Pardon my lengthly questions

In the Penske's disqualified, Abel still out thread there is much talk of rules enforcement. I'm starting this thread as an SCCA scrutineer with 3 really basic GCR rules with the question of how should they be enforced.
(the GCR entries have been shortened for clarity and space concerns)

1 - 9.3.29. IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS
Each car shall carry identification markings per the sections listed below; and any markings required by the
Supplemental Regulations.
C. SCCA Logo
Each car competing in an event shall display the official SCCA field logo (see figures 4 and 5) unobstructed
and prominently on both sides of the car and adjacent to the side numbers. A third logo shall be displayed on
the front of the car unobstructed and prominently near the front number.

Question - Should the SRF3 on the cover of the GCR be penalized?


2 - 9.3.22. FIRE SYSTEM
All cars shall be equipped with an On-Board Fire System except T3, T4, STL, Spec Miata, B-Spec, C-Spec and
Improved Touring.
A. On-Board Fire System Requirements
It is recommended that all cars employ onboard fire systems that meet the following requirements:
• Systems certified to SFI specification 17.1 or 17.2, or
• Those listed by the FIA on Technical List No. 16
The following information must be visible of the unit:
• Certification label
• Capacity
• Type of extinguishing agent
• Weight, or volume, of the extinguishing agent
1. The fire system cylinder shall be securely mounted in such a manner that it can be checked during
a technical inspection and may be removed for weighing periodically for compliance to full weight
shown on the cylinder. (Weight is without valve assembly.)

6. All fire systems shall be serviced according to manufacturer’s specifications.

Question - Should a competitor be allowed to run if it is obvious that items 1 and/or 6 are not met? Or should it be noted in the log book to be fixed by the next event? Or?
Keep in mind that an SFI 17.1 bottle needs recertification every 2 years and and replacement every 6 years. An f'ing expensive undertaking.

9.3.35. MASTER SWITCH
All cars, except Touring, B-Spec and C-Spec, shall be equipped with a master switch easily accessible from
outside the car. It shall be clearly marked by the international marking of a spark in a blue triangle and
mounted in a standard location. Off position shall be clearly indicated at the master switch location.
The standard locations shall be as follows:
A. Formula and Sports Racing Cars–In proximity to the right-hand member of the roll bar, but in a location
so that it cannot be operated accidentally. It can be mounted on a bracket welded to the inside of the
upright member or mounted so that the operating lever or knob is outside of the body panel immediately
in-board of the upright member. This is the standard location on Formula cars built to the Constructor’s
Association requirements for Formula 1.

Question - Again, allowed to run? More importantly, how many of you meet this one? Crossles have/had a "bike cable" that ran from the upper right roll bar down and around to the master switch on the left side of the dash. Someone removed that on my Crossle.

Should the GCR be enforced without question with maximum penalties? Most every item in the GCR is protest-able. Do you have a monochrome SCCA patch on your suit, Nope? Protest-able, penalty depends on the steward.

My opinion - we're all here to HAVE FUN. Enforcing obscure rules is NOT FUN. If your car is unsafe, I'm going to ask you to fix it or I'm not going to let you run. I really think the GCR needs some cleaning up.

So What do you think?

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveG

1 - 9.3.29. IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS
Each car shall carry identification markings per the sections listed below; and any markings required by the
Supplemental Regulations.
C. SCCA Logo
Each car competing in an event shall display the official SCCA field logo (see figures 4 and 5) unobstructed
and prominently on both sides of the car and adjacent to the side numbers. A third logo shall be displayed on
the front of the car unobstructed and prominently near the front number.

Question - Should the SRF3 on the cover of the GCR be penalized?

---

It depends. Is the event a drivers school, regional, Majors, Super Tour or The Runoffs? For the first two, no unless there's a logbook entry from a previous event for the same issue. Handle it with a logbook entry. For Majors/Super Tour/Runoffs, locate the on site vendor, staff or official who has the decals and get them put on. If the driver/entrant refuses or there's none available consult the Race Director who will decide what to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveG

2 - 9.3.22. FIRE SYSTEM
All cars shall be equipped with an On-Board Fire System except T3, T4, STL, Spec Miata, B-Spec, C-Spec and
Improved Touring.
A. On-Board Fire System Requirements
It is recommended that all cars employ onboard fire systems that meet the following requirements:
• Systems certified to SFI specification 17.1 or 17.2, or
• Those listed by the FIA on Technical List No. 16
The following information must be visible of the unit:
• Certification label
• Capacity
• Type of extinguishing agent
• Weight, or volume, of the extinguishing agent
1. The fire system cylinder shall be securely mounted in such a manner that it can be checked during
a technical inspection and may be removed for weighing periodically for compliance to full weight
shown on the cylinder. (Weight is without valve assembly.)

6. All fire systems shall be serviced according to manufacturer’s specifications.

Question - Should a competitor be allowed to run if it is obvious that items 1 and/or 6 are not met? Or should it be noted in the log book to be fixed by the next event? Or?
Keep in mind that an SFI 17.1 bottle needs recertification every 2 years and and replacement every 6 years. An f'ing expensive undertaking.

---

Since this is a safety item, there is no wiggle room and no event type exception. Having said that, this falls into the category of don't go looking for trouble, it will find you. Unless this is part of the Tech Chief's event plan or an annual tech, you shouldn't be looking for gotcha's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveG

9.3.35. MASTER SWITCH
All cars, except Touring, B-Spec and C-Spec, shall be equipped with a master switch easily accessible from
outside the car. It shall be clearly marked by the international marking of a spark in a blue triangle and
mounted in a standard location. Off position shall be clearly indicated at the master switch location.
The standard locations shall be as follows:
A. Formula and Sports Racing Cars–In proximity to the right-hand member of the roll bar, but in a location
so that it cannot be operated accidentally. It can be mounted on a bracket welded to the inside of the
upright member or mounted so that the operating lever or knob is outside of the body panel immediately
in-board of the upright member. This is the standard location on Formula cars built to the Constructor’s
Association requirements for Formula 1.

