RSI labels
- Thread starter Grumpy
- Start date
No flame war...........
Seems that RSI is currently not a player regardless of how good or bad they are unless they get labels on their new stuff and then figure a way to get it on the stuff currently in the field.
To say it a different way, RSI labels are not currently in the field. RSI listing is not of any value currently to racing sanctions because there are no labels. New items need to be labeled. There is some concern on my part as to how to retrofit labels on systems currently in the field.
Leaving White out and since HANS has SFI 38.1, that leaves Issac as the only vendor that is currently listed that would have this issue.
No flame war....
Boy, now I really want to talk to someone at RSI.
I've been watching SFI become a playa in the road racing safety biz literally for 20 years. We had our first "should we do this?" conversation (about suits) after SEMA in '87 or '88, even though most of our market then was still sprint car, stock car, and boat racers. It might well take that long for a new answer to percolate up to the masses but it's a shame that's the case.
When I tried to get headrestraint.org off the ground, I made a fundamental miscalculation - that manufacturers would care enough to want to get their performance test results into the market. I was VERY wrong and should have anticipated that would be the case from the outset. If the manufacturers are already committed to the SFI approach (and therefor have a vested interest in locked-in market positions and excluded competition), where's the demand going to come from?
These discussions have made it clear to me that there probably ISN'T a critical mass of individual racers willing to worry about the ramifications of the system they're paying for - disappointing but not really surprising in hindsight - which leaves only the sanctioning bodies.
What I think I'm hearing from you, Jim is that the sanctioning bodies (you think like one, which is helpful to the conversation) aren't going to care until RSI (or whatever) is a player, but where's the force to MAKE them a player if the last set of major participants in the troika are going to hang back and follow rather than lead?
THAT is why I'd really like for the current conversation to be about the mechanisms that are being proposed by this nascent effort. The question I'd like to have Jerry K. et al. consider is not, "Will you do this right now?" but instead, "Does this theoretically accomplish what you need out of an oversight system? If not, what needs to be changed?" It's very frustrating to hear essentially that the reason for not doing it is that nobody is doing it - for not even considering it, that nobody is considering it.
Downing was WAY out in front of the deal with his design (I first saw it at a Portland IMSA race, about the same time I went to that SEMA show and met Arnie Kuhns), and he couldn't get anyone to give him the time of day until Dale Sr. died. It is really an embarrassment to our sport that we collectively behave like this.
K
When I tried to get headrestraint.org off the ground, I made a fundamental miscalculation - that manufacturers would care enough to want to get their performance test results into the market. I was VERY wrong and should have anticipated that would be the case from the outset. If the manufacturers are already committed to the SFI approach (and therefor have a vested interest in locked-in market positions and excluded competition), where's the demand going to come from?
These discussions have made it clear to me that there probably ISN'T a critical mass of individual racers willing to worry about the ramifications of the system they're paying for - disappointing but not really surprising in hindsight - which leaves only the sanctioning bodies.
What I think I'm hearing from you, Jim is that the sanctioning bodies (you think like one, which is helpful to the conversation) aren't going to care until RSI (or whatever) is a player, but where's the force to MAKE them a player if the last set of major participants in the troika are going to hang back and follow rather than lead?
THAT is why I'd really like for the current conversation to be about the mechanisms that are being proposed by this nascent effort. The question I'd like to have Jerry K. et al. consider is not, "Will you do this right now?" but instead, "Does this theoretically accomplish what you need out of an oversight system? If not, what needs to be changed?" It's very frustrating to hear essentially that the reason for not doing it is that nobody is doing it - for not even considering it, that nobody is considering it.
Downing was WAY out in front of the deal with his design (I first saw it at a Portland IMSA race, about the same time I went to that SEMA show and met Arnie Kuhns), and he couldn't get anyone to give him the time of day until Dale Sr. died. It is really an embarrassment to our sport that we collectively behave like this.
