Printable View
http://www.sfifoundation.com/
This is brutal and may have just set back the start of my racing season by a few months, because I now have to buy a new suit, shoes and belts prior to my first race on April 29. Even my helmet is from Impact, but I hope htat since it's SNELL approved, it's still legal. Of course they probably cheated on that too. :thumbsdown:
Gotta wonder what someone was thinking??
Holy Crap! I know my suit and helmet are ok, but I have to look at the shoes, gloves and especailly the belts.
Damn damn damn
Shoes and gloves don't have to be certified by any orgnization, SFI or FIA, they just have to be made from accepted fire resistant materials.Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerbob
Whoops, shoulda bought from us. (Simpson, SafeQuip/RaceQuip, G-Force, and Bell) :)
Jim
Well that's good anyway - but the belts - hmmmm, that's the one I'm thinking I have. But I won't know that until I get home tonight.Quote:
Originally Posted by cooleyjb
I just got off the phone with SFI in California and the helmets are not affected by this decertification. Needless to say, I will never do business with Impact again. Real nice guys; screwin' with safety equipment. Thanks for your integrity, dirtbags.
What a shame that after all Bill Simpson he has done for safety would have this be his legacy.
Jim,
I was planning to bring my Vee down to the open house on Sunday for an annual. How will having Impact belts and some personal safety gear affect me? I assume that since the stuff is OK through April 27 I could get an annual stamp, but as of the first race on April 29 I would have to have it all replaced and reinspected?
Even worse, it sounds as if the products themselves are not the issue - just the tags. It looks as if someone at Impact got uptight over the price SFI was charging for labels, and decided to do some "off-shoring". Nice decision. Save $5 on each set of gloves, then get caught and put your company out of business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Roemer
:meatball:
Matt,
I would tend to agree with your presumption (legal for annual tech, but would not be legal for a race after April 27th). The tech guys at our Open House are absolutely great; I'm sure they will have the definitive answer when you get there.
Jim
Wouldn't the suit still be legal if it's one of the FIA-certified models?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Roemer
:confused: But, it's on Saturday.... My assumption is that they will tech it but put the decertification date in the log book? So you have to replace by that date.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt King
You can also buy belts while here since we will have them on sale.
But it's on Saturday.... Hope to see you. Going to put the car on the dyno...?
Jim
SR
I just got off the phone with Impact in Indy. The lady I spoke with said they are in the process of filing an injunction, so this will probably get really interesting. I know that Impact has had a beef with having to pay SFI for the tags for awhile because when I first got my suit about five years ago, it didn't have an SFI tag on it. I called them and asked what the deal was, and they had me send it back at their cost both ways to put a tag on it. Why they would risk their reputation and business over a $5 tag is beyond me, but between this, the fake HANS anchors and the problems with their drag suits last year, I'll be surprised if they survive.
Yes it would still be legal if it has the FIA certification sewn on the back of the collar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshall Mauney
Geeez, you are well connected! You got a direct line to the Whitehouse too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Roemer
That's good news for a lot of people I'm sure!
Wrong Jim! I was asking Jim Roemer, Milwaukee Region Executive about our open house tech inspection here in Milwaukee on Sunday. Sorry, but I'm not towing 450 miles down to yours!! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by sracing
Tell me more about the tech open house - I wasn't aware of it. Where and when? [This is probably because I hoped to be at the St Louis race this weekend....oh, well.]Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt King
Wrong open house and wrong Jim - he was talking to Jim Roemer and referring to the Milw. Region Open House
Quote:
Originally Posted by sracing
As far as I know, no Impact gear carries an FIA certification. My suit doesn't, but others may. I asked them when I ordered my formula belts about whether they would pursue FIA certs, and the answer was basically, "we won't sell enough extras to cover the $10,000 certification fee."Quote:
Originally Posted by cooleyjb
But they'll make fake labels on 10,000 items to save 5000 bucks....Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt King
I fell horrible for those who are caught in this. Anything i can do to help, please feel free to ask.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshall Mauney
Schlossman's Honda - Sunday the 28th = 11:00 to ?
