Impact Racing Products, was: "Very disturbing thread"

Don’t anybody do anything rash. Give us a week or so to see how this plays out. I have already heard rumors that there may be a solution.
As mentioned helmet are not affected they are Snell not SFI. This involves suits, nets and belts.
Dick Patullo
 
Guess it's time to sell Bill Simpson an M3 Bimmer that is actually a Ford Fusion but has M3 tags on it......LOL.
 
i am likely not the only one but i sent an e-mail to John Bauer (SCCA Club Racing Technical Manager)


John,

Could you please provide me with a list of SFI certified products that will acceptable to SCCA for the useful life of the products?

For example:

Belts for 2 years as per the GCR.

Suits as normal wear allows.

Given that SFI can de-certify its previously certified products after my purchase, I want to ensure that I am buying something that both meets the rules and can be utilized for its expected useful life.

Especially with regards to new equipment such as Head & Neck Restraints that have been recently mandated.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could reply or post an advisory of SFI's policy implementation and its impact to our club.

Thanks,

Tom

Click to expand...

with link to SFI and quoted their release.

i have a hard time believing that equipment bought before the "de-certification" date can retroactively be de-certified.

but since SCCA essentially mandates several SFI approved pieces of safety equipment, i want to know what ones are SCCA approved pieces of SFI approved pieces.
 
Note that the SFI claim is over fake labels, and it specifically does NOT state that the products don't actually meet the certification standards...just that the LABELS didn't come from SFI.

Now, the products COULD be unsafe.... or not.
 
As a Quality Manager in an ISO 9001:2008 certified facility, this is very distressing. I hope that this can be resolved positively, but it doesn't look good. An old friend once told me that integrity is a gift you give to yourself.

Mike
 
Just an FYI...

An e-mail went out to 80 or so SCCA Stewards with the notice from SFI. I wrote back to all and asked a few questions on how we were to respond to issues at the track.

The reply I received was that at this point this was an issue between SFI and Impace Performance Parts. SCCA Club Racing office is aware of the issues and will determine if there is any reason for members to question the validility of Impact labeled equipment and/or parts. Until that time we have been instructed to treat the SFI labels as legitimate.

IMO the items have been tested and passed the standards to meet the certification process. It doesn't matter where the labels come from as long as the equipment meets the performance standards. I don't think SFI should have the right to make a share of the profit on EVERY piece of racing equipent being sold in the market. To me I feel that this is just another reason that SCCA should have a (non-profit) department checking to see if equipment meets our club (our busines) and our insurance companies standards.

Raymond
 
Raymond, go to the SFI site and read how the whole 'Certification" thing is done. In some cases (most, I think) the manufacturer takes full responsibility that his products meet the requirements set forth by the SFI standards. The SFI does little actual testing. The manufacturer provides the SFI with independent lab reports as proof that the item meets the minimum standards....and that all items manufactured will as well.

In the case of Impact, there has been cases where independent tests have been conducted on suits, and they failed to meet the standards which the label claimed they would.

While at this point, SFI has 'caught" Impact in a counterfeiting situation, and that is all that is alleged at this point, it DOES raise questions as to whether that is the ONLY suspect part of the product. The past history isn't helping the Impact companies situation either.

It's good that SCCA isn't jumping to conclusions, but I'd also be cautious in assuming the products are up to snuff as well.

The cost of labels isn't huge..a couple bucks per suit, IIRC, and if you are willing to go to the trouble of commissioning counterfeit versions to save that amount, what does it say about your desire to cut costs in other areas?

My jury is out.
 
lateapex911 said:
Raymond, go to the SFI site and read how the whole 'Certification" thing is done. In some cases (most, I think) the manufacturer takes full responsibility that his products meet the requirements set forth by the SFI standards. The SFI does little actual testing. The manufacturer provides the SFI with independent lab reports as proof that the item meets the minimum standards....and that all items manufactured will as well.

In the case of Impact, there has been cases where independent tests have been conducted on suits, and they failed to meet the standards which the label claimed they would.

