Great post with lots of good information. It would be nice if everything could be brought into alignment in a logical fashion but...:ha:
Printable View
Great post with lots of good information. It would be nice if everything could be brought into alignment in a logical fashion but...:ha:
Damn, Rick - that is just an amazing post. Thanks for taking the time to share it all - pure signal, no noise. You rock. :beer:
Should be mandatory reading for all Apexers!
bt
After so many years in the club and on Apex, and watching so many thing get screwed up because of rule makers who have no clue about what they are regulating, it is refreshing to see that someone with Rick's professional background actually post something that is factual.
Kudos to Rick for his very well reasoned discussion. I think we should approach the CRB with a strategy to bring some reason and engineering justification to our safety equipment rules.
There is a documented and accepted practice widely known as Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) it is an accepted practice in modern industry. SAE JA1011 is the industry standard for this process.
There are four principles that are critical for a reliability centered maintenance program:
- The primary objective is to preserve system function - make sure it works when it's supposed to.
- Identify failure modes that can affect the system function - figure out how it could possibly break
- Prioritize failure modes - which ones are going to hurt you?
- Select applicable and effective tasks to control the failure modes - clean, inspect, lubricate, function check, or replace considering the system lifecycle.
Seven questions that need to be asked for reliability centered maintenance
An effective reliability centered maintenance implementation examines the asset (here is a race car) as a series of functional systems, each of which has inputs and outputs contributing to the success of the vehicle. It is the reliability, rather than the functionality, of these systems that are considered. The SAE JA1011 has a set of minimum criteria before a maintenance strategy can be called RCM (Gulati). The seven questions that need to be asked for each asset are:
- What are the functions and desired performance standards of each asset?
- How can each asset fail to fulfill its functions?
- What are the failure modes for each functional failure?
- What causes each of the failure modes?
- What are the consequences of each failure?
- What can and/or should be done to predict or prevent each failure?
- What should be done if a suitable proactive task cannot be determined?
Vehicle OEMs have been doing these studies and implementations for over 30 years. Vehicle maintenance has evolved to require far less intrusive maintenance by better design, manufacturing and assembly processes. Commercial aviation has implemented RCM since the 1960's when Boeing first built designed the 747 that would carry 3 times as many people as a 707. Commercial and military powerplants are now maintained and overhauled based on performance data, predictive analytics and condition based inspections.
We can certainly perform this for firebottles, restraint systems and helmets.
This was my day job for the last 25 years.
It's a fully developed MANIFESTO! :thumbsup::thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
So here's a question - is there a way to capture and channel some of this momentum? Take this to a separate thread?
Make a specific request to the CRB to take a more active role in spec development?
I can think of several things to address:
1) Develop a prospective specification for firebottles
2) Develop a specification, inspection criteria, and lifetime for belts
3) Develop an inspection criteria for Head and Neck devices (essentially, refuse to allow the use of devices if the certification and inspection criteria are not made public)
4) Request that the SCCA reach out to other sanctioning bodies to develop a more cost effective and consistent safety regime (essentially create a user based organization to counter SFI)
5) Request that Snell develop a separate standard for professional level helmets, and freeze the current Snell SA specs for a minimum of 10 years - I'd even suggest backing of to the SA 2015 spec and carry it forward to 2030.
6) Look into partnering with a specific safety equipment manufacturer to ensure equipment made to the standards if there's too much pushback from SFI
I think this would need to be addressed the same way that the FF community approached getting the acceptable tires for the class modified. Someone needs to generate the 'case' and submit it to the CRB. A case number will be created. Then members who have interest in the particular case submit a letter of support, etc
https://www.scca.com/pages/rule-making-process
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
I do not disagree with any of this. However, remember that there are over 1.3 million lawyers in the US (highest number per capita in the developed world). The requirements for FIA/SFI certificcation are driven at least in part by fear of litigation. Any kind of injury suffered wearing a device developed following point 6 (i.e. dismissing SFI) could/would surely generate a serious lawsuit.
Indeed. And if the last two years of action by SCCA National have convinced me of anything, it's that there is a complete lack of institutional fortitude, to murder a phrase, on the part of SCCA to be the leader and take a stand that is in any way controversial or anything other than following the masses... :ha:
There is also a massive lack of technical knowledge in the club administration - yet they believe that they should be able to make the tech rules.
Very sad to watch.
That was not my intent. Point was, if SFI refused to listen to reason, then the strategy would be to partner with a manufacturer who was willing to manufacture and test to the SFI standard, but not submit to SFI specifically, and I'm not sure it needs to be. A manufacturer may be able to claim the products were designed and tested to SFI specs but not certified by SFI. Here's a paragraph from their formula car restraints spec:Quote:
Originally Posted by John Nesbitt
"The procedures, test evaluations and standards contained herein, areintended only as minimum guidelines for construction and evaluation ofproducts. Certification that products meet such minimum standards is madeby the product manufacturer and products are not certified, endorsed orapproved by SFI under this program.
1.3 Use of the "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFISpecification 16.7" logo/designation, the authorized artwork style, orconventional lettering by a manufacturer, on a subject product, is intendedonly to indicate that the manufacturer of the product has represented thatthey have submitted the product to the recommended tests, with positiveresults, in compliance with the standards established herein."
However, they've baked the two-year rule into their cert process. You can build and test to their specs but the manufacturer is required to have a two-year replacement to use the logo, which is interesting, because it has nothing to do with the design or testing....
Now if you look at their presentation on belts:
https://www.sfifoundation.com/wp-con...%2012-2014.pdf
In several places the refer to tests run for the military and the NTSB - without acknowledging that AIRCRAFT SIT OUTSIDE. Nylon degrades the most, and in their belt specs for pro reclined applications (e.g. INdycar) only polyester is allowed - but the two year rule remains. BUT - in many cases after two years the degraded material still meets the pull standards for the harnesses (If i'm reading the data correctly). Well that didn't give them the answer they wanted so they added in a derating for "dumping". They also bring up the fact that some dyes hide the degradation.
So, If we were being smart about it we should only allow poly (because material is just a fraction of costs compared to anything else), manufacturers should develop an anti-dumping design, and if we were smart the belts would include a tell-tale to gauge UV exposure - because that is what its all about. so again, worst case (high levels of UV not normally seen except in aircraft stored outside) combined with bad installation (despite their having installation requirements). Its all made to look like science, but its not.
When you look at the member list it is dominated by drag racing and pulling groups. It would be interesting to have someone from the club poll the other member organizations and ask what the sentiment in their members is with regard to to the two-year rule.
With respect to fire systems, the two year life is baked into the spec, along with the max number of re-certs/refills:
"Single Seat Open Wheel Rear Engine On Board Fire Suppression Systemsshall be inspected for recertification at least every two years after the date oforiginal certification or as specified by the certifying manufacturer. When aunit is determined to be acceptable for continued service, a newconformance label marked with the inspection date shall be used. In-fieldrecertification is permitted, but ONLY by the original manufacturer or itsauthorized agent. Mailing of certification labels to customers is strictlyprohibited. Systems shall have a maximum field service life of 6 years fromthe original date of installation. At the end of the 6-year period, all systems SFI Specification 17.2 Page 3 Effective: April 19, 2019Copyright © 2020 by the SFI Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any form without written permission of SFI is prohibited.must be returned to the manufacturer or a certified recycling service centerfor lawful disassembly, recycling and decommissioning. No system may berefilled more than 6 times during its 6-year field service life."
So they expect you to return the item you purchased? What bull****.
Note - unlike the belt presentation, there is no supporting documentation for the re-cert rules on fire systems.