What other racing organization requires SFI?

[gsbaker]

i am interested in this for something that is completely divorced from the nasa debate.[/b]

Curious minds want to know.

[lateapex911]

Jeeez, these SFI guys have a feakin monopoly going, and we're all being held hostage.

[gsbaker]

Now you know why RSI is such a popular idea among sanctioning bodies.

[Mike Guenther]

Greg, forgive my ignorance, but what is RSI?

Thanks,

[tom91ita]

Racing Safety Institute

http://racingsafetyinstitute.org/index.html

[M. Hurst]

Greg, forgive my ignorance, but what is RSI?

Thanks,
[/b]

What is their phone number? There is none listed on the site.

What is the street address? There is none listed on the site.

BTW;

FIA Institute for Motor Sport Safety
8, Place de la Concorde, 75008 Paris, France
Telephone: +33 1 43 12 44 55
Facsimile: +33 1 43 12 44 66
[email protected]

SFI Foundation, Inc.
15708 Pomerado Road, Suite N208
Poway, CA 92064
USA
Phone 858-451-8868 Fax 858-451-9268
Email [email protected]

[Knestis]

RSI isn't a place, Mike - it's an idea. Argue that what is being proposed isn't valid, make your case for why you believe that's so (i.e., participate substantially in the discussion) and that's fine. Arguing that in essence, because it's fundamentally wrong because it's brand new and safety has never been done that way, and you're just being disingenuous.

And please read and understand what IS BEING PROPOSED as well, before you argue against it. Most of the criticisms of the idea seem to move from misconceptions about how RSI might function, how SFI does function, or both.

Is your argument for the value of SFI that they have a mailing address...? I would love to have someone explain what the benefit of the Foundation is to racers, beyond what would be provided by an RSI-like model.

K

[JohnRW]

Actually, what IS RSI ? It's not a standards-setting organization. From their own statement of mission:

1. Confirms that test results for safety products are certified by independent testing laboratories.
2. Summarizes test results in a manner useful to consumers, be they racers or sanctioning bodies, with references to industry standards where applicable.[/b]

Think "consultant". Someone who, when you ask them what time it is, asks to borrow your watch.

That's not a replacement for what SFI should be, which is a standards-setting organization that would adhere to a clear process for creation and maintenance of motorsport safety standards. SFI ain't that now, and RSI doesn't propose to be that, so what's the point of RSI ?

Why shouldn't we demand that any organization creating standards, used by sanctioning bodies we participate with, be required to conform to ANSI and ISO standards protocols ? What would this get you ? Well, to sample from ANSI's own "statement of mission" (see here -http://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/overview/overview.aspx?menuid=3 ):

The process to create these voluntary standards is guided by the Institute’s cardinal principles of consensus, due process and openness and depends heavily upon data gathering and compromises among a diverse range of stakeholders. The Institute ensures that access to the standards process, including an appeals mechanism, is made available to anyone directly or materially affected by a standard that is under development.[/b]

Multi-billion dollar industries rely on these standards...and have faith that there was logic and equity involved in the development of those standards. Why shouldn't WE have those same benefits ? I can't think of any reason why SFI shouldn't be able to conform their standards practices to ANSI/ISO standards....the big question would be "Do they want to ?"

ANSI & ISO standards development info can be found on-line at:

http://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/d...w.aspx?menuid=3

http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development.htm

Is it sometimes a pain in the ass to conform to all the requirements ? Yup. Same pain in the ass to endure an audit of your standards developement processes ? Yup. Big time. Seen it myself a lot.

It would take the mystery out of SFI processes...(we'd know more about the "2 year belts" thing)...and maybe take away the "black helicopters" arguments from the conspiracists.

SCCA members are part of a "members-driven" organization. Members, in sufficient number, could demand that any adoption of a "standard" by the club be a "standard" from a ANSI/ISO-certified standards organization. Anybody like the flavor of that ? I do.

But that's just my opinion.

BTW - M.Hurst...does "Cute Car" mean anything to you ? You got Karl/Gail's old car ?

[M. Hurst]

RSI isn't a place, Mike - it's an idea.
[/b]

OK, but..on Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:25 am:

GBaker said on NASAForums:

".....certification of test results by an independent testing laboratory. (Isaac products are RSI certified.) "

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=...er=asc&start=30

BTW - M.Hurst...does "Cute Car" mean anything to you ? You got Karl/Gail's old car ?
[/b]

No, that's Mike Halley from Oklahoma.

