You are all pinging on the thing that I find objectionable about SCCA's knee jerk adoption of all thing's SFI. This is the inherent conflict of interest when a Standard's Body's Standard's are written by the member manufacturer's. I am on standards committee's and although I have no knowledge of SFI, I often wonder about the many opportunities for abuse that such member organizations have. Here are some examples;

1. New non member comes to standard body with disruptive technology (Isaac) and asks for variance in certification method (multiple disconnects or whatever). How do you think the members would act? Is it, "yes, please put us out of business with a better moustrap" or is it "gee no can do, so sorry, please wait until 2 or more of us work around your patent, develop the same thing and maybe we will reconsider"

2. Member manufacturer identifies case where product (say seat belt) decayed due to extreme exposure after sitting 5 years in Florida sun. Goes to fellow committee members, and proposes "To be safe, lets just write the standard to be valid for only two years". Does voting company, think hmmm"phasing out after 2 years would mean that 98% of my customers would be throwing away good belts that in street cars are safe for 30 years"? Or does member company think hmmm "gee, a simple rule change and I sell 10 times as many belts, I wonder if I can date stamp window nets next?"

3. An alternate of above is members says, "lets revise our testing methods for driver's suits". Are they doing this because "the old testing was terrible and our current suits are junk" or are they doing this because "gee, a simple test method change and SCCA and NASA make's everybody buy new suits which are identical in protection to their old suits except certified to the new standard"

Remember these aren't independent bodies, they are manufacurer's associations. If you let them write the rules, don't cry when your pocket is picked.

My guidance is if you want to argue liability, please be a lawyer,otherwise sit on your hands. I am not a lawyer but I talk to them a lot. The most common guidance I hear is unless you are an expert, do not act as one because if you try to, you will be ultimately asked to justfy your decision. So who is it that has decided that after 50 years of club racing in the US, we gotta have H&N devices?? I believe in the case of safety gear, unless SCCA is hiring independent consultants to write its minimum safety standards, it ought to adhere to the minimum accepted safety standard, and warn its members that racing is unsafe and they alway's can invest more. There are more skier's killed every year than racers, yet I don't seem to recall ski lodges requiring 2 year expiration on ski boots, do you? Heck if SCCA and SFI ran sking, all skier's would have air bags.

I think due to entrent costs, club racing is dying on the vine. This season is the leanest entry season I have seen in 23 years of racing. I believe the number one annual racing cost for many racers is now the annual cage changes, suit changes, seat changes, tow straps, fire bottle chances, seat belt changes etc. Be careful what you ask for, racing will be really safe when nobody can afford it. Its not like we have to go racing.