HANS... the other shoe's dropped

[tom91ita]

Dick,

the more i thought about it, the more i started to see it as a good thing that anything SCCA does to lessen this, whether or not it makes sense to me personally from my own warped outhouse lawyer status, the better it is overall from a long term perspective.

thanks again.

tom

 

[924Guy]

Thank you, Dick.

Dick,
I too appreciate your efforts. But as an engineer, i don't think the risk management "professionals" understands the concept of "Industry Standards" any better than they understood the concept of math or charts that showed the performance of what they were mandating....

Fixed that for ya...

 

[tom91ita]

Vaughn,

part of this is actually frustration spilling over from work and citing "standards."

we were recently told we had to reference OSHA 1910.111 in our pressure vessel standards. i told them this is not necessarily a good thing because that standard says that ammonia pressure vessels must comply with the 1968 version of the ASME Pressure vessel code.

when i asked if we really wanted to use a 42 year old pressure vessel code, they said of course not and that OSHA requires that we must follow RAGAGEP (Recognized And Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices).

and then they changed the standards to require OSHA 1910.111 with the understanding that we will not use it but use RAGAGEP instead.

if you can make sense of the above, then i did not explain it accurately.

 

[924Guy]

No worries, Tom - I'm an engineer too, I understand perfectly.

 

[gran racing]

Dick, your continued efforts are appreciated. Just as much, it's great to see a BOD member openly communicating with members on public forums such as this.

Won’t help in 2012 but maybe someday things could change.

Reading that really took wind out of me. In several ways as an existing owner of a non-SFI Crap-certification device, it's going to be necessary to purchase something else for next year. A part of that most likely will involve attempting to sell the Isaac device.

 

[jjjanos]

Our risk management professionals do not agree. Now I am 100 percent with you I wish risk management was ok with not doing the industry standard at all but at this time we are being advised that there is no reason to change our rules to require recertification.

Would these be the same risk management professionals that supposedly said we didn't need to adopt 38.1 at all? If so, then yes, it won't matter if we don't accept the entire thing because there is no benefit from adopting 38.1 at all.

If the risk management professionals say 38.1 is needed, then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?.

Now that may change and we may have to go that way at some time in the future depending on what the rest of the industry does or maybe, just maybe, we can find encourage an industry standard setting authority that actually uses science to set standards.

Again, I ask to be educated, since a device outside the 5-year window is not a 38.1 device and 38.1 is required for liability protection, where is the protection? A 6-year old device is non-compliant.

 

[DavidM]

Our risk management professionals do not agree. Now I am 100 percent with you I wish risk management was ok with not doing the industry standard at all but at this time we are being advised that there is no reason to change our rules to require recertification. Now that may change and we may have to go that way at some time in the future depending on what the rest of the industry does or maybe, just maybe, we can find encourage an industry standard setting authority that actually uses science to set standards.

Perhaps we need some new "risk management professionals"? Because these folks seem to have little grasp on how standards work. As other folks have said, a device that is not re-certified in 5 years is no longer SFI compliant. Therefore anyone using said device no longer has an SFI 38.1 compliant device. I await the revised wording, but unless the rule says SFI 38.1 is NOT required then I don't see how you can negate the need to re-certify every 5 years. And if the wording is somehow being changed to allow non-certified 38.1 devices then it better damn well allow other non-SFI devices.

I think we all appreciate the efforts, but there are some serious inconsistencies occurring here.

David

 

[dickita15]

There are limits to what I am willing to type in a public forum but let’s just say one person’s inconsistencies are another person nuances.

 

[jjjanos]

There are limits to what I am willing to type in a public forum but let’s just say one person’s inconsistencies are another person nuances.

If the risk management professionals say 38.1 is needed, then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?. Perhaps I missed the article here about why the club has this mandate.

Far more likely, however, is that this mandate has nothing to do with liability protection and was in reaction to the 2010 Nelson Ledges.

I eagerly await the imminent arrival of SFI-approved roll cages. Clearly the club cannot accept the liability for setting its own standards in that far more important safety item.

 

[dickita15]

If the risk management professionals say 38.1 is needed, then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?. Perhaps I missed the article here about why the club has this mandate.

Far more likely, however, is that this mandate has nothing to do with liability protection and was in reaction to the 2010 Nelson Ledges.

I eagerly await the imminent arrival of SFI-approved roll cages. Clearly the club cannot accept the liability for setting its own standards in that far more important safety item.

Okay I breaking my own rule about dealing with rude people.
I will not discuss what is said by attorneys in executive session and we are certainly not going to publish it.
You have been given the straight story and you a basically calling me a liar.
We are done sir.

 

[gran racing]

Puppies poop!!! And they drool. And they pee on the floor.

