SFI Decertifies Impact gear by April 27

[Matt King]

The plot thickens...

IMPACT PRESS RELEASE - APRIL 23rd 2010


Contrary to the assertions of SFI, there is no safety risk to users of Impact Racing suits bearing SFI 3.2A/5 certification tags. The issue that has been created by SFI involves thread used in Impact’s fire suits. The error in the assessment of SFI is revealed by its assertion that thread used by Impact Racing “melts away in a fire”. According to the analysis presented by SFI “this causes the fabric to come apart since there is no longer thread to hold the suit together”. This conclusion demonstrates the lack of understanding on the part of SFI as to what causes a fire suit to work and what causes a fire suit to be safe.

The thread about which SFI complains is not intended to “hold the suit together”. The fabric does not “come apart” in a fire. In a fire, the layers of fabric must be allowed to expand because it is expansion that creates the layer of air that insulates a racer from fire. Impact Racing understands the necessity of this process in fire suit construction. SFI does not.

SFI has been aware of the thread used by Impact Racing since January 14, 2009. Rather than acknowledge that SFI’s specification diminishes fire suit safety and changing the specification to enhance fire suit safety, SFI has, without foundation, accused Impact Racing of providing samples of a certain type to get SFI certification and then changing the lay-up for manufacturing. Impact Racing manufactures fire suits knowing that lives are at stake. Impact Racing fire suits are safe independent of SFI standards.

SFI has taken credit for the avoidance of burns or other injuries to users of Impact Racing products. According to SFI the absence of burns or other injuries to due “to the policing of Impact products by SFI”. The absence of burns or other injuries to users of Impact Racing products is a result of attention to design and commitment to safety throughout the Impact Racing product line. What SFI has deemed to be a “pattern of non-compliance” by Impact Racing is a dispute over standards that SFI refuses to change even under circumstances when change is in the best interest of the user of the product.

Impact Racing is engaged in discussions with SFI about its products, SFI standards, and SFI testing procedures. Impact Racing is committed to resolving these issues with SFI if it can be done without compromising the benchmarks Impact Racing has established to assure product safety.

[Dennis McCarthy]

What a bunch of BS. Not to side with SFI but if Impact had any issue with SFI they could have taken up the particulars way before there was ANY taint from counterfeiting any items they sell including HANS components. They didn't have much of a problem with SFI policy until they got caught. They've screwed a lot of racers. I'll never purchase another Impact product again...

[Marshall Mauney]

What a bunch of BS. Not to side with SFI but if Impact had any issue with SFI they could have taken up the particulars way before there was ANY taint from counterfeiting any items they sell including HANS components. They didn't have much of a problem with SFI policy until they got caught. They've screwed a lot of racers. I'll never purchase another Impact product again...

I'm not so sure - the point they seem to be trying to make may be valid. Without knowing a lot more about the product's construction and how it affects performance it would be difficult or impossible to judge. There might be proprietary design info involved, which would explain Impact's reticence to put the whole story out in the open proactively. It's also pretty hard to believe that ANY safety equipment manufacturer would knowingly use a material that could result in needless severe injury or death due to a comprehensive product failure.

I think that this whole situation really brings to light the need for independent design review and product testing in our industry - regardless of whether it's Impact or SFI who are the bad actors in this specific case.

[thomschoon]

It's also pretty hard to believe that ANY safety equipment manufacturer would knowingly use a material that could result in needless severe injury or death due to a comprehensive product failure.

You mean like counterfeit Hans anchors

[dalz]

Fine. All Bill needs to do is tell the press that he is about to spend what it takes to get all of his suits FIA 8856-2000 certified, sever all ties with the scam that is SFI, and urge all other US suit manufacturers and sanctioning bodies to do the same. I don't think that will happen tho.

[Dennis McCarthy]

These are not NASA spacesuits, they are some layers of nomex and or carbonX cloth sewn together as coveralls.

The only thing proprietary about the suit might be the material it is made from and that would be information held by Dupont or another material manufacturer not Impact.

Any suit manufacturer certainly could purchase an Impact suit and reverse engineer it if it had any "special" qualities.

SFI says in addition to other items that test poorly the suits are unsafe as they tested a suit and it came apart.

