Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 61

Thread: Impact Racing Products, was: "Very disturbing thread"

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by betamotorsports View Post
    A this point the outcome of the SFI/Impact legal battle is moot except for people that own Impact merchandise. The confidence in Impact products among racers is pretty much gone and when it comes time to purchase new belts, suits, and nets I think a large part of the racing community will shop elsewhere.
    short memory? Don't pay attention? Didn't do research?

    This is the 3rd time in recent years bill has pulled something like this...

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    721

    Default

    Gee....Haven't heard a word from Bill or Impact on any forums with any kind of rebutal of these issues

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ligonier, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,676

    Default

    go to impact website.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In the green Honda
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Technically I am just stirring the sh*t here because I have nothing in this one side or the other. And I analyze requirements documents for a living so I can't help myself when I see bad wording.

    I pretty much agree that SCCA is doing the right thing, let's wait and see what happens. Baby and bathwater. But the wording of the message is unfortunate.

    "...as long as your safety products have SFI certification (patch/sticker) that meets our current GCR requirements [regardless of whether it is counterfeit or not], you would be considered compliant."

    I'm not sure how else they could say it "as long as your equipement was at one time certified and is now only decertified by a contractual licencing dispute..." or "please don't make your own tags and then try to claim we said it was ok."
    Jim Hardesty
    ITC 1986 Honda Civic Diablo Rojo Verde
    Never argue your tab at the end of the night. Remember, you're hammered and they’re sober.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Latest news:


    April, 2010

    JOINT PRESS RELEASE

    April 1, 2010 - Impact Racing, LLC and SFI Foundation, Inc., in the litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, have agreed that:

    1. Impact Racing, LLC has provided sworn testimony that, upon review and investigation, no counterfeit SFI Conformance Labels have been used on Impact Racing products during the production years of 2009 and 2010.

    2. Impact Racing, LLC has provided sworn testimony that, upon review and investigation, all Impact Racing products manufactured and sold during the production years 2009 and 2010 meet SFI specifications.

    3. Based upon this sworn testimony, the decertification against Impact Racing products for the production years 2009 and 2010 is lifted. The decertification of the production years prior to 2009 and 2010 remains in effect. The parties will continue to work cooperatively in an effort to resolve the issues relating to decertification in these years.

    4. Impact Racing stands behind the safety of all products it has manufactured and to which SFI Conformance Labels have been affixed. SFI will continue to monitor compliance with product specifications.

    5. Impact Racing, LLC and SFI Foundation, Inc. will cooperate in determining whether any Impact Racing product bears a counterfeit SFI Conformance Label and if any safety issue exists in regard to products manufactured prior to 2009 and 2010.

    6. If any Impact Racing product does not bear the date of manufacture the purchaser or user is instructed to immediately contact Impact Racing who will provide verification of the date of manufacture. Impact Racing, LLC will immediately notify SFI Foundation, Inc. of this occurrence. Impact Racing, LLC and SFI Foundation, Inc. will work with the sanctioning bodies to determine the best method for product users to present verification of the date of manufacture.

    For a downloadable .pdf of this press release, please click on the following link: Joint Press Release 04-01-10.
    Sounds like Impact has agreed that they have been bad boys, but only in 2008 and earlier, and of course, there might be favors sent to Arnie, that's all un the table, no doubt, ....

    Now, what that doesn't say is WHAT about everything up to 2009??
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,106

    Default

    Jake,

    with regards to the belts prior to 2009, they are effectively due to replaced anyways thanks to the 2 year limitation.

    i missed that when i first saw the post at rr-ax.com
    1985 CRX Si competed in Solo II: AS, CS, DS, GS
    1986 CRX Si competed in: SCCA Solo II CSP, SCCA ITA, SCCA ITB, NASA H5
    1988 CRX Si competed in ITA & STL

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Belts, yes, but suits? Sounds like those aren't out of the woods.

    SCCAs stance is cool, but it IS a bit surprising, and I do wonder if they aren't leaving themselves open. I'm sure counsel has looked at it, and he's way sharper than I.
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Delaware, OH
    Posts
    222

    Default

    I think you are reading too much into the SCCA statement.
    They are just not doing anything yet.

    Finally they will have to follow SFI as they are member. No?
    Jeremy Lucas
    Fast Tech Limited

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jlucas View Post
    I think you are reading too much into the SCCA statement.
    They are just not doing anything yet.

    Finally they will have to follow SFI as they are member. No?
    now that would have made a great April's fool thread:


    SFI Decertifies SCCA

    SCCA, the Secret Car Club of America has been disbanded following an investigation by SFI.

    "SCCA's lack of support of our decertification of Impact combined with them considering SFI belts for more than two years is reprehensible" per SFI's latest press release
    1985 CRX Si competed in Solo II: AS, CS, DS, GS
    1986 CRX Si competed in: SCCA Solo II CSP, SCCA ITA, SCCA ITB, NASA H5
    1988 CRX Si competed in ITA & STL

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jlucas View Post
    I think you are reading too much into the SCCA statement.
    They are just not doing anything yet.

    Finally they will have to follow SFI as they are member. No?
    Nope. SCCA is free to adopt any standards it wants. E.g. until the BoD screwed us over on H&N Restraints, SCCA had no requirement.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Delaware, OH
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Time will tell
    Jeremy Lucas
    Fast Tech Limited

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    LaCrosse Wis
    Posts
    302

    Default

    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.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,347

    Default

    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.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Enfield, CT, USA
    Posts
    488

    Default

    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.
    ~Matt Rowe
    ITA Dodge Neon
    NEDiv

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    hampden,ma.usa
    Posts
    3,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Rowe View Post
    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.
    dick patullo
    ner scca IT7 Rx7

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Enfield, CT, USA
    Posts
    488

    Default

    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.
    ~Matt Rowe
    ITA Dodge Neon
    NEDiv

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,106

    Default

    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.
    1985 CRX Si competed in Solo II: AS, CS, DS, GS
    1986 CRX Si competed in: SCCA Solo II CSP, SCCA ITA, SCCA ITB, NASA H5
    1988 CRX Si competed in ITA & STL

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ligonier, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,676

    Default

    Do you realize that Bill Simpson was one of the founding fathers of the SFI? Ironic isn't it?

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Roth View Post
    ............. 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"
    1985 CRX Si competed in Solo II: AS, CS, DS, GS
    1986 CRX Si competed in: SCCA Solo II CSP, SCCA ITA, SCCA ITB, NASA H5
    1988 CRX Si competed in ITA & STL

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Marietta-USA
    Posts
    8

    Exclamation Now that the dust has settled...a little!

    What is the most recent information on IMPACT? While I am not much of a NASCAR person...I do see IMPACT products being used.

    Has IMPACT made any statement of and / or settlement regarding belts? Is this about actual safety of the product or noise about SFI's labels being produced?

    Do we know what is happening???
    Ed Forrest
    1981 IT-A AMC Spirit-GT
    HP-MkI Austin Healey Sprite (moth balled for now)
    SCCA Club Racing

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •