SFI, FIA,, Impact Racing & Safety Requirements

[tom91ita]

All,



i seem to see a common thread through different sections of the rules as of late;

1. SFI certified H&NR
2. Impact Racing products being decertified
3. FIA seats needing back braces when certified without

a couple of weeks ago i had submitted a second request that the SFI H&NR rule be revisited because i see the decertification of equipment that many of us had purchased in good faith to meet the club's requirements.

those of you with FIA seats also acted in good faith to meet the club's rules/requirements and the club appears to be considering to reverse itself on that requirement.

i had submitted a proposal for alternate to "SFI Only" and then recently submitted an abbreviated version of that same request.

is anyone else actively pursuing anything else on this? anyone going to the next annual meeting? i really do not see myself racing at all in 2012.

[Chip42]

there's a lot of anti FIA sentiment in the membership - particularly among the scrutineering staff.

personal experience only. South east.

I think FIA regs are fine - but I do worry about the rate at which they are adding and revising safety rules. change one thing, observe the reaction. it's true in any form of tuning.

[JohnRW]

... a couple of weeks ago i had submitted a second request that the SFI H&NR rule be revisited because i see the decertification of equipment that many of us had purchased in good faith to meet the club's requirements....

?

Explanation, please ? Has SFI decertified any 38.1 devices ?

[tom91ita]

?

Explanation, please ? Has SFI decertified any 38.1 devices ?

No. in the most recent note to SCCA (attached above) i was referring to the decertification of previously certified Impact products.

[sarcasm]as far as i know, SCCA does not keep a list of SFI certified devices that will not be decertified in the future. [/sarcasm]

so when we buy SCCA required SFI devices, who is to say that we are buying one that may be decertified in the future? so instead of being out ~ $150 for belts that you expected to replace every 3 years, you could be out ~$800 for a H&NR before you ever use it.

i believe that effectively punishing the early adopters of a superior design (the Isaac) is inherently wrong.

similarly, i feel that requiring those that invested in high value FIA seats to now install rear seat braces is wrong. especially since some specifically did this to avoid rear seat braces.............

[betamotorsports]

Since SCCA does not test and certify products for safety, it has to rely on third parties to take care of that. If those third parties de-certify products (for whatever reason) then the SCCA must also rescind its approval of those products for use at its sanctioned events.

What about this don't you understand? Do you feel that SCCA is being arbitrary and capricious is how it approves and dis-approves safety products? Are there other testing and certification organizations that SCCA should use?

[gsbaker]

Since SCCA does not test and certify products for safety, it has to rely on third parties to take care of that. If those third parties de-certify products (for whatever reason) then the SCCA must also rescind its approval of those products for use at its sanctioned events.

What about this don't you understand? Do you feel that SCCA is being arbitrary and capricious is how it approves and dis-approves safety products?...

I believe Tom is noting that the current policy is a lose-lose for the racer. Either the racer cannot rely on a certification because it may be rescinded (SFI and Impact), or the Club may change its policy regarding how a particularly certified product is applied (FIA seats and bracing). Either way the racer cannot be confident that their purchase is good to go.

The principle issue, IMHO, is an unstable policy. The best example is probably head and neck restraints, where the Club did a 180 within nine months. Same facts, same people, complete flip flip.

That's the bad news. The good news is that the Club recently put out a request for volunteers to establish belt testing protocols, so they may take the lead in standards development. SCCA is the 800# gorilla and it can do that -- and should.

[betamotorsports]

I believe Tom is noting that the current policy is a lose-lose for the racer. Either the racer cannot rely on a certification because it may be rescinded (SFI and Impact), or the Club may change its policy regarding how a particularly certified product is applied (FIA seats and bracing). Either way the racer cannot be confident that their purchase is good to go.

Yeah, that is a problem but its been around for a while. Unfortunately new information comes to light after the certification is made, the product is approved, and racers are out on the tracks. If the safety of the product is now called into question, what should SCCA do? They only have a few options:

1 They can hide the de-certification from the racers (really bad idea).
2. They can inform the racer and then say, "Take your chances, our insurance policy no longer covers you if you get hurt using the product."
3. They can inform the racers and say, "After this date you are no longer allowed to use this product in a SCCA sanctioned race."

Setting up their own testing lab will do nothing to solve this problem - it would just move it internal to SCCA which may make option #1 more palatable to keep from embarrassing some official somewhere. Do we want that?

[Knestis]

Big picture resolution of this situation would require strategic thinking, leadership, and a spine. The current club management isn't much different than past administrations in that they lack all three.

Kirk (who wants back all of the hours in the past 6 years he's spent advocating for real resolutions to these issues)

[jjjanos]

Since SCCA does not test and certify products for safety, it has to rely on third parties to take care of that. If those third parties de-certify products (for whatever reason) then the SCCA must also rescind its approval of those products for use at its sanctioned events.