http://www.facebook.com/rstackjd?ref...3137050&ref=mf
Our Region's Open House is on Sunday, March 28th, from 11AM until 4PM. Bring your car in for it's Annual Tech. It will be at Schlossman's Dodge on Capitol Drive in Brookfield, WI.
www.scca-milwaukee.org
You COULD order an Impact suit with FIA cert, bit it was extra.:rolleyes:
This is just a startling dereliction from Bill Simpson. Something was up when they never uttered a peep in defense of the fake HANS anchor posts. Just hoping it would go away I guess. All the "The racers are my personal friends" and "I set myself on fire wearing my stuff" just seem like decades-old tripe. What a shameful way to go out.
It should have been a red flag when I went to the store in 2005 and they had to send the suit I bought back to the factory to put on a SFI label. I guess they had to wait on the new shipment of labels from China. Something tells me I won't be getting my $800 back for my suit that starting falling apart after the first race. They deserve to go out of business. Could you imagine what an uproar it would cause if a grocery store put fake USDA labels on food to save a couple of percent?
Many years ago, Momo did something with their safety harnesses, that the FIA didn't like, and they lost their FIA certification, period. No second chance.
Someone made the HANS pin decision for Impact, I wonder if it was the same person that did this?
Lucky for us, we haven't done business with Impact.
Disclaimer - I'm no fan of Bill Simpson, BUT:
Keep in mind all you've heard is from ONE of the affected parties - and don't forget, it's the same band of bastards most of us were complaining about with the 2-year belt science, not using independent labs, the SCCA getting in bed with them, industry shakedown group, etc, etc, etc.
It's all about the money, and not about safety. Nobody has alleged that the suits are made of polyester and nitrocellulose. Remember when you could only wear a three-layer suit without underwear if the tag didn't require it? The only company that required it was Simpson under Bill Simpson - because he could sell more underwear. If it was all about safety there wold be a study of heat stress and suit materials as a contributing factor to accident rate.
Y'all sure this is over $5 per suit? Something tells me there's another big pile of cash hiding in this story here somewhere.
Five years ago we were ready to get out the pitchforks and head for the SFI. Don't let 'em off so easy. Seems to me there's no honorable party here. :meatball:
Maybe...just maybe there will be enough awareness raised by this issue that many more people will realize what the SFI IS and what they DO (or more importantly--what they DON'T DO).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
Maybe another organization will be created where actual scientific testing is done by independent 3rd parties. Requiring performance standards that aren't drafted by the member manufacturers.
I hope that's the case. As someone said elsewhere, and I agree with them, this is going to get messy before it gets better. Too bad we get stuck in the middle of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quickshoe
While this may be premature, I've had a couple people suggest a class action suit against Impact. I'm willing to look into it if enough affected drivers are interested. If you've got impact equipment which you will now have to go to the expense of replacing becasue of the decertification, drop me an e-mail or a PM. Depending on interest, it might be worthwhile.
Bob
Well, I have a two-year-old $1,000 Impact suit with an SFI 3.2A tag. Looks like it turns into a pumpkin after April 27th.
I have sent a reparation request to Bill Simpson, but I'm guessing pigs will become a lot more aerodynamic before anything happens in that regard.
So, I've sent this request to the SCCA Board of Directors. I suggest that all other Club Racers who own Impact suits do the same...
Dear Directors:
As I am sure you are aware, due to counterfeiting of SFI certification labels, most driver's suits manufactured by Impact Racing will be decertified by SFI as of April 27, 2010.
Unfortunately, I own a $1,000, two-year-old Impact suit that technically will not be GCR legal after April 27.
I have sent a certified letter to Bill Simpson at Impact Racing demanding reparations, but I imagine it will be very long time, if ever, that anything will be done about that. I fully expect Impact Racing to be bankrupt and out of business very shortly. (In fact, at a drag race this past weekend, an Impact factory booth was selling Impact gear at unheard-of deep discounts -- $170 helmets, $25 shoes, etc.)
