are SFI chassis/roll cage specs next?

[tom91ita]

if the trend is for SFI (or others) to spec safety equipment (both SCCA and NASA, et al), will they ever take over the roll cages as well?

they currently have these specs available for dragsters and roll cages for tractor pulling contests:

http://www.sfifoundation.com/

now that is a forum i'd like to listen in on. farmers learning about what SFI is requiring for their safety gear.

and btw, i grew up on a farm, so no disrespect intended. but they are quite independent minded.

[Knestis]

And expiration dates for suits (like nets currently have)?

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

It is not lost to member manufacturers that this doesn't hurt business, and is a great motivator for membership. This is the system you are supporting if you are totally OK with the whole SFI gig. And don't blame SCCA, necessarily. The folks making the decisions just want an answer that doesn't make their lives too much harder.

K

[Quickshoe]

This is the system you are supporting if you are totally OK with the whole SFI gig. And don't blame SCCA, necessarily.[/b]

If we AREN'T OKAY with it, what would you suggest we do?

[tom91ita]

.... And don't blame SCCA, necessarily. The folks making the decisions just want an answer that doesn't make their lives too much harder...[/b]

it was not my intent to assign any blame. it was more that i was thinking about the SCCA suit thread here and the NASA HAN's thread at rr-ax and it got me to thinking, "what other SFI specs might be lurking?"

and to hijack my own thread, i thought the SCCA suit thing was thought to be an error/omission that was likely to get changed. thought i read that somewhere but could be my CRS syndrome again.

[Ron Earp]

Has the NHRA adopted those for dragsters???? If so then the SFI marketing is working.

We're already part way there to being SFI all the way. How does this stuff happen in a club that is by members for members? I can see it happening in NASA that is for profit, but SCCA?

Ron

[mom'sZ]

If we AREN'T OKAY with it, what would you suggest we do?
[/b]

write a LETTER!!!
sorry didn't mean to shout

[CaptainWho]

How does this stuff happen in a club that is by members for members? I can see it happening in NASA that is for profit, but SCCA?[/b]

Lawyers and insurance companies, and their lawyers ... oh and don't forget the judges

[Ron Earp]

Lawyers and insurance companies, and their lawyers ... oh and don't forget the judges
[/b]

Ok, I can see that from the safety stuff and liability. But what about that move to Topeka, how in the hell did that happen? Most of the population lives on the coasts!?!!? Near good race tracks.

[RacerBill]

Ok, I can see that from the safety stuff and liability. But what about that move to Topeka, how in the hell did that happen? Most of the population lives on the coasts!?!!? Near good race tracks.
[/b]

What about the move from Westport to Denver? Oh oh, showing my age again :P

[JoshS]

You guys drive me nuts.

Point 1: In my industry, which isn't about cars, I can't think of a single industry standards body that isn't in it for its member companies. The way that the SFI operates is very very very typical, as far as I can tell. Perhaps Isaac, LLC should join the SFI. It is not likely to effect change from the outside. It is also unlikely, on its own, that it can persuade the club to ignore SFI. It's just the nature of industry.

Point 2: I don't know the timelines between the SFI H&N requirements and the existence of the Isaac device (I'm sure I'll hear it), but I find it tough to believe that the single-point-of-release requirement exists with the very intent of excluding the Isaac. It appears to me that the SFI H&N requirements have two aspects: one is the safety of the driver in a crash (for which the Isaac obviously appears to test extremely well), and the second is for the quick extrication of said driver by safety workers. The single-point-of-release isn't the only thing that's there for the safety people, that's why epaulets are there on our suits too. Now, intelligent people can argue all day long about whether or not these specs need to be there (maybe safety people cut all 6 or 7 belts rather than release the harness, etc), but the specs are there and they have reasonable justifications beyond excluding a product that could compete with one of the member company's product.

Okay, with that out, lay it on me. Is the single-point-of-release requirement new? More recent than the Isaac's market introduction?

And back on point with the thread: it seems appropriate to me that the SFI (or some industry body) would get in the business of producing roll cage specifications, but it would probably only for pre-fabbed cages that can be bought off the shelf. If that happened, then either the SCCA would accept that standard and custom (non-labelled) cages would not be allowed, or the club would still have to provide construction guidelines for custom cages. And because I doubt the members would ever let custom cages go away, I don't think we'll see labelling requirements for cages anytime soon.

[Knestis]

This isn't about the Isaac.

It's about SFI's trade association functions, and member manufacturers' and the Foundation's interests being imposed on racers in the guise of "safety standards."

SCCA could require suits (et al.) to adhere to the same performance standards on the same tests, run by the same labs for that matter, as form the basis of the various SFI specs. Instead, the Club simply requires the SFI patch. It wouldn't be particularly hard to do but it would be a departure from the way these things typically go.

It would also be contrary to the SFI licensing agreement, to which SCCA subscribes as a member sanctioning body.

K

[Ron Earp]

I'm interested to know why FIA is good for the rest of the world's racers, but FIA isn't good enough for NASA and supposedly now, the SCCA?

[JoshS]

This isn't about the Isaac.
[/b]

Oh please. If the Isaac didn't exist, and especially if Gregg wasn't a regular poster here and a friend of many of you, then you (generically) wouldn't be bitching like this. For a majority of the posters on this thread and all of the other related ones, this *is* about the Isaac.

[joeg]

It is not likely that SFI would or could get into governance of race procedures and individual classes, so there is no way an SFI rulebook could replace the GCR.

This is paranoia at its finest.

