SFI Decertifies Impact gear by April 27

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt King

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim FF19

Why is our club sticking its neck out like this?

---

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.

I think it's a good thing. I can imagine a reasonable argument that could be presented to support this decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Speed Sport Engineering

Is anyone else curious as to the nature of the "non-compliant" materials?

---

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawyerbob

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

---

Now waiting for the phone to start ringing or the PM's/E-mails to start pouring in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Speed Sport Engineering

......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.

---

Nothing has ever been mentioined about the Impact gear being defective beyond a 'bogus' Chinese manfucatured SFI label.

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.

Code:

---


Nothing has ever been mentioined about the Impact gear being defective beyond a 'bogus' Chinese manfucatured SFI label.

---

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.

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim FF19

...... 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.

---

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dennis McCarthy

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....

---

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.

The plot thickens...

Quote:

---

IMPACT PRESS RELEASE - APRIL 23rd 2010


Contrary to the assertions of SFI, there is no safety risk to users of Impact Racing suits bearing SFI 3.2A/5 certification tags. The issue that has been created by SFI involves thread used in Impact’s fire suits. The error in the assessment of SFI is revealed by its assertion that thread used by Impact Racing “melts away in a fire”. According to the analysis presented by SFI “this causes the fabric to come apart since there is no longer thread to hold the suit together”. This conclusion demonstrates the lack of understanding on the part of SFI as to what causes a fire suit to work and what causes a fire suit to be safe.

The thread about which SFI complains is not intended to “hold the suit together”. The fabric does not “come apart” in a fire. In a fire, the layers of fabric must be allowed to expand because it is expansion that creates the layer of air that insulates a racer from fire. Impact Racing understands the necessity of this process in fire suit construction. SFI does not.

SFI has been aware of the thread used by Impact Racing since January 14, 2009. Rather than acknowledge that SFI’s specification diminishes fire suit safety and changing the specification to enhance fire suit safety, SFI has, without foundation, accused Impact Racing of providing samples of a certain type to get SFI certification and then changing the lay-up for manufacturing. Impact Racing manufactures fire suits knowing that lives are at stake. Impact Racing fire suits are safe independent of SFI standards.

SFI has taken credit for the avoidance of burns or other injuries to users of Impact Racing products. According to SFI the absence of burns or other injuries to due “to the policing of Impact products by SFI”. The absence of burns or other injuries to users of Impact Racing products is a result of attention to design and commitment to safety throughout the Impact Racing product line. What SFI has deemed to be a “pattern of non-compliance” by Impact Racing is a dispute over standards that SFI refuses to change even under circumstances when change is in the best interest of the user of the product.

Impact Racing is engaged in discussions with SFI about its products, SFI standards, and SFI testing procedures. Impact Racing is committed to resolving these issues with SFI if it can be done without compromising the benchmarks Impact Racing has established to assure product safety.

---

What a bunch of BS. Not to side with SFI but if Impact had any issue with SFI they could have taken up the particulars way before there was ANY taint from counterfeiting any items they sell including HANS components. They didn't have much of a problem with SFI policy until they got caught. They've screwed a lot of racers. I'll never purchase another Impact product again...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dennis McCarthy

What a bunch of BS. Not to side with SFI but if Impact had any issue with SFI they could have taken up the particulars way before there was ANY taint from counterfeiting any items they sell including HANS components. They didn't have much of a problem with SFI policy until they got caught. They've screwed a lot of racers. I'll never purchase another Impact product again...

---

I'm not so sure - the point they seem to be trying to make may be valid. Without knowing a lot more about the product's construction and how it affects performance it would be difficult or impossible to judge. There might be proprietary design info involved, which would explain Impact's reticence to put the whole story out in the open proactively. It's also pretty hard to believe that ANY safety equipment manufacturer would knowingly use a material that could result in needless severe injury or death due to a comprehensive product failure.

I think that this whole situation really brings to light the need for independent design review and product testing in our industry - regardless of whether it's Impact or SFI who are the bad actors in this specific case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshall Mauney

It's also pretty hard to believe that ANY safety equipment manufacturer would knowingly use a material that could result in needless severe injury or death due to a comprehensive product failure.