I'm sure I'm not the only SCCA Club Racing driver affected by this travesty. So, on behalf of myself and all the other SCCA Club Racing owners of soon-to-be decertified Impact suits, I request that the BOD and Comp Board institute a program to individually recertify each Impact suit as acceptable for SCCA Club and Pro Racing use.
This could be done by having the affected suits each personally re-inspected by a National Tech Inspector to a set of specifications issued by Club Racing after which a Letter of Certification would be issued that would presented by the driver each time the suit is reinspected. Or perhaps a safety equipment industry consultant/engineer could be retained to re-inspect the suits.
If the Directors recall, it was only a few years ago that GCR driver's suit regulations specified the acceptable materials and constructions for suits and did not require SFI or FIA tags, so it seems to me that asking for Impact suits to be inspected according to those standards is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Most Impact racing suits in use in Club Racing are five years old or less. The owners of these suits will be faced with having to junk those perfectly good suits and purchase new ones at costs of hundreds or even thousands of dollars.
I'm hoping that the Board will provide reflief and assistance so that we can keep the costs of our already expensive racing in check.
Thank you for your consideration
Robert V Devol
New England Region SCCA
National License 83012
SFI didn't like the labels. Not the product. The SFI better be able prove the products don't meet or exceed there "guidelines". And, since when did the SFI have the power to tell a company what to do as far as refunds and returns? Impact may be opening some eyes as to the SFI's real mission. Seems like they think you can't be in the safety business without being in bed with them.
This is going to get interesting.
Bob DeVol's post is the most reasonable thing I've seen presented to the BoD in some time and they'd be fools not to take it up.
Although I am, luckily, unaffected by this issue, what you suggested makes perfect sense to me. There is no use in "throwing the baby out with the bath-water."Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Devol
And the recent changes in the certification process for fuel cells sets up a reasonable precedent for this type of thing, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to apply in this case, provided Impact or any other manufacturer can produce evidence that the products to comply with a known standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
Thanks for your support, guys. While Impact totally screwed the pooch with the tags thing, I'm damned sure the actual suits are safe and, in fact, compliant.
So -- all you Impact suit owners out there: send your similar request to the BoD now at:
BOD@scca.com
Then at least we can continue using our suits while Impact/Bill Simpson and SFI duke it out during what I'm guessing will be a messy and protracted battle.
I became a member of the I'm on Fire Club the other year at Barber while wearing a new Impact suit. You may read about it at the main decertification post rather than under this thread. I can't say I'm happy with the Company after hearing about this SFI action but given the opportunity, I would wear it again. I have raced in it, after their repair, since that fire.
Impact violated their contract with SFI by using bogus SFI certification patches. Nobody else has a problem. It's an open and shut case.Quote:
Originally Posted by T644HU05
And it's more than just the patches. In 2008 their multilayer fuel drag racing suits (SFI-20) were found to have not enough layers. Impact has been accused of mixing in a percentage of cotton thread in their suits. There was also an helmet issue with Snell, that was handled with minimal press. If anything SFI has given them as much slack and time as they legally could to clean up their act. In the end, SFI got a shady business off the market. I assume the refund orders were if Impact wants a prayer of ever getting recertafied again.
For all the ragging SFI gets here, what alternative should be set up? And what will it cost? Maybe we should shtcan the American clearing house and just make FIA the end-all. What will THAT do to the price of everything?
Maybe then the John-the-Baptist--um, I mean the Isaac device might finally receive a blessing....Quote:
Originally Posted by Quickshoe
Dale V.
I really am unhappy to have elsewhere a few minutes ago read this: Some racing insurance policies require participants to utilize SFI certified safety equipment.
So it may not be possible for the SCCA to allow Impact products that have these bogus patches on their own. Once again, it could be the old....oh no we might want to but the insurance forces us.....excuse.
Sorry Bob Devol, even though I've already sent a note to the SCCA BOD asking them to consider the members on a case by case basis and remember the other things they've done that cause our costs to go up and up, this insurance angle may mean we're all spitting into the wind.