Question - Again, allowed to run? More importantly, how many of you meet this one? Crossles have/had a "bike cable" that ran from the upper right roll bar down and around to the master switch on the left side of the dash. Someone removed that on my Crossle.

---

Annual? Part of the event tech plan? Yes. Otherwise, if casually observed, bring it to the driver/entrants attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveG

Should the GCR be enforced without question with maximum penalties? Most every item in the GCR is protest-able. Do you have a monochrome SCCA patch on your suit, Nope? Protest-able, penalty depends on the steward.

My opinion - we're all here to HAVE FUN. Enforcing obscure rules is NOT FUN. If your car is unsafe, I'm going to ask you to fix it or I'm not going to let you run. I really think the GCR needs some cleaning up.

So What do you think?

Steve

---

Again, unless you're doing an annual inspection or a specific item/issue is part of the event tech plan and you otherwise observe it, bring it to the driver/entrants attention. If you observe something on the same car at multiple events and have spoken to the driver/entrant previously about it, bring it to the Chief of Tech who should consult with the Chief Steward/Race Director for how it should be handled.

Again, don't go looking for trouble, it will find you. Be friendly and helpful. Look for ways to assist a driver/entrant to become compliant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveG

Keep in mind that an SFI 17.1 bottle needs recertification every 2 years and and replacement every 6 years. An f'ing expensive undertaking.

---

You are correct, yet you are incorrect.

It is "recommended" - not required - that all cars employ onboard fire systems meeting SFI specification 17.1. In reality, you go to buy a fire system from any of our reputable outlets and they're probably SFI certified, so that seems a moot point.

But it's not.

So my SFI system times out and now you say it needs re-cert. But I counter that since it has timed out it no longer meets SFI certification, and since SFI cert is only "recommended" I'm still good to use it.

"But Wait!", you say. "Our regs require is to 'be serviced according to manufacturer’s specifications.'"

So I remove all labels and ask you to prove who made it and what their specifications are. What now? "Well, it looks like a..." "Well, it's not."

The requirement for ongoing recertification of SFI on fire systems was removed some time ago, same as it was for seats, H&NR devices, fuel cells, and just recently, window nets. The intent of these removals is to place responsibility on the competitor and inspector to check these items to spec, not to simply start tossing money at SFI member businesses every couple of years. This fire system reg change is yet another example of one done in a vacuum, without reviewing the other regs that may affect that intent.

The intent of the change was to remove the requirement for initial SFI certification and ongoing recertification. Full stop.

Read the regs in context, not granularly. And take every opportunity to ask the Chief Steward for a waiver (even a one-race waiver) for items that you believe are acceptable to do so.

I will submit a letter to get that one clarified (see the recent May Fastrack for the one on windows nets, created because I heard some tech inspector kept a guy from being able to run a Regional because his window net was out of certification date).

It is important as one of the first points of contact a competitor has with our org that we inspectors be as inclusive as possible. We should be looking for "let's find a way to make this happen", not "no, you're wrong, go home".

Greg Amy
Licensed Competitor
Nat'l Scrutineer
Nat'l Steward
TNIA events coach and manager
...and a whole lot of other things that fill up the back of my membership card...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GregAmy

I will submit a letter to get that one clarified

---

That would be great! I must admit that up until today I had always believed (and been told by some tech inspectors, but not all) that fire systems needed to be recertified every two years. Total pain, as there's basically no way to legally ship a charged fire bottle as an individual, and I can't have my system recertified locally.

Jeff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GregAmy

You are correct, yet you are incorrect.

It is "recommended" - not required - that all cars employ onboard fire systems meeting SFI specification 17.1. In reality, you go to buy a fire system from any of our reputable outlets and they're probably SFI certified, so that seems a moot point.

But it's not.

So my SFI system times out and now you say it needs re-cert. But I counter that since it has timed out it no longer meets SFI certification, and since SFI cert is only "recommended" I'm still good to use it.

"But Wait!", you say. "Our regs require is to 'be serviced according to manufacturer’s specifications.'"

So I remove all labels and ask you to prove who made it and what their specifications are. What now? "Well, it looks like a..." "Well, it's not."

The requirement for ongoing recertification of SFI on fire systems was removed some time ago, same as it was for seats, H&NR devices, fuel cells, and just recently, window nets. The intent of these removals is to place responsibility on the competitor and inspector to check these items to spec, not to simply start tossing money at SFI member businesses every couple of years. This fire system reg change is yet another example of one done in a vacuum, without reviewing the other regs that may affect that intent.

The intent of the change was to remove the requirement for initial SFI certification and ongoing recertification. Full stop.

Read the regs in context, not granularly. And take every opportunity to ask the Chief Steward for a waiver (even a one-race waiver) for items that you believe are acceptable to do so.

I will submit a letter to get that one clarified (see the recent May Fastrack for the one on windows nets, created because I heard some tech inspector kept a guy from being able to run a Regional because his window net was out of certification date).

It is important as one of the first points of contact a competitor has with our org that we inspectors be as inclusive as possible. We should be looking for "let's find a way to make this happen", not "no, you're wrong, go home".

Greg Amy
Licensed Competitor
Nat'l Scrutineer
Nat'l Steward
TNIA events coach and manager
...and a whole lot of other things that fill up the back of my membership card...

---

Hey Greg - thanks for all your work with SCCA and the explanation. What is the chance of getting the SFI recert or date compliance for seatbelts also removed? I found it odd that belts are good for 2-5 years, where in race cars they generally sit inside, out of the sun, are used very few times compared to street car seat belts which seems to last decades and are much thinner material. My understanding is crashes are what damage belts - not time.

Reducing the SFI recert costs is a big step in getting cars out of garages where the owner only has time/money to do one or two races a year. By having to comply with all the recerts, that's a lot of money to amortize over a few races and makes those few races cost prohibitive. I pulled my 92 FF out for a vintage race and the cost to do so was pretty stupid now that everything was "expired."

The fire system is the one thing that should be an absolute. Some of the systems (AFF in particular) while showing and being fully charged will clog after time and will not discharge. As I understand it the old HALON systems did not have this issue.