---

You mean like counterfeit Hans anchors;)

Fine. All Bill needs to do is tell the press that he is about to spend what it takes to get all of his suits FIA 8856-2000 certified, sever all ties with the scam that is SFI, and urge all other US suit manufacturers and sanctioning bodies to do the same. I don't think that will happen tho.

These are not NASA spacesuits, they are some layers of nomex and or carbonX cloth sewn together as coveralls.

The only thing proprietary about the suit might be the material it is made from and that would be information held by Dupont or another material manufacturer not Impact.

Any suit manufacturer certainly could purchase an Impact suit and reverse engineer it if it had any "special" qualities.

SFI says in addition to other items that test poorly the suits are unsafe as they tested a suit and it came apart.

April, 2010
SFI PRESS RELEASE - Response to the Impact Racing Press Release of April 22, 2010
April 22, 2010 - Yesterday, SFI advised the racing community that Impact Racing suits bearing 3.2A/5 certifications “made prior to 2009 have been constructed with non-compliant materials that, in SFI’s judgment, pose a safety risk to users of those suits.” Impact responded by attacking SFI certification programs (although Impact and the other major equipment manufacturers have agreed to and participated in the development of these well-established programs); by claiming it could not get a fair hearing of the decertification appeal (although Impact asked for and received an expedited appeal procedure); and by claiming that “SFI’s actions have caused racers unnecessarily to question their safety.” It is this last point that requires a very specific response.
Scientific testing just conducted on 2008 Impact 3.2A/5 suits has determined that the thread melts away in a fire. This causes the fabric to come apart since there is no longer thread to hold the suit together. SFI believes this poses a significant safety risk to the racer involved in a fire. Rather than being constructed with Nomex (heat resistant) thread, the suits were constructed with some sort of unknown non-compliant thread that melts during heat testing. This thread failure is contrary to the SFI specifications that Impact agreed to follow.
The reason that this failure was not discovered sooner is that Impact provided SFI with Nomex thread samples in order to get their products tested and certified initially. Manufacturers are only supposed to provide samples of the actual materials to be used in their products. It appears that Impact failed to comply with this procedure regarding thread. Finally, one suit tested failed to have the proper thermal protective properties in the material itself. Again, such a failure poses a significant safety risk. This safety failure by Impact is consistent with a pattern of non-compliance:
1. Last year, SFI discovered that Impact SFI 3.2A/15 and SFI 3.2A/20 rated fire suits produced in 2007 and 2008 were also made with thread that melted during testing. In addition, these suits were often poorly constructed, without sufficient protective layers of Nomex material. SFI ordered the immediate decertification and recall of these potentially dangerous products.
2. Last year, SFI discovered that Impact SFI 3.3/15 and SFI 3.3/20 boots produced in 2008 were defective. Their materials failed heat resistant testing. SFI ordered the immediate decertification and recall of these potentially dangerous products.
]3. Hans Performance Products discovered last year that Impact deliberately manufactured and sold counterfeit Hans helmet clips and attached them into the helmets of unsuspecting customers. These foreign made knock-offs were inscribed with the “SFI 38.1” inscription. Impact has never participated in this program. These counterfeiting activities were occurring at the same time that Impact was manufacturing counterfeit SFI conformance labels and patches. Hans filed suit against Impact in federal court last year in Atlanta. SFI intervened and joined in the suit against Impact. That suit is pending.
2]4. In 2004, SFI discovered that Impact gloves bearing SFI 3.3/20 specifications were made of material that was too light and failed heat resistance testing. SFI ordered their decertification and recall.
Impact’s press release claims that there “have been no burns or other injuries reported to Impact by any racer wearing Impact Race Products since its inception.” If this is true, the avoidance of injuries is due in large part to the policing of Impact products by SFI.
SFI was heartened when Impact finally admitted its own fault for previously making non-compliant gloves, boots, suits and helmet clips and acted to address those problems. SFI holds out the hope of a similar outcome regarding its pre-2009 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1 and 16.5 products, and that it will act in the best interests of the racing community without further prodding by SFI. However, admission of their fault will not change the fact that these products remain decertified and that Impact’s participation in all SFI programs will end June 22, 2010.