[JohnRW]

No, that's Mike Halley from Oklahoma.
[/b]

Halley...Hurst...almost the same, right ? Just was talking to Gail last week....

[leggwork]

I'm sure you also read the post 10 posts down from that one Mike....
http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=...er=asc&start=40
where it was stated quite clearly what RSI is and isn't
bruce

OK, but..on Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:25 am:

GBaker said on NASAForums:

".....certification of test results by an independent testing laboratory. (Isaac products are RSI certified.) "

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=...er=asc&start=30
No, that's Mike Halley from Oklahoma.
[/b]

[JimLill]

Halley...Hurst...almost the same, right ? Just was talking to Gail last week....
[/b]

The Halley NB is for sale IIRC.........

[Knestis]

OK, but..on Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:25 am:

GBaker said on NASAForums:

".....certification of test results by an independent testing laboratory. (Isaac products are RSI certified.) " ...
[/b]

I agree with you Mike, that language might be contributing to confusion rather than clarity. This conversation REALLY spins around definitions. I'd suggest - based on what I know of the idea - that "RSI listed" might be a term more descriptive of what is being proposed. RSI no more tests stuff than does SFI - all that is handled by the labs, as should be the case.

John - you get NO argument from me re: what SFI SHOULD be. If it were what you describe, I wouldn't have the hairball that i do over the issue. Problem is, SFI isn't that. It's a trade organization first and foremost, in the sheep's clothing of "safety for the racer." I continue to be pissed off about that.

RSI (again, as I get it) would serve as a clearinghouse and data repository, to get the information we really need out to racers and sanctioning bodies, without the encumbrances and costs associated with marketing/licensing agreements, etc.

K

[LMan]

that's all well and good, but until RSI is accepted by the legal community as having legal/procedural weight, nothing will substantively change. It all boils down to exposure and liability in the case of a lawsuit. This world is run by lawyers/judges/juries, for good or ill.

It shouldn't be that way but it is what it is.

[M. Hurst]

The Halley NB is for sale IIRC.........
[/b]

Actually I believe it's now owned by freesyle motoX rider (and rally driver) "Cowboy" Kenny Bartram, I'm surprised he and his buddy Travis P. haven't subjected the "Cute Car" car to a flaming double backflip into the Grand Canyon,... or some other similar fate.

[Grumpy]

RSI isn't a place, Mike - it's an idea.K
[/b]

Who would I talk to to learn more about this idea. So far we have heard only what others know about RSI. I would like to get it from the "horse's mouth" so I can better understand the idea and concept of RSI.

[lateapex911]

that's all well and good, but until RSI is accepted by the legal community as having legal/procedural weight, nothing will substantively change. It all boils down to exposure and liability in the case of a lawsuit. This world is run by lawyers/judges/juries, for good or ill.

It shouldn't be that way but it is what it is. [/b]

I'll ask again. (For teh billionth time...here and elsewhere)

IS SFI accepted by the legal community?? Or isit a "better than nothing" situation? In actual trials, have SFI standards actually been tested and have they actually protected any liabilities?

I ask, because in reading SFIs own site and description and limitations, it appears they bear little responsbility for anything, and go so far as to state as much. The standards they create are done at the request of the sanctioning and manufacturer members, and to the needs of those members...it appears to me that its more of a service to the membership.

What real legal protection have they really served??

[Knestis]

that's all well and good, but until RSI is accepted by the legal community as having legal/procedural weight, nothing will substantively change. It all boils down to exposure and liability in the case of a lawsuit. This world is run by lawyers/judges/juries, for good or ill.

It shouldn't be that way but it is what it is.
[/b]

With respect, you SEVERELY overestimate SFI's role and influence in that respect.

It's not your fault, though. There are a lot of popular misconceptions about functions of SFI, that have been allowed to promulgate encouraged by their market positioning and relationships with manufacturers. You are allowed to make incorrect assumptions and nobody who has a vested interest in your confidence in the system will do anything to dispel them.

K

[Grumpy]

Who would I talk to to learn more about this idea. So far we have heard only what others know about RSI. I would like to get it from the "horse's mouth" so I can better understand the idea and concept of RSI.
[/b]

Nobody knows???? If I were a racing organization and wanted to use RSI, who do I speak with??

Kirk?? Greg?? Anybody??

[lateapex911]

Jim, it's been 45 minutes.(since you posted the request) Maybe the answer men aren't posting/reading now, during dinner time, etc.
Perhaps sending an email via their website might work?