Printable View
Well, the good news is my 2009 belts are legal. Not sure about my suit, but I am in the process of replacing it anyway. Most suits aren't dated, so I don't know how a decertification will be enforced either. And when the SNELL 2010 helmets come out, I will replace my Impact helmet with another brand, and never buy anything else from Bill Simpson.
How do you know that the shoes and gloves are made with FR materials unless they are certified?
If Bill can't stop this decertification don't you think he'll just declare bankruptcy? He's done it before.Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerbob
Same way you know the gloves, shoes, socks, etc. that don't need a certification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer Jer
Back in the days of borax soaked suits a lighter usually worked.......
RACING MEMO
DATE March 31, 2010
NUMBER: RM 10-04
FROM:Club Racing Board
TOAll Participants
SUBJECT: SFI Decertification of Impact Products
SCCA is aware of the action taken by SFI against Impact Racing. We are in the process of determining what action (if any) will be needed for our drivers. We will communicate the outcome to our drivers, tech personnel and stewards via member email and website posting when the answers have been determined. Until further notice, it is business as usual and as long as your safety products have SFI certification (patch/sticker) that meets our current GCR requirements, you would be considered compliant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer Jer
If a judgment is based on fraud, which something like this would be, then it's not dischargeable. But since they won iin court today, at least from what I hear, it may all be a moot point - need to keep watching to see what happens next
Does the message from SCCA, "Until further notice, it is business as usual and as long as your safety products have SFI certification (patch/sticker) that meets our current GCR requirements, you would be considered compliant," mean that you are all right so long as you have an SFI patch, even if it is counterfeit? This seems to be a pretty vague statement. Or do they just not want to say it?
- Frank C
It seems a partial compromise has been agreed upon. http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...come-to-terms/
The SCCA missive seemed pretty clear to me. If it has a patch indicating the correct standard, it's acceptable for now...I'd balk if someone showed up with a duct tape and magic marker and claimed that it was a patch, but anything resembling the correct label should be acceptable.
Larry Oliver
Erstwhile national chief steward
I wondered when something like this was going to happen.SFI is about profit just like Impact.Do I condone counterfeiting certification?Absolutely not but SFI ,in my opinion usually holds the dollar more important than the process.If you don't agree just look at the head and neck restraint issues and their process for certification of all the companies who build products that compete with the HANS device.
A source [secondhand - but it gets up to the BOD] - which I can't say is reliable - simply because I've never obtained any news from this channel prior - says the SCCA is apparently not going to do much of anything to a driver that presents an Impact suit at Tech with a label on it that looks like most anything other than homemade.
Time will tell indeed but maybe this whole thing is going to cause no member in the SCCA to get their fireproof panties in a wad.
I sure hope it's true
This entire incident is so sad on many many levels.
Apparently it was not just about a dispute over tags after all. I think this pretty much puts the nail in Impact's coffin.
http://www.sfifoundation.com/PressRelease04-21-10.pdf
Quote:
April 21, 2010 - SFI issues the following press release. Please review this carefully:
1. Impact Racing has withdrawn its appeal of the decertifications of its products bearing SFI 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1, and 16.5 specifications manufactured in the years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. The decertifications of these products are now permanent.
2. The decertifications are based upon a number of the affected products being non-
compliant with SFI specifications concerning labeling and construction. In addition to the
presence of non-compliant SFI tags and the absence of DOMs on products, 3.2A/5 suits made prior to 2009 have been constructed with non-compliant materials that, in SFI’s judgment, pose a safety risk to users of these suits.
3. Impact Racing is permitted to maintain the certification for products bearing SFI
3.2A, 3.3, 16.1, and 16.5 specifications manufactured in 2009 and 2010. SFI’s investigation of
the labeling and construction of these products is ongoing. Impact’s participation in the SFI
specification programs ends June 22, 2010.
4. Any Impact product with SFI specifications 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1, and 16.5 without a
date of manufacture (DOM) is deemed to be a decertified product unless the manufacturer has
provided the product user with proof that it was manufactured in 2009 or 2010. This proof must be presented to track officials upon request. Impact believes that its products made in 2009 and 2010 have the DOMs affixed to products to the extent mandated by SFI specifications.
So looking over a couple of SFI only suits I have here. None of them have the date of manufacture on them either. The only impact suit I've looked at was the same.
For what it's worth, this is off the front page of the Impact website...
SFI will be issuing a press release sometime today (Wednesday, April 21st). Impact was just notified of this at 4:30 today. Impact Racing will have an official rebuttal to SFI's statement by 5pm tomorrow, Thursday, April 22nd.