For a downloadable .pdf of this press release, please click on the following link: SFI Press Release 04-22-10.
SFI PRESS RELEASE
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dalz

Fine. All Bill needs to do is tell the press that he is about to spend what it takes to get all of his suits FIA 8856-2000 certified, sever all ties with the scam that is SFI, and urge all other US suit manufacturers and sanctioning bodies to do the same. I don't think that will happen tho.

---

Brings up another interesting point. When will FIA jump into this? It seems they're going to have to do something, one way or the other.

I've done it on my own just to know but I found the "exercise" the SCCA grid people did the other day at Daytona something to think about as we all read this thread about threads. Grid gave us the 5......and after they saw that all were belted in, engines running and ready....they blew whistles and screamed for everyone to get out of their cars as quickly as they could. Well it was quickly obvious they were doing an "exercise" and everyone understood. I kept count of time for my own knowledge.

When was the last time you practiced getting out of your car?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EYERACE

I've done it on my own just to know but I found the "exercise" the SCCA grid people did the other day at Daytona something to think about as we all read this thread about threads. Grid gave us the 5......and after they saw that all were belted in, engines running and ready....they blew whistles and screamed for everyone to get out of their cars as quickly as they could. Well it was quickly obvious they were doing an "exercise" and everyone understood. I kept count of time for my own knowledge.

When was the last time you practiced getting out of your car?

---

Really? I hope someone just sat in their car and stared at them. There is no exit time requirement in the GCR and they don't get to add one. My last car took me 45 seconds to get out of calmly. I was and still am ok with what that meant for me.

I guess this is the same people who were passing out the sheets about exit time considerations at the Sebring national.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by impact press release

The absence of burns or other injuries to users of Impact Racing products is a result of attention to design and commitment to safety throughout the Impact Racing product line.

---

I can use this same logic to prove that my watch prevents tiger attacks. Specious reasoning seems to be the only type used when people talk about safety things.

Anyone remember this?:



http://vintageracecar.com/pages/this...d=25&magiid=80

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Devol

Brings up another interesting point. When will FIA jump into this? It seems they're going to have to do something, one way or the other.

---

Probably not, unless someone tries to use an Impact suit at an FIA event that requires a suit with FIA 8856-2000 cert, which Impact does not apply for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dalz

Probably not, unless someone tries to use an Impact suit at an FIA event that requires a suit with FIA 8856-2000 cert, which Impact does not apply for.

---

When I bought my suit in 2008, Impact offered embroidered FIA certification for $25; I still have the order forms. I didn't ask for FIA, as SCCA doesn't require it the same as pro series.

I'm sure this was a real FIA certification, as it was in plain sight on their paper forms and on the Web. I don't know the exact number of the FIA spec at the time, but it was definitely available.

All that was required was to ask for FIA embroidery for $25.

So it's quite possible, it seems to me, that there are Impact suits out there that are now decertified by SFI that still display FIA certification on the collar and are therefore technically legal in SCCA.

So -- my question remains: what is FIA's reaction to all this? Are they disagreeing with SFI on this or not? The FIA certification now in question, too. And with it, FIA's reputation for competently managing and enforcing safety equipment standards.

Impact's order form still shows FIA embroidery as an option.

The FIA website tech list #27 shows that the Impact S2 suit has received FIA homologation.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regul...icalLists.aspx

FIA probably cares very little about the SFI. No need to address what is happening here. The USA sanctioning bodies and manufacturers have made the SFI what it is. It means ZIP to the rest of the world....and frankly, outside of the drag racing world, shouldn't mean as much here as it does.

Just finished watching Talladega... Sure were a WHOLE LOT of guys (from crew to drivers) running around in IMPACT gear. They must not be taking this issue too seriously.

Also watched a show from Bonneville Salt Flats racing last night. LOTS if IMPACT gear there.

The NAZCAR boys buy probably 20 to 25 new suits at the beginning of every season....so this decert thing is no big deal to them because all their suits are new this year.

I don't know what the SCCA would do to you Wren if when such an "exercise" was done you merely sat there......but think about the 30 seconds that your suit supposedly gives you..........and when you last tried a hasty exit it is really none of my business........but it is something for everyone else to think about no matter what brand of suit worn. I doubt anyone would have trouble getting out in about 15 to 20 seconds and most of us would be faster.