K
I have been trying to suggest changes that RSI might make to allow it to be more palatable to the racing sanctions.
But alas... No one will talk to me from RSI. No one seems proud to stand up and say I thought this up, it's my baby. I can only think that if RSI doesn't have an official spokesman, how can anyone take them seriously?
I know you and Gregg are major supporters of RSI. Neither of you has come forward to say you are the originators, so I have to assume that the real originators are not willing to discuss RSI.
Unless I hear from someone from RSI officially to discuss several issues and concerns that I have with them, I (just me) will conclude that RSI is a 'non-playa'. I will advise, if asked, accordingly.
But as you said the manufaqcturers seem to have no desire to participate so the whole RSI deal is doomed from the get-go.
But alas... No one will talk to me from RSI. No one seems proud to stand up and say I thought this up, it's my baby. I can only think that if RSI doesn't have an official spokesman, how can anyone take them seriously?
I know you and Gregg are major supporters of RSI. Neither of you has come forward to say you are the originators, so I have to assume that the real originators are not willing to discuss RSI.
Unless I hear from someone from RSI officially to discuss several issues and concerns that I have with them, I (just me) will conclude that RSI is a 'non-playa'. I will advise, if asked, accordingly.
But as you said the manufaqcturers seem to have no desire to participate so the whole RSI deal is doomed from the get-go.
Jim makes a important point - "candor".
Problem #1: RSI's web site was registered in early January 2007, maybe earlier, via Go-Daddy, AFAICT. That's a YEAR ago. Who is the current "registerant" ? Somebody called "Domains-by-Proxy". That tells me that whoever is behind RSI would rather not be identified. Hmmm...I have a big problem with that. Why ? For an organization to purport to be interested in OUR safety, I'd really like to be confident that its processes are transparent and its operating participants have no conflicts of interest. It's called "full disclosure", and we demand it from people in all facets of our lives. Why is RSI getting a "pass" here ?
Problem #2: RSI is already issuing "RSI Listings", which signify that they've already begun a process, even though nobody knows what those processes are, and who is engaged in this work.
Problem #3: RSI isn't a standards organization - they say that themselves. So...if they're not a standards-setting organization, what standards are they using ? It looks like they're using SFI standards, but it seems that they want to "pick and choose" which parts of those standards they'll use, and which they'll ignore. How are we to know that any of these mysterious people are qualified to do that ? How do we know that the process of doing that is anything more than just throwing darts at a wall ?
Problem #4: RSI claims that, among its functions, it "Summarizes test results in a manner useful to consumers, be they racers or sanctioning bodies, with references to industry standards where applicable." (item 2, here - http://racingsafetyinstitute.org/index.html ). RSI also states "The primary value to racers and sanctioning bodies lies in the simplified presentation of performance data, and the knowledge that data is certified by independent testing" (Consumer interest item 1, here: http://racingsafetyinstitute.org/AboutRSI.html ). OK...I read those two statements above about their mission, and understand them. What's the problem then ? If you look at the RSI section on head and neck restraints (here: http://racingsafetyinstitute.org/Head%20an...estraints.html), and scroll down to the section labled "SFI Specification 38.1", the data presented would make it appear that Isaac has an SFI 38.1 certification, which it does not. It is, IMO, plainly misleading. How does that square with the claims that RSI "summarizes test results in a manner useful to consumers..." and "The primary value...lies in the simplified presentation of performance data..." ? It's disingenuous. It's misleading.
So, where does this leave me ?
When I look at the RSI web site, it just doesn't pass the smell test. It has category listings for fire systems, but lists none. Seats...none. Side nets...none. Suits...none. Window nets...none. Helmets...just a link to the Snell Foundation...well DUH...worked hard on that one, huh ? Harnesses...just an unfathomable list of data and references, which look like they were cut and pasted from some other organization's documents, and then cites FAA, SAE and SFI documents - Oh my, that's helpful.