So if I have an Impact suit manufactured in 2005 with a 3.2A/5 rating, it is now rendered useless? Granted, I have taken proper measures by ordering a new Sparco, but I want to know for sure before I send the Impact back with a letter to Mr. Simpson.
I've also got an Impact suit from 2005. I'm thinking it will make a classy set of coveralls for the shop. :rolleyes:
FYI: The suit MAY have a tag sewn on an inside seam with a date of mfg. This practice probably varies with manufacturer but I've seen more than one brand done this way.
Also might want to wait until the dust settles on this....there are always more than one version of the story. Never know what type of settlement may become of this...just might have to have the suit/belts to collect.
Impact's latest press release:
[FONT=Verdana]Impact strongly disagrees with SFI’s decertification of its products manufactured in the years 2005-2008. Impact is working diligently to resolve this issue with SFI. Impact decided to stop the internal SFI appeal process because it became obvious that Impact could not get a fair hearing.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]IMPACT PRESS RELEASE - APRIL 22nd 2010[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Impact’s track record of providing safety to racers is unmatched. There have been no burns or other injuries reported to Impact by any racer wearing Impact Race Products since its inception. Impact has seen drivers wearing its gear walk away unharmed from very serious explosions and wrecks. We stand behind the safety of our products 100% and have always placed the safety of racers at the forefront of our mission and company. Bill Simpson has worked at the goal of saving racers’ lives for over 52 years and his name is synonymous with motorsports safety.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Impact’s vocal position has been that SFI’s certification programs are seriously flawed and antiquated and do not address the issue of safety. Accordingly, SFI is applying standards to us that it has not applied to any other product manufacturer.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Impact regrets that SFI has chosen the path of decertification and lawsuits against Impact as a way to handle any concerns it has. Bill Simpson and Impact Racing have always worked closely with SFI and all sanctioning bodies to help improve driver safety in motorsports and come up with many innovations in safety. Impact would like to have resolved this issue in a different way. Unfortunately, SFI’s actions have caused racers unnecessarily to question their safety.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Impact will do everything in its power to resolve this dispute and help our loyal customers through it. We are committed to clearing Impact’s name and moving onward with our job of providing the best safety equipment money can buy to racers across the country and world.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT]
First, it was just a dispute over the source of SFI tags, according to Impact. Now they are claiming to be scapegoats because they have criticized the SFI standards.
Despite saying they will do everything they can to help customers "get through this," when I called a couple weeks ago to ask about getting proof of either the date of manufacture of my suit or verification of the status of the SFI patch on it, I was told there was nothing they could do about it. So I bought a new suit, and I'm glad I did. Because that statement plus about $500-1000 will get you a drivers suit you can legally wear at an SCCA race starting on April 28.
Lowly club racers like me will just have to suck it up and go on, but it will be interesting to see what happens with all the NASCAR and IRL teams that use their gear and could be faced with spending 10s of thousands of dollars to replace a full set of crew and driver gear.
In fact, at VIR Grand-Am told all drivers and crew people using Impact suits to meet with Grand-Am officials today. We can easily guess why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt King
I've dragged my older Worth suit out of mothballs...damn it. At least that one has a valid SFI certification.
SFI Decertification of Impact Racing, LLC. Products
Per the attached press release, products manufactured by Impact Racing, LLC prior to 2009 are decertified and do not meet the criteria for SCCA competition as required by our General Competition Rules (GCR). Drivers who have purchased items from Impact Racing, LLC that do not have a date in them should contact Impact Racing, LLC to obtain a letter confirming the manufactured date of their items. If the date of manufacture is prior to 2009, it is the driver’s responsibility to correct the situation.
SCCA is delaying enforcement of the decertification pending further evaluation. More information will be shared as it becomes available.
In the interim each driver should evaluate their personal use of the affected equipment.
The NHRA issued a similar statement yesterday. I'm a little confused by the line about delaying enforcement. That seems to leave the legality of these products over the course of the next couple of race weekends in limbo.
An interesting take by SCCA. On one hand they clearly state that the Impact products prior to 2009 are not legal for use in SCCA events and in the next sentence they say that for the time being they are going to turn their heads and proceed as if the products are certified. I would sure hate to be on the SCCA side of a lawsuit if it ever happened. Knowingly allowing a 'decertified' piece of safety equipment? Our club did not cause this problem, IMPACT did. Why is our club sticking its neck out like this?
Is anyone else curious as to the nature of the "non-compliant" materials? That's important in my mind in considering whether I would still be using one of their suits. Chances are its some stuid thing like the thread wasn't the right grade of nomex, but I would asking what SFI means or knows.