April, 2010
SFI PRESS RELEASE - Response to the Impact Racing Press Release of April 22, 2010
April 22, 2010 - Yesterday, SFI advised the racing community that Impact Racing suits bearing 3.2A/5 certifications “made prior to 2009 have been constructed with non-compliant materials that, in SFI’s judgment, pose a safety risk to users of those suits.” Impact responded by attacking SFI certification programs (although Impact and the other major equipment manufacturers have agreed to and participated in the development of these well-established programs); by claiming it could not get a fair hearing of the decertification appeal (although Impact asked for and received an expedited appeal procedure); and by claiming that “SFI’s actions have caused racers unnecessarily to question their safety.” It is this last point that requires a very specific response.
Scientific testing just conducted on 2008 Impact 3.2A/5 suits has determined that the thread melts away in a fire. This causes the fabric to come apart since there is no longer thread to hold the suit together. SFI believes this poses a significant safety risk to the racer involved in a fire. Rather than being constructed with Nomex (heat resistant) thread, the suits were constructed with some sort of unknown non-compliant thread that melts during heat testing. This thread failure is contrary to the SFI specifications that Impact agreed to follow.
The reason that this failure was not discovered sooner is that Impact provided SFI with Nomex thread samples in order to get their products tested and certified initially. Manufacturers are only supposed to provide samples of the actual materials to be used in their products. It appears that Impact failed to comply with this procedure regarding thread. Finally, one suit tested failed to have the proper thermal protective properties in the material itself. Again, such a failure poses a significant safety risk. This safety failure by Impact is consistent with a pattern of non-compliance:
1. Last year, SFI discovered that Impact SFI 3.2A/15 and SFI 3.2A/20 rated fire suits produced in 2007 and 2008 were also made with thread that melted during testing. In addition, these suits were often poorly constructed, without sufficient protective layers of Nomex material. SFI ordered the immediate decertification and recall of these potentially dangerous products.
2. Last year, SFI discovered that Impact SFI 3.3/15 and SFI 3.3/20 boots produced in 2008 were defective. Their materials failed heat resistant testing. SFI ordered the immediate decertification and recall of these potentially dangerous products.
]3. Hans Performance Products discovered last year that Impact deliberately manufactured and sold counterfeit Hans helmet clips and attached them into the helmets of unsuspecting customers. These foreign made knock-offs were inscribed with the “SFI 38.1” inscription. Impact has never participated in this program. These counterfeiting activities were occurring at the same time that Impact was manufacturing counterfeit SFI conformance labels and patches. Hans filed suit against Impact in federal court last year in Atlanta. SFI intervened and joined in the suit against Impact. That suit is pending.
2]4. In 2004, SFI discovered that Impact gloves bearing SFI 3.3/20 specifications were made of material that was too light and failed heat resistance testing. SFI ordered their decertification and recall.
Impact’s press release claims that there “have been no burns or other injuries reported to Impact by any racer wearing Impact Race Products since its inception.” If this is true, the avoidance of injuries is due in large part to the policing of Impact products by SFI.
SFI was heartened when Impact finally admitted its own fault for previously making non-compliant gloves, boots, suits and helmet clips and acted to address those problems. SFI holds out the hope of a similar outcome regarding its pre-2009 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1 and 16.5 products, and that it will act in the best interests of the racing community without further prodding by SFI. However, admission of their fault will not change the fact that these products remain decertified and that Impact’s participation in all SFI programs will end June 22, 2010.

For a downloadable .pdf of this press release, please click on the following link: SFI Press Release 04-22-10.
SFI PRESS RELEASE
April 21, 2010 - SFI issues the following press release. Please review this carefully:
1. Impact Racing has withdrawn its appeal of the decertifications of its products bearing SFI 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1, and 16.5 specifications manufactured in the years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. The decertifications of these products are now permanent.
2. The decertifications are based upon a number of the affected products being non-compliant with SFI specifications concerning labeling and construction. In addition to the presence of non-compliant SFI tags and the absence of DOMs on products, 3.2A/5 suits made prior to 2009 have been constructed with non-compliant materials that, in SFI’s judgment, pose a safety risk to users of these suits.

[Bob Devol]

Fine. All Bill needs to do is tell the press that he is about to spend what it takes to get all of his suits FIA 8856-2000 certified, sever all ties with the scam that is SFI, and urge all other US suit manufacturers and sanctioning bodies to do the same. I don't think that will happen tho.

