Fire Suits

[Quickshoe]

Under the current rule you could go out and make your own suit and as long as you use the right material you can use it even though it may fall apart in a fire.

The entire point of having an SFI or FIA cert on the suit is to demonstrate the suit has been tested. [/b]

Matt,

Ignorance is bliss ain't it? That isn't an insult, I felt a lot better about a lot of things until I knew better. There are plenty of things that still make me happy...please don't ruin those for me.

SFI doesn't test the suits, only sample sized batches of the materials are tested, including colors--for example the shiny nomex colors aren't as protective as the duller colors.

The tests are destructive, they can't test a suit, say it passed and then sell it. It will only "work" once. The manufacturers are only verifying (by applying the appropriate SFI patch) that the materials used in the suit bearing the patch are of the same sandwich that meet the corresponding test parameters.

[Knestis]

...but if you don't put a spec on the suits what requires a suit to be fireproof? ...[/b]

We lived for DECADES with rules that described how many layers (2 or more) of what materials, before we got all SFI'd.

Define what it has to be made of.

Define a TPP standard and require the manufacturer to certify performance.

But DON'T put us in bed with just one company that limits innovation and competition, and forces us to into patronizing companies willing to put profit ahead of our safety.

And give me the right - and the responsibility - to make my own decision. Some newby might quite rightly think that SFI and SCCA would only have his safety in mind and actually BELIEVE that the minimum standard is all that's really required.

K

[Knestis]

I thought I had some documentation on the SFI suit testing regime, but I could only find the head and neck restraint system doc. This gives you some idea of how their system works, though...

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 This SFI Specification establishes uniform test procedures and minimum standards for evaluating and determining performance capabilities for Head and Neck Restraint Systems used by individuals engaged in competitive motorsports.

1.2 The procedures, test evaluations and standards contained herein, are intended only as minimum guidelines for construction and evaluation of products. Certification that products meet such minimum standards is made by the product manufacturer and products are not certified, endorsed or approved by SFI under this program.

1.3 Use of the "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1" logo/designation, the authorized artwork style, or conventional lettering by a manufacturer, on a subject product, is intended only to indicate that the manufacturer of the product has represented that they have submitted the product to the recommended tests, with positive results, in compliance with the standards established herein.

1.4 This SFI Specification requires a demonstration that the product of a manufacturer meets or exceeds the requirements when the manufacturer enters the program, and on a periodic basis thereafter. Any manufacturer may participate in the program by providing Head and Neck Restraint Systems that meet or exceed the SFI Specification 38.1 test standards, by complying with the requirements of the SFI Specification 38.1 program, and by signing a licensing agreement with the SFI Foundation, Inc.

1.5 Compliance with this specification is entirely voluntary. However, when a manufacturer provides Head and Neck Restraint Systems in compliance with all requirements of the SFI Specification 38.1 and enters into the licensing agreement with the SFI Foundation, Inc., they may certify that compliance with such standards is in accordance with the guidelines established herein.

1.6 Manufacturers wishing to participate in the program, in addition to the other requirements of this specification, must label each of their products with the manufacturer's name, trademark or symbol as well as the date of manufacture of the product.

1.7 No manufacturer may display the SFI logo/designation on their product unless the manufacturer has signed a licensing agreement with SFI and has successfully complied with all the requirements of this specification and the self-certification program.

I took the liberty of putting some of the more interesting bits in bold.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just got off the ITAC call. CRB members are convinced 100% that this is a mistake. Goal was to clean up the wording (remove all specific approved materials for underwear etc). It was NOT to change the spec in any way.

We are on it.

[RSTPerformance]

Andy-

I want to thank you for looking into this. I sometimes bitch (Ok I bitch a lot) and sometimes I disagree with you (ECU rules) but I have to hand it to you... You are certainly one of the people that keep SCCA together and heading in the right direction.

I would imagine this new suit rule has little to no effect on you as you generally have "new stuff" but you still took the time to get more info, address the issue with people whom probably don't want to or wont listen to us, then give us feedback.