Well, no, SCCA does not need to rely on certification. SCCA could simply require a device and make the user responsible for how good that device is.

What about this don't you understand? Do you feel that SCCA is being arbitrary and capricious is how it approves and dis-approves safety products? Are there other testing and certification organizations that SCCA should use?

The flip-flop on H&N restraints certainly was arbitrary and capricious. The decision to require certain safety devices (and whether they be certified) is arbitrary and capricious (see below). There are alternatives to SFI - http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/

Which is more likely to injure a driver - a fire or the stress on the body caused by the mandated nomex suits? Heart attacks, heat exhaustion and dehydration cause far more injuries/deaths than fire does now. The reason fire is not such a great risk has nothing to do with nomex and everything to do with the decrease in the number of fires.

[tom91ita]

Since SCCA does not test and certify products for safety, it has to rely on third parties to take care of that. If those third parties de-certify products (for whatever reason) then the SCCA must also rescind its approval of those products for use at its sanctioned events.

What about this don't you understand? Do you feel that SCCA is being arbitrary and capricious is how it approves and dis-approves safety products? Are there other testing and certification organizations that SCCA should use?

are any of our cages SFI certififed? afterall, SFI does have rollcage certifications. please note that i am not an advocate of this. just trying to look for consistency and what direction the club appears to be going.

the rollcage is likely the single most important safety device in our car and it is effectively certified by SCCA. and i am perfectly happy with its design and the evolution and minor updates and granfathering of existing cages.

and the SFI and FIA belts (and now possibly all our seats) are to be attached to this uncertified (at least via a third party such as SFI or FIA) safety device. doesn't anyone else see the irony here?

heck, if you think about it, our skill level as both a driver and a mechanic for our car prep is essentially "certified" by SCCA. well at least accepted by SCCA if one has been licensed by another organizaion such as NASA.

i am unable to understand how this is a consistent approach. and yes, i am bothered by the 180 in the H&NR policy. racers are making decisions based on these policies. i am not bothered as much on the belts as the H&NR and seats.

the belts are known to have a finite life (by the rules) and we all basically accept this. even before the number of years were specified, there was language to describe how they had to appear, etc. these have always been considered as a bit of a consumable.

on the H&NR or suit (weren't some of you on the wrong end of the FIA(?) suit issue a while ago?) or the seats, some of us are looking at this as being either a one time purchase or making use of this device over several years. i know that i invested in a better suit than was necessary and i will likely outgrow it before it wears out. i will also have to accept personal responsibility on that.......

maybe it should not matter but a high end suit or high end H&NR or high end seat can approach an annual racing budget for some of us. and i no longer have confidence that my investment can be utilized over a reasonable lifespan. or at least what i deem to be reasonable.

i certainly do not want to a take a year off to save for equipment and then have that equipment decertified or the policy changed before i get to use it the next year.

and when they trot out liability and exposure as the rationale for requiring the SFI certified H&NR and then allow minors to drive, it certainly makes me scratch my head.............afterall, i was willing to accept the premise that liability was a concern until they specifically disallowed one of the best devices on the market.

a couple of months ago, i received the offer for the 25 year membership pin. in it, Jeffrey Dahnert noted "THE SCCA is much more than competition. It is about people such as you who share the love and passion of our motorsports activities."

it got me thinking about the fact that there are plenty of venues to share motorsports activities (albeit not official racing) with friends that does not require all of SCCA's oversight.

http://www.100-speed.com/

http://wmhm.org/

the social aspect of having track time with friends and then some beer, burgers & brats afterwards a few times a year and wearing 4 or even 5 (gasp!) year old SFI belts that still look like new after being out of the sun in my car in my garage and using a 6 year old FIA seat without a back brace and wearing my Isaac is just sounding more appealing.

i do see the investigation into belt testing protocols as interesting. but will it be fruitless? if we are dedicated to SFI/FIA as the certification agencies, how can SCCA allow a different lifespan than certfifiaton agencies certify? oh, never mind. we may be headed towards adding seat back braces to FIA seats that were certified without them.

does SCCA know better or not? or will the lawyers keep SCCA headed to SFI and FIA as the be all and end all? does any of us really know? or, given my luck, will i only find out after i spend money in the wrong direction?

i think this is something that needs to be discussed and debated. that is why i started this thread and attached my previous submissions to the BOD and CRB. imho, there needs to be a more clear and consistent direction.

[Darryl Pritchett]

Holy crap not another Isaacs debate. It may be better but it is not certified so if you want to play in their sandbox then you play by there rules. But please lets not have another 20 page Isaacs debate again.