After reading the first 2 paragraphs it seems to me trouble's been looking for this guy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azjc

Anyone remember this?:



http://vintageracecar.com/pages/this...d=25&magiid=80

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EYERACE

I don't know what the SCCA would do to you Wren if when such an "exercise" was done you merely sat there

---

I suppose they could pull someone's tech sticker based on the section of the gcr that requires exit from the car in a certain amount of time.

Workers making up their own rules seems to be getting worse and worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickb99

Just finished watching Talladega... Sure were a WHOLE LOT of guys (from crew to drivers) running around in IMPACT gear. They must not be taking this issue too seriously.

Also watched a show from Bonneville Salt Flats racing last night. LOTS if IMPACT gear there.

---

well...on Wind Tunnel tonight Despain mentioned the Impact fiasco, and that at an event this weekend NHRA would not accept Impact suits as compliant, setting off a scramble for racers to borrow or buy to make the event. So I would expect that older Impact stuff might suffer the same fate in NASCAR.

Apex Performance is offering owners of Impact Racing Gear a special discount if they trade-in their SFI Decertified Impact products towards the purchase of OMP or G-Force products. (We cannot openly advertise the discount but please call or email with inquiries).

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana]If you are replacing Impact Racing gear due to the recent SFI Decertification, please call to learn more about our Impact Product Trade-in Program. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Toll free: 866-505-2739[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]http://www.apexperformance.net/CartGenie/pg_impact.asp[/FONT]

[/FONT]

I'm rather large, and it takes me some time to get into and out of my car, especially because I try not to crack any fiberglass. If, however, I am in a situation which demands a rapid exit, I won't much care about the fiberglass. I already spent 5 days in a hospital from a gasoline explosion (many years ago), and I can assure you I will be motivated. I also saw a 200+ pound crew chief exit a B-52 through the copilots side window--an impossible feat if you go by the measurements of the opening, but rather easy if you are sitting on 35,000 gallons of burning kerosene.

Point is, such measurements are irrelevant, not required by the SCCA GCR, and mainly for the amusement of the officials demanding such.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larry

I'm rather large, and it takes me some time to get into and out of my car, especially because I try not to crack any fiberglass. If, however, I am in a situation which demands a rapid exit, I won't much care about the fiberglass. I already spent 5 days in a hospital from a gasoline explosion (many years ago), and I can assure you I will be motivated. I also saw a 200+ pound crew chief exit a B-52 through the copilots side window--an impossible feat if you go by the measurements of the opening, but rather easy if you are sitting on 35,000 gallons of burning kerosene.

Point is, such measurements are irrelevant, not required by the SCCA GCR, and mainly for the amusement of the officials demanding such.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

---

I have to disagree that they are irrelevant. In the formula car world we don't think about exit being too much of an issue as the hole we get in is pretty darn big and doesn't have a door and we do it with most, if not all of our gear on.

I know of a number of tin top racers who cannot get out of their cars with all the equipment on and the door closed (SM with generic cage and halo seat). I think the exit measurement should be added to the GCR otherwise we will find ourselved in a situation where the 250 pound guy driving a SM with an off the shelf cage will be stuck in the car too long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larry

...... I will be motivated. I also saw a 200+ pound crew chief exit a B-52 through the copilots side window--an impossible feat if you go by the measurements of the opening, but rather easy if you are sitting on 35,000 gallons of burning kerosene.

Point is, such measurements are irrelevant, not required by the SCCA GCR, and mainly for the amusement of the officials demanding such.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

---

It's amazing what the human being can do physically when properly motivated!

Not required is really news to me.

I could swear in the old days (which was the last time I raced) I was tested on my exit time from full race trim in the cockpit by the SCCA? I thought they adopted the same 5 second rule that FIA instituted in 1971 for open wheel cars? No? Don't know if they have a different time for tin-tops.

I think it's a commonly held belief that this rule exists.

On the other hand, I agree with Cooley on the tin tops. I'm guessing that a good 65% or more of them would have a hard time getting out in 10 seconds without a whole lot of motivation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EYERACE

.....the SCCA grid people did the other day at Daytona something to think about as we all read this thread about threads. Grid gave us the 5......and after they saw that all were belted in, engines running and ready....they blew whistles and screamed for everyone to get out of their cars as quickly as they could. Well it was quickly obvious they were doing an "exercise" and everyone understood...

