Originally posted by Despr8dave:
I kinda have to agree with George. My first impression about Isaac's situation with the SFI was you didn't want to "play their game", I personnally would not want to either, but it seems you must if you want to succeed further. I also feel they (SFI) are similiar to the FDA in the way they operate with new products, of which I've been involved with in the past. I prefer to not thinking of it as kissing ass, but a way, however unfortunate, to do business. I like your product, I think it is the best thing going, but to get it where it needs to be, ya gotta play the game. IMHO.
David
David (& George),
Agreed. SFI certification is the best way to go along to get along. I may have left the wrong impression. If SFI and the sanctioning bodies stick to the current 38.1 spec, we will build a product for it (option #2), even if it can be clearly demonstrated to be inferior to our present designs—-though not by much. The first light bulb did not meet Spec XX.X of the Kerosene Lamp Foundation, but people eventually came around.
The problem is that this spec makes the SFI a very dangerous place to be, because the lawyers (not the ones Jake is referring to) may well determine the outcome.
Jake speaks of lawyers for the organizations that are attempting to minimize their risk exposure. Ironically, what they have done is traded a nonexistent perceived risk for a much larger, real one. This position might be justifiable if there were a fundamental downside to our product, but there isn’t; it’s not as though the Isaac system has a low level of performance. (
http://www.isaacdirect.com/html/chart.html ).
Here’s the scenario that is just a matter of time: A driver with a HANS gets barbequed. (Anyone see the near-miss with Paul Newman on Saturday?) The lawyer(s) poking around find the sanctioning body/SFI knowingly and willingly excluded the only product that could have avoided the fatality (Isaac) while accepting a product with a documented history of trapping drivers in burning cars (HANS).
Everyone gets hammered. Not a party we want to be at, thank you.
I’ve never set foot in a law school and I can figure this one out.
What would you be doing now if you were a plaintiffs’ lawyer? You would be busy connecting dots and looking for deep pockets. Knowing that a safety image sells street cars, and tracing the financial support for the HANS device to GM and DaimlerChrysler/FIA et al, you have found your deep pockets. The icing on the cake is NASCAR, especially since it has rejected the SFI “certified” R3 device. The cherry on top will arrive if this can be pitched to a court as a class action, complete with RICO.
Well here’s a news flash folks: Some of this has
already happened. Past tense.
Will we produce an SFI 38.1-compliant version of the Isaac system? Sure, if need be. Will the cost reflect the extra risk? Oh, yeah.
BTW, if you have already purchased an Isaac system, you’re covered. The belt connector components have been redesigned for a retrofit compliant with SFI 38.1, GCR Section 20.4 and any other boneheaded, Mickey-Mouse, light-weight, namby-pamby rule thought up by some intellectual giant who doesn’t understand the difference between getting out of the seat and getting out of the car. (Did I mention that diplomacy was not my strong suit?)
As an aside, I have a friend who is convinced that all lawyers should be arrested and sued before they are allowed to practice law. I believe we should extend that philosophy to those who write emergency egress rules for racers: Put them in a car equipped per their rules, set them on fire, and see if the rules work.
[sigh]
Sorry. Life’s too short for paperwork, IMHO.
[/sigh]
Hey, that was fun. IT rocks. You guys are great.
------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