I am NOT happy with the BODs decision about the HNR requirement. Actually, it really frustrates me. I'm even less thrilled with the whole SFI bull shi%. In addition to being about safety, it's also about money. Maybe it's because it's the off season, but I'm finding it tougher to get motivated to spend the money (membership dues which isn't cheap; H&NR, new belts - overall my purchases to get to less safe than I was last year). Yet at the same time, I have to respect the position the BOD is in. We live in a sue happy world which sucks. People don't take responsibility for their own decisions and SCCA needs to protect itself from its own membership which WILL sue the club given the opportunity ($$$$).

Even with that understanding, ChumpCar, a fun sports car, and other possibilities keep making me wonder.

 

[jjjanos]

Okay I breaking my own rule about dealing with rude people.

So a club member asking why the BoD has not explained their reason for this rule change is being rude? That's a riot.

I will not discuss what is said by attorneys in executive session and we are certainly not going to publish it.

Again, I repeat -- If the risk management professionals say 38.1 is needed, then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?. Perhaps I missed the article here about why the club has this mandate.

The Chair of the BoD writes an article every month. The President writes an article every month. "We understand that this decision has been unpopular, but our legal council has told us that this decision needed to be made to protect us from the potential liability of someone being injured while not using a device that specifically meets all of the requirements of SFI 38.1

Slap my ass and call me Judy -- I just typed that up in 30 seconds. (And now I am being rude.) How come Our Fearless Leader cannot show the membership this consideration? Perhaps because our legal council did not recommend this?

I will also offer this to refute your assertion.

As for discussing what was said during an executive session, you already have.

You have been given the straight story and you a basically calling me a liar.

Actually, I'm not. I have said that I do not believe that Mr. Lyon said this rule was needed and, a quick review of your public statements shows that neither have you. I believe that Mr. Lyon said there was no need at the National Convention held the year prior to this rule being adopted. Is Mr. Lyon no longer legal council? I think some members of the BoD think this rule is needed for liability concerns but the real reason for their support is a maudlin response over what happened at Nelson.

I've asked several easy questions that require no privileged information being revealed. Some deal with the need for this rule and some deal with why this need has not been communicated by a BoD that is acting in a very unilateral and totalitarian manner on this rule. None of these questions have been answered.

If my or anyone's questioning this decision is offensive, then, with all respect, tough. The questions I have asked are legitimate questions and the silence from the BoD on this issues is VERY telling.

 

[JeffYoung]

You are as bad as that Matt Berg troll. Nice.

So a club member asking why the BoD has not explained their reason for this rule change is being rude? That's a riot.


Again, I repeat -- If the risk management professionals say 38.1 is needed, then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?. Perhaps I missed the article here about why the club has this mandate.

The Chair of the BoD writes an article every month. The President writes an article every month. "We understand that this decision has been unpopular, but our legal council has told us that this decision needed to be made to protect us from the potential liability of someone being injured while not using a device that specifically meets all of the requirements of SFI 38.1

Slap my ass and call me Judy -- I just typed that up in 30 seconds. (And now I am being rude.) How come Our Fearless Leader cannot show the membership this consideration? Perhaps because our legal council did not recommend this?

I will also offer this to refute your assertion.

As for discussing what was said during an executive session, you already have.

Actually, I'm not. I have said that I do not believe that Mr. Lyon said this rule was needed and, a quick review of your public statements shows that neither have you. I believe that Mr. Lyon said there was no need at the National Convention held the year prior to this rule being adopted. Is Mr. Lyon no longer legal council? I think some members of the BoD think this rule is needed for liability concerns but the real reason for their support is a maudlin response over what happened at Nelson.

I've asked several easy questions that require no privileged information being revealed. Some deal with the need for this rule and some deal with why this need has not been communicated by a BoD that is acting in a very unilateral and totalitarian manner on this rule. None of these questions have been answered.

If my or anyone's questioning this decision is offensive, then, with all respect, tough. The questions I have asked are legitimate questions and the silence from the BoD on this issues is VERY telling.

 

[lateapex911]

I believe that Mr. Lyon said there was no need at the National Convention held the year prior to this rule being adopted.

Dude, if you don't think you're possibly the rudest poster here, well, you must think your farts smell like sweet roses as well.

As for whoever made the call, Dick stated they made the call based on legal counsels advice.
So, they made the call based on legal counsels advice.

Why is that confusing to you?
Maybe Lyons changed his mind in the intervening year based on changing factors?

 

[Z3_GoCar]

You are as bad as that Matt Berg troll. Nice.

I remember that guy.... It's been so long since I've seem him, I think last time was on the production board.

ps. This is a guess, but the nuance is probably related to the fact that the BOD voted to accept the 38.1 that was in place this summer. Then SFI went and changed 38.1 to require a manditory inspection, which isn't what the BOD voted to accept. So, at this point they are only going to require the 38.1 that they voted on, until there's a performance based standard they can use instead of 38.1. So by their actions SFI is about to make themselves obsolete.