The reason the language was changed in the GCR was to allow the small bottle SPA system to be used which was not yet certified. There were no small systems available to replace the old HALON units at the time. That can probably be revisited as I believe they are now SFI approved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

What is the chance of getting the SFI recert or date compliance for seatbelts also removed?

---

I'd suggest "zero". It's a legal/liability thing.

Fun story, and a lot of this is second-hand hearsay... Up until some years ago, call it the mid-teens-ish, SFI had a manufacturing date on their SFI tags for harnesses and published a cert requirement that they be replaced two years after manufacturing date. Everyone followed along.

Around the above timeframe, SCCA - using a lot of your logic - said "OK, but we'll let our competitors continue using them after that based on our scru's inspections for up to the end of the calendar five years after manufacturing date.

I'm told SFI went vertical. I heard rumors of people calling actual individual Directors demanding a change to meet their cert standard. SCCA said no, held firm that we were good with visual inspection of condition and installation for five years.

The following year, SFI changed their cert tags to an explicit expiration date, even going to the point of expiring belts in half-years (June) instead of calendar years. No one actually said it out loud but given that SCCA was the only org to ignore the prior requirement, it seems an obvious reason.

As I understand it, SCCA's legal team decided, for liability purposes, that we had to follow that certification limit, although we did agree to allow them through the end of the calendar year (no June expirations, which is stoopit)..

As I noted, it's all hearsay and second-hand info so take all of this with a grain of salt.

But that bring us to today: why in the hell are you still buying SFI belts? Not only do I personally consider FIA belts better quality, but they're good for five years instead of two. They certainly do not cost over twice as much so buying SFI belts is false economy.

SFI clearly believes their materials are lesser-quality that can only survive two years. So listen to them and buy FIA belts.

Do note that SFI is not a 501c3 non-profit organization like the Snell Foundation that creates and publishes standards; SFI is funded through licensing fees and/or unit charges to the equipment manufacturers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John LaRue

The fire system is the one thing that should be an absolute.

---

We'll disagree on that one, John. If it's the case that we cannot trust our competitors to keep their stuff up to snuff, how are we comfy with not requiring fuel cell dates to be enforced? After all, we know they degrade over time...and that follows to all the other equipment for which we are not enforcing per SFI certification.

Letter #38503 is in. I've asked the GCR/CRB to review their intent of the reg and adjust the verbiage accordingly to clarify that intent. If they intend for SFI bottles to be re-certed then hopefully that's what we'll get (I always dread the #TYFYI response).

I can also offer that just about every SFI fire system is available without the SFI certification; all you have to do is ask. Retailers pay extra for that label. If you ask them they'll usually sell you a system that is exactly the same thing without the label.

Also, AFFF systems are on the out; something about containing PFAS, as recall. Most manufacturers won't even service them any more so if someone has one of those they may want to start thinking about replacing it. Our local firefighters and EV teams speak highly of Purple-K though I have no personal experience with it. - GA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

Hey Greg - thanks for all your work with SCCA and the explanation. What is the chance of getting the SFI recert or date compliance for seatbelts also removed? I found it odd that belts are good for 2-5 years, where in race cars they generally sit inside, out of the sun, are used very few times compared to street car seat belts which seems to last decades and are much thinner material. My understanding is crashes are what damage belts - not time.

Reducing the SFI recert costs is a big step in getting cars out of garages where the owner only has time/money to do one or two races a year. By having to comply with all the recerts, that's a lot of money to amortize over a few races and makes those few races cost prohibitive. I pulled my 92 FF out for a vintage race and the cost to do so was pretty stupid now that everything was "expired."

---

I absolutely would be in favor of getting rid of this rule. I have so many sets of very expensive "timed out" belts that I can't use any more that are perfectly fine and fully functional. My current car needs "new" belts currently, and yeah its a hassle getting the right ones that work in my DSR. Seriously, how many belts have failed when they were needed? Just one more solution looking for a problem IMO.

You have to remember that the SFI companies are in business to sell their product, and the 2-year expiration date mean - to them - that they will sell 2.5 times more product than a 5 year expiration.

That is all there is to that "requirement".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John LaRue

The fire system is the one thing that should be an absolute. Some of the systems (AFF in particular) while showing and being fully charged will clog after time and will not discharge. As I understand it the old HALON systems did not have this issue.

The reason the language was changed in the GCR was to allow the small bottle SPA system to be used which was not yet certified. There were no small systems available to replace the old HALON units at the time. That can probably be revisited as I believe they are now SFI approved.

---

There's a better way to handle this.

AFF systems require the re-cert, inert gaseous systems do not. AFF should have never been approved in the first place, it was a knee-jerk reaction to the ban on manufacture of the previous halon compounds.

If you are truly worried about safety then the SCCA needs to find a manufacturer to listen and make a bottle more suitable for amateur competition - such as:

1) put the gauge in the bottle, not the valve assembly (don't say it can't be done, a friend has a bottle with this feature in his swift)
2) require the actuation mechanism to be removable for service and inspection without discharging the bottle.

Once a single manufacturer makes this configuration, the others will follow, and we'll all be both safer and have a bit more money to race.

I'll also offer up that despite there only being a couple of firms that offer insurance to race sanctioning bodies, there's apparently different standards applied. My tech guy told me that our carrier was fine with allowing outdated belts per inspection. He does draw a line at five years, but when I hadn't noticed my FIA belts had expired he let me run that weekend - and then another one after my replacement belts didn't arrive on time.

I've also sent frayed belts back to be re-webbed and received the exact same belts with a new SFI tag on them, which means it has absolutely nothing to do about material or condition.

Pyrotect gets their FIA belts made in Taiwan - and I'm betting they are the same across many vendors. I was told the FIA charges $10K for certification - and that's $10K per configuration - which is why pull-up adjusters are no longer available from his manufacturer. As if there's a difference in installing the adjuster in one direction or the other....