I think it's bogus and fishy that if SFI really had racers interest in mind, they would say what the problem is. Not just they are non-compliant and risky.
I think the club is taking a calculated risk in favor of its members. Apparently, the SCCA has not had a problem with fire/lawsuits and is willing to accept a risk for a short time, rather than cause a major disenfranchisement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim FF19
I think it's a good thing. I can imagine a reasonable argument that could be presented to support this decision.
I am, because I have an Impact suit made in 2005. Since I already replaced it with an OMP suit, maybe I should do a destructive test to see how it holds up!Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Sport Engineering
Also, I just called Topeka and talked to Kevin in Club Racing who said a bulletin is being prepared that will clarify that the decertification will be enforced starting June 1.
Now waiting for the phone to start ringing or the PM's/E-mails to start pouring in.Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerbob
Nothing has ever been mentioined about the Impact gear being defective beyond a 'bogus' Chinese manfucatured SFI label.Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Sport Engineering
If you read through all of the published material on this I find one thing rather curious. This entire episode started as a result of an affidavit from a former employee (the fired General Manager I believe).
Bill Simpson testified under oath that he had NO idea there were bogus tags on Impacts gear. That may well be true. He may not have known somebody in the company was ordering tags from a bad source. In any company that size, the President wouldn't be looking at every purchase order.
The whole deal sounds seriously bogus to me.
The suits are either made from Nomex and Carbon-X or they aren't. No dog in the fight. No Impact gear in use here.
Actually, in the latest press release, item number 2 indicates that in addition to the non-compliant lables, SFI has found suits prior to 2009 to be made with non-compliant materials that pose a safety risk to thier users.Code:
Nothing has ever been mentioined about the Impact gear being defective beyond a 'bogus' Chinese manfucatured SFI label.
Like you said, nomex is nomex. Which is why I commented on it seems fishy to me. What can possibly be non-compliant in the suit?
This luckily doesn't effect me, but I still say something seems bogus.
I know SCCA used the term "products" but does this include helmets? I was under the impression that helmets were not part of the problem.
SNELL and SFI are two separate companies. Snell Helmets are not affected at all by the SFI stance.
Perhaps there should be a class action suit against SFI for not actually insuring that anything with their tag on it is really doing it's job.
The affected items are:
3.2.A - Driver suits 3.2.A/1, 3 and 5
3.3 - Driver accessories including arm restraints, shoes, gloves, harness pads, helmet supports, balaclavas, socks and underclothing.
16.1 - Driver restraints
16.5 - Stock Car driver restraints
As for more specific information, this was released by SFI yesterday:
www.sfifoundation.com
[quote=rickb99;253052]
Bill Simpson testified under oath that he had NO idea there were bogus tags on Impacts gear. That may well be true. He may not have known somebody in the company was ordering tags from a bad source. In any company that size, the President wouldn't be looking at every purchase order.
Bill Simpson is responsible for his products. End of story. He is also responsible for the counterfeit thread :meatball: that will melt away during a fire, the counterfeit HANS anchors :meatball: and the counterfeit SFI tags :meatball:. There is more. Just look at the SFI statement :meatball:.
I cannot understand why anyone would want to give Bill Simpson or IMPACT a pass considering what they have done to deliberately decieve the racers they sell to. All that so Bill Simpson could put a few extra dollars in his pocket at the racers expense. It is a sad ending to what was a great start with Simpson Products.
Since SFI does not inspect any manufacturing facilities, I would have no confidence that the 2009 or 2010 suits meet the standard either, real SFI tag or not.
BIG BALLS:(
Spoke with Impact this morning, their solution is to offer a25-50% discount on a new suit if you have one of the "decertified" suits.
Simpson is a foul ball....
I agree Bill bears the burden of what happened within his company. I'm just saying he may not have even been aware of it but still, his responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim FF19
UNLIKE FIA, SFI doesn't inspect OR test anything. Why would you place any confidence in any product with their 'purchased' tag on it?
Yes, he paid a few extra $$$ but all of Jeff's safety gear (that can be) is FIA rated.
Pretty obvious something is wrong if this went on for 5 years or more with no one catching it.
I happen to own a now decertified suit.
I'll call next week and see what they offer.
We'll see...
And what happens after June 22, when they are no longer a part of the SFI certification program? I guess if you buy a suit today that both parties stipulate is SFI compliant, it would be grandfathered in, but you know the day will come when you are standing in tech arguing with an inspector about whether your suit is legal or not. Not worth the hassle or the risk of throwing good money after bad IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis McCarthy