Brings up another interesting point. When will FIA jump into this? It seems they're going to have to do something, one way or the other.

[EYERACE]

I've done it on my own just to know but I found the "exercise" the SCCA grid people did the other day at Daytona something to think about as we all read this thread about threads. Grid gave us the 5......and after they saw that all were belted in, engines running and ready....they blew whistles and screamed for everyone to get out of their cars as quickly as they could. Well it was quickly obvious they were doing an "exercise" and everyone understood. I kept count of time for my own knowledge.

When was the last time you practiced getting out of your car?

[Wren]

I've done it on my own just to know but I found the "exercise" the SCCA grid people did the other day at Daytona something to think about as we all read this thread about threads. Grid gave us the 5......and after they saw that all were belted in, engines running and ready....they blew whistles and screamed for everyone to get out of their cars as quickly as they could. Well it was quickly obvious they were doing an "exercise" and everyone understood. I kept count of time for my own knowledge.

When was the last time you practiced getting out of your car?

Really? I hope someone just sat in their car and stared at them. There is no exit time requirement in the GCR and they don't get to add one. My last car took me 45 seconds to get out of calmly. I was and still am ok with what that meant for me.

I guess this is the same people who were passing out the sheets about exit time considerations at the Sebring national.

The absence of burns or other injuries to users of Impact Racing products is a result of attention to design and commitment to safety throughout the Impact Racing product line.

I can use this same logic to prove that my watch prevents tiger attacks. Specious reasoning seems to be the only type used when people talk about safety things.

[azjc]

Anyone remember this?:



http://vintageracecar.com/pages/this...d=25&magiid=80

[dalz]

Brings up another interesting point. When will FIA jump into this? It seems they're going to have to do something, one way or the other.

Probably not, unless someone tries to use an Impact suit at an FIA event that requires a suit with FIA 8856-2000 cert, which Impact does not apply for.

[Bob Devol]

Probably not, unless someone tries to use an Impact suit at an FIA event that requires a suit with FIA 8856-2000 cert, which Impact does not apply for.

When I bought my suit in 2008, Impact offered embroidered FIA certification for $25; I still have the order forms. I didn't ask for FIA, as SCCA doesn't require it the same as pro series.

I'm sure this was a real FIA certification, as it was in plain sight on their paper forms and on the Web. I don't know the exact number of the FIA spec at the time, but it was definitely available.

All that was required was to ask for FIA embroidery for $25.

So it's quite possible, it seems to me, that there are Impact suits out there that are now decertified by SFI that still display FIA certification on the collar and are therefore technically legal in SCCA.

So -- my question remains: what is FIA's reaction to all this? Are they disagreeing with SFI on this or not? The FIA certification now in question, too. And with it, FIA's reputation for competently managing and enforcing safety equipment standards.

[Daryl DeArman]

Impact's order form still shows FIA embroidery as an option.

The FIA website tech list #27 shows that the Impact S2 suit has received FIA homologation.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regul...icalLists.aspx

FIA probably cares very little about the SFI. No need to address what is happening here. The USA sanctioning bodies and manufacturers have made the SFI what it is. It means ZIP to the rest of the world....and frankly, outside of the drag racing world, shouldn't mean as much here as it does.

[rickb99]

Just finished watching Talladega... Sure were a WHOLE LOT of guys (from crew to drivers) running around in IMPACT gear. They must not be taking this issue too seriously.

Also watched a show from Bonneville Salt Flats racing last night. LOTS if IMPACT gear there.

[EYERACE]

The NAZCAR boys buy probably 20 to 25 new suits at the beginning of every season....so this decert thing is no big deal to them because all their suits are new this year.

I don't know what the SCCA would do to you Wren if when such an "exercise" was done you merely sat there......but think about the 30 seconds that your suit supposedly gives you..........and when you last tried a hasty exit it is really none of my business........but it is something for everyone else to think about no matter what brand of suit worn. I doubt anyone would have trouble getting out in about 15 to 20 seconds and most of us would be faster.

[tjcezar]

After reading the first 2 paragraphs it seems to me trouble's been looking for this guy

Anyone remember this?:



http://vintageracecar.com/pages/this...d=25&magiid=80

[Wren]

I don't know what the SCCA would do to you Wren if when such an "exercise" was done you merely sat there

I suppose they could pull someone's tech sticker based on the section of the gcr that requires exit from the car in a certain amount of time.