The Snell problem is a classic example of "there's no more juice left in this squeeze". If they really wanted to do something for the sport (which they don't) they'd create specs requiring the same level of performance with less volume. THAT would generate innovation. My current lid is significantly larger that the one I started with 20 years ago, and I'm somewhat larger too, but the car is not. Percentage wise, the helmet gained more than I did.

Great idea but what about those that are in the field currently? Unlike the rain light on my competitor's car which is there for both of us, the fire bottle is there primarily for the driver so It's up to he or she to make sure their ass doesn't get burnt. They really should pull all of the safety regs out of the book and make them recommended items. As I overheard Emerson "Diz" Dismore once tell a customer, "If you have a $50 head then go buy a $50 helmet."

Question #1 As a first 'warning' the lack of sticker(s) should be done at an impound (when on the podium) or an impound all session.
Question back to author ......why was this not pointed out and recorded in the Log Book during the car's Annual? ...such that it would read > Stickers by next event < ...and then picked up at current event where pic was snapped. At least here in Cent. Fla. the SCCA stickers are free.....so someone simply gets on the radio to Tech (where the stickers are) and asks someone to bring some to impound....problem solved. No DQ.

Agree.......let's have fun all weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

.......

Pyrotect gets their FIA belts made in Taiwan - and I'm betting they are the same across many vendors. I was told the FIA charges $10K for certification - and that's $10K per configuration - which is why pull-up adjusters are no longer available from his manufacturer. As if there's a difference in installing the adjuster in one direction or the other....
.

---

You are scaring me - according to Protect's website, they still have 2" FIA belts in pull up. That is almost essential for most formula cars. Of course when stock runs out.....

Thankfully mine are good till 2028...

ChrisZ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FVRacer21

You are scaring me - according to Protect's website, they still have 2" FIA belts in pull up. That is almost essential for most formula cars. Of course when stock runs out.....

Thankfully mine are good till 2028...

ChrisZ

---

No longer available. Since I really only cinch the shoulders and not the laps, I ordered the old-fashioned ones with the 3-bar adjusters. This is what delayed my order.

Maybe if the adjusters are sewn onto the frame side and the FIA tags are not, one could unthread them and put them on the new set....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John LaRue

Great idea but what about those that are in the field currently? Unlike the rain light on my competitor's car which is there for both of us, the fire bottle is there primarily for the driver so It's up to he or she to make sure their ass doesn't get burnt. They really should pull all of the safety regs out of the book and make them recommended items. As I overheard Emerson "Diz" Dismore once tell a customer, "If you have a $50 head then go buy a $50 helmet."

---

The problem here John is that you make enough money that the marginal cost of .00001% safety increase is of no concern to you. However, it is a concern to some of us.

The rain light again, give me a break. The scca requires each car to have a homologation cert. The belts have tags, the helmet has a tag. That's because none of that is verifiable on-site. But you could require a light of "x lumens" at "y volts", and the competitor should have to provide the spec sheet. Done, simple.

And $50 helmets won't meet Snell specs - but since they don't publish actual test data, a $400 helmet is just as good as an $800 helmet from a protection perspective. The rest is comfort and aesthetics. There ought to be a helmet spec for the Pros and one for the rest of us. The risks and energy levels involved, are profoundly different.

The functionality of the bottle has very little to do with its age. If its a gaseous extenguant and its in the green, its good to go. There's absolutely no science behind the bottle stuff. Let me give you this example:

https://www.lifeline-fire.com/shop/1...cd-system-1909

This is a non-pressurized stainless steel bottle. Uses CO2 cartridge and an electric actuator. Now please explain to me the physics behind an inert chemical compromising the integrity of a STAINLESS bottle. If ANYTHING needs to be looked at on this system, its the firing mechanism, not the bottle.

And aging the bottles out at 10 years? Even pressurized ones only see a variation of a few PSI from 0 deg F to 100 deg F. This isn't a 737 made of hardened aluminum with rivet lines undergoing thousands and thousands of pressurization cycles.

As far as those systems that are in the field currently? I'm sure an adapter could be made that puts the gauge on the other side of the actuator. You'd have to send the system in ONCE for a new actuator and gauge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John LaRue

They really should pull all of the safety regs out of the book and make them recommended items. As I overheard Emerson "Diz" Dismore once tell a customer, "If you have a $50 head then go buy a $50 helmet."

---

Bit of a straw man reductio ad absurdum don't ya think? It's a big leap to go from "hey, maybe we should not toss out perfectly usable and safe products and leave it in part up to competitors and scrutineers" to "ok, so let's just toss out all the rules then!" No one said that. No one is saying that. No one will say that.

So a box of belts on the shelf with a stamp date of 2025 is safe, good to go. But that same box, still on the shelf, in 2027 is no longer safe and usable? Of course not. So what about belts that have been used once in two or five years? Are those safe or unsafe? What about belts that have been in a car that's been crashed three times in five years? Are those safe? I can tell you what set I'd rather have and the cert date would have zero impact on that decision.

The SFI cert has almost zero assurance for safety once they leave the box. It's a certification that is irrelevant to safety once the peice of safety equipment is in use. The only thing it ensures is planned obsolescence. That's it.

Belive it or not, there are still a few people out there racing who are spending limited funds. You might even know someone. Throwing away a perfectly good set of belts and replacing them with an inferior set just so SFI can make money is ridiculous. The same with helmets. I was gifted a Stand 21 Carbon Helmet by a retiring customer. Wearing an inferior helmet just to make SFI and FIA money makes me shudder. The same can be said about firebottles. Show me the science behind these requirments. Show me the test results that prove these things are needed. When you look around and see small fields, just maybe there might be a few that have decided it is not worth it now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

The problem here John is that you make enough money that the marginal cost of .00001% safety increase is of no concern to you. However, it is a concern to some of us.

The rain light again, give me a break. The scca requires each car to have a homologation cert. The belts have tags, the helmet has a tag. That's because none of that is verifiable on-site. But you could require a light of "x lumens" at "y volts", and the competitor should have to provide the spec sheet. Done, simple.

