Sep Fastrack is a dud... again

[Greg Amy]

G-Force 505 1-piece is $239 SFI-5 rated.

BTW, don't pay extra for a 3.2A/10, /15, or /20 SFI certification: it expires after 5 years. - GA

[Dave Gomberg]

No, you don't have to throw away the FIA 1986 standard suits. I tried to explain above that we're dealing with two things in parallel. One is the reorganization of the inspection requirements for cars and driver safety items. The other is the reinstatement of the 1986 standard. When it all shakes out, what appears in the most recent Fastrack will be modified to include the 1986 standard.

Dave

[dickita15]

No, you don't have to throw away the FIA 1986 standard suits. I tried to explain above that we're dealing with two things in parallel. One is the reorganization of the inspection requirements for cars and driver safety items. The other is the reinstatement of the 1986 standard. When it all shakes out, what appears in the most recent Fastrack will be modified to include the 1986 standard.

Dave

But you do have to throw away any suit that does not have a SFI of FIA certification. silly

[pgipson]

But you do have to throw away any suit that does not have a SFI of FIA certification. silly

I don't know how old a suit that would have to be. I bought my current suit in 1996 and it has an SFI label. And I'm pretty sure my 1985 suit had an SFI label also (but I donated it to a corner worker so he could play nascar fire bottle holder).

[dickita15]

Both my suits have tags as well but when I work Tech I see plenty of good condition suits that have no tags. More importantly what incidents have been happening that demonstrates the current suit rules are not adequate. It seems like this rule change is a solution for something that is not a problem. Why on the world would we want to make it harder for some to race if there is no benefit.

[Knestis]

Because SCCA is a partner in SFI's cool restraint-of-trade and price-fixing scheme. I've raged against this for years but only about 5 of us care, so fug it.

K

[dickita15]

And that of course is the real point, now I cannot be sure of the motives, it could be restraint of trade and lining pockets, but my guess is that the CRB and the BOD have a misguided impression that using outside standards shifts responsibility and liability. You know better safe than sorry, well if you feel that way the next logical step is to pick another sport.
You know I have been around long enough to remember when SCCA used to me a leader in this sport.

[jjjanos]

Why on the world would we want to make it harder for some to race if there is no benefit.

Risk management aka Chicken Little Disease.

There are benefits to tightening the rules - reduced chance of injury from fire and lower insurance to the club. The problem with this proposal is that the cost to Topeka is less than benefit, but the overall cost probably exceeds the benefit. That's because the costs fall (in order of magnitude) on drivers, regions, Topeka (if at all).

Drivers (some) will have to fork over $$$ for a new suit and pay higher entry fees due to reduced participation.

Regions will lose revenue due to falling entries.

Topeka may lose some national dues money and whatever profit they make on the per car insurance fee.

This isn't being done for driver safety. If they were interested in driver safety, they would be looking at making nomex optional. I would hazard a guess that the number of drivers injured from overheating far exceeds the total number of fires (let alone the fires that might have injured a driver).

[Rick Starkweather]

FWIW, I can still (somehow!) get into my old two-layer Simpson Heat Shield suit -- dated early 1980. I've taken very good care of it over the years -- no fraying, no oil stains, etc. But it will have to be replaced due to the new standards.

That said, it is probably time for me to do this anyway for safety. The suit is getting a bit tight, and the lack of an adequate air "gap" I'm sure diminshes the suit's effectiveness.

Anyway, I have no problem investing in my longevity! I just hope we don't have to pony up the $$ for a new suit every 5 years.

Rick

[JIgou]

Greg, thank you for doing the legwork on this one. As a side note, are you aware that Acrobat Reader can do a keyword search through a directory of PDF files? I happen to have one folder with all of 2007's Fastracks, and another with 2008 (to date) - if I can help, let me know.

No, you don't have to throw away the FIA 1986 standard suits. I tried to explain above that we're dealing with two things in parallel. One is the reorganization of the inspection requirements for cars and driver safety items. The other is the reinstatement of the 1986 standard. When it all shakes out, what appears in the most recent Fastrack will be modified to include the 1986 standard.

Dave

Dave, do we as competitors need to be writing letters to keep this thing on the top of the list and make sure it hits the GCR / make sure no one at a higher pay grade than yours who "knows better" cuts it for our own good?

BY THE WAY: My read on this in FasTrack is that it's effective 11/1/08, not 1/1/09. (Page 5, 08-fastrack-sept.pdf)

Jarrod

[Dave Gomberg]

It won't do any harm if you send a note to [email protected] asking them to approve the reinstatement of the FIA 1986 standard.

Dave

[RSTPerformance]

Dave-

If you have an inside line, why are they making this so difficult to understand?? Why do we have such a push to change it??? Who specifically is pushing for the changes???

I have sent a letter again...

Raymond

[JIgou]

It won't do any harm if you send a note to [email protected] asking them to approve the reinstatement of the FIA 1986 standard.

Dave

Thanks, Dave. Sent my note earlier today.

Jarrod