 

[jjjanos]

You are as bad as that Matt Berg troll. Nice.

If Dick didn't want to engage and didn't want to discuss something that is currently embargoed, he should have kept his mouth shut.

Again, I repeat -- If the risk management professionals say 38.1 is needed, then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?. Perhaps I missed the article here about why the club has this mandate.

Dude, if you don't think you're possibly the rudest poster here, well, you must think your farts smell like sweet roses as well.

I do not claim to present things with sugar, in fact I know I do not. I present them honest and unrefined. And as for how I have treated Dick, I had not been rude.

for whoever made the call, Dick stated they made the call based on legal counsels advice.
So, they made the call based on legal counsels advice.

OK Einstein, here's the nuance. "We do not need these things, but if we require these things, we need to use the industry standard" versus "We need to require these things." versus "We need to require these things and we need to use an industry standard."

Two of these have risk management saying we need 38.1 - which is what Dick says - but only one of them actually says we need the devices. I have absolutely no doubt that if the club requires the device, it needs the razor-thin extra protection of a standard, I am questioning whether risk management said we needed it at all.

The vote to adopt this wasn't unanimous IIRC and if our risk experts said we both HAD to require and use an industry standard, then the BoD members who voted against that advice were being very reckless. We've got either a group of reckless BOD members or a group who are ignoring the wishes of the membership -- and we have the right to know which it is and who is in which group

Why is that confusing to you?

Maybe Lyons changed his mind in the intervening year based on changing factors?

Perhaps and if that is the case...then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?.Perhaps I missed the article here about why the club has this mandate.

The BoD has been silent about this decision. Let them explain it to the people they serve and represent.

 

[gran racing]

Any valid points you had are totally being lost by your "unrefined" presentation. I personally wouldn't classify it as that. And enough with the stupid SportsCar crap.

 

[jumbojimbo]

I remember that guy.... It's been so long since I've seem him, I think last time was on the production board.

ps. This is a guess, but the nuance is probably related to the fact that the BOD voted to accept the 38.1 that was in place this summer. Then SFI went and changed 38.1 to require a manditory inspection, which isn't what the BOD voted to accept. So, at this point they are only going to require the 38.1 that they voted on, until there's a performance based standard they can use instead of 38.1. So by their actions SFI is about to make themselves obsolete.

If this is the issue I think it's naive to think the BOD would come right out and say it. Doesn't take black helicopters to understand why less public annoucement is prudent in the short term.

We are kind of backed into a corner, we seem stuck with 38.1 for 2012. But maybe we no longer like it and are trying to find a way to get away from it. But what are members to do? Although I'm pretty sure Dave doesn't need a H&N on Jan 1 so no need to panic, he can wait and see.

Dave, another suggestion, if it does seem like 38.1 will go away at some point, maybe consider borrowing someone's device in the short term? it would be a pain to mail these things around and kind of pricy at some point, but if it would get you thru the first couple of events of 2012 and there is a chance things will settle out, it might be worth the effort.

I'm sorry I missed M-Berg, he was before my time. He sounds like a real tool who undermined his own arguements with his communication style.

 

[BruceG]

If Dick didn't want to engage and didn't want to discuss something that is currently embargoed, he should have kept his mouth shut.

Again, I repeat -- If the risk management professionals say 38.1 is needed, then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?. Perhaps I missed the article here about why the club has this mandate.



I do not claim to present things with sugar, in fact I know I do not. I present them honest and unrefined. And as for how I have treated Dick, I had not been rude.

OK Einstein, here's the nuance. "We do not need these things, but if we require these things, we need to use the industry standard" versus "We need to require these things." versus "We need to require these things and we need to use an industry standard."

Two of these have risk management saying we need 38.1 - which is what Dick says - but only one of them actually says we need the devices. I have absolutely no doubt that if the club requires the device, it needs the razor-thin extra protection of a standard, I am questioning whether risk management said we needed it at all.

The vote to adopt this wasn't unanimous IIRC and if our risk experts said we both HAD to require and use an industry standard, then the BoD members who voted against that advice were being very reckless. We've got either a group of reckless BOD members or a group who are ignoring the wishes of the membership -- and we have the right to know which it is and who is in which group

Why is that confusing to you?
Perhaps and if that is the case...then why hasn't the BoD communicated this through the official magazine of the club?.Perhaps I missed the article here about why the club has this mandate.

The BoD has been silent about this decision. Let them explain it to the people they serve and represent.

To quote a line from Cool Hand Luke...what we have heah is a failure to communicate!

 

[erlrich]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone here written the BoD to ask for an explanation as to why the rule was enacted (i.e., what the rationale was for adoption)?