And $50 helmets won't meet Snell specs - but since they don't publish actual test data, a $400 helmet is just as good as an $800 helmet from a protection perspective. The rest is comfort and aesthetics. There ought to be a helmet spec for the Pros and one for the rest of us. The risks and energy levels involved, are profoundly different.

The functionality of the bottle has very little to do with its age. If its a gaseous extenguant and its in the green, its good to go. There's absolutely no science behind the bottle stuff. Let me give you this example:

https://www.lifeline-fire.com/shop/1...cd-system-1909

This is a non-pressurized stainless steel bottle. Uses CO2 cartridge and an electric actuator. Now please explain to me the physics behind an inert chemical compromising the integrity of a STAINLESS bottle. If ANYTHING needs to be looked at on this system, its the firing mechanism, not the bottle.

And aging the bottles out at 10 years? Even pressurized ones only see a variation of a few PSI from 0 deg F to 100 deg F. This isn't a 737 made of hardened aluminum with rivet lines undergoing thousands and thousands of pressurization cycles.

As far as those systems that are in the field currently? I'm sure an adapter could be made that puts the gauge on the other side of the actuator. You'd have to send the system in ONCE for a new actuator and gauge.

---

RIck -

I appreciate your points concerning the issues being discussed. You however have no idea of my income or what is or is not of concern to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

The problem here John is that you make enough money that the marginal cost of .00001% safety increase is of no concern to you. However, it is a concern to some of us...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John LaRue

RIck -

I appreciate your points concerning the issues being discussed. You however have no idea of my income or what is or is not of concern to me.

---

And John has put in more effort trying to ensure the continued existence of Formula Car Classes in SCCA than all but a couple of other concerned individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John LaRue

RIck -

I appreciate your points concerning the issues being discussed. You however have no idea of my income or what is or is not of concern to me.

---

Please, one can infer a tremendous amount from your LinkedIN account and address regarding the former. As far as what is of concern to you, aren't there about 1220 posts here that suggest otherwise?

My point is that your perspective is more than a bit different from a lot of weekend warriors that do not participate at the level that you do.

Your support of the Formula Car community notwithstanding, the decline of the sport has more than a bit of "death by a thousand cuts" to it, and when trying to solve that problem, you have to attack all of the problem.

If you look at the proverbial newbie who buys an old formula car out of someone's garage that's been sitting for several years, he's faced with more than a thousand bucks in mandatory equipment for the car, and other thousand bucks in equipment for the driver, another thousand bucks in tires, and that's at the absolute lowest end of the scale, before addressing any other issue with the car and heading to a school.

Yeah, the sport's expensive. That's like saying "please make me pay more taxes". It does not mean we should not vehemently scrutinize and require justifications for cost creep.

What has people upset about this is that WRT the SFI stuff, there's no science (or bad science) behind it, either physical or actuarial, in belts or bottles, or for that matter, in the ever increasing Snell standards. And WRT the rain light, it was the abandonment of common sense and the adoption of a very expensive standard, when much simpler options were available, and the plethora of letters reflecting that, along with an argument that continues to this day.

QED. If these were good decisions, the arguments wouldn't continue to exist.

Anybody else notice the classic racing conflict between lawyers and engineers? ;)

I say that we should bring Halon back. The USAF tried to find a replacement that was effective when it was being outlawed. They could not. One of our region members at the time was working on it aat WPAfb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Olivola

Anybody else notice the classic racing conflict between lawyers and engineers? ;)

---

I trust the engineers a bit more than the lawyers... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Demeter

I say that we should bring Halon back. The USAF tried to find a replacement that was effective when it was being outlawed. They could not. One of our region members at the time was working on it aat WPAfb.

---

It was banned for a faulty reason, just like R12 Freon.

Thank you for the personal attacks, those really advance your case. This BS is exactly the reason this site and SCCA has lost so many contributors and participants.

For like the 10 thousandth time i should not post... but...

So, i jumped back into FC in 1998 (pre-transponders) after a long semi-retirement. You could buy an 15 year old car for around $10K, and spend another $2K on stuff and be regional racing. I do admit a few of my first years were spent on "take-offs" tires. But, i was racing on bucket list tracks. (see: June Sprints 2000, stupid guy shows up in '84 Reynard)

I just googled the value of 1998 dollars to today. A '98 dollar would be worth $1.96 today. For sake of argument I'll round up to $2.00.

I believe that today one could by an old car for ~$20K and spend ~$4K getting set up, and go regional racing.

I bought the Tatuus for around $20K back then, which would be $40K today. As the self proclaimed "King o' Cheap" I was spending about $1,600 per weekend to regional race in 2014, that would equate to about $2,200 today. Probably doable on the regional level.

My point? It's not 1998 anymore. I think some racers are facing the new reality that their expendable income is not keeping up with inflation, and they don't like it.

Obtw, Reid and I are on the same page about seat belt expiration dates. Wearing the belts 5 times a year in a car stored in an air-conditioned shop does not wear them out. We lost that battle years ago. LOL

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

SCCA competitors are such a tiny number compared to the circle track and other non road racing series that the SFI (which is a manufacturer funded certifying body) is quite happy with the 2 year life and the sales that go with it.

About 15 yrs ago I happened to be at a large wholesaler of SFI belts unloading a shipment from asia somewhere out of a container. They were sending 10000 + sets of belts split up to many of the speed shop distributors. I asked how they dealt with the dates of expiry sitting on the shelf and realized that they had built in a certain amount of shelf life into the labels and they expected to get a good percentage back to re-label. Based on that container load I assume that the market for 'cheap' competition seat belts is probably in the low hundreds of thousands.

