The SCCA safety rules, especially in regards to rollover structures and impact attenuation, are years behind the rest of the world.
I disagree. SCCA's minimum safety standards are literally identical to (i.e., borrowed directly from) those of the international racing community in many respects; e.g., FIA specs for fuel cells, non-metallic composite chassis, personal safety gear, etc. They include FIA standards in others: e.g., personal safety gear, impact attunuators, etc. And they exceed FIA specs in at least one area that readily comes to mind: inter-tubular anti-intrusion specs for tube-frame chassis.
In at least one area, the world (read...FIA) was grossly deficient compared to SCCA in that they had no standard whatsoever for tube frame formula chassis until just a few years ago. FIA appeared to think that if they ignored tube frame chassis and kept insisting that the word abandon them in favor of composite tubs that they would disappear. It was only after years of pressure from member organizations that FIA finally agreed to apply F3 quasi-static and dynamic testing to tube frame chassis. Even then the job is only half done, since the latest set of rules for tube frames I've seen do not incorporate mandatory bottom shear panels nor side anti-intrusion, as required by SCCA.
Some of us feel it's our responsibility as designers to improve the safety of these cars whether required by the SCCA or not. That requires substantial additional design effort, incurs increased manufacturing cost, and can even impact performance, but I think it's the right thing to do.
Good! I am pleased that you feel that way and back it up with your actions. SCCA is a participant-member organization, though, that IMO needs to ensure that there is always an avenue for the budget-conscious member to build his or her own race car in their own garage without the need for expensive formal testing, which is where a clear set of dimensional chassis construction standards comes in.
In Europe and much of the rest of the world the FIA require certified materials, certified welding, certified designs and certified crash testing at certified facilities before one can take even the lowest powered junior formula car on track. While one can argue that this makes sense under some circumstances, I feel that requiring exclusively that approach does not serve our members needs nor SCCA's long term interests.
As I noted earlier, SCCA's roll structure standards could possibly use updating, but IMO they are neither "silly" nor woefully out-of-date.
YMMV...