Workers making up their own rules seems to be getting worse and worse.

[steve kramer]

Just finished watching Talladega... Sure were a WHOLE LOT of guys (from crew to drivers) running around in IMPACT gear. They must not be taking this issue too seriously.

Also watched a show from Bonneville Salt Flats racing last night. LOTS if IMPACT gear there.

well...on Wind Tunnel tonight Despain mentioned the Impact fiasco, and that at an event this weekend NHRA would not accept Impact suits as compliant, setting off a scramble for racers to borrow or buy to make the event. So I would expect that older Impact stuff might suffer the same fate in NASCAR.

[ApexPerformance]

Apex Performance is offering owners of Impact Racing Gear a special discount if they trade-in their SFI Decertified Impact products towards the purchase of OMP or G-Force products. (We cannot openly advertise the discount but please call or email with inquiries).

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana]If you are replacing Impact Racing gear due to the recent SFI Decertification, please call to learn more about our Impact Product Trade-in Program. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Toll free: 866-505-2739[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]http://www.apexperformance.net/CartGenie/pg_impact.asp[/FONT]

[/FONT]

[Larry]

I'm rather large, and it takes me some time to get into and out of my car, especially because I try not to crack any fiberglass. If, however, I am in a situation which demands a rapid exit, I won't much care about the fiberglass. I already spent 5 days in a hospital from a gasoline explosion (many years ago), and I can assure you I will be motivated. I also saw a 200+ pound crew chief exit a B-52 through the copilots side window--an impossible feat if you go by the measurements of the opening, but rather easy if you are sitting on 35,000 gallons of burning kerosene.

Point is, such measurements are irrelevant, not required by the SCCA GCR, and mainly for the amusement of the officials demanding such.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

[cooleyjb]

I'm rather large, and it takes me some time to get into and out of my car, especially because I try not to crack any fiberglass. If, however, I am in a situation which demands a rapid exit, I won't much care about the fiberglass. I already spent 5 days in a hospital from a gasoline explosion (many years ago), and I can assure you I will be motivated. I also saw a 200+ pound crew chief exit a B-52 through the copilots side window--an impossible feat if you go by the measurements of the opening, but rather easy if you are sitting on 35,000 gallons of burning kerosene.

Point is, such measurements are irrelevant, not required by the SCCA GCR, and mainly for the amusement of the officials demanding such.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

I have to disagree that they are irrelevant. In the formula car world we don't think about exit being too much of an issue as the hole we get in is pretty darn big and doesn't have a door and we do it with most, if not all of our gear on.

I know of a number of tin top racers who cannot get out of their cars with all the equipment on and the door closed (SM with generic cage and halo seat). I think the exit measurement should be added to the GCR otherwise we will find ourselved in a situation where the 250 pound guy driving a SM with an off the shelf cage will be stuck in the car too long.

[rickb99]

...... I will be motivated. I also saw a 200+ pound crew chief exit a B-52 through the copilots side window--an impossible feat if you go by the measurements of the opening, but rather easy if you are sitting on 35,000 gallons of burning kerosene.

Point is, such measurements are irrelevant, not required by the SCCA GCR, and mainly for the amusement of the officials demanding such.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

It's amazing what the human being can do physically when properly motivated!

Not required is really news to me.

I could swear in the old days (which was the last time I raced) I was tested on my exit time from full race trim in the cockpit by the SCCA? I thought they adopted the same 5 second rule that FIA instituted in 1971 for open wheel cars? No? Don't know if they have a different time for tin-tops.

I think it's a commonly held belief that this rule exists.

On the other hand, I agree with Cooley on the tin tops. I'm guessing that a good 65% or more of them would have a hard time getting out in 10 seconds without a whole lot of motivation.

.....the SCCA grid people did the other day at Daytona something to think about as we all read this thread about threads. Grid gave us the 5......and after they saw that all were belted in, engines running and ready....they blew whistles and screamed for everyone to get out of their cars as quickly as they could. Well it was quickly obvious they were doing an "exercise" and everyone understood...

If it really is NOT a requirement in the GCR then this was a pure excercise in Feudal Power! I've never heard of or seen this happen. Pre-grid is not the place to be messing with drivers minds. Play these games at tech or in drivers school.

[fezzic181]

NASCAR doesn't give a hoot about SFI ratings. They have their own rating system for gear so all that impact stuff probably has a NASCAR rating anyway.