Yeah, it could be tough to get SCCA to do anything. Might as well try; perhaps there's a way.Quote:
Originally Posted by EYERACE
Maybe we could send the suits right to SFI and they could do a certification and issue a real tag with a letter? That would be nice. At least the innocent bystanders wouldn't be getting screwed.
Well UL is a pretty good model of a more independent certification system.Quote:
Originally Posted by dalz
As far as the Isaac comment, isn't that baiting?
Good idea Bob.........I suppose SFI could be approached with such question.......who's to do so?
Well, let's first see what the BoD decides.Quote:
Originally Posted by EYERACE
Maybe SCCA Club Racing could work with SFI on behalf of SCCA members who own decertified Impact suits to get them inspected, certified, properly tagged and a letter of certification issued. I'd be willing to pay a fee to cover SFI's costs; it would be a lot cheaper than a replacement suit.
I hope the SCCA makes a decision quickly, because as of April 27, the suits and belts are illegal. My first race of the season starts April 29, so by then I need to either know my stuff is legal, or replace it. It would only add insult to injury to have to buy a new suit and belts in the next three weeks only to find out I didn't have to.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
For those that may not understand how the UL system works:
UL maintains a list of standards for various products, which are developed and refined in conjunction with various industry groups such as NEMA and ANSI. In order to list a product under one of those products, a manufacturer submits a design and sample to one of the various NRTLs (Nationally Recognized Test Labs), which then tests the products against the desired standard. Once the lab issues the certification, the manufacturer is licensed to put the UL (or ETL, or CSA, etc.) logo on their product.
Here's the key: Although there is a single body - UL - that is responsible for the actual content of the standard, there are multiple independent labs who are all able to issue a product listing or registration. Thus, while there is a clear set of unified standards, there is still competition among the test labs - no monopoly. From a legal standpoint, there is no difference between a UL mark, a CSA mark, an ETL mark, or a listing from any of the other NRTLs, so no one lab can decide to charge an outrageous fee for their listing service.
The key question is whether or not there is enough business in the racing industry to support multiple independent certification labs. SFI may be a de facto natural monopoly due the market size.....
SFI and the manufacturers is an incsetous (sp) relationship at best.
SFI charging 5 bucks for s piddly label is total baloney.
If the equiptment is compliant, it is compliant.
Instead of worrying so much about the labels not being the 5 cent label sold to the manufacturers for 5 bucks, SFI should spend more effort spot checking performance of the equiptment.
The performance is what matters, not some silly label.
Right from the SFI WEb site (for informational purposes only. Highlighting theirs):
How Are the Specs Used in Racing?
When adopted as part of the rules of a race sanctioning body, enforcement is entirely up to that organization. The manufacturer then provides the racer with product that is in compliance with the specs enforced by the sanctioning body.
So... SFI does not inspect any products. NONE of the products with SFI labels have ever been inspected by an independent party, even with a random sampling technique.
Now that is news to me. It sure seems like the word "certified" and SFI went hand in hand. Simple fact: you have no idea if ANY of your safety gear is right! Simpson had one of the best reputations in the market. What did that get you?
So all they do is provide specifications? What organization certifies these specifications, the manufactures?
What a wonderful free market capitalist system. Who needs consumer protection?
Brian
YES, exactlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
But then, the SFI specifications are written by its "member manufacturers" i.e. the dog chasing its tail is a good way to view SFI.
Not only do "they" provide the specs, they "create" the specs. The specs are created by paying members of the organization. Want a new spec on harnesses? Get the SFI members who make harnesses together and let them decide what the new spec should be. Anybody who isn't an SFI member manufacturer doesn't get to use the SFI label on their products....and then ONLY if said manufacturer pinky swears that the product they are putting the label on meets/exceeds the spec AND they "buy" the label/tag/patch from SFI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
Despite what some other classy folks might think they know about me, my distaste for the SFI came to be about 15 years ago when I was a safety equipment retailer. That's a long time before and has nothing to do with the ISAAC. The deal with the ISAAC just made more people aware of the SFI practices. However, more people disliked the device and the methods used marketing it, to see the issue with the SFI.