Thank you again, this is one of many important topics you always seem to address;

Raymond

[Matt Rowe]

Matt,

Ignorance is bliss ain't it? That isn't an insult, I felt a lot better about a lot of things until I knew better. There are plenty of things that still make me happy...please don't ruin those for me.

SFI doesn't test the suits, only sample sized batches of the materials are tested, including colors--for example the shiny nomex colors aren't as protective as the duller colors.

The tests are destructive, they can't test a suit, say it passed and then sell it. It will only "work" once. The manufacturers are only verifying (by applying the appropriate SFI patch) that the materials used in the suit bearing the patch are of the same sandwich that meet the corresponding test parameters.
[/b]

No need to be rude, I'm just pointing out that under the current wording utterly no testing would be required. At least if there is a spec the manufacturer has to test to something. Personally I'm glad that the option remains to allow either SFI or FIA at least we have an option. But again they are a published spec that the mfg MUST certify to.

And please don't make it sound like I think every suit is tested but every suit design and material IS tested which is not what the old wording allowed. It allowed "Joe Blow Racer" to sell you a suit design that was NEVER tested. Grab a sewing machine and see what you get, no TPP rating, no gaurantee that the thing would protect you on a sunny day much less a 9.5 second fire.

The old wording allowed a false sense of security as absoultely no testing was required.

I just bought a suit. I did my research, I knew what the specs were, what testing was required and even what the proposed rule was for SCCA. But I don't think the average racer just trying to get started is going to know all that. He is going to read the rulebook and a lot of them are going to a low cost model that meets the rule. Under the old wording that allowed untested/uncertified suits and so that loophole has been closed.

Now for the guys with FIA 1986 specs suits that are apparently left out in the cold I feel for you and think SCCA should rethink the effect of the rule. But for those without any SFI or FIA note on the suit how do you really know it's any good? Seriously?

[Knestis]

... But for those without any SFI or FIA note on the suit how do you really know it's any good? Seriously? [/b]

Uh, I spent a couple of years working for a suit manufacturer (including doing heat transfer and thermal failure testing) and I designed it myself, to optimize the efficacy of all of the material options available?

That's a little bit encouraging, Andy but I'm still not convinced that we shouldn't be very worried.

K

[ScotMac]

Just got off the ITAC call. CRB members are convinced 100% that this is a mistake. Goal was to clean up the wording (remove all specific approved materials for underwear etc). It was NOT to change the spec in any way.

We are on it.
[/b]

Andy, as Kirk and others have pointed out (to me specifically), the "approved materials" were *not* just for underwear. ie, if the "cleanup" was meant to remove the "approved materials", it will still have the affect of disallowing a substantial amount of previously allowed suits. ie, anything that doesn't necessarily have an approved cert, but is made of "Nomex, Kynol, FPT, IWS (wool), Fiberglass, Firewear™, Durette, Fypro, PBI, Kevlar, NASAFIL".

There are really (atleast) two issues:

1. Removal of the old approved materials for suits and underwear.

2. Removal of FIA 8856-1986 certification.

For #1, it is probably a good idea to have a standards organization homologating the suits. Kirk, regardless of an individual's experience in safety suit manufacturing, tech workers need a *systematic* way of evaluating the suitability of each individual suit. And that systematic procedure can NOT involve them attempting to verify each individual suit manufacturers expertise/credentials (be it OMP or Kirk's-Sewing-Sweat-Shop). The suits must be previously homologated by the standards process, the approval of which needs to be easily verifiable by the tech worker, via patches or some variation of them. Note, nothing (other than money) stops you from having the standards org approve your home-brewed suit.

BTW, SFI claims to be both independent and non-profit. Take it for what it is worth.

For #2, as i said earlier, we should look into FIA 8856-1986 Spec, and verify if it is "up to snuff".

[Andy Bettencourt]

I was told they were trying to clean up the list of approved materials. I asked 'why change anything?'...they said that Jeremy is doing a gerneral cleaning up of the GCR and since nobody can identify those materials in a tech line ANYWAY, they wanted to get rid of the wording.