When we get to head and neck restraints (here: http://racingsafetyinstitute.org/Head%20an...Restraints.html ), we're presented with ambiguous data, presented in a manner that would mislead me (see #4 above), if I wasn't fully familiar with the subject.
It is my opinion that http://racingsafetyinstitute.org is just shilling for Isaac. It's the race safety equipment's equivalent of a Nigerian scam. It's dishonest. It's unethical. It's wrong.
Problem #1: RSI's web site was registered in early January 2007, maybe earlier, via Go-Daddy, AFAICT. That's a YEAR ago. Who is the current "registerant" ? Somebody called "Domains-by-Proxy". That tells me that whoever is behind RSI would rather not be identified. Hmmm...I have a big problem with that. Why ? For an organization to purport to be interested in OUR safety, I'd really like to be confident that its processes are transparent and its operating participants have no conflicts of interest. It's called "full disclosure", and we demand it from people in all facets of our lives. Why is RSI getting a "pass" here ?
Problem #2: RSI is already issuing "RSI Listings", which signify that they've already begun a process, even though nobody knows what those processes are, and who is engaged in this work.
Problem #3: RSI isn't a standards organization - they say that themselves. So...if they're not a standards-setting organization, what standards are they using ? It looks like they're using SFI standards, but it seems that they want to "pick and choose" which parts of those standards they'll use, and which they'll ignore. How are we to know that any of these mysterious people are qualified to do that ? How do we know that the process of doing that is anything more than just throwing darts at a wall ?
Problem #4: RSI claims that, among its functions, it "Summarizes test results in a manner useful to consumers, be they racers or sanctioning bodies, with references to industry standards where applicable." (item 2, here - http://racingsafetyinstitute.org/index.html ). RSI also states "The primary value to racers and sanctioning bodies lies in the simplified presentation of performance data, and the knowledge that data is certified by independent testing" (Consumer interest item 1, here: http://racingsafetyinstitute.org/AboutRSI.html ). OK...I read those two statements above about their mission, and understand them. What's the problem then ? If you look at the RSI section on head and neck restraints (here: http://racingsafetyinstitute.org/Head%20an...estraints.html), and scroll down to the section labled "SFI Specification 38.1", the data presented would make it appear that Isaac has an SFI 38.1 certification, which it does not. It is, IMO, plainly misleading. How does that square with the claims that RSI "summarizes test results in a manner useful to consumers..." and "The primary value...lies in the simplified presentation of performance data..." ? It's disingenuous. It's misleading.
So, where does this leave me ?
When I look at the RSI web site, it just doesn't pass the smell test. It has category listings for fire systems, but lists none. Seats...none. Side nets...none. Suits...none. Window nets...none. Helmets...just a link to the Snell Foundation...well DUH...worked hard on that one, huh ? Harnesses...just an unfathomable list of data and references, which look like they were cut and pasted from some other organization's documents, and then cites FAA, SAE and SFI documents - Oh my, that's helpful.
When we get to head and neck restraints (here: http://racingsafetyinstitute.org/Head%20an...Restraints.html ), we're presented with ambiguous data, presented in a manner that would mislead me (see #4 above), if I wasn't fully familiar with the subject.
It is my opinion that http://racingsafetyinstitute.org is just shilling for Isaac. It's the race safety equipment's equivalent of a Nigerian scam. It's dishonest. It's unethical. It's wrong.
JoshS
New member
I always thought that this thread was basically the RSI "launch" announcement. Maybe I got it wrong, I don't know.
>> But as you said the manufaqcturers seem to have no desire to participate so the whole RSI deal is doomed from the get-go.
Ah, not so! Manufacturers had no desire under the current conditions, but that doesn't mean the conditions couldn't change.
The manufacturers won't do something that simply adds to their costs and complexity of doing business - changing the nature of the supply won't influence demand. Those already aligned with SFI had NO incentive to publish their data, because SFI was getting them their market share already. However, if the sanctioning bodies accept the idea of a different route to the same end, the manufacturers will go for it - given transition time, of course.
