SFI
- Thread starter Knestis
- Start date
its66
New member
Bob Roth,
Excellent post. I'm certain that you've just expressed the sentiment of many club racers. Kudo's...
I think we have missed something in here. NHRA seems smarter than I gave them credit for. Notice, they have drawn a line in the sand and basically said "if your car is this fast, then you must do XXX" This fall in line with the progressive nature of almost all of NHRA's safety regs, which become increasingly more stringent as the vehicle's speed increases. (driveshaft loops, fire suits, fuel cells, etc) NHRA didn't say that ALL competitors, regardless of class or speed, or design of the vehicle must utilize 38.1. I realize that this may open the liability doorway if someone has an injury that may have been prevented by 38.1, yet was in a class/speed not required.
IMHO, SCCA, NASA, and any sanctioning body should evaluate the cars/classes/construction/speed potential before making blanket rules. There is a big difference between an ITD Yugo with factory crumple zones hitting the wall, and a 700 hp, 3300 lb GT1 car with countless steel tubes (specifically designed NOT to yield) running to the front corner. Huge difference.
If I am misinformed, or making erroneous assumptions, feel free to share. I do think the H & N restraint issue is a very serious one that deserves the attention of every racer.
Excellent post. I'm certain that you've just expressed the sentiment of many club racers. Kudo's...
I think we have missed something in here. NHRA seems smarter than I gave them credit for. Notice, they have drawn a line in the sand and basically said "if your car is this fast, then you must do XXX" This fall in line with the progressive nature of almost all of NHRA's safety regs, which become increasingly more stringent as the vehicle's speed increases. (driveshaft loops, fire suits, fuel cells, etc) NHRA didn't say that ALL competitors, regardless of class or speed, or design of the vehicle must utilize 38.1. I realize that this may open the liability doorway if someone has an injury that may have been prevented by 38.1, yet was in a class/speed not required.
IMHO, SCCA, NASA, and any sanctioning body should evaluate the cars/classes/construction/speed potential before making blanket rules. There is a big difference between an ITD Yugo with factory crumple zones hitting the wall, and a 700 hp, 3300 lb GT1 car with countless steel tubes (specifically designed NOT to yield) running to the front corner. Huge difference.
If I am misinformed, or making erroneous assumptions, feel free to share. I do think the H & N restraint issue is a very serious one that deserves the attention of every racer.
RSTPerformance
New member
Jim-
Good point... SCCA does have different rules on some things, such as fuel cells and cages, however it is not diferentiating other things such as drivers gear... Can anyone name the first time or last time anyone in an IT car got burned or would have got burned should they have had on a non sfi certified driver suite?
Raymond
We should NEVER have to use "someone got burned" as rationale for any driver's suit specification. We know enough about these technologies to make smart decisions to prevent someone from getting hurt. That's the whole point.
If we collectively decide that a particular TPP rating - an actual measure of insulation performance, replicable in lab settings - is "enough," then we just need a process that provides reasonable assurances to drivers that when they buy a "15," they get a "15." If I want a "20" instead, then that's my right - or my obligation to my loved ones. (I put those numbers in quotes because they are meaningless, just in included for illustrative purposes.)
Under a process that puts the SFI between me and my decisions...
** There's little motive for a manufacturer to make a "20," if the testing and reporting protocols don't differentiate it from a "15."
** I can't TELL if one suit is a 15 or a 20, if they are both under the threshold for whatever SFI spec they exceed.
** If 2 layers of Superinsufiber have a demonstrated TPP rating of 18, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that 3 layers of the same stuff exceeds that level of performance - so should be allowed. Similarly, if a single layer of Corning Pink-O-Safe meets the performance benchmark, a manufacturer should be able to add one layer of Ultracarbondeluxe as an added measure, without having to re-test to demonstrate they meet the minimum. Of course, they COULD have a lab test the new sandwich to achieve a higher number that they could use in their advertising.
K
If we collectively decide that a particular TPP rating - an actual measure of insulation performance, replicable in lab settings - is "enough," then we just need a process that provides reasonable assurances to drivers that when they buy a "15," they get a "15." If I want a "20" instead, then that's my right - or my obligation to my loved ones. (I put those numbers in quotes because they are meaningless, just in included for illustrative purposes.)
Under a process that puts the SFI between me and my decisions...
** There's little motive for a manufacturer to make a "20," if the testing and reporting protocols don't differentiate it from a "15."
** I can't TELL if one suit is a 15 or a 20, if they are both under the threshold for whatever SFI spec they exceed.
** If 2 layers of Superinsufiber have a demonstrated TPP rating of 18, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that 3 layers of the same stuff exceeds that level of performance - so should be allowed. Similarly, if a single layer of Corning Pink-O-Safe meets the performance benchmark, a manufacturer should be able to add one layer of Ultracarbondeluxe as an added measure, without having to re-test to demonstrate they meet the minimum. Of course, they COULD have a lab test the new sandwich to achieve a higher number that they could use in their advertising.
K