I fought this battle years ago with Arnie Kuhns at SFI while I was on the CRB 25 years ago - pointed out we were not dealing with polyester belts in cars left outside and tried to get an SFI / SCCA legal 5 year limit same as FIA. Dug their heels in and quoted the liability that the Club would be in if we ignored the SFI standard and something happened to a member with expired belts. It would probably break the waiver. I dont ever remember the insurance company actually commenting at the time or if it was even asked of them. From a Club point of view whenever you go outside the industry standards on safety the legal risk multiplies in this litigious society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

...Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

---

Thank you

I started this thread with the intent of pointing out a number SCCA GCR rules that are a challenge to enforce as an official. To clarify my OP:

Question 1 was total sarcasm. The picture is of the 2024 Runoffs winning SRF3 (I don't know if the picture was taken at the Runoffs). If I was editing a rule book (the GCR) for a rules based organization (SCCA) I certainly would have made sure the cover picture was of a compliant car.

Question 2 is about the conflict written into a rule. The "It is recommended" in the beginning and "All fire systems shall be" at the end. GregAmy got it and apparently requested a rule change. I've done more than 50 annuals this year and 6 cars met the letter of the rule, yes I kept track, the rest had a fire systems that ranged from "hadn't been recently serviced" to "that system is 25 years old do you really think it will work if you need it?"

Question 3 is about an obscure aspect of a rule. Most entrants aren't even aware that the GCR states the location of the master switch. Very few of the Club Fords at a recent Crossflow cup met the rule which is why I mentioned it.

There are many other GCR rules that run afoul of simple enforcement. That is and was my only point.

Dead horse FACTS - Racing is expensive. Harnesses expire. Race cars crash. We can whine about it but we aren't going to change the FACTS.

We all believe that SFI exists solely to generate income for it's member manufacturers, just wait until MyLaps does its' flex with "legacy transponders".

Steve

So, I'm a guy on the cusp of road racing, but just doing time trials stuff for right now. Here's my experience.

I have a car that hadn't been raced in about 10 years that I was bringing back into track shape. I pestered the tech guy / novice coordinator a fair amount before my first event clarifying a few things. The thought of towing out to an event and getting turned away is seriously disheartening.

Fun tidbits.

Fire system - car has an older Simpson halon system. Gauge is good, weight is good. They allowed it.

Rain light - it's a time trial event, we don't really care for this one. (One car at a time)

Fire suit - wound up I was glad I checked. I couldn't find the cert for the suit that came with the car. It seemed in pretty good shape. They pointed out that suits don't expire, but have to be certified. We figured out where it was hiding (under the back of the collar). Turns out its certification year was 1986. The inspector said, while technically suits don't expire, I will fail that. Get a new one. (I support and agree with his call on that)

Hans - due for a reweb on an obviously new from box hand, get it done before next season.


I get the people saying can the safety requirements, but some codification within reason is necessary. My 1986 suit shouldn't be used for anything more than a Halloween costume at this point.

I dropped my AFFF bottle, wiring harness, and power unit off at SPA in Brownsburg for inspection last week. They serviced the bottle since it was slightly over 2 years post last inspection. Interestingly, the power unit had died despite it still lighting up as good when I would toggle the switch. So, FYI, you might want to take a look at your system if you have the battery operated style.

So this happened, last year (after I gave away a set of expired belts that were new!):

"Restraint systems homologated to FIA standards will be valid for CASC-OR competition for up to five yearsafter the year stated on the label ending on Dec 31st"

Meaning, you buy a new set today with an expiry date 5 years away, and the belts are good for another 5 years after that. 10 years in total. Now, I have no idea *how* the CASC came to that decision, but they aren't generally regarded as a fast and loose sort of organization. Which means that they had to rely on some verifiable independent research.

If folks want to start that discussion with the SCCA again, maybe a good first step is contacting the CASC and understanding what research they relied upon to come to that rule change?

best
bt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apexcarver

Fire suit - wound up I was glad I checked. I couldn't find the cert for the suit that came with the car. It seemed in pretty good shape. They pointed out that suits don't expire, but have to be certified. We figured out where it was hiding (under the back of the collar). Turns out its certification year was 1986. The inspector said, while technically suits don't expire, I will fail that. Get a new one. (I support and agree with his call on that)

I get the people saying can the safety requirements, but some codification within reason is necessary. My 1986 suit shouldn't be used for anything more than a Halloween costume at this point.

---

Nomex is nomex. There's nomex in all kinds of aircraft and military uses older than your suit. I could see that in some cases the tensile strength of the material might be reduced through wear, but the fire protection, I have serious doubts its compromised. That requires some kind of age-related chemical change in the material. Oxidation? UV degradation? Solvent exposure? Nomex is just a high-temperature form of nylon. Remember, all of these aramid fibers are considerably tougher, as well as more temperature resistant, than normal fabrics. Nomex aging would be a good question for the performance textiles group at North Carolina State.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John LaRue

I dropped my AFFF bottle, wiring harness, and power unit off at SPA in Brownsburg for inspection last week. They serviced the bottle since it was slightly over 2 years post last inspection. Interestingly, the power unit had died despite it still lighting up as good when I would toggle the switch. So, FYI, you might want to take a look at your system if you have the battery operated style.

---

John - why are you still using AFFF? It's toxic (PFAS) and has that clogging issue. I'd say that what we know now about it makes it even worse environmentally than the Halon 1300 series it replaced. Surprised the club still allows the stuff given there are replacements.

It is what fit in the car after the small Halon bottles were discontinued. The invoice describes the new contents as Fluorine free AFFFF with Feezol. Alcohol resistant - "safe type". Thoughts?

I believe I am correct in saying this that any form of AFFF is going to have a certain amount of water in it. The process of water turning to steam in a fire removes heat from the fire in the transformation of state. Steam also creates a smothering effect that helps block some air from getting to the fire. All of that is great except when you put a human body in the middle of steam.

Well John, if its PFAS free, I suppose you're good. Personally, I don't like water on a fuel fire unless its a last resort.

We had Agent Orange, Gulf War Syndrome, Burn Pits, Trichlortriflorethylene in well water, and now PFAS exposure is going to be the next big lawsuit coming at the military.

CG - I went to the performance textiles lab at NC State and they told me that the common practice out here of wetting your suit on hot days to give you a swamp cooler effect would parboil you in a fire. I figured the water would start to cook off and suck up the heat energy but it turns out before that it nearly instantaneously transfers the heat of the fire to your skin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

I figured the water would start to cook off and suck up the heat energy but it turns out before that it nearly instantaneously transfers the heat of the fire to your skin.