While at this point, SFI has 'caught" Impact in a counterfeiting situation, and that is all that is alleged at this point, it DOES raise questions as to whether that is the ONLY suspect part of the product. The past history isn't helping the Impact companies situation either.

It's good that SCCA isn't jumping to conclusions, but I'd also be cautious in assuming the products are up to snuff as well.

The cost of labels isn't huge..a couple bucks per suit, IIRC, and if you are willing to go to the trouble of commissioning counterfeit versions to save that amount, what does it say about your desire to cut costs in other areas?

My jury is out.
Click to expand...

Jake-

I certainly don't disagree with you...

I just want to let people know that as of right now your equipment will pass tech even if it is an annual tech or if you show up at the track with it.

I also don't agree with the "SFI" label requirement. That requirement IMO doesn't mean that any products other than the ones tested meet the specs. To me it only means that A] the product is legal for competition because it has the label and B] SFI made a couple bucks on the sale of EVERY item. I just don't think a third party should have so much power or that it should be making a profit on others sales.

I also agree however that somehow we need to govern the safety inspections to ensure our safety is met when using any company's products. A label sent to the manufacturer doesn't meet my standards for compliance checks.

Raymond
 
RSTPerformance said:
Jake-



I also don't agree with the "SFI" label requirement. That requirement IMO doesn't mean that any products other than the ones tested meet the specs. To me it only means that A] the product is legal for competition because it has the label and B] SFI made a couple bucks on the sale of EVERY item. I just don't think a third party should have so much power or that it should be making a profit on others sales.

I also agree however that somehow we need to govern the safety inspections to ensure our safety is met when using any company's products. A label sent to the manufacturer doesn't meet my standards for compliance checks.

Raymond
Click to expand...

BINGO!

Well stated Raymond.
 
If a 3rd Party shouldn't have the power to say "yay" or "nay" on a product, then who should? Does this mean that we need a truly independent regulating body who makes its money elsewhere?

If I understand what's being said, SFI is just a "club" - pay your dues and you're "in. Therefore, any certs such as from Snell, SFI or FIA are bulls**t and that they shouldn't mean anything other than the manufacturer has paid their "dues" and that the products have been rubber stamped.

Just food for thought...
 
I am not completely clear on this but follow the logic for a moment.

It appears the FIA process does have at least one fundamental difference. FIA products (or at least the suits) have their cert stitched directly into the suit. This would imply no label, therefore no fee for the label and therefore no benefit to the FIA if 1 suit or 1,000,000 is sold.

Again, it's just a guess based on some circumstantial evidence but if correct it would imply the FIA is fundamentally only interested in the certification of the initial product line. Whereas SFI actually makes money based on the volume of individual sales and is therefore more eager to see more products sold or life limited and replaced.
 
Sent to me via Scrutineering channels. It was noted this will be posted on SCCA's web site:

Technical Services
RACING MEMO
DATE: March 31, 2010
NUMBER: RM 10-04
FROM: Club Racing Board
TO: All 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.

SPORTS CAR CLUB OF AMERICA, INC
PO Box 19400, Topeka, KS 66619-0400
(800) 770-2055 Fax (785) 232-7214 www.scca.com
 
I found this in my in-box from 4:10pm PST from BMWCCA-CR


[This announcement is being sent to all Club Racers - It is not unsolicited email]​

Effective 4/27/2010, programs involving 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1 and 16.1 with Impact are decertified (harness belts and driver suits). Further information and updates available on sfifoundation.com.​




For more information about BMW CCA Club Racing, or to find out how your organization can become a sponsor, contact Gary Davis at [email protected], or check out our website at http://www.bmwccaclubracing.com.

BMW CCA Club Racing Title Sponsors:
BMW CCA Club Racing Series: Tirerack.com
BMW CCA Club Racing Schools: BimmerWorld

Premier Sponsors
evosport
HMS Motorsport (and Official Supplier of Safety Equipment)
UUC Motorwerks
VAC Motorsports

Associate Sponsor
Grassroots Motorsports Magazine

You received this message because you are affiliated with BMW Club Racing. Please direct any questions or comments about this email to [email protected]​


BMW CCA Club Racing || 640 South Main Street, Suite 201 || Greenville, SC 29601 || www.bmwccaclubracing.com​
 
Matt Rowe said:
I am not completely clear on this but follow the logic for a moment.