The irony here is that the sanctioning bodies feel like there's no choice other than SFI, for the reasons you've described so well, but the manufacturers are ultimately going to have to meet whatever requirements the sanctioning bodies establish, if they care about the market and the costs of entry don't outweigh potential revenues. NASA could say, "Drivers must have orange suits for visibility" and someone would respond to that demand by making orange suits.
And if manufacturers have two choices that allow them into a market - SFI and RSI - they will select the one that offers the even the smallest marginal advantage, since either meets their basic needs. If the advantage is lower $$, that will be enough. If racers then see a benefit and start to favor RSI, that's even more incentive for the manufacturers to follow along.
I'm not saying "Just do it" but picture how the dynamic would change overnight if NASA announced that RSI-listed window nets will be required for all HPDE entrants beginning 2010. Manufacturers would make sure that they knew the NASA benchmark performance standards (which could be EXACTLY what SFI specifies, since that's not licensable intellectual property), get their pieces tested, send the data to RSI, and be ready to go with patches all embroidered when the numbers were disseminated to all involved. NASA HPDE'ers would be calling retailers asking where to get RSI nets, and retailers would go to their sources with the same demands. Supply would respond.
The forces wouldn't act as immediately if NASA announced it would accept either SFI XX.X or the RSI performance-tested equivalent, but it would respond.
Ask those risk management guys if it's a good thing or a bad thing to provide more means to the same end. I THINK that, if nothing else, they'd say that you're just as covered. Leading is less simple than following but the benefits that accrue to individual racers - safety, lower cost, more options that meet the same performance standards - would be a really nice thing for the sanctioning bodies.
K
Ah, not so! Manufacturers had no desire under the current conditions, but that doesn't mean the conditions couldn't change.
The manufacturers won't do something that simply adds to their costs and complexity of doing business - changing the nature of the supply won't influence demand. Those already aligned with SFI had NO incentive to publish their data, because SFI was getting them their market share already. However, if the sanctioning bodies accept the idea of a different route to the same end, the manufacturers will go for it - given transition time, of course.
The irony here is that the sanctioning bodies feel like there's no choice other than SFI, for the reasons you've described so well, but the manufacturers are ultimately going to have to meet whatever requirements the sanctioning bodies establish, if they care about the market and the costs of entry don't outweigh potential revenues. NASA could say, "Drivers must have orange suits for visibility" and someone would respond to that demand by making orange suits.
And if manufacturers have two choices that allow them into a market - SFI and RSI - they will select the one that offers the even the smallest marginal advantage, since either meets their basic needs. If the advantage is lower $$, that will be enough. If racers then see a benefit and start to favor RSI, that's even more incentive for the manufacturers to follow along.
I'm not saying "Just do it" but picture how the dynamic would change overnight if NASA announced that RSI-listed window nets will be required for all HPDE entrants beginning 2010. Manufacturers would make sure that they knew the NASA benchmark performance standards (which could be EXACTLY what SFI specifies, since that's not licensable intellectual property), get their pieces tested, send the data to RSI, and be ready to go with patches all embroidered when the numbers were disseminated to all involved. NASA HPDE'ers would be calling retailers asking where to get RSI nets, and retailers would go to their sources with the same demands. Supply would respond.
The forces wouldn't act as immediately if NASA announced it would accept either SFI XX.X or the RSI performance-tested equivalent, but it would respond.
Ask those risk management guys if it's a good thing or a bad thing to provide more means to the same end. I THINK that, if nothing else, they'd say that you're just as covered. Leading is less simple than following but the benefits that accrue to individual racers - safety, lower cost, more options that meet the same performance standards - would be a really nice thing for the sanctioning bodies.
K
Josh - in light of my last post, the thread you linked to is especially fascinating.