[rickb99]

NASCAR doesn't give a hoot about SFI ratings. They have their own rating system for gear so all that impact stuff probably has a NASCAR rating anyway.

VERY INTERESTING!

Which makes it even more curious how all this got started in road racing. If you go a look all through the SFI web site, you find 90% of their 'standards' for stuff apply to DRAG RACING.

How did SCCA ever get in 'bed' with their standards instead of staying purely with FIA??? Hmmm.

Matter of fact, SCCA IS a member of FIA. So, how can they 'accept' a standard for equipment which is less then FIA requires and still stay a member. Hmmm, again.

Seems like SCCA is cherry picking which FIA standards are required and slipping some SFI standards in when it feels good. Hmmm, one more time.

[Wren]

If it really is NOT a requirement in the GCR then this was a pure excercise in Feudal Power! I've never heard of or seen this happen. Pre-grid is not the place to be messing with drivers minds. Play these games at tech or in drivers school.

It is not. The CRB rejected it again in the latest fastrack.

Workers largely treat drivers like mildly retarded children. I doubt they would acknowledge most drivers have a mind to mess with.

[RussMcB]

It is not. The CRB rejected it again in the latest fastrack.

Workers largely treat drivers like mildly retarded children. I doubt they would acknowledge most drivers have a mind to mess with.

Wren, cut 'em some slack. They are volunteering their weekends and if they didn't, it would really impact our hobby.

Plus, I'm sure most of them have our best interest at heart. They want us to be safe, and they may not realize how hard it is for us just to get a race car to the track.

[M.Sauce]

The NHRA and SCCA have made SFI what they are.The FIA probably isn't worried about the decertification would be my guess.I wonder if the suits in question are made of inferior material or what. I can't imagine that suddenly all the suits produced since before 2009/2010 are now ineffective.I am sure at least some have been field tested don't you think?

[Wren]

Wren, cut 'em some slack. They are volunteering their weekends and if they didn't, it would really impact our hobby.

Plus, I'm sure most of them have our best interest at heart. They want us to be safe, and they may not realize how hard it is for us just to get a race car to the track.

I understand that and I do appreciate it, but if I want someone to yell and swear at me then I can get that at my day job. Having them be wrong and try to make up for it in volume just makes it worse. There was a memorable one recently that was so bad I couldn't even be mad, just impressed at how big of an ******* someone could be.

All I want is for both sides to follow the GCR.

[EYERACE]

The coming test day at Daytona is $225. In an effort to get enough entrants to make holding the event worthwhile, the recent SCCA Daytona Driver's School was opened also to all other Licenses, not merely Novice Permits. I thought - what the heck it's only $185 for two days and I've missed a lot of seat time while the Crossle was in dry dock. Gear up for the 24 hour course in two weeks and go scrape the rust off early....and living in Orlando I could even sleep at home. So the recent exit car 'exercise' was done at the School for the student's edification. I agree that I would not be happy if right before a race, or even a practice/qualifying session during a National or Regional weekend this would be done. I'm thinking it would be within the power of the Chief Steward to flag into tech a rare driver as they were coming in off the track from most any practice or qualifying session or any session not ending with an impound, and while showing them a stop-watch, tell the driver to see how fast he could exit the car.

[John Nesbitt]

Wren, cut 'em some slack. They are volunteering their weekends and if they didn't, it would really impact our hobby.

With respect, I disagree. And I speak as a steward who volunteers as many weekends as the next person.

Entrants should be able to expect polite and professional behavior from all race officials, paid or unpaid. By the same token, officials should be able to expect correct behavior from entrants.

If you are treated poorly by a race official, bring your concerns to the event's Chief Steward. If you are dissatisfied with the Chief Steward's response, or your issue is with the Chief Steward, contact the Division's Executive Steward.

The Club is very concerned about behavior issues (read the SCCA President's column in the current SportsCar), but it can't solve problems unless it knows about them.

[Matt King]

NASCAR doesn't give a hoot about SFI ratings. They have their own rating system for gear so all that impact stuff probably has a NASCAR rating anyway.

NASCAR does have its own R&D facility where much of its safety testing is done and may do some independent testing, but it is wrong to state that they do not use SFI certifications. The SFI 16.5 spec for safety harnesses, one of the specs that Impact was decertified from using, is specifically for NASCAR restraints.