[tom91ita]

.....Which is more likely to injure a driver - a fire or the stress on the body caused by the mandated nomex suits? Heart attacks, heat exhaustion and dehydration cause far more injuries/deaths than fire does now. The reason fire is not such a great risk has nothing to do with nomex and everything to do with the decrease in the number of fires.

very interesting point regarding what is causing the most risk & injuries.

at work we prefer prevention over mitigation. most major shunts i have seen were related to braking or brakes at the end of a long straight. at what point do we need safeguards and preventions beyond what we already have? do we need SFI certified brake fluid, calipers, pad compounds and driver judgement? maybe we could have a device that shuts off the ignition and engages the braking past a certain braking zone? sort of like the oversight cut-out switch at the go-cart tracks?

and i did not intend this be an Isaac debate/discussion. it now appears that the H&NR issue is fitting into a larger, ongoing pattern of behavior.

i believe that inconsisteny on safety devices is bad for SCCA whether we are discussing H&NR, belts, FIA suits or FIA seats and we should all be concerned.

[JohnRW]

LOL !

For those in the cheap seats....IT.com has its own version of "911Truthers" ! They're all circling somebody named Baker !!!

[Knestis]

...and i did not intend this be an Isaac debate/discussion. it now appears that the H&NR issue is fitting into a larger, ongoing pattern of behavior.

No, really? You think?

i believe that inconsisteny on safety devices is bad for SCCA whether we are discussing H&NR, belts, FIA suits or FIA seats and we should all be concerned.

That makes a total of four people in the Club who share that opinion.

It's going to have to get a lot worse before people actually start to care enough to open their mouths - let alone actually do something.

Kirk (ex-truther)

[lateapex911]

Holy crap not another Isaacs debate. It may be better but it is not certified so if you want to play in their sandbox then you play by there rules. But please lets not have another 20 page Isaacs debate again.

Seriously? THAT's what you're taking from his comments? If only it were that simple.

[lateapex911]

.

It's going to have to get a lot worse before people actually start to care enough to open their mouths - let alone actually do something.

Kirk (ex-truther)

Kirk, people have cared enough to open their mouths, yet, those comments get ignored. You've said so yourself...the engine mount issue is a great example. We can blame it on the ITAC, or the CRB, or both, but certainly not the members. They were asked and they responded. Yet, they were ignored.

That begets the question, why even ask, if the answer doesn't matter!

If they won't listen to answers to questions THEY asked, how CAN anyone DO anything/ How can you work with leaders that you can't trust?

[Knestis]

Sorry, Jake - you're right. I meant the "right people." Or "a large enough number of people" - not that I know how many it would actually take to get the PTB's attention.

And don't blame Darryl, Jake - he's only a symptom of the problem. By my count, there have been more than a quarter of a million members come and go between my member number (103210) and his (358863), over something like 25 years. One result of that turnover is that members tend to see the short term, without much perspective on the bigger issues.

Someone who started racing last year, for example, won't even know that they should worry about whether a CRB member is going to make a decision to make them LESS safe in some ass-covering exercise, because it hasn't happened to them. Yet. If they last - which most don't - as long as we old farts have, it WILL.

EDIT - This is the administration that there is "no proven need" for a rule requiring that we are able to get out though the window of a burning race car in any particular time. (In opposition to the "industry standard," by the way.) I find that it helps a lot if you just set free the whole idea that "safety rules" are intended to keep us safe, and instead are ONLY about protecting the Club's assets and the decision-makers' asses.

But you know what? That only matters if the Club cares about thinking strategically retaining members.

K

[betamotorsports]

are any of our cages SFI certififed? afterall, SFI does have rollcage certifications. please note that i am not an advocate of this. just trying to look for consistency and what direction the club appears to be going.

Our cages are SCCA certified as indicated by the number stamp. I'm also perfectly happy with that especially after 60+ years of testing and development. But, again, the same problem as described above exists with roll cages. The wall thickness break for CroMo was removed, ERW tubing was disallowed, and double door bars were required. Some of these were grandfathered and others were not.

The point I'm trying to make is that bringing this in house to SCCA or leaving it to their parties will not solve this problem. As new safety concerns are identified it impacts existing safety installations regardless of where the certification came from.

[Knestis]

...The point I'm trying to make is that bringing this in house to SCCA or leaving it to their parties will not solve this problem. ...

...but defining a strategic plan for making determinations and implementing changes would. Accusations of "capricious" come from high-level wobbiliness about HOW to make the decisions, not the need to make them or the decisions themselves. Nobody bitches about helmet certification standards because we all see the changes coming a mile (or at least 5 years) off. The utter lack of internal consistency on most other safety equipment issues leaves the membership playing Whack-a-Mole, trying to anticipate what's coming next.

Sometimes an external standard gets invoked as the be-all, end-all - other times they are ignored completely. Some changes are made on very short notice - some with solicitations of member input, others not. Sometimes decisions get made, then unmade, then revisited again later.

K

[betamotorsports]

Sometimes an external standard gets invoked as the be-all, end-all - other times they are ignored completely. Some changes are made on very short notice - some with solicitations of member input, others not. Sometimes decisions get made, then unmade, then revisited again later.

Agreed. That's fundamentally a "Too Many Chiefs" problem as I see it.