Safety Harness - Change of Life

[rickb99]

For those who missed it in Fastrack:

Safety Harness's have undergone change of life. Bold text is new life span. Text in square brackets goes away.

8. All driver restraint systems shall meet SFI Specifications 16.1., and shall bear a dated "SFI Spec 16.1.", label. The certification indicated by this label shall expire on December 31st of the [5th]2nd year after the date of manufacture as indicated by this label.

[It is recommended that driver restraint systems be replaced every three (3) years.] Driver restraint systems complying with FIA specification #8853/1985, including amendment 1/92, may be used. FIA driver restraint systems shall be no more than [five] two([5]2) years old. (Not all manufacturers are dating every belt in a set. They may be dating one of a pair of shoulder or lap belts or may only be dating one belt in an entire set. Scrutineers are reminded the restraint system needs only one date label.)

Restraint systems homologated to FIA specification 8853/98 and 8854/98 will not have a date of manufacture label. Instead, they will have a label containing the Manufacturers Name, Type of Harness Designation, and Date of Expiration, which is the last day of the year marked. All straps in an FIA restraint system will have these labels. FIA restraint systems with the certification "D-###.T/98" are equal to FIA specifications 8853/98 and 8854/98, and are therefore acceptable restraint systems.
END QUOTE

So, If interpreted correctly all SFI certified harness's must be replace every two years

FIA certified belts to the 'older' standard must be replaced after two years.

Although it doesn't specificially say so, FIA belts with the new D###.T98 and 8853/98 or 8854/98 are good until the date specified on the harness as its useful life, maybe.

The rule does not state that the newer FIA belts will be good until the date specified. So it's somewhat open to the use of logic. Always dangerous at tech inspection.

ADDITIONAL INFO FROM D/SR WEB SITE ON 12/09/02:
I just got back from the PRI show and I had a very long talk with Ken Brown who was at the SCCA booth.
I brought this entire topic up to him and here were his comments. Firstly, this entire discussion is motivated by the insurance industry. Ken told me that SCCA is the only sanctioning body (I don't know if he means pro or not) that does not mandate belt changes every two years. He went on to say that if we don't replace every two years and everyone else does, our insurance rates will either increase or at least not decrease. That in turn will be felt by the club members. Additionally, the two years will only apply to SFI rated belts. FIA and the like which don't have manufacturing dates, but rather expiration dates will be dealt with separately. How I don't know.
Here's the real kicker. He made it quite clear that I should not be surprised if in the not to distant future, SCCA mandates head and neck restraints. Which systems will be acceptable? Ken seemed to say that the data they have indicates that currently the only system SCCA may approve in HANS. The bottom line is this. Ken said that before the belt issue is finalized, SCCA top brass will be meeting with SFI, FIA, physicians and other "impartial" people before a decision is made (about head restraints).
END

As I mentioned above, Ken Brown did not specifically state in his comments, nor in the new rule wording that FIA 5 year life belts would indeed be good for 5 years.

I think part of this " problem / issue " stems from the fact that 90% of racing sanctioning bodies in the United State go by the SFI certs. It is the recognized 'standard' in the U.S. because they (the sanctioning bodies) have no affiliation with foreign racing organizations. Therefore, they don't use any FIA standards. We (the SCCA) are indeed affiliated with the FIA and as such should (must?) recognize their standards at least at the professional level. What they (the SCCA Mgmt.) does at the club racing level can be different (sadly).

[size="1"][ December 09, 2002, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: rickb99 ][/size]

[Steve Demeter]

So in English does this mean that you have to replace your harness avery 2 years unless it has an expiration date on it??
When did this slip in. I don't remember it being in any Comp Board minutes?? or did I really miss it??

[Purple Frog]

I have been trying to do the math on this.

Instead of belts costing us $250 every 5 years, they will now cost $625 every 5 years... or an average increase of $75 per year.

So... are we doing this to keep our insurance from going up more than $75 per year? or, just to make sure we get insurance at all?

And how many belt failures have we seen? (IMHO, if not that DE's shop installed his wrong, this would not be on the radar screen.)

[BrooksHall]

I am as confused as Steve on this one. My Wilians belts expire 4/04. Do I need to replace them now or in 04?

[D.T. Benner]

If you use Simpson 6 point belts they will reweb them[the hardware does not wearout] for a reasonable price and label[date] them. thats a option most companys don't offer.

