Fire Suits

[RSTPerformance]

Andy-

My suite is an OMP bought in 2000 I think, No SFI label, only a FIA stiched label "FIA NORME 1986/1986 STANDARD 04.257. CSAI.99"

My biggest disapointment was that I didn't know this rule was going to go into effect before I bought my new helmet 2 races ago to meet that unnessasary rule, and that I bought belts 2 years ago when that unnessasry rule went into effect.

Raymond

[vr6guy]

HOW THE HELL does a $800 suit not carry an SFI rating?
[/b]

OMP has never had them...... and If you do some reading you will find that the FiA rating that my $800 suit bears is way above what the silly little sfi rating, and scca requirements for a minimum.

My suit with no underoos TPP 19 seconds
the silly sfi minimum rating deemed safe by scca TPP 3 seconds
Hmmmmm

19 vs 3? no matter how you cut it 19 is better than 3

If this doesnt get rectified Im going to smack the people who decided on this with my $800 suit filled with bricks!!!

are these guys part of the circus?

[Knestis]

Here's the short version of how SFI works...

1. Manufacturer joins SFI - passing the cost on to you in the form of increased prices

2. Sanctioning body joins SFI - paying for said membership with your dues.

3. SFI tests and confirms that a sample of a given suit material sandwich meets a particular SFI specificaton

4. Manufacturer agrees under the SFI membership license that it will put tags only on suits made of tested material combinations (including color) - if it wants to sell different suits, it's back to SFI with more $.

5. SFI sells the manufacturer tags (as in, one for every suit that gets sold), passing the cost on to you.

6. Sanctioning body requires SFI certification, thereby guaranteeing that we have no choice but to patronize SFI member manufacturers and line SFI's pockets.

7. Most importantly - Manufacturer, sanctioning body, and SFI play a shell game with liability for your safety, paid for by you. (Elegant, huh?) I'll find and post it when I get home but SFI specifically says that a tag is NOT certification that a suit is safe, or that it will provide any particular level of protection in the real world - ONLY that the sandwich of materials has passed a particular test. The sanctioning body gets to say that it's "following industry standards" rather than setting its own, which might open it up to liability. However, the manufacturers have all kinds of disclaimers in their brochures, etc. that "auto racing is inherently dangerous, so if you burn up it's not our fault," and besides - they've followed the industry standards required by the sanctioning body.

8. The trade association functions - increasing revenues for all member parties - is only a secondary benefit. Isn't it? Yeah. It must be, because all three partners in the process keep telling us that all they care about is our safety.

Meanwhile, I can't wear what amounts to a funny car suit to drive my IT car.

K

EDIT - it's implicit but not specifically explained above that if a manufacturer chooses to NOT join SFI, it doesn't get to participate in a portion of its target market regardless of how good their suits are. Luckily, since the drivers are trapped in a three-legged conundrum, they have NO CHOICE but to accept the increased costs of SFI membership, so there is zero disincentive for a manufacturer to drink the KoolAid.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Write your letters. It may be possible to squash this like we did with the H&N SFI issue. Start your letter with ,"I am an IT racer..." so Jake and I can track the letter count from us.

[dj10]

Andy-

My suite is an OMP bought in 2000 I think, No SFI label, only a FIA stiched label "FIA NORME 1986/1986 STANDARD 04.257. CSAI.99"

My biggest disapointment was that I didn't know this rule was going to go into effect before I bought my new helmet 2 races ago to meet that unnessasary rule, and that I bought belts 2 years ago when that unnessasry rule went into effect.

Raymond [/b]

Raymond,

I'm sure that this just an oversight & I would be willing to bet the standard your 800 OMP suit carries will be legal to race. I agree with Andy and write your letter, just in case, but by bringing it to the SCCA's attention, I'm sure they will make a quick rewrite of the rule. In this case it would be hard for me to believe that common sense won't prevail.

[Greg Amy]

...I would be willing to bet the standard your 800 OMP suit carries will be legal to race...I'm sure they will make a quick rewrite of the rule. In this case it would be hard for me to believe that common sense won't prevail.[/b]

I find your optimism quite refreshing. However, you vastly underestimate the allure of the SFI siren call... - GA

[dj10]

I find your optimism quite refreshing. However, you vastly underestimate the allure of the SFI siren call... - GA [/b]

Since I have an approved FIA seat I would inclined to believe that they would have some kind of equavilent from FIA to SFI when it comes to expensive racing suits.

Mr., the glass is half full Jones

[lateapex911]

DJ is just a optimistic guy these days because he finally got his ECU rule gift wrapped under the tree...

