Impact Racing Products, was: "Very disturbing thread"

[jlucas]

Time will tell

[Bob Roth]

I do not know if this is the case but if SFI works like another trade organization that I work with, they are funded as a % of sales of certified products. The certifying organization tracks sales by selling their labels. Soooo, if Mr Simpson provides his own labels, SFI doesn't know how much he is producing, therefore he isn't assessed the SFI fee's for his production.

Of course there could be other reasons, such as SFI had a delay on supplying labels. Or maybe they were producing materials in china and they didn't want to bother with shipping labels over there. Who knows. The one thing is for sure is that there was a SFI listing for the product, as the listing on the SFI site is the controlling aspect, not the label. If Impact was making products without listing, they would quite possibly be looking at criminal charges. But I doubt it, that's just too stupid/crooked.

I come back to the most reasonable answer is either they did it to avoid fees, or to deal with some label supply or timing problem. If that was they case, the materials produced are likely just like the certified ones, but SFI didn't get their fees for them, hence their anger. My expectation is that Impact will settle acounts with SFI and all will be forgiven.

[Greg Amy]

Please read the attached.

From SCCA:

Per the attached press release, products manufactured by Impact Racing, LLC prior to 2009 are decertified and do not meet the criteria for SCCA competition as required by our General Competition Rules (GCR). Drivers who have purchased items from Impact Racing, LLC that do not have a date in them should contact Impact Racing, LLC to obtain a letter confirming the manufactured date of their items. If the date of manufacture is prior to 2009, it is the driver’s responsibility to correct the situation. SCCA is delaying enforcement of the decertification pending further evaluation. More information will be shared as it becomes available. In the interim each driver should evaluate their personal use of the affected equipment.

[Matt Rowe]

Note that I did ask the question of products that carried both SFI and FIA certification. National was not aware of that situation (I know of at least one driver's suit, mine) and is looking into what the ruling might be.

[dickita15]

Note that I did ask the question of products that carried both SFI and FIA certification. National was not aware of that situation (I know of at least one driver's suit, mine) and is looking into what the ruling might be.

If it has a FIA certification then it does not matter if the SFI sticker is valid or not. You are very lucky.

[Matt Rowe]

The wording on the press release is a little vague, although I know you and National are working on how to best clarify that.

And luck has nothing to do with it, I paid extra when I bought the suit to have the FIA certification sewn in. Seemed like cheap insurance considering the issues that seem to swirl around SFI.

[tom91ita]

if i had a $500 suit that i thought was good from a performance perspective but was being tossed because of a labeling fee issue, i would drop $50 and have a local embroidery shop add a FIA logo........

i guess the lesson from this is to only buy equipment with both logos because you never know.

[tom91ita]

............. My expectation is that Impact will settle acounts with SFI and all will be forgiven.

not quite but this looks pretty close?

from Racerlinn's post at the sandbox:

Maybe this got missed, but:

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...es-court-stay/

"This ruling means all Impact products manufactured in 2009 and 2010, currently certified as SFI compliant, remain certified. In addition, after June 22, 2010, Impact can continue to manufacture and certify its products as SFI compliant."

"Monday’s decision follows a hearing last month in Indianapolis, which Simpson and several high profile witnesses such as Tony George, Johnny Rutherford and Chip Ganassi spoke on his behalf and raised questions about SFI’s procedures."

not sure what the author meant about "business as usual"