December Fastrack

The subjective nature of the final steps in determining minimum weight are such that it is impossible for individuals outside the system to 'plug in' their specs and come up with the same numbers on a consistant basis.

[/b]
Click to expand...

My guess is that's exactly what is bothering people and the reason they want to see it published... to see what subjectivity is applied to their car vs. that applied to other cars.
 
My guess is that's exactly what is bothering people and the reason they want to see it published... to see what subjectivity is applied to their car vs. that applied to other cars. [/b]
Click to expand...

I fully understand the motive for the request, and I accomodate everyone when I talk with them.
 
even if i wear the fire retardent long inderwear?
[/b]
Click to expand...
The way I read it, that is correct... even if you wear the undies, your suit is no longer legal. Basically, if it doesn't have the SFI 3-2A/1 (or higher) patch or the FIA 8856-2000 patch, you can't use it, underwear or no.
 
I just got off the phone from OMP headquarters, and all suits made from 2000 and up are the same homoligation. So my suit is fine! yay!
 
I just got off the phone from OMP headquarters, and all suits made from 2000 and up are the same homoligation. So my suit is fine! yay!
[/b]
Click to expand...
get it is writing or get them to send you a patch to put on the suit.
 
http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/07-fastrack-dec.pdf
A few things of note:

- SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certification label or FIA 8856-2000 homologation are REQUIRED now. Underwear required unless FIA or SFI 3.2A/5 or higher.
- On-board fire systems minimums changing 1/1/09
- FIA belts must have expiration date (no more 5 years, as I read it)
- 2-inch shoulder harnesses for HANS deleted?
- ECUs free as described prior.
- Dodge Shelby Charger to ITB

- (Proposed)VIN rule NLA, effective 1/1/09 (why not 08???)
- (Effective 12/1/07) Triumph TR6 to ITA
- (Rejected) Publish the weight process (Miskoe)
- (Rejected) Allow jacking points (Miskoe)
[/b]
Click to expand...



that says to me that if the suit isnt FiA you can simply wear the long underwear.
 
get it is writing or get them to send you a patch to put on the suit.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Agreed. If the only patch on your suit says "FiA NORME 1986/1986 STANDARD 04.257.CSAI.99" and SCCA wants to see the FIA 8856-2000 patch, you're going to have issues.

I'm in the same boat with my OMP suit, but I'm going to use that as my angle to get away from the sleeping bag version of the suit I've been wearing and get a G-Force 545 suit.

Jarrod
 
that says to me that if the suit isnt FiA you can simply wear the long underwear.
[/b]
Click to expand...

It says to me that if your suit is SFI 1 or 3, you must wear underwear.

Luckily for me (since i hate wearing underwear), my suite is SFI 5.
 
On the weight issue, anytime ANYONE has asked, Jake, Andy, Bill, et. al. have explained the subjective factors for a particular car. You just have to ask.
 
Hey Kirk,

The Borgward 1.8 DOHC is requested for classification in ITB. Target pw/weight is 17. FWD, Struts all around and 118 stock hp. From what you have 'learned' on this site, what would teh weight be for IT?
 
Yeah SCCA and SFI you dorked up another one! Now a 3 layer "FIA 1986" suit in great condition with carbon-x underwear isn't up to snuff, but the jacka&& in the SFI 3.2a/1 $99 special with some really thin nomex underwear is fine...brilliant.

Glad my suit is a FIA 2000 and even "glader" :P I don't race with SCCA.
 
My suit is fine, but I've got to wonder why they felt a need to "improve" the standard.

What was wrong with the old standard? The existence of a higher rated suits are not neccesary and sufficient conditions to justify it . I really would like to see the cost-benefit analysis on this one and I doubt that this has been done. Given the driver burn rate I've seen over the last ten year - 1 burn/thousands of on track hours - I'm guessing that the cost far exceeds benefits.
 
:happy204:
Yeah SCCA and SFI you dorked up another one! Now a 3 layer "FIA 1986" suit in great condition with carbon-x underwear isn't up to snuff, but the jacka&& in the SFI 3.2a/1 $99 special with some really thin nomex underwear is fine...brilliant.

Glad my suit is a FIA 2000 and even "glader" :P I don't race with SCCA.
[/b]
Click to expand...


My suit is fine, but I've got to wonder why they felt a need to "improve" the standard.

What was wrong with the old standard? The existence of a higher rated suits are not neccesary and sufficient conditions to justify it . I really would like to see the cost-benefit analysis on this one and I doubt that this has been done. Given the driver burn rate I've seen over the last ten year - 1 burn/thousands of on track hours - I'm guessing that the cost far exceeds benefits.
[/b]
Click to expand...

DING DING DING DING.......how do I appeal this one? My suit was barely used and is in in mint condition, and the FiA rating I have exceeds the necessary SFI rating. SCCA, really knows how to screw things up
 
It says to me that if your suit is SFI 1 or 3, you must wear underwear.

Luckily for me (since i hate wearing underwear), my suite is SFI 5.
[/b]
Click to expand...


I never had to wear the long underwear before, so if I wear them then that increases my burn transfer rate. This rule is one of many that is not thought out too well.......

again, where do i appeal this one?

I feel like I just entered a three ring circus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top