance companies don't require tow hooks, but we do for obvious reasons.

[gsbaker]

Actually, it appears we agree, and the only problem is wording/semantics.[/b]

Yeah, we do. Both drivers and sanctioning bodies want some kind of label on a safety product that proves it meets a minimum level of performance.

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

Not yet. Well, it is but we are awaiting testing. It will replace the original Link, at $295.

[Quickshoe]

Matt Rowe,

I wasn't trying to be rude. My apologies that it came across that way.

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

I don't know you, I don't know where you are coming from, apparently I incorrectly assumed that you thought anything with an SFI patch was tested and you were "safe".





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

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

[Knestis]

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

Now you're talking. Here's the rub, though - if I could get my SweatShop brand suits tested using exactly the same protocol as SFI's test, and achieve the level of performance in that test that earns their 3.2a/10 patch, I CAN'T simply say, "meets the performance standards of SFI 3.2a/10" and have the SCCA let people use my suit. No pay, no play - if I don't buy into the "licensing agreement," pay SFI for their test, and buy the patch, I don't get one. And if we let the sanctioning bodies get caught up in the patch, that's the end of the conversation where other options are concerned.

And that's really the whole point: We don't need the trade association functions inherent to SFI (see also, "5 year expiration") to get the benefits afforded by some standard. PLUS, if we focus on something consistent (like "seconds of protection before 2nd-degree burn," then there IS an incentive for manufacturers to build better suits (a 22 is better than a 20), racers know what they are really buying, and we don't have the SFI membership costs handed to us as consumers. Yeah, suit manufacturers still have to pay for testing but it would be far less than it is now.

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

Finally (and this is kind of like the VIN rule arguments), if tech can't tell by looking at my suit (which has Nomex III and manufacturer's labels in it) that it's made of the right stuff, can we expect them to be able to look at it and tell that I didn't transplant an SFI patch off of a refueler's suit onto it? Or that the patch is in fact authentic? I bought an Izod shirt on the beach in Italy and damned if it didn't turn out to be a knock-off! How'd that happen??

K

[spdmonkey]

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

db

[Bob Roth]

To Bob Clark -

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

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

thanks
Bob

[ScotMac]

To Bob Clark -

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

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

thanks
Bob
[/b]

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

[vr6guy]

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

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

[1stGenBoy]

To Bob Clark -

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

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

thanks
Bob
[/b]

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

[Bob Roth]

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

[vr6guy]

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

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

[Quickshoe]

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

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

[vr6guy]

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

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

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

[gsbaker]

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

[Quickshoe]

Gregg,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bob Roth]

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

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

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

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

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

[spdmonkey]

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

db

[1stGenBoy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Clark

[gsbaker]

Gregg,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now we are getting somewhere.

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