[dj10]

DJ is just a optimistic guy these days because he finally got his ECU rule gift wrapped under the tree... [/b]

Your right Jake! If the SCCA can make this decision I'm sure the can get the SFI/ FIA suit issue correct especially since the OMP FIA suit is probably equivalent to the SFI/5 or better.



"To keep your head when all around you are losing their's"

[dickita15]

It would seem to me that there are three distinct issues,
One is the nice FIA suits that are to a standard that is not in the GCR wording.
Second is I for one did not hear much chatter about this so it is asking for a big upgrade on very short notice.
And third is the whole idea of the nanny state where we have to meet a particular standard set by SFI or FIA.

[RSTPerformance]

Write your letters. It may be possible to squash this like we did with the H&N SFI issue. Start your letter with ,"I am an IT racer..." so Jake and I can track the letter count from us.
[/b]

Andy-

Are we sending letters to the [email protected], [email protected] or the itac so that you (the itac) can track them?

Raymond

[Andy Bettencourt]

CRB

[vr6guy]

Heres an idea for a future scca rule.... Fill vehicle with flame retardent gelatin, with driver inside. Wait till it becomes a solid, then go race......

[Dave Zaslow]

Dear BOD and CRB Members,

In 2007 we had:

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 and underwear shall be made of the following accepted fire resistant materials: Nomex, Kynol, FPT, IWS (wool), Fiberglass, Firewear™, Durette, Fypro, PBI, Kevlar, NASAFIL, or any suit carrying an SFI 3-2A/1 or higher certification patch. Underwear of PROBAN is approved. The following specific manufacturer(s) material combinations are also recognized: Simpson Heat Shield, Leston Super Protex, FPT Linea Sport, Carbon X, and Durette X-400. Underwear is not required with three-layer suits or with suits carrying FIA standards of 8856-1986 or 8856-2000 or SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch. FIA homologated driving suits and underwear are recommended.

In 2008 this has been changed to:

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.


As I understand this, in 2007 a suit was required to be made of the listed materials. If that suit had no label, fire resistant underwear of the listed materials was required to be worn as well. If the suit had three layers but had no label, or carried certain SFI or FIA labels, then underwear was no longer required.

For 2008 there is no longer a list of approved materials, just a standard of material/construction as evidenced by a label. This is a good thing as SCCA should not be in the material approval business. So to set a performance standard, as opposed to a specific named material, that performance pass/fail test comes via an SFI or FIA label being mandatory. If that label is the latest FIA or SFI 3.2A/5 or greater spec, underwear is not only unecessary, it is not allowed (...shall be used except...)


I consider performance standards a good thing if they are well thought through. This one certainly could use some tweaking.

I also consider it an undue burden for racers to be required to do this on such short notice. Please reconsider making this mandatory for the 2008 racing year. If this is to change it must be immediatly published as a bulletin. There is scant time left in this calendar year.

Lastly, can you please tell me the differences in the old/new FIA specs as to make them now unsatisfactory for our purposes? If the SFI3.2A spec hasn't changed in years (or if it has, the numbering hasn't) why get rid of the old FIA spec? After all we are still allowed to use Snell 2000 helmets as well as 2005.

Thanks,

Dave Zaslow
#189195

[spdmonkey]

Nicely written Dave. Very similar to one I wrote months ago when this first appeared. GUYS THIS IS NOT A RULE THATS JUST SPRUNG UP. It was mentioned months ago in Fastrack and very few must have responded. I hope we can band together to get this delayed, overturned or burned(hahaha). It not just gonna go away I fear. Wait until the first races of the year. This is going to catch a ton of people out I fear.

db

[gsbaker]

What a mess, in so many ways.

Here's the short version of how SFI works...

1. Manufacturer joins SFI - passing the cost on to you in the form of increased prices

2. Sanctioning body joins SFI - paying for said membership with your dues.

3. SFI tests and confirms that a sample of a given suit material sandwich meets a particular SFI specificaton

4. Manufacturer agrees under the SFI membership license that it will put tags only on suits made of tested material combinations (including color) - if it wants to sell different suits, it's back to SFI with more $.

5. SFI sells the manufacturer tags (as in, one for every suit that gets sold), passing the cost on to you.

6. Sanctioning body requires SFI certification, thereby guaranteeing that we have no choice but to patronize SFI member manufacturers and line SFI's pockets.

7. Most importantly - Manufacturer, sanctioning body, and SFI play a shell game with liability for your safety, paid for by you. (Elegant, huh?) I'll find and post it when I get home but SFI specifically says that a tag is NOT certification that a suit is safe, or that it will provide any particular level of protection in the real world - ONLY that the sandwich of materials has passed a particular test. The sanctioning body gets to say that it's "following industry standards" rather than setting its own, which might open it up to liability. However, the manufacturers have all kinds of disclaimers in their brochures, etc. that "auto racing is inherently dangerous, so if you burn up it's not our fault," and besides - they've followed the industry standards required by the sanctioning body.

