June Fastrack

[tom91ita]

great letter Greg!

[JeffYoung]

That is a good letter.

[joeg]

I like the letter and I think any form of brace--even one just resting on the back of an FIA seat rather than "firmly attached"--destroys the safety of such a seat.

This is plain nuts.

[Chip42]

submission #1475 - my letter in opposition to the seat back brace rule change proposal

I am opposed to the seat back brace requirement proposal from the June 2010 fasttrack for the following reasons:

1- Many FIA seats were not designed to accommodate such a brace. Steal frame seats offer few suitable mounting locations, and carbon fiber and fiberglass seats may be structurally compromised by unregulated modifications to accomplish the requirement - adding dangers where currently they do not exist.

2- Suitable mounting is already an unregulated requirement left to the discretion of the competitor and scrutineering staff. A back brace is not a magic bullet to repair this problem, it in fact offers more opportunity for damages to the driver in a collision / accident than no brace due to the potential for failures of design and the necessary proximity of the brace to vital organs and the head.

3- Suitable language controlling the mounting of an FIA seat in agreement with FIA testing procedures and instructions for the tech shed to aid in evaluating such mountings is a much more desirable and workable alternative. in the end liability shall fall upon the competitor or his agents, not the club. The GCR and many event sups indemnify the club, regions, and tracks from damages resulting from faulty safety gear. this language may be able to be made more specific to the limited liability of the technical volunteers and organizers.

It is understood that a properly installed seat and brace combination can be demonstrated to be safer than a seat without a brace, even when mounted properly. given the variety of cars, seats, competitors' size and budgets, a catch all such as this proposal may lead to is likely more dangerous than it is helpful, and certainly a hindrance on the membership.

thank you for your time.

[lateapex911]

Maybe it's late, but, does this sentence help you case?

It is understood that a properly installed seat and brace combination can be demonstrated to be safer than a seat without a brace, even when mounted properly.

[Chip42]

Maybe it's late, but, does this sentence help you case?

I have a tendency to try and explain that I understand both sides of any argument when I engage myself in it. the construction is varied, the materials are varied. the techniques and design of the braces will vary. there are too many things to control that cannot be controlled tightly enough given our club type structure.

the point, I hope, was that improperly installed they are dangerous, and that the mounting mechanisms already inherent to the seats, with which they were approved, should be BETTER inspected and possible legislated before additional, uncontrolled fabrication is brought to bear.

there's a story that sticks out in my mind. a veteran, legendary chief of tech from the buccaneer region and a guy who was still moving up the scrutineering ladder were doing an annual on a car at savannah. the new guy wanted to fail the seat because it was loose. he insisted that they add a back brace. the veteran signed off on the annual anyhow because the seat was FIA and that was all he needed to see. both of these guys have annualled hundreds if not thousands of our cars. and they were both missing the problem. the seat was not mounted adequately within the current rules. overlooking the poor installation because of a cert that has nothing to do with the success of the mounting, or to insist that additions be made beyond repairing the actual failure when said addition is NOT required, seems to sum up the SCCA approach - do nothing then over react to failures of the nothing. the tech sheds are full of good, concerned men and women. many of them are very smart, but their backgrounds vary and their foci or pet issues vary and their competence is not well regulated - the inherent issues within a club of volunteers.

this rule change is dangerous due to a number of factors, most of which are simply out of the reasonable control of the club.

tom91 - I get that you think the kirkey seats of the world should be allowed to run without a brace if the sparcos are. fine. just show me where FIA, SFI, NHTSA, DEKRA, or another worthy organization has crash tested it successfully without a brace and it's all good. most Al seats are structural garbage. sorry.

[tom91ita]

submission #1475 - my letter in opposition to the seat back brace rule change proposal

i am thinking more about going this the opposite way and ask they require the seat back. given that we do not actually know what event or design issue is the real cause of this requirement, we are effectively shooting in the dark.

i think my note will be more along the lines of this:

My aluminum seat was not intended to be mounted with a seat back brace as evidenced by the mounting instructions sent with the seat. Since i am required to install something that is stupid, dangerous and unnecessary, so should those with FIA seats.

[quadzjr]

My aluminum seat was not intended to be mounted with a seat back brace as evidenced by the mounting instructions sent with the seat. Since i am required to install something that is stupid, dangerous and unnecessary, so should those with FIA seats.

I hope you are not serious.

Is your aluminum seat carry and FIA certification? No
Was your seat tested without the back brace? No
Could you of paid the extra money and got an FIA seat? Yes
Of standard seat materials isn't aluminum the best one (other than maybe steel) to modify without loosing structural integrity? Yes
Doesn't your case come off a bit selfish? Yes

[StephenB]

If your interested in the FIA process. I am actually going to make sure my belts are mounted per their testing standards as well.

http://www.fia.com/resources/documen...ition_seat.pdf

Stephen