---

Try grabbing a hot pan with a wet hot pad and you'll see how true this is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John LaRue

It is what fit in the car after the small Halon bottles were discontinued. The invoice describes the new contents as Fluorine free AFFFF with Feezol. Alcohol resistant - "safe type". Thoughts?

---

I had this problem with my car when up-cycling it into DSR, and got an AFFF for that same fitment reason... now we have Novec 1230 that fits and is so much cleaner... at least for car cleanup... John, you probably knew, but for the benefit of others facing that question...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billtebbutt

So this happened, last year (after I gave away a set of expired belts that were new!):

"Restraint systems homologated to FIA standards will be valid for CASC-OR competition for up to five yearsafter the year stated on the label ending on Dec 31st"

Meaning, you buy a new set today with an expiry date 5 years away, and the belts are good for another 5 years after that. 10 years in total. Now, I have no idea *how* the CASC came to that decision, but they aren't generally regarded as a fast and loose sort of organization. Which means that they had to rely on some verifiable independent research.

If folks want to start that discussion with the SCCA again, maybe a good first step is contacting the CASC and understanding what research they relied upon to come to that rule change?

---

I think if you looked into it, you'd find that the CASC rule change might have been because they made the same rule change in Australia more than 5 years ago (if I'm remembering correctly).

August 2025 Fastrack Technical Bulletins. All changes are effective 8/1/2025 unless otherwise noted.

GCR
1. #38503 (Greg Amy) E&O, 9.3.22 Fire System Recertification In On-Board Fire System Requirements, GCR section 9.3.22.A.6, change as follows: "All fire systems shall be serviced according to manufacturer's specifications; however, biennial recertification of SFI systems is not required."

I have zero idea why my posts' formatting is all borked up. Something is amiss...

7/17/25 Update: fixxored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GregAmy

I have zero idea why my posts' formatting is all borked up. Something is amiss...

---

35K+ guests and less than 100 members using the forum - does that give you a clue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveW

35K+ guests and less than 100 members using the forum - does that give you a clue?

---

Bots and/or DDoS should not affect forum formatting, only access and response. But, it's not my board and I've long left vBulletin behind, so...

Quote:

---

EDIT

---

...and this post seems to be fine...but only if I put a quote in between the lines. Without that they're run-into sentences. Carriage-return is not working.

7/17/25 update: this has been fixed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GregAmy

Without that they're run-into sentences. Carriage-return is not working.

---

Carriage return? Really? You expect these kids to know what that is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GregAmy

...and this post seems to be fine...but only if I put a quote in between the lines. Without that they're run-on sentences. Carriage-return is not working.

---

I don't seem to have the run-on sentence issue.

Test sentence...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GregAmy

August 2025 Fastrack Technical Bulletins. All changes are effective 8/1/2025 unless otherwise noted. GCR1. #38503 (Greg Amy) E&O, 9.3.22 Fire System Recertification In On-Board Fire System Requirements, GCR section 9.3.22.A.6, change as follows: "All fire systems shall be serviced according to manufacturer's specifications; however, biennial recertification of SFI systems is not required."

---

Why would they do this? To save money? The fire system is mechanical and IMHO is the one safety item on the car that should be serviced regularly. Belts, HANS, and helmets are less susceptible to malfunction if reasonably maintained, but they have to be replaced? WOW If we can do away with the service interval on fire bottles then why are we concerned about dates on belts, Hans, or helmets? I was always told that "Risk Management" did not want to see the safety standards reduced, perhaps there has been a change in the logic.

I guess I am hypersensitive to this after learning that my fire bottle which was showing full green was inoperable due to the discharge nozzle being clogged. FWIW when I had my SPA bottle serviced last month in Brownsburg I found out that the electronic control box was not working properly despite the fact that it "blinked" when toggled as it was supposed to.

Quote:

---

I guess I am hypersensitive to this after learning that my fire bottle which was showing full green was inoperable due to the discharge nozzle being clogged.

---

Unfortunately, proper testing would expend the system. Systems that are expensive, like fire bottles, make everything difficult. With manual extinguishers you can just replace them every year or two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John LaRue

I guess I am hypersensitive to this after learning that my fire bottle which was showing full green was inoperable due to the discharge nozzle being clogged. FWIW when I had my SPA bottle serviced last month in Brownsburg I found out that the electronic control box was not working properly despite the fact that it "blinked" when toggled as it was supposed to.

---

We need a bring back Halon initiative...perhaps the MAGA folks can take this on as part of reversing Obama regulations!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by douglap1

We need a bring back Halon initiative...perhaps the MAGA folks can take this on as part of reversing Obama regulations!

---

If I thought you weren't being serious I wouldn't say this, NFW! Halon was one of the worst greehouse gasses at destroying the ozone layer. Now that the ozone layer is repaired we really don't want to go there again.

So I really wanted to provide some reasonable points/opinions regarding John’s post, without getting into the “lawyer vs engineer” BS that Peter thought up a while back.


If we’re talking risk assessment here that really is actuarial science, and I doubt any real math has been done by the manufacturers or the club at this point, although it appears that common sense is starting to prevail.


“The fire system is mechanical and IMHO is the one safety item on the car that should be serviced regularly”


Couldn’t agree with you more. The question is who should do it, how often, and why.


“I guess I am hypersensitive to this after learning that my fire bottle which was showing full green was inoperable due to the discharge nozzle being clogged.”


John, I'll say again - the approval of AFFF systems was IMHO, a knee-jerk reaction to the ban on producing the halons the sport relied on since the 70s. At that time there was a ban on further production, not the sale, and Safecraft had 10’s of thousands of pounds of it that they acquired in a DoD auction. There is still plenty of halon out there more than 30 years later, although the volume goes down every year. The US Navy alone still has about two million pounds of it in service. There are still aircraft that require it, just like there are aircraft that still require leaded fuel. Now that there are plenty of halon replacements that don't clog, the sport should no longer allow AFFF given its peculiar failure mode, OR, just require the two year inspection for AFFF. The prohibition on shipping the bottles that came along a few years later was politically driven too, although there’s essentially nothing that can be done about that as it was done at the federal level to force the movement away from CFC Halons.