[Larry]

I've been on both sides--a driver and a worker--and neither side has a corner on the a**hole market. I agree with John Nesbit (a rare occurrence) in that we need to find out who the troublesome workers are, and then we can endeavor to correct the situation. Likewise the situation with drivers. If a worker is particularly insulting, I would do the same as I would with a driver--protest him on the basis of unsportsmanlike conduct (GCR 2.1.7:


[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]

The following applies to all participants--and workers are definitely participants:

[/FONT]

.[/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]
2.1. BREACH OF THE RULES.

[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]]

Beyond any other offenses or violations of specific rules, each of the

[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers]following is a breach of the GCR.[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]

[FONT=Univers].[/FONT]2.1.1.

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]Bribing, or attempting to bribe, anyone connected with an event;[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers]

[FONT=Univers]soliciting, accepting, or offering to accept a bribe.[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]

2.1.2.

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]Acting to enable a person or car known to be ineligible, not[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Univers]

[FONT=Univers]properly entered, or credentialed to participate in an event.[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]

2.1.3.

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]Acting fraudulently or prejudicially to the interests of the SCCA[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Univers]

[FONT=Univers]or of the sport of automobile racing.[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]

2.1.4.

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]Driving recklessly or dangerously, anywhere on the track[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Univers]

[FONT=Univers]property.[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]

2.1.5.

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]Failing to obey a direction from an official.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Univers]
[/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]

2.1.6.

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]Refusing to cooperate with, interfering with, or obstructing the [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]actions of the Chief Steward, the Stewards of the Meeting (SOM), the[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers]Court of Appeals, or other review committees in the performance of their [/FONT][FONT=Univers]duties.[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]

2.1.7.

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]Acting in an unsportsmanlike manner.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Univers]
[/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]

2.1.8.

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]Committing physical violence upon any other participant or[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Univers]worker.[/FONT]

[problemchild]

If I am at a race event, and the officials pull an "exit test" on the pre-grid after the 5 minute warning .... I can assure you that that event will not be on my personal schedule for many years to come. Period!

Competitors often get to vote on issues with their wallet. It is called an entry fee.

[John Nesbitt]

If I am at a race event, and the officials pull an "exit test" on the pre-grid after the 5 minute warning .... I can assure you that that event will not be on my personal schedule for many years to come. Period!

Competitors often get to vote on issues with their wallet. It is called an entry fee.

That is certainly effective, but at the cost of your not racing at this track anymore.

I suggest that it would be better to bring your concerns to the Chief Steward, the RE, the Executive Steward and ask them to correct the problem. Why should you suffer by losing a track?

Any self-respecting region/race organization should be happy to hear competitors' concerns. This is the only way they will know that there is a problem, and have a chance to correct it.

"A complaint is a gift."

[EYERACE]

Well I dare say some are taking the thought of an exit test instead of "just something to think about" to more than the mere thinking to themselves about it

[Joefisherff]

For the grid workers, the last time I had significant damage to my car and another competitors car was at Mid-Ohio when someone in a FC, that will remain unnamed, forgot to buckle his belts on the grid. He realized it when they started waving us out to form up. By the time he got belted he was at the rear of the open wheel grid so when they threw the checker he decided he was going to make up all those positions on the first lap and proceeded to come blazing by all the vees and upon me at the keyhole and punted me into my FF competitor beside me doing $1000 to my car and about that to the other guy. In the meantime the FC proceeded with a bit of damage to his nose.

So these exercises can have unintended consequences if they rush to get belted back in and forget to hook up the HANS, or a belt or properly seat their steering wheel etc.. They may have the best of intentions but the time to practice that is not on the grid after the 5 minute warning has been given.

[Roland V. Johnson]

Eyerace, it was done as part of a driver's school exercise, correct? If so give it a break guys.

[Wren]

Eyerace, it was done as part of a driver's school exercise, correct? If so give it a break guys.

I agree. That was not clear to me when my initial comments were made.

I've done stuff with an exit time requirement and I have an awesome video of me racking myself really hard on a steering column as a result of doing that check. It's pretty funny now, less funny then.

[Josh Pitt]

.

[EYERACE]

all ya'll are good in my book - everybody in here in general is concerned with one thing > getting themselves and as many other cars out there as they can in safe, legit and competitive condition