[montfort]

Isn't there some way to just print new labels?

[rickb99]

Hmmm...
I heard (about 6 months ago) that Simpson wasn't accepting any harness's for rewebbing. Overloaded with work and not profitable.

Compared to the cost of the complete assembly, how much is Simpson really saving with a few pieces of steel buckle salvaged? IF priced correctly, rewebbing ought to cost around 68% to 77.4% of a new system.

Okay maybe a large part of the initial cost is in the buckles. However, their (Simpson's)primary portential liability is in a webbing failure. Therefore, I would suspect their (Simpson's) insurance carrier adds a hefty fee for insuring rewebed belts.

Second Hmmm....
New labels.. lets see, they ONLY put the label on the shoulder harness OR the lap belt... Therefore,... Hmmmm... just replace the labeled item???

[size="1"][ December 09, 2002, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: rickb99 ][/size]

[montfort]

Finally, I've found someone more devious than me.

[Steve Demeter]

I finally got the January sporst Car yesterday, read the comp board proposal and did a little digging.

It seems that SFI did some testing that says that nylon will turn to junk in 2 years, so they changed their recommendation to 2 year life on belts. This testing is done at the request and funded by the equipment manufacturers. nuff said.

The fact that they \made nylon turn to junk in what would be 2 years indicates that they did some really unrealistically harsh testing. There is a lot of nylon in pass cars in very extreme underhood enviroments and it does not fall apart in 2 years.

The comp board, yes manning the legal department, hence recommended this change.

The FIA still says belts are good for 5 years. The expiration date on FIA belts is 5 years after manufacture.

I have talked to my area director and he is going to propose that if you have SFI belts, then you replace them every 2 years and if you have FIA belts, keep the interval at 5 years.

Bottom line, everyone contact their director and express their concern, if you agree that this change is unwarrented, and explain to them why.

[D.T. Benner]

What Rick99 said about Simpson rewebing may be true as a lot has changed since Bill Simpson left the company. That would be sad as they always treated me good with the Rewebing and yes they changed ALL the webing at a very reasonable price. But that was then,this is now.

[PF2000]

I recently recieved a new Simpson catalog and in it is a note telling customers that their Rewebing service has been canceled as of April 2002.

[BrooksHall]

OK I admit that I am a bit thick in the head will someone clarify if my belts need to be replaced or not. Willans belts SFI rated date of manufacture 12/00.

[chuck cecil]

gcr pg. 163 recommend change every 3 yrs but have tobe changed 5 years from date of manf. for a formula car that stays in enclosed trailer or shop 5 years should be fine .uv does the most damage to the webbing.only change mine every 5 years.

[BrooksHall]

Just got my SportsCar and it looks like the rule won't take effect untill 1/04. I am I reading this correct?

[R. Pare]

Someone also please explain the difference between "recommended" and "mandatory" !

Or doesn't the Club recognise that there is a difference?

[kea]

I my past experience with "the club", recommended does not mean required. But, some tech officals may not read it this way, so you sould be prepaired to show them the rule in writing and the word "recommended".
Keith

[H82BSLO]

I think it boils down to this, if you feel that you are safe using the belts you have in your car then you shouldn't have to change them - definately not every two years. I can't believe that a race car sitting a workshop and not being used needs to have its belts changed every two years. Its ridiculous and we need to tell them so. How often do we need to change them in a road car, its the same material isn't it? Now if they said every 100 races or something it would make some sense. If we agree to this rule change new drivers suits and helmets every two years is just around the corner. This must be being pushed by the industry. If, like me, you do not feel this is a necessary rule change then I urge you to write to the comp board and tell them.

Phil Hemes.

[EYERACE]

in Fastrack the reading seems to be that it's on it's way to the Board of Directors, so it's not a rule currently. Therefore, those of us [virtually 100% it seems] disapproving of the mod from 5yrs to 2yrs must be vocal and quickly to the Board of Directors not the Comp Board.

[EYERACE]

Uh further.....this mentioned "industry standard"....uh, what industry is parallel to Club Racing?....NASCAR, i think not...USAC, maybe but that's a stretch....NHRA, no....this "industry standard" needs defining, will post what B Cohn says.

[H82BSLO]

I checked Fastrack again and it definitely says comments to the comp board so get writing guys.....

[chuck cecil]

Everyone on this site needs to email the Comp Board about this seat belt rule. Let's inundate them with emails, because this is a totally unnecessary rule.