---

If it really is NOT a requirement in the GCR then this was a pure excercise in Feudal Power! I've never heard of or seen this happen. Pre-grid is not the place to be messing with drivers minds. Play these games at tech or in drivers school.

NASCAR doesn't give a hoot about SFI ratings. They have their own rating system for gear so all that impact stuff probably has a NASCAR rating anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fezzic181

NASCAR doesn't give a hoot about SFI ratings. They have their own rating system for gear so all that impact stuff probably has a NASCAR rating anyway.

---

VERY INTERESTING!

Which makes it even more curious how all this got started in road racing. If you go a look all through the SFI web site, you find 90% of their 'standards' for stuff apply to DRAG RACING.

How did SCCA ever get in 'bed' with their standards instead of staying purely with FIA??? Hmmm.

Matter of fact, SCCA IS a member of FIA. So, how can they 'accept' a standard for equipment which is less then FIA requires and still stay a member. Hmmm, again.

Seems like SCCA is cherry picking which FIA standards are required and slipping some SFI standards in when it feels good. Hmmm, one more time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickb99

If it really is NOT a requirement in the GCR then this was a pure excercise in Feudal Power! I've never heard of or seen this happen. Pre-grid is not the place to be messing with drivers minds. Play these games at tech or in drivers school.

---

It is not. The CRB rejected it again in the latest fastrack.

Workers largely treat drivers like mildly retarded children. I doubt they would acknowledge most drivers have a mind to mess with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

It is not. The CRB rejected it again in the latest fastrack.

Workers largely treat drivers like mildly retarded children. I doubt they would acknowledge most drivers have a mind to mess with.

---

Wren, cut 'em some slack. They are volunteering their weekends and if they didn't, it would really impact our hobby.

Plus, I'm sure most of them have our best interest at heart. They want us to be safe, and they may not realize how hard it is for us just to get a race car to the track.

The NHRA and SCCA have made SFI what they are.The FIA probably isn't worried about the decertification would be my guess.I wonder if the suits in question are made of inferior material or what. I can't imagine that suddenly all the suits produced since before 2009/2010 are now ineffective.I am sure at least some have been field tested don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RussMcB

Wren, cut 'em some slack. They are volunteering their weekends and if they didn't, it would really impact our hobby.

Plus, I'm sure most of them have our best interest at heart. They want us to be safe, and they may not realize how hard it is for us just to get a race car to the track.

---

I understand that and I do appreciate it, but if I want someone to yell and swear at me then I can get that at my day job. Having them be wrong and try to make up for it in volume just makes it worse. There was a memorable one recently that was so bad I couldn't even be mad, just impressed at how big of an ******* someone could be.

All I want is for both sides to follow the GCR.

The coming test day at Daytona is $225. In an effort to get enough entrants to make holding the event worthwhile, the recent SCCA Daytona Driver's School was opened also to all other Licenses, not merely Novice Permits. I thought - what the heck it's only $185 for two days and I've missed a lot of seat time while the Crossle was in dry dock. Gear up for the 24 hour course in two weeks and go scrape the rust off early....and living in Orlando I could even sleep at home. So the recent exit car 'exercise' was done at the School for the student's edification. I agree that I would not be happy if right before a race, or even a practice/qualifying session during a National or Regional weekend this would be done. I'm thinking it would be within the power of the Chief Steward to flag into tech a rare driver as they were coming in off the track from most any practice or qualifying session or any session not ending with an impound, and while showing them a stop-watch, tell the driver to see how fast he could exit the car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RussMcB

Wren, cut 'em some slack. They are volunteering their weekends and if they didn't, it would really impact our hobby.

---

With respect, I disagree. And I speak as a steward who volunteers as many weekends as the next person.

Entrants should be able to expect polite and professional behavior from all race officials, paid or unpaid. By the same token, officials should be able to expect correct behavior from entrants.

If you are treated poorly by a race official, bring your concerns to the event's Chief Steward. If you are dissatisfied with the Chief Steward's response, or your issue is with the Chief Steward, contact the Division's Executive Steward.

The Club is very concerned about behavior issues (read the SCCA President's column in the current SportsCar), but it can't solve problems unless it knows about them.