Here's some info on the RSI web domain registration: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/resu...tyinstitute.org
Kinda mysterious, huh ?
Fair questions all, John.
1. Transparency has never been SFI's strong suit but Jim's right that we can't keep bringing up what's wrong with that option, when there might be things RIGHT with an alternative. On your point though - there NO QUESTION that Isaac's (and therefore Gregg's) interests align precisely with the RSI approach. He doesn't need to say, "Hey - I think this is a GREAT idea!" when we can all see that he would. Let's do some more mental experiments to try to clarify your concern, beyond just not knowing:
Go ahead and put my face on RSI. It's my Quixotic windmill, I just didn't want people who already think I'm a loon to dismiss the idea outright. However, I miscalculated and it turns out that I did more damage by not saying, "This is an evolution of headrestraint.org - that failed but this is different." I'm an Isaac user and have a long historical dislike of what SFI alignment does to racers. I'm a professional, degreed evaluator and policy analyst and a member of multiple national associations with the mission of using data to make decisions. I've been a licensed racer since 1986 and have an industrial design degree and two years of ME curriculum under my belt. Are your concerns diminished or increased? Does it make any difference? If Gregg and I came up with the scheme eating baluts and drinking San Miguels in a Manila bar, does that poison the idea? Does the fact that I own an Isaac (paid retail, btw)...? What does it take to unstink it for you, because I don't want that...?
2. If we look at the process described on the site, the RSI process is already complete for the systems for which data have been presented - accepting that in some cases, the data are from public documents rather than provided directly to RSI. Take the processes as described at face value. If you see holes, point them out. Undoubtedly, more/better data will shake out of the manufacturers as they begin to see the value of involvement (see above post). Willingness to make better stuff, test it, and share the results will grow to have marketing value.
3. I'd challenge you to be more precise in your use of the term "standards," John - it's pivotal to the issue and RSI materials try to be pretty specific. RSI publishes test results which sanctioning bodies and racers can compare to the performance benchmarks embedded in SFI 38.1. I THINK that the distinction is clear but my preconceptions and understanding of the basic approach might be preventing me from recognizing that more clarity is needed there. RSI does NO picking or choosing on the requirements - ultimately, the sanctioning bodies will drive the benchmarks. If SCCA says an arm restraint assembly must score a 200 on Test A (or meet the SFI pull test minimum, whatever) and there are three RSI-listed options (202, 227, and 251), then racers know that they all exceed the benchmark. Further, they know that one is better than the other two - a benefit NOT available to them under SFI.
4. Given 3 above, it's not fair I don't think, to characterize the RSI materials as suggesting that the Isaac meets 38.1. The table clearly illustrates ONLY that it beats the "SFI Limit" of 4000N, on the same rig, in the same lab:
SFI Specification 38.1
(68G accelerating, 30 degree frontal offset)
Product
Upper Neck Tension
Newtons/lbs force
Baseline
5,993/2,022
1
SFI Limit
4,000/900
NA
White™
3,800/854
2
Leatt™
2,691/605
3
Isaac®
2,211/497
4
HANS®
2,183/491
5
*Test
1. Baseline: Product Brochure, LFT Tech, Inc.
2. White: Delphi Test #IS2CF014
3. Leatt: Delphi Test #XXXXXXX
4. Isaac®: Delphi Test #IS5AF044
5. HANS®: Delphi Test #IS5BF006
Ideally, RSI would already have data for other products but again, it's REALLY hard to come by. The only reason the H&N info is in the public domain is because adoption is recent and has been the source of some discussion. The only reason we know the text of 38.1 is because someone with a vested interest in sharing it put it on his own web site. SFI did not make it public, nor does it make any of the data it collects public. THAT lack of transparency doesn't bother you? Dubious "licensing agreements" aren't an issue in your eyes? What are Arnie Kuhns' qualifications? Who else is on the SFI staff? We know they have a street address (like the PO box my wife used for her consulting work?) but how much do you - John - personally know abou the organization, that you haven't read on their site? Do you know that as a manufacturer of suits, we were pitched the value of membership by other early SFI adopters, in terms NOT of safety, but of marketing value? That passes your stink test?
