January Fastrack

[Knestis]

So, if we can stipulate that for the purposes of this discussion, the substance of the standard matters, on to Part B of my line of questioning:

If another "certification" process applied exactly the same performance standard (Item 1 in my list above) - arguably the most important substance of the "standard" - but wrapped it in a different management structure and leaving out the architecture requirement, where would that leave us?

Completely theoretical of course...

K

[lateapex911]

Based on the post over on RRAX, where a BoD guy is quoted as saying that the two year implementation delay is partly to allow time for standards to be modified, or for other standard bodies to be created (paraphrasing), I'd say that would be a very very good direction.

[JeffYoung]

Another good thought.

Kirk, unfortunately, I think what that would result in is SCCA in court having to prove that one certification is better than another.

The fact that SFI is a de facto "industry standard" causes SCCA a lot of problems that are very difficult for them to get around.

So, if we can stipulate that for the purposes of this discussion, the substance of the standard matters, on to Part B of my line of questioning:

If another "certification" process applied exactly the same performance standard (Item 1 in my list above) - arguably the most important substance of the "standard" - but wrapped it in a different management structure and leaving out the architecture requirement, where would that leave us?

Completely theoretical of course...

K

[joeg]

Just get the HANS and put this to bed.

We are stuck with it. I also understand that HANS is the only FIA approved system.

If FIA has another choice that would be a consideration.

[Z3_GoCar]

Just get the HANS and put this to bed.

We are stuck with it. I also understand that HANS is the only FIA approved system.

If FIA has another choice that would be a consideration.

HANS isn't the only option, R3 and DeFender come to mind, although I'm not sure what the status of the DeFender legal issues are. Speaking of other options, has anyone heard from Greg?

[Knestis]

Another good thought.

Kirk, unfortunately, I think what that would result in is SCCA in court having to prove that one certification is better than another.

The fact that SFI is a de facto "industry standard" causes SCCA a lot of problems that are very difficult for them to get around.

So, Part C - What if the most important aspect of the "standard" - those performance measures - were substantially HIGHER than 38.1, for some alternate option...???

What say ye?

K

[JeffYoung]

In a perfect world? I say, SCCA wins!

In a practical world, I don't want to be the guy having to prove it in court to a jury of 12. That's risky, and costly. So it becomes (right or wrong) cheaper and perceived to be safer to follow the herd.

[dj10]

Why can't I just sign a release? I'ts my head & neck right....just sayin.

[chuck baader]

It boils down to "single point release" language. Hans and others have it, Isaacs doesn't: ergo, non compliant. Chuck

[lateapex911]

It boils down to "single point release" language. Hans and others have it, Isaacs doesn't: ergo, non compliant. Chuck

It's more complex that that Chuck, the language of the spec is very limiting, obviously to limit competition, and sadly innovation. Much more than the one point of release.

SFI actually has some decent specs, but this one is just awful