It appears the FIA process does have at least one fundamental difference. FIA products (or at least the suits) have their cert stitched directly into the suit. This would imply no label, therefore no fee for the label and therefore no benefit to the FIA if 1 suit or 1,000,000 is sold.

Again, it's just a guess based on some circumstantial evidence but if correct it would imply the FIA is fundamentally only interested in the certification of the initial product line. Whereas SFI actually makes money based on the volume of individual sales and is therefore more eager to see more products sold or life limited and replaced.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the fee for a label, the discussion on this thread has been "SFI only cares about a label - they don't certify after the initial product test". From what I can tell from FIA, the same holds true - there is no random sampling of product nor is there production oversight which allows an unscrupulous manufacturer to produce substandard product after the initial certifications are approved.

Unfortunately, there isn't a good way to test any questionable product without destroying it but bear in mind that Impact is the same company that was using knock-off HANS anchors - unlike the SFI debacle, this issue was about product rather than a silly label. It certainly raise questions about a company's integrity when they start knocking off a product, right down to the FIA certifcation... For more info: http://hansdevice.com/s.nl/sc.12/category.60/.f

Lastly, this entire issue revolves around Contract Law - SFI's contract is that manufacturers purchase labels from them. Yes, it's like a pyramid scheme but that's beside the point - the issue at hand is that the contract has certain requirements which Impact chose to ignore. From a strictly legal standpoint, Impact is in violation of their contract. The concerns about safety, which IMHO are well founded, are a separate matter entirely.
 
mgyip said:
Regardless of the fee for a label, the discussion on this thread has been "SFI only cares about a label - they don't certify after the initial product test". From what I can tell from FIA, the same holds true - there is no random sampling of product nor is there production oversight which allows an unscrupulous manufacturer to produce substandard product after the initial certifications are approved.

Unfortunately, there isn't a good way to test any questionable product without destroying it but bear in mind that Impact is the same company that was using knock-off HANS anchors - unlike the SFI debacle, this issue was about product rather than a silly label. It certainly raise questions about a company's integrity when they start knocking off a product, right down to the FIA certifcation... For more info: http://hansdevice.com/s.nl/sc.12/category.60/.f

Lastly, this entire issue revolves around Contract Law - SFI's contract is that manufacturers purchase labels from them. Yes, it's like a pyramid scheme but that's beside the point - the issue at hand is that the contract has certain requirements which Impact chose to ignore. From a strictly legal standpoint, Impact is in violation of their contract. The concerns about safety, which IMHO are well founded, are a separate matter entirely.
Click to expand...

Very well said....Thanks!!
 
tom91ita said:
stupid question but what about the whole "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" stuff?
Click to expand...

That's what Impact's lawyers have been doing this week - if this were an isolated incident of impropriety or if the CEO hadn't admitted that they were producing their own SFI labels, they'd probably have a good chance of having the action rescinded. Then again, this is the US legal system where a thief can trespass into your house, injure themselves in the process and sue YOU for not keeping them safe (during a criminal act).
 
A this point the outcome of the SFI/Impact legal battle is moot except for people that own Impact merchandise. The confidence in Impact products among racers is pretty much gone and when it comes time to purchase new belts, suits, and nets I think a large part of the racing community will shop elsewhere.
 
betamotorsports said:
A this point the outcome of the SFI/Impact legal battle is moot except for people that own Impact merchandise. The confidence in Impact products among racers is pretty much gone and when it comes time to purchase new belts, suits, and nets I think a large part of the racing community will shop elsewhere.
Click to expand...

A sizable part of Impact's business is/was in kids' safety equipment - in other words, buyers who want absolutely NO QUESTION about the quality and performance of the equipment. The sanctioning bodies that see the most Impact equipment only recognize SFI (b/c FIA is a furrin' company run by Frogs) - as a result, the de-certification hits them very hard and almost immediately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top