Isaac would benefit if RSI gained traction - no question. There. It's been said. You want Gregg to say it? Will that make it a better idea or, as he might well surmise, just let folks so inclined say, "I told you so! He's pimping the idea only so he can make money off of poor unsuspecting racers!" Or are you only willing to support a system that benefits SFI and SFI member manufacturers?
And what's MY angle? Whose pimp am I, whether the reason I've spent an hour on this message because RSI is my baby or simply because I just think it has value for racers?
K
No doubt, we don't know everything we need to about [RSI] yet but the simple fact that an alternative is emerging - the only alternative, it looks like - has me thinking...
If it - or any other organization or entity - put out the same public statements of purpose, etc. but functioned the way RSI is purported to, would it be an acceptable alternative?
K
EDIT - Unclear antecedent.
[/b]
I need to apologize to everyone for being slow to reply to Jim's question but I had to do some homework. That, and I need to make sure that everyone takes notice of this transition:
The part in italics was supposed to frame the "mental experiments" - "mental" as in, "in one's mind" or "imaginary."
I had HOPED that we could use some abstract thinkin' to work through the questions/concerns part of what Jim has to offer and get his ideas into the mix, if we could get around the issue that there was no human to attach to the RSI concept. I had NOT anticipated that anyone would read that to mean that I actually claimed RSI as my baby. While I've been actively involved for a long time in the community that's grown up around the issues targeted by the RSI idea, it is not "mine." I'm VERY sorry for confusing things with my rhetorical device.
However, on the heels of my screw-up and after some conversation within the community, I've been given the OK to step into the role of semi-official facilitator or discussant for the effort - at least to the degree that officialness is possible in these early days of the effort. So, while RSI is STILL not "mine," you can in fact, for real, put my face on it - good, bad, ugly, or whatever.
With that said, a few other points are worth sharing...
** While RSI was conceived as a decentralized, issue-driven community, it's become obvious that part of what stakeholders need from an alternative to SFI is structure - organization, representation, names, even a physical address maybe - to encourage some faith that there are live human beings behind, and accountable for, the ideas. That's clear and appreciated, and I'm first up against the wall if it gets ugly.
** To that end, there's an opportunity for interested parties who have pertinent perspectives to get more involved in the community, ultimately in the form of an advisory body of some sort. While this will by necessity be very informal initially, there's no preconceived notion about how firm it might become at some point as long as it does not grow to in conflict with the basic principles of the RSI idea. The headrestraint.org effort got all bound up in collecting resumes and trying to balance perspectives on an official advisory board but at this point, all RSI needs is for you to participate. What that turns into down the road is really up to the community.
** This is an example of how RSI is still going to be more like an open-source software development community than a top-down decision-making and -directing body. That's just something that folks are going to have to get their heads around, since it's pretty fundamental to what makes the idea different than SFI.
** With that in mind - and again asking for his patience with my waffling - the answer to Grumpy's question is, "I'd prefer 'forum,' please." These conversations need to be had in full daylight, where people can see who's saying what, and how that input is being turned into practice within the community, to the ends described for the RSI idea.
I would very much appreciate knowing more about those ideas, concerns, and suggestions - and not just from Jim, either. And you can all expect more information and evolutions of the RSI ideas to be developed and shared as we move forward.
...and it would be helpful if Mike were clear about what it is that he thinks we need to know. To the very best of my ability, I will try to find and share answers. Please do recognize that the organizational and legal sensitivities may mean that some information has to be held in confidence at this point. I can't for example "out" an SFI-member manufacturer that might be supportive of the idea but be worried that it will be the target of retaliation, if that support becomes public and RSI fails to reach critical mass.
