Impact Racing Products, was: "Very disturbing thread"

[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...

[Matt Rowe]

I am not completely clear on this but follow the logic for a moment.

It appears the FIA process does have at least one fundamental difference. FIA products (or at least the suits) have their cert stitched directly into the suit. This would imply no label, therefore no fee for the label and therefore no benefit to the FIA if 1 suit or 1,000,000 is sold.

Again, it's just a guess based on some circumstantial evidence but if correct it would imply the FIA is fundamentally only interested in the certification of the initial product line. Whereas SFI actually makes money based on the volume of individual sales and is therefore more eager to see more products sold or life limited and replaced.

[Greg Amy]

Sent to me via Scrutineering channels. It was noted this will be posted on SCCA's web site:

Technical Services
RACING MEMO
DATE: March 31, 2010
NUMBER: RM 10-04
FROM: Club Racing Board
TO: All Participants
SUBJECT: SFI Decertification of Impact Products

SCCA is aware of the action taken by SFI against Impact Racing. We are in the process of determining what action (if any) will be needed for our drivers. We will communicate the outcome to our drivers, tech personnel and stewards via member email and website posting when the answers have been determined. Until further notice, it is business as usual and as long as your safety products have SFI certification (patch/sticker) that meets our current GCR requirements, you would be considered compliant.

SPORTS CAR CLUB OF AMERICA, INC
PO Box 19400, Topeka, KS 66619-0400
(800) 770-2055 Fax (785) 232-7214 www.scca.com

[Z3_GoCar]

I found this in my in-box from 4:10pm PST from BMWCCA-CR

[This announcement is being sent to all Club Racers - It is not unsolicited email]

Effective 4/27/2010, programs involving 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1 and 16.1 with Impact are decertified (harness belts and driver suits). Further information and updates available on sfifoundation.com.

NoticeofImpactRacingDecertificationbySFI03-26-10.pdf

UpdateonImpactProductDecertification03-29-10.pdf

For more information about BMW CCA Club Racing, or to find out how your organization can become a sponsor, contact Gary Davis at [email protected], or check out our website at http://www.bmwccaclubracing.com.

BMW CCA Club Racing Title Sponsors:
BMW CCA Club Racing Series: Tirerack.com
BMW CCA Club Racing Schools: BimmerWorld

Premier Sponsors
evosport
HMS Motorsport (and Official Supplier of Safety Equipment)
UUC Motorwerks
VAC Motorsports

Associate Sponsor
Grassroots Motorsports Magazine

You received this message because you are affiliated with BMW Club Racing. Please direct any questions or comments about this email to [email protected]

BMW CCA Club Racing || 640 South Main Street, Suite 201 || Greenville, SC 29601 || www.bmwccaclubracing.com

[mgyip]

I am not completely clear on this but follow the logic for a moment.

It appears the FIA process does have at least one fundamental difference. FIA products (or at least the suits) have their cert stitched directly into the suit. This would imply no label, therefore no fee for the label and therefore no benefit to the FIA if 1 suit or 1,000,000 is sold.

Again, it's just a guess based on some circumstantial evidence but if correct it would imply the FIA is fundamentally only interested in the certification of the initial product line. Whereas SFI actually makes money based on the volume of individual sales and is therefore more eager to see more products sold or life limited and replaced.

Regardless of the fee for a label, the discussion on this thread has been "SFI only cares about a label - they don't certify after the initial product test". From what I can tell from FIA, the same holds true - there is no random sampling of product nor is there production oversight which allows an unscrupulous manufacturer to produce substandard product after the initial certifications are approved.

Unfortunately, there isn't a good way to test any questionable product without destroying it but bear in mind that Impact is the same company that was using knock-off HANS anchors - unlike the SFI debacle, this issue was about product rather than a silly label. It certainly raise questions about a company's integrity when they start knocking off a product, right down to the FIA certifcation... For more info: http://hansdevice.com/s.nl/sc.12/category.60/.f

Lastly, this entire issue revolves around Contract Law - SFI's contract is that manufacturers purchase labels from them. Yes, it's like a pyramid scheme but that's beside the point - the issue at hand is that the contract has certain requirements which Impact chose to ignore. From a strictly legal standpoint, Impact is in violation of their contract. The concerns about safety, which IMHO are well founded, are a separate matter entirely.

[BruceG]

Regardless of the fee for a label, the discussion on this thread has been "SFI only cares about a label - they don't certify after the initial product test". From what I can tell from FIA, the same holds true - there is no random sampling of product nor is there production oversight which allows an unscrupulous manufacturer to produce substandard product after the initial certifications are approved.

Unfortunately, there isn't a good way to test any questionable product without destroying it but bear in mind that Impact is the same company that was using knock-off HANS anchors - unlike the SFI debacle, this issue was about product rather than a silly label. It certainly raise questions about a company's integrity when they start knocking off a product, right down to the FIA certifcation... For more info: http://hansdevice.com/s.nl/sc.12/category.60/.f

Lastly, this entire issue revolves around Contract Law - SFI's contract is that manufacturers purchase labels from them. Yes, it's like a pyramid scheme but that's beside the point - the issue at hand is that the contract has certain requirements which Impact chose to ignore. From a strictly legal standpoint, Impact is in violation of their contract. The concerns about safety, which IMHO are well founded, are a separate matter entirely.

Very well said....Thanks!!

[tom91ita]

stupid question but what about the whole "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" stuff?