From my understanding the CRB know NOTHING of a desire to change the spec from 1996 to 2000. We have the ITAC 'suit expert' making a call to Jeremy today to get this ironed out.

So again, it is my undrstanding that ANY change in the actual SPEC was a mistake.

[jjjanos]

The old wording allowed a false sense of security as absoultely no testing was required.[/b]

Some might maintain that the new wording creates a false sense of security or that the fire suit itself creates a false sense of security.

3.2A/5 - Time to 2nd degree burn: 10 Seconds

How long does it take you to get out of your car in a hurry?
Now add a minimum of 7-10 seconds to that because what ever you hit hard enough to create a fire where you need a suit has also rung your bell bad enough that its going to take you some time to reboot the main frame in your skull.

Not arguing for eliminating the requirement. Just pointing out that the actual requirement doesn't offer all that much protection.

[JeffYoung]

That's more than enough time to have the ghost of Dale Earnhardt appear and pull you from the flaming wreckage.

[Kolin Aspegren]

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

K

[Knestis]

There's no actual equivalents between SFI/FIA standards, Kolin.

BTW, SFI claims to be both independent and non-profit. Take it for what it is worth.[/b]

...which means nada. Non-profit is simply an organizational tax status. Arnie Kuhns is lining his pockets with our money and manufacturers are buying access to the market of SCCA racers through restraints on trade made possible by a collaboration among the SFI, manufacturers, and sanctioning bodies. I'm not against standards, Scot. I'm just against the system as perpetrated by SFI.

Yeah, they're independent. Independent of any responsibility, transparency, or oversight.

If we had a system whereby manufacturers tested their suits (or had them tested) and simply published the test results, we could indeed have a set of minimum standards AND not lose the incentives for drivers to learn more and manufacturers to make better suits. The point here is that SFI 3.2A/1 is NOT a standard - it's a licensing agreement, whereby the manufacturer buys the right to use that patch. The actual TEST standards - whatever the hell they are, I can't find it anywhere - could VERY easily be applied across the board, by any manufacturer, without putting SFI in the role of intermediary.

From the manufacturers' and sanctioning bodies' position, all the SFI does is add another walnut to the liability shell game, I think.

Kirk (who was involved in conversations two decades ago at SEMA, where Kuhns tried to help us understand the "value" of a manufacturer becoming a Foundation member - it was clearly in commercial terms and foreshadowed exactly where we are today)

[gsbaker]

If we had a system whereby manufacturers tested their suits (or had them tested) and simply published the test results, we could indeed have a set of minimum standards AND not lose the incentives for drivers to learn more and manufacturers to make better suits. The point here is that SFI 3.2A/1 is NOT a standard - it's a licensing agreement, whereby the manufacturer buys the right to use that patch. The actual TEST standards - whatever the hell they are, I can't find it anywhere - could VERY easily be applied across the board, by any manufacturer, without putting SFI in the role of intermediary.[/b]

RSI already does that. The word just needs to get out.

And, yes, "non profit" means nothing, it's just an accounting/tax issue. You can run any organizational structure on a for- or non-profit basis.

Just got off the ITAC call. CRB members are convinced 100% that this is a mistake. Goal was to clean up the wording (remove all specific approved materials for underwear etc). It was NOT to change the spec in any way.

We are on it.
[/b]

You da man! Or, youse guys da mens! Yeah, that's it.

[JIgou]

When I saw the initial Fastrack listing back in August or whatever, I remember looking at the FIA patch on my OMP suit and thinking "Well, I guess I'm OK...." when I saw the 1986 stitching. And yes, there is no SFI tag on it.

While there may have been some cleanup of the wording intended, it's a very specific chunk of text that was left out of the new rule concerning the FIA 1986 standard. And while that may be "old," I think we've already covered the fact that there are older SFI-rated suits that are in use - legally - today.

While I want a lighter-weight driving suit, this isn't the way I want to be "convinced" to buy it. Gee, I hope some guy named Vinny isn't waiting for me by my truck tonight after I send my letter to the CRB later today.....