K
The part in italics was supposed to frame the "mental experiments" - "mental" as in, "in one's mind" or "imaginary."
I had HOPED that we could use some abstract thinkin' to work through the questions/concerns part of what Jim has to offer and get his ideas into the mix, if we could get around the issue that there was no human to attach to the RSI concept. I had NOT anticipated that anyone would read that to mean that I actually claimed RSI as my baby. While I've been actively involved for a long time in the community that's grown up around the issues targeted by the RSI idea, it is not "mine." I'm VERY sorry for confusing things with my rhetorical device.
However, on the heels of my screw-up and after some conversation within the community, I've been given the OK to step into the role of semi-official facilitator or discussant for the effort - at least to the degree that officialness is possible in these early days of the effort. So, while RSI is STILL not "mine," you can in fact, for real, put my face on it - good, bad, ugly, or whatever.
With that said, a few other points are worth sharing...
** While RSI was conceived as a decentralized, issue-driven community, it's become obvious that part of what stakeholders need from an alternative to SFI is structure - organization, representation, names, even a physical address maybe - to encourage some faith that there are live human beings behind, and accountable for, the ideas. That's clear and appreciated, and I'm first up against the wall if it gets ugly.
** To that end, there's an opportunity for interested parties who have pertinent perspectives to get more involved in the community, ultimately in the form of an advisory body of some sort. While this will by necessity be very informal initially, there's no preconceived notion about how firm it might become at some point as long as it does not grow to in conflict with the basic principles of the RSI idea. The headrestraint.org effort got all bound up in collecting resumes and trying to balance perspectives on an official advisory board but at this point, all RSI needs is for you to participate. What that turns into down the road is really up to the community.
** This is an example of how RSI is still going to be more like an open-source software development community than a top-down decision-making and -directing body. That's just something that folks are going to have to get their heads around, since it's pretty fundamental to what makes the idea different than SFI.
** With that in mind - and again asking for his patience with my waffling - the answer to Grumpy's question is, "I'd prefer 'forum,' please." These conversations need to be had in full daylight, where people can see who's saying what, and how that input is being turned into practice within the community, to the ends described for the RSI idea.
I would very much appreciate knowing more about those ideas, concerns, and suggestions - and not just from Jim, either. And you can all expect more information and evolutions of the RSI ideas to be developed and shared as we move forward.
...and it would be helpful if Mike were clear about what it is that he thinks we need to know. To the very best of my ability, I will try to find and share answers. Please do recognize that the organizational and legal sensitivities may mean that some information has to be held in confidence at this point. I can't for example "out" an SFI-member manufacturer that might be supportive of the idea but be worried that it will be the target of retaliation, if that support becomes public and RSI fails to reach critical mass.
K
As soon as they are available, yes. And they will also be provided to existing Isaac users, similar to when Hubbard/Downing certified existing HANS devices post October 2004.
Fire away, Jim.
I don't know that there is an originator(s) per se. I do know that the original motivation came from sanctioning bodies. However, due to potential liability exposure, sanctioning bodies are not going to be directly involved in RSI—offering suggestions, as you wish to do, sure, but that's about it. They are not going to sign on the dotted line.
I do not own the Web site for RSI. It was established as a proxy so it could be transferred to the legal entity. As Kirk pointed out, there is no need for a formal organization if the purpose is simply to disseminate information; a community does not need the State's permission to exist. However, the trademarked label requires a legal entity for ownership so I volunteered to be the acting administrator and formed the Racing Safety Institute as a Florida LLC. Hopefully, that's the only involvement I have.
If you want to call me Mr. RSI, fine. I would be happy to answer any questions, but I don't pretend to know what is going on; the harness people are doing harness work, the seat people are doing seat work, the suit people are doing suit work, etc.
As noted, the idea is nearly identical to SFI but with more openness, no fees and no limitation on design criteria. Suggestions on how this might best be developed are welcomed.
Edited by lateapex911 for quote formatting