8. The trade association functions - increasing revenues for all member parties - is only a secondary benefit. Isn't it? Yeah. It must be, because all three partners in the process keep telling us that all they care about is our safety.

Meanwhile, I can't wear what amounts to a funny car suit to drive my IT car.

K[/b]

Well done sir. However, this process works only in a rather static environment, i.e. when there is no pressure to improve safety and/or no one is coming up with new ideas. When such is the case, everything is reduced to a pass-fail commodity and the low-cost producer wins. True of any industry. Manufacturers who make cheap product love SFI; those who make the good stuff are not so enthusiastic.

The net effect of the SFI model is to hinder advances in driver safety. Allow me to pass along two examples, one real and one purely hypothetical, make-believe:


1. True story

Me, speaking to an Unnamed Executive of an Unnamed Safety Products Company, a UEUSPC for short: "I thought you were a big fan of SFI?"
UEUSPC: "I am publically, but not privately."
Me: "Why?"
UEUSPC: "I can't make a better product."
Me: "What do you mean?"
UEUSPC: "Well, we already have an SFI label, right?"
Me: "Right."
UEUSPC: "So let's say we have an idea for a fantastic new product. What happens if we spend tons of time, money and effort to develop this new product that blows away all the competition?"
Me: " You'd save lives and make tons of money!"
UEUSPC: "No, we wouldn't. It would all be wasted. We'd end up with the same SFI label we have now, so why bother?"

EDIT - it's implicit but not specifically explained above that if a manufacturer chooses to NOT join SFI, it doesn't get to participate in a portion of its target market regardless of how good their suits are.... there is zero disincentive for a manufacturer to drink the KoolAid. [emphasis added]
[/b]

Ah, but that is the part that is changing due to, ironically, liability.


2. A purely hypothetical, make believe example. Honest.

Let's say a safety product manufacturer works on a product for use outside of motorsports which protects "occupants" from head and neck injuries in extreme conditions. I'm talking conditions so extreme that racing doesn't even come close, at speeds racing couldn't touch, and that the application is so critical that funding is unlimited--hypothetically speaking, of course.

And let's say this product was successfully tested last week at record setting speeds because, well, this is just a hypothetical and that sounds kinda cool. After all, I'm just making this up as I go. Honest.

And let's say they take this king-of-the-mountain design to SFI and are told they cannot get a label because it does not meet the spec. When they discover they must detune their design to meet the lower SFI performance, their lawyers tell them, "Don't do it. There is too much liability in making an inferior design." So they don't do it, and drivers are denied a safer product.

Then things get ugly. Drivers want the safer product, their sanctioning body won't let them use it, drivers get hurt and sue the sanctioning body into oblivion. That's the second-worse scenario, behind the Feds showing up with RICO charges.

The SFI model is an asset to sanctioning bodies when it ensures drivers access to the safest designs available. When it doesn't, SFI becomes a liability--and sanctioning bodies know it. They don't need SFI; they can pick and choose what rules to apply and, frankly, SCCA does a fairly good job of this, from our perspective.

[vr6guy]

What a mess, in so many ways.
Well done sir. However, this process works only in a rather static environment, i.e. when there is no pressure to improve safety and/or no one is coming up with new ideas. When such is the case, everything is reduced to a pass-fail commodity and the low-cost producer wins. True of any industry. Manufacturers who make cheap product love SFI; those who make the good stuff are not so enthusiastic.

The net effect of the SFI model is to hinder advances in driver safety. Allow me to pass along two examples, one real and one purely hypothetical, make-believe:
1. True story

Me, speaking to an Unnamed Executive of an Unnamed Safety Products Company, a UEUSPC for short: "I thought you were a big fan of SFI?"
UEUSPC: "I am publically, but not privately."
Me: "Why?"
UEUSPC: "I can't make a better product."
Me: "What do you mean?"
UEUSPC: "Well, we already have an SFI label, right?"
Me: "Right."
UEUSPC: "So let's say we have an idea for a fantastic new product. What happens if we spend tons of time, money and effort to develop this new product that blows away all the competition?"
Me: " You'd save lives and make tons of money!"
UEUSPC: "No, we wouldn't. It would all be wasted. We'd end up with the same SFI label we have now, so why bother?"
Ah, but that is the part that is changing due to, ironically, liability.
2. A purely hypothetical, make believe example. Honest.