Jarrod

[1stGenBoy]

Just got off the ITAC call. CRB members are convinced 100% that this is a mistake. Goal was to clean up the wording (remove all specific approved materials for underwear etc). It was NOT to change the spec in any way.

We are on it.
[/b]

Here is what I wrote this morning to the CRB and Jeremy at SCCA headquarters.

Hi Jeremy,
I see in the 08 GCR there has been a rewrite of section 9.3.19.a regarding a change in the drivers suit requirements. I understand that you are trying to clean up the wording in the GCR but I, think something was left off in the translation. There also does seem to be some confusion over this rule. One such item that has come up is: If the suit has a SFI 3-2A/5 patch and a FIA rating of 8856-1986 is it legal and is it legal without underwear? One other issue would be an old single layer suit that has a SFI 3-2A/1 patch that has been hanging in a closet for awhile and would be still good but a FIA 8856-1986 that is 6-7 years old would be obsolete. I think you can see what I mean. I do also realize that this proposed changes was in Fastrack earlier this year. The current rule is:

"A. Driving suits that effectively cover the body from the neck to the ankles and wrists. One piece suits are highly recommended. All suits shall bear an SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certification label or FIA 8856-2000 homologation. Underwear of fire resistant material shall be used except with suits carrying FIA standard 8856-2000 or SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch."

I would propose the follwing instead:

"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 8856-1986 or 8856-2000 homologation. Underwear of fire resistant material is not required with suits carrying FIA 8856-1986 or 8856-2000 homologation or SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch."

Regards,

Bob Clark
Pegasus Auto Racing Supplies
[email protected]
262-317-1225
Member #112413
SCCA ITAC Member

[ScotMac]

Non-profit does mean *something*. There are restrictions on what you can and can't do, if you are incorporated non-profit. However, it is true that there a lot of loopholes, large enough to drive a SPO car through, the largest of which is the ability to internalize the profits via salaries, etc. But if you REALLY want to take advantage of the system, call yourself a church!!!

I have no problem choosing a different standard, and having independent laboratories do the testing. RSI is fine step in that direction (another "not-for-profit"). However, how is RSI supposed to work. They verify that the testing was done in an independent laboratory...great, but what testing, to what standard/specification? ie, you have to have a "specified" goal and procedures for the testing, and RSI specifically says that they do not write specifications. Also, for suits RSI is clearly not there yet, as was pointed out earlier:

http://racingsafetyinstitute.org/Suits.html

In the meantime, i agree w/ Bob's wording (assuming FIA 8856-1986 is determined acceptable):

"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 8856-1986 or 8856-2000 homologation. Underwear of fire resistant material is not required with suits carrying FIA 8856-1986 or 8856-2000 homologation or SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch."

[JeffYoung]

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.

[gsbaker]

I have no problem choosing a different standard, and having independent laboratories do the testing. RSI is fine step in that direction (another "not-for-profit"). However, how is RSI supposed to work. They verify that the testing was done in an independent laboratory...great, but what testing, to what standard/specification?[/b]

To the standard(s) referenced. In the case of head and neck restraints they report both Wayne State and SFI 38.1 test results. In the case of harnesses, the general test protocol is described on that page.

Bottom line is that the testing satisfies both scientific mandates, that it be valid and repeatable. In other words, the test(s) measures are relevant to the subject, and the protocol is sufficiently documented that anyone can repeat it. That makes it completely transparent and ensures that no one is blowing smoke.

...and RSI specifically says that they do not write specifications...[/b]

Specs are used to write manufacturers out. As a customer, you don't want a spec; you want a label that says the product has been tested. That is all SFI and FIA provide sanctioning bodies, and RSI does the same but without $ changing hands.

[ScotMac]

As a customer, you don't want a spec; you want a label that says the product has been tested.
[/b]

Tested how?

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.

Actually, it appears we agree, and the only problem is wording/semantics. In fact, what you describe for harnesses is obviously what is needed for suits. However, as i mentioned, i don't believe it is going to be set in place in time in the near future. In the absence of that, ... (see above new wording)

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