[lateapex911]

Josh, respectfully disagree. The Isaac happens to be a great example of how the system is failing the user...a poster child, if you will, and it points to the issues with a foundation that exists to create safety standards, yet has internal conflicts of interest.

Read carefully through the 38.1 spec, and tell me it isn't oddly restrictive. If they were primarily interested in load reduction and performance issues, much of the language wouldn't be there.

[JoshS]

Josh, respectfully disagree. The Isaac happens to be a great example of how the system is failing the user...a poster child, if you will, and it points to the issues with a foundation that exists to create safety standards, yet has internal conflicts of interest.

Read carefully through the 38.1 spec, and tell me it isn't oddly restrictive. If they were primarily interested in load reduction and performance issues, much of the language wouldn't be there.
[/b]

I just read it this morning. I don't find it oddly-worded at all. Its goal appears to be to describe requirements for a device that A) reduces head/neck motion, with specific test criteria; and B) describes restrictions on build characteristics that would be unsafe (such as materials and mounting to fixed points on the car).

It doesn't say what a lot of people say it does -- it doesn't say that there must be a single point of release. It doesn't say that there must be a yoke. It doesnt' say you have to take the device with you when you exit the vehicle.

Could the wording be more inclusive? Of course. Just like the IT rules, there are unintended consequences of any wording. Should Isaac, LLC be working with the SFI to rewrite them? Of course, but as I said earlier, it probably won't happen from the outside, due to the nature of the way that these industry bodies work. And as I said earlier, I see nothing different in the SFI than I see in any number of supposedly independent organizations.

The SFI's various specifications have become defacto standards. Good for them, that's exactly what they set out to do. It's very difficult to unseat them, so Isaac, LLC is just going to have to work with them.

[Quickshoe]

I don't know the timelines between the SFI H&N requirements and the existence of the Isaac device (I'm sure I'll hear it), but I find it tough to believe that the single-point-of-release requirement exists with the very intent of excluding the Isaac.[/b]

According to the "archive news" on the SFI foundation website, 38.1 was announced in Jan 05. The search function on this site has Gregg promoting the ISAAC in Nov 02.

Seems extremely clear to me that the SFI 38.1 wording was created to exclude the only device that posed a real threat to HANS at the time. Others have since designed devices that do meet the physical requirements of the spec.

[gsbaker]

Good points, Josh. I'll add a few comments when I get the chance.

[Bob Roth]

You are all pinging on the thing that I find objectionable about SCCA's knee jerk adoption of all thing's SFI. This is the inherent conflict of interest when a Standard's Body's Standard's are written by the member manufacturer's. I am on standards committee's and although I have no knowledge of SFI, I often wonder about the many opportunities for abuse that such member organizations have. Here are some examples;

1. New non member comes to standard body with disruptive technology (Isaac) and asks for variance in certification method (multiple disconnects or whatever). How do you think the members would act? Is it, "yes, please put us out of business with a better moustrap" or is it "gee no can do, so sorry, please wait until 2 or more of us work around your patent, develop the same thing and maybe we will reconsider"

2. Member manufacturer identifies case where product (say seat belt) decayed due to extreme exposure after sitting 5 years in Florida sun. Goes to fellow committee members, and proposes "To be safe, lets just write the standard to be valid for only two years". Does voting company, think hmmm"phasing out after 2 years would mean that 98% of my customers would be throwing away good belts that in street cars are safe for 30 years"? Or does member company think hmmm "gee, a simple rule change and I sell 10 times as many belts, I wonder if I can date stamp window nets next?"

3. An alternate of above is members says, "lets revise our testing methods for driver's suits". Are they doing this because "the old testing was terrible and our current suits are junk" or are they doing this because "gee, a simple test method change and SCCA and NASA make's everybody buy new suits which are identical in protection to their old suits except certified to the new standard"

Remember these aren't independent bodies, they are manufacurer's associations. If you let them write the rules, don't cry when your pocket is picked.

My guidance is if you want to argue liability, please be a lawyer,otherwise sit on your hands. I am not a lawyer but I talk to them a lot. The most common guidance I hear is unless you are an expert, do not act as one because if you try to, you will be ultimately asked to justfy your decision. So who is it that has decided that after 50 years of club racing in the US, we gotta have H&N devices?? I believe in the case of safety gear, unless SCCA is hiring independent consultants to write its minimum safety standards, it ought to adhere to the minimum accepted safety standard, and warn its members that racing is unsafe and they alway's can invest more. There are more skier's killed every year than racers, yet I don't seem to recall ski lodges requiring 2 year expiration on ski boots, do you? Heck if SCCA and SFI ran sking, all skier's would have air bags.

I think due to entrent costs, club racing is dying on the vine. This season is the leanest entry season I have seen in 23 years of racing. I believe the number one annual racing cost for many racers is now the annual cage changes, suit changes, seat changes, tow straps, fire bottle chances, seat belt changes etc. Be careful what you ask for, racing will be really safe when nobody can afford it. Its not like we have to go racing.

[Matt Rowe]

I believe in the case of safety gear, unless SCCA is hiring independent consultants to write its minimum safety standards, it ought to adhere to the minimum accepted safety standard, and warn its members that racing is unsafe and they alway's can invest more.[/b]

This is actually very similar to the conversations I have had with SCCA risk management and tech on safety issues. There first question is typically what is the rest of the industry doing and how does a new rule compare. Which is why I am extremely concerned when I see other sanctioning bodies within the industry adopting higher standards as that drives the minimum standard up for everyone.

Oh, and this is about the ISAAC but not just about the ISAAC. It is about not being disallowed to use a product that testing has proven to me is suitable for the type of racing I do.