Impact Racing Products, was: "Very disturbing thread"

[Mike Mackaman]

As a Quality Manager in an ISO 9001:2008 certified facility, this is very distressing. I hope that this can be resolved positively, but it doesn't look good. An old friend once told me that integrity is a gift you give to yourself.

Mike

[dj10]

I heard that NASCAR owns SFI, Is this true?

[RSTPerformance]

Just an FYI...

An e-mail went out to 80 or so SCCA Stewards with the notice from SFI. I wrote back to all and asked a few questions on how we were to respond to issues at the track.

The reply I received was that at this point this was an issue between SFI and Impace Performance Parts. SCCA Club Racing office is aware of the issues and will determine if there is any reason for members to question the validility of Impact labeled equipment and/or parts. Until that time we have been instructed to treat the SFI labels as legitimate.

IMO the items have been tested and passed the standards to meet the certification process. It doesn't matter where the labels come from as long as the equipment meets the performance standards. I don't think SFI should have the right to make a share of the profit on EVERY piece of racing equipent being sold in the market. To me I feel that this is just another reason that SCCA should have a (non-profit) department checking to see if equipment meets our club (our busines) and our insurance companies standards.

Raymond

[lateapex911]

Raymond, go to the SFI site and read how the whole 'Certification" thing is done. In some cases (most, I think) the manufacturer takes full responsibility that his products meet the requirements set forth by the SFI standards. The SFI does little actual testing. The manufacturer provides the SFI with independent lab reports as proof that the item meets the minimum standards....and that all items manufactured will as well.

In the case of Impact, there has been cases where independent tests have been conducted on suits, and they failed to meet the standards which the label claimed they would.

While at this point, SFI has 'caught" Impact in a counterfeiting situation, and that is all that is alleged at this point, it DOES raise questions as to whether that is the ONLY suspect part of the product. The past history isn't helping the Impact companies situation either.

It's good that SCCA isn't jumping to conclusions, but I'd also be cautious in assuming the products are up to snuff as well.

The cost of labels isn't huge..a couple bucks per suit, IIRC, and if you are willing to go to the trouble of commissioning counterfeit versions to save that amount, what does it say about your desire to cut costs in other areas?

My jury is out.

[RSTPerformance]

Raymond, go to the SFI site and read how the whole 'Certification" thing is done. In some cases (most, I think) the manufacturer takes full responsibility that his products meet the requirements set forth by the SFI standards. The SFI does little actual testing. The manufacturer provides the SFI with independent lab reports as proof that the item meets the minimum standards....and that all items manufactured will as well.

In the case of Impact, there has been cases where independent tests have been conducted on suits, and they failed to meet the standards which the label claimed they would.

While at this point, SFI has 'caught" Impact in a counterfeiting situation, and that is all that is alleged at this point, it DOES raise questions as to whether that is the ONLY suspect part of the product. The past history isn't helping the Impact companies situation either.

It's good that SCCA isn't jumping to conclusions, but I'd also be cautious in assuming the products are up to snuff as well.

The cost of labels isn't huge..a couple bucks per suit, IIRC, and if you are willing to go to the trouble of commissioning counterfeit versions to save that amount, what does it say about your desire to cut costs in other areas?

My jury is out.

Jake-

I certainly don't disagree with you...

I just want to let people know that as of right now your equipment will pass tech even if it is an annual tech or if you show up at the track with it.

I also don't agree with the "SFI" label requirement. That requirement IMO doesn't mean that any products other than the ones tested meet the specs. To me it only means that A] the product is legal for competition because it has the label and B] SFI made a couple bucks on the sale of EVERY item. I just don't think a third party should have so much power or that it should be making a profit on others sales.

I also agree however that somehow we need to govern the safety inspections to ensure our safety is met when using any company's products. A label sent to the manufacturer doesn't meet my standards for compliance checks.

Raymond

[Bill Miller]

Jake-



I also don't agree with the "SFI" label requirement. That requirement IMO doesn't mean that any products other than the ones tested meet the specs. To me it only means that A] the product is legal for competition because it has the label and B] SFI made a couple bucks on the sale of EVERY item. I just don't think a third party should have so much power or that it should be making a profit on others sales.

I also agree however that somehow we need to govern the safety inspections to ensure our safety is met when using any company's products. A label sent to the manufacturer doesn't meet my standards for compliance checks.

Raymond

BINGO!

Well stated Raymond.

[mgyip]

If a 3rd Party shouldn't have the power to say "yay" or "nay" on a product, then who should? Does this mean that we need a truly independent regulating body who makes its money elsewhere?

If I understand what's being said, SFI is just a "club" - pay your dues and you're "in. Therefore, any certs such as from Snell, SFI or FIA are bulls**t and that they shouldn't mean anything other than the manufacturer has paid their "dues" and that the products have been rubber stamped.

Just food for thought...