“FWIW when I had my SPA bottle serviced last month in Brownsburg I found out that the electronic control box was not working properly despite the fact that it "blinked" when toggled as it was supposed to.”


I also have to say that I would not put an electrically actuated bottle in my car. I worked for years on missile systems that used "squibs" (the electro-explosive devices that power the actuating systems) and the level of quality control required to make these things reliable is astonishing, and I doubt that level is done on commercial level components. Then you get into the firing circuitry, and the battery, and the need to test before use. Pull handles are amazingly simple…and simply tested.

Yes, there are some installations for which pull systems are not feasible. I'm okay with that, but if you can use a pull system, you should.


So I want to stress another point here I’ve made before regarding the bottles. Yes, steel bottles rust. I’ve had to clean and paint the bottom of mine. However, a car would have to be terribly taken care of to generate the amount of rust to pinhole the bottle - and then, the gas would come out and the gauge would read zero. Another near zero here is the probability that 1) someone has a bottle and car so poorly prepared and cared for 2) tech misses it 3) said car catches on fire and 4) the pinhole occurs during the weekend rendering the bottle unusable. If this is truly a risk assessment exercise, then the entire scenario has to be considered.


But there’s a solution to this, and if one’s worried about corrosion, the solution is a stainless bottle, which all the manufactures provide. So any future spec should require the stainless bottle. But really the only thing that requires any testing is the actuator head. Any future spec should require a design where the head is removable and testable. The gauge should be in the bottle, not the head. My 1972 FSV had a bottle with a removable and testable head. The condition of the liquid can be tested in two ways. 1) Does it slosh? 2) does the pressure on the gauge increase when the bottle is heated? This verifies that the gauge is working. Evidently SVRA found bottles with bad gauges. I suggest that the club get together with some of the circle track sanctioning bodies and develop a new spec that addresses these design shortfalls. There are several smaller manufacturers, and ONE of them will go for it to be first to the market, and the others will follow.

Consider the self-serving and ridiculous position of virtually every manufacturer - they'll only re-cert a bottle twice - so in six years you are buying another one. Now you have a stainless bottle filled with an INERT material. It's not acidic, its's not basic, by definition its not an oxidizer, so there's no chemical degradation going on. Its stainless, so there's no weather based degradation going on. Now the bottle will see pressure changes, on the order of 2-4 psi across a typical day, maybe 6 psi in extreme conditions. Compare this to an aircraft that sees pressure changes of 10 psi several times a day, in rivited structure seeing significant loads. So you can easily deduce there's no pressure change degradation in the bottle. IF there is degradation in the bottle, then it simply needs to be heaver wall, and perhaps a serious look at the welding processes and cleaning processes used. So these limits simply make no sense.


“WOW If we can do away with the service interval on fire bottles then why are we concerned about dates on belts, Hans, or helmets?”


Indeed, why not? We all know the 2 year rule has no science behind it. The accelerated life test that the SFI uses is far beyond the worst of worst case scenarios I’ve ever seen, and believe me, working for the DoD you get some pretty crazy worst case scenarios - I've even seen a few play out. BUT - a set of belts that bad would be found at Tech in annual inspection anyway. If you can go 5 years on FIA certs with the same material, then why 2 years just because an industry group decided it’s best for their members bottom line? And as many have pointed out, passenger cars don’t have belt problems after decades (although they are polyester, not nylon. You can get polyester belts from Simpson. Should the spec require Polyester?) Would anyone really complain if we went to something reasonable, both time and condition based, like any signs of fraying coupled with 10 years max? That’s reasonable. Just to add another data point - I sent a set of belts in to be re-webbed and they came back with the same frayed material - and a new SFI tag. So obviously the manufacturers aren’t concerned either.


HANS re-certs? I’d like to see the procedure. Because if it’s a visual (and I'm pretty sure it is) then the pass/fail should be published so anyone can do it. Are they putting them in a device, flexing them to a point and measuring the spring back? I doubt it. How about ultrasonic or x-ray NDT? Nope. So if any knucklehead at the helmet store who can read a tech bulletin from the manufacturer can do it, you can too, as well as any tech inspector.


Helmets? I don’t know about you, but the helmets are getting bigger and bigger but the cars are the same. And I’d love to see the data - when was the last time someone in a non-professional class of racing was killed or seriously injured because of an inadequate helmet design? We’ve lost half the manufacturers that made good stuff and we’ve seen the rest reduce the number of models offered, or watched the overall designs stagnate. The new offerings are all Chinese made - not that it’s all bad, but my POS Zamp is in no way as good (durable) as the Simpson RX I had 20 years ago. I still believe that given the different designations for Karting, Motorcycles, and Cars, there should be a separation between pro level helmets and ours. If someone wants to drop the coin on a FIA 8859-2024 fine, but I’m not convinced that the energy levels we are exposed to justify that level of protection. As far as degradation of the helmet over time is concerned, yes the padding degrades - but I’d argue the styrofoam beading that is the actual protection does not. The shell doesn’t degrade either unless it’s dropped, and a chipped/cracked helmet beyond a certain size probably is degraded, and should be rejected. But it didn’t degrade due to just time in any reasonable human timeframe. Do we have a process in tech for inspecting and "decertifying" a helmet after a crash? if not....


“I was always told that "Risk Management" did not want to see the safety standards reduced, perhaps there has been a change in the logic.”


But we’re not reducing the standards. The performance standard is the same, only the inspector or inspection period is affected.

If one doesn't believe in the engineering here, then why believe in the analysis required for homologation? The same potential degradation processes apply to frames, yet we don't test them or suspension components, despite their probability of hurting more than just an individual driver. That's all down to a simple visual inspection, and man, you should have seen the welds on the old Royale FSV-based sports racer I bought for parts. They stick welded the mods on!