To email the Comp Board, go to WWW.SCCA.ORG, scroll down the home page and click on "Boards and Committees." There's an email icon that goes to all the Comp Board members.

Let them hear our concerns.

Chuck Cecil

[H82BSLO]

Great idea Chuck!

[rickb99]

Whooaaa horsey!

Having started this thread and not having made a comment since, perhaps it's time now.

Let's look at the fundimental questions here.

IF THE SCCA HONORS the FIA (5 year) certified seat belts as is that's good and acceptable.

Notice the wording of the "new" rule that they sorta-might.. maybe are... thinking about accepting FIA cert. 5 year belts as is.

If SFI will only certify Simpson belts for 2 years, then they should be replaced in 2 years. There must be some fundimental issue here because Simpson belts ARE NOT and have NOT been FIA certified and apparently are not sold in Europe.

On a devious train of thought, perhaps whoever is dreaming up this rule will pick up some cash when Simpson sells more belts. If all belts are replaced every two years, why buy a 5 year belt at a slightly higher price? Hmmmm...

Now, if the SFI took an FIA 5 year certified belt and said it's only good for 2 years... that's very bad indeed and should be stopped.

If the SCCA is going to accept both SFI and FIA certifications then they should accept the standards set by those bodies.

I really can't see two standards for the SAME belt. One, SCCA pro racing accepting FIA 5 year belts. But if the SAME belt is used 1/5th (or less) of the time and exposed to far less sun in club racing, it's only good for 2 years! D-U-M-B !

Of course they (the SCCA) don't accept FIA standards in the case of roll bars. Which is another D-U-M-B. I don't see reports of roll bar failures causing injuries in Europe. But that's another issue.

TO Charles below:
Charles, I understand the point about past events with the roll bar issue. The correct decision may have been made. However, what I do question is the methodology of the 'fix'.

If the SCCA has a valid point, then they shouldn't be sanctioning the same car as okay to run in PRO events but not good enough for club events. Its gotta be one or the other.

They should petition and demand changes through the FIA. To do anything else is an indication of financial greed on the PRO side with additional (and recognized) risk to drivers.

[size="1"][ December 17, 2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: rickb99 ][/size]

[Charles Warner]

Rick,

As to roll bar failures causing problems, it was just this issue that led the club to not automatically accept FIA homolgation. There were Reynard atlantics (I believe) that had several testing failures of their roll structures even though the cars were homologated. At first the club was forced to accept this since we were an ACCUS member. Also, the Raven atlantic car did not even have a "roll bar" but a "roll structure" that mathematically would stand up to the FIA specs.

After discussing this at length with Phil Creighton, it certainly seems it is mostly not an issue. Since the Reynard atlantic issue, and due to the propensity of builders to cut corners and try all sorts of aero tricks, the club has reserved the right (in writing) to refuse a car on safety grounds even though it is homologated by the FIA. In this case it appears all were aware of the 1.375" requirement. Dallara, et al, were/are willing to make the required changes. Others apparently are not (due to the cost issue?)

It seems this is a simple situation. The cars only need to be modified to meet the same regulations and safety requirements placed on ALL cars of the same genre and all will be well in Whoville.

[Charles Warner]

Rick,

I understand your point regarding the apparent differences in philosophy between PRO and Club. They do, unfortunately at this junction, exist. I also know it is the Comp Board's desire that there be a valid place in Club racing for all cars extant in a pro series (up to a certain limit.) This would seem to be an oxymoronic issue at present if safety requirements differ. However, we can not simply blow off these safety requirements.

Your point is well made regarding the recognized increased risk that is accepted by the PRO people. It should be pointed out that the PRO series often unilaterally change their specs without consultaion with the Club side. Not that they should be required to do so, but they have to understand the problems they create when they do such things. Case in point, the change from 6/8 wheels to 8/10 on the Zetecs. The Comp Board was apparently the last to find out.

I think we could benefit a great deal if all sides in these issues worked to create an atmosphere of mutual cooperation instead of maintaining a them versus us attitude.

[Raj Nair]

So whatever happened to this proposed rule change?

[Terry Hanushek]

Raj

Originally posted by Raj:
So whatever happened to this proposed rule change?

It is still in the proposal stage. The Comp Board and the Club technical staff are researching the testing that the SFI used to recommend a two year replacement cycle. The initial proposal was generated from an SFI (manufacturers group) recommendation.

Terry