Let's say a safety product manufacturer works on a product for use outside of motorsports which protects "occupants" from head and neck injuries in extreme conditions. I'm talking conditions so extreme that racing doesn't even come close, at speeds racing couldn't touch, and that the application is so critical that funding is unlimited--hypothetically speaking, of course.

And let's say this product was successfully tested last week at record setting speeds because, well, this is just a hypothetical and that sounds kinda cool. After all, I'm just making this up as I go. Honest.

And let's say they take this king-of-the-mountain design to SFI and are told they cannot get a label because it does not meet the spec. When they discover they must detune their design to meet the lower SFI performance, their lawyers tell them, "Don't do it. There is too much liability in making an inferior design." So they don't do it, and drivers are denied a safer product.

Then things get ugly. Drivers want the safer product, their sanctioning body won't let them use it, drivers get hurt and sue the sanctioning body into oblivion. That's the second-worse scenario, behind the Feds showing up with RICO charges.

The SFI model is an asset to sanctioning bodies when it ensures drivers access to the safest designs available. When it doesn't, SFI becomes a liability--and sanctioning bodies know it. They don't need SFI; they can pick and choose what rules to apply and, frankly, SCCA does a fairly good job of this, from our perspective.
[/b]

where in all that does it explain to me that my omp fia suit is considered below the scca required fire protection? Fact is it isnt below the set standards. Personally I wouldnt race with the minimum that scca requires. The fact is, that my suit as well as many other racers,(the Blethens have the same exact suit that I have) is well above the sfi minmum requirement that scca is using. :026:

[gsbaker]

Well, I was generalizing, and I understand that the suit issue is a mess.

But both the specific and general problems are solved if the Club mandates safety products based on performance only. A manufacturer will tell you when a product should be replaced. A belt made for SFI is good for two years; that same belt made for the USAF is good for 13 years. Assuming they both meet some performance threshold, you should be able to buy either one and replace it when the manufacturer suggests.

BTW. who made this proposal to begin with? What was the logic behind it?

[Ron Earp]

HOW THE HELL does a $800 suit not carry an SFI rating?
[/b]

When it is an OMP three layer suit conforming to FIA (WORLD STANDARDS, I CAN USE IT EVERYWHERE TO RACE, BUT NOT SCCA) standard that are higher than the SFI standards. I have one, it is now a $800 pit crew suit and I have used it in England on track regulated by FIA standards. This is insane.

Now my British buddies that are licensed FIA racers that come over for the VIR 13 Hour race (three years running) now will have illegal gear in America.

In the meantime I'll be contacting my HK product person on replica SFI patches. Come see me in the alley beside my trailer at the first race.

Crap like this really does frustrate racers and certainly makes one think about moving clubs. I won't, but it definitely makes you think.

Ron

[spdmonkey]

BTW. who made this proposal to begin with? What was the logic behind it?
[/b]

HERE IS THE PROPOSAL FROM AUGUST 2007 FASTRACK

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/07-...ugust-final.pdf


PROPOSED RULE CHANGES or CAR RECLASSIFICATIONS. The following subjects will be referred to the Board of Directors for approval.
Address all comments, both for and against, to the Club Racing Board. Comments may be e-mailed to [email protected].
GCR
Item 1. Effective 11/1/07: Change section 9.3.19.A as follows:
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 certifica-
tion label or FIA 8856-2000 homologation. and underwear shall be made of the following accepted fire resistant materials: Nomex,
Kynol, FPT, IWS (wool), Fiberglass, FirewearTM, Durette, Fypro, PBI, Kevlar, NASAFIL, or any suit carrying an SFI 3-2A/1 or higher certi-
fication patch. Underwear of PROBAN is approved. The following specific manufacturer(s) material combinations are also recognized:
Simpson Heat Shield, Leston Super Protex, FPT Linea Sport, Carbon X, and Durette X-400. Underwear of fire resistant material shall
be used except Underwear is not requiredwith three-layer suits or withsuits carrying FIA standards of 8856-1986 or8856-2000 or
SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch. FIA homologated driving suits and underwear are recommended.


Bold is mine. Immediately after that it goes to the next issue that will catch people out and that is your fire system. Get ready for the same SFI argument there. Get ready to spend good money for the same thing you have now--except with an SFI label.....


So what happened to the 1986 Standard between this original posting in Fastrack and the now official posting??????? I questioned the wording when that was initially published as it is not clear.

db

In the meantime I'll be contacting my HK product person on replica SFI patches. Come see me in the alley beside my trailer at the first race.

Ron
[/b]

I think alot of us were thinking something similar. I have an old racequip suit with an SFI patch on it too...

db