What other racing organization requires SFI?
- Thread starter tom91ita
- Start date
Mad Mike
New member
One comment to support a minor threadjack - Bartram MAY still own the world's first New Beetle rally car but when we chatted in Stillwater a week ago he said he thought it was sold and headed back to New York (Oswego this time) soon.
And a comment on the HNR topic. Does anyone really believe that any amount of debate on any forum anywhere is going to make any sanctioning organization change their requirements from those already published?
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Mike, that's a defeatist attitude. I for one want to understand the issue better. Second, certain organizations haven't made their move....yet. Fianlly, yes, mountains can be moved, although it is rare. You probably don't know the history of Improved Touring, but many who knew their stuff predicted years ago that certain things would "never happen"...yet here we are today, and they have been accomplished.
SFI does test safety equipment, in house. They explode flywheels and test bell housings, do pull tests on belts and burn firesuits, etc..
They don't have a 68G sled, nobody does except Delphi (and maybe Mercedes-Benz?), they do have a staff engineer who attends the tests at Delphi.
Benefits to the sanctioning body is that the FIA and SFI have a structure and process, which results in (yes), a legally accepted definition of "generally accepted industry practice", which is critical with regard to liability law.
An imperfect process?..well, nothing's perfect, but it's still pretty efficient if you can buy an SFI set of belts for $69.95, or a stick of SFI roll cage padding for $23.99. The FIA's processes are much less democratic (and more expensive) than the SFI's.
For the competitor, the benefit is some protection from unscrupulous manufacturer who markets items based on their own claims, incomplete testing, conspiracy theories, half truths, childish challenges, threats of litigation, and a certification "institute" that only exists as a webpage and e-mail address....hypothetical of course, that would not apply to anyone we know!
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I am assuming you forgot a word there. I added it for you...hope I understood what I think you meant. I am assuming you have a specific manufacturer in mind, right?
If so, I'd like the hear more, esp the name of the meanufacturer, and the incomplete testing....
...otherwise, if it's hypothetical, there is no benefit to the competitor, following your logic.
Mike's made his personal feelings about the Isaac known in very clear ways elsewhere. No amount of logic or rhetoric is going to change his mind.
Rally America even codified their own little "single point of release" clause, in addition to requiring 38.1 tags, to give him the ammo to effectively exclude that choice regardless of SFI's or anyone else's actions.
Kirk (who has the honor of having crashed out of his only rally as a driver while wearing an Isaac)
Rally America even codified their own little "single point of release" clause, in addition to requiring 38.1 tags, to give him the ammo to effectively exclude that choice regardless of SFI's or anyone else's actions.
Kirk (who has the honor of having crashed out of his only rally as a driver while wearing an Isaac)
Just to provide a little perspective about the "evil SFI single-point-of-release" canard (which implies that it is a recent "gotcha" conjured up by the standards-setting body):
The "single/common release" language has existed in the GCR for a long time...likely it was there when some of the participants in this discussion were pooping in their Pampers...you know, the previous millenium. Dig out those old GCRs and look for yourselves.
I don't really save the old GCRs, but more recent ones, like the mid-90's one I dragged out last night, require that the harness completely release with a single, common release. Plain language. That language in the GCR (and similar language in other sanctioning bodies rules) might even pre-date SFI itself.
Someplace, I think I've got some GCRs from the early-mid 80's...gotta remember where I saw them, but I'm sure you rules-nerd old-timers have stuff older than that.
"So what ?" you ask. Well...a little history might tone down some of the hyperbolic assertions.
The "single/common release" language has existed in the GCR for a long time...likely it was there when some of the participants in this discussion were pooping in their Pampers...you know, the previous millenium. Dig out those old GCRs and look for yourselves.
I don't really save the old GCRs, but more recent ones, like the mid-90's one I dragged out last night, require that the harness completely release with a single, common release. Plain language. That language in the GCR (and similar language in other sanctioning bodies rules) might even pre-date SFI itself.
Someplace, I think I've got some GCRs from the early-mid 80's...gotta remember where I saw them, but I'm sure you rules-nerd old-timers have stuff older than that.
"So what ?" you ask. Well...a little history might tone down some of the hyperbolic assertions.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
John, you are, of course, correct. Harness release has always been a single point, as far back as I can remember, which is to the 80s.
Where it gets gray for many people, I think is, "Why is it OK that I have more than one thing to release (window net, interior net, cables, tubes, wheel, etc) to get out of my car, yet THIS one has been singled out?"
Where it gets gray for many people, I think is, "Why is it OK that I have more than one thing to release (window net, interior net, cables, tubes, wheel, etc) to get out of my car, yet THIS one has been singled out?"
lateapex911
Super Moderator
That's always been my thought, and one I used against my father when he claimed you would only get trapped in aburning car if you were forced to wear seatbelts, back when nobody wore them.
I might be mistaken, but, Kirks post seems to allude to the fact that Mike Hurst is involved in Rally America, (and this link confims that: http://www.rally-america.com/contact.php ) so if that's the case, I'd like to propose he answer the question directly.
I might be mistaken, but, Kirks post seems to allude to the fact that Mike Hurst is involved in Rally America, (and this link confims that: http://www.rally-america.com/contact.php ) so if that's the case, I'd like to propose he answer the question directly.
Kirk, kudos to you for running the traps on this important topic. You/others, regardless of the HNR side of the debate, are shedding a great deal of light on what SFI actually is.
I type my thoughts imperfectly, and you and Jake correctly call me on that. I don't personally ascribe any more weight to SFI than you do , but as Jake posts, its my assessment that the amorphous 'world of liability', in their inability to judge what a jury in a trial would do, has cast about for some sense of an industry standard that would offer at least a credible deflection of liability in the event of a catastrophic, sanctioning-body-killing award. Does SFI really fulfill that job description? No, you've shown that clearly, and the thinking amateur racer must agree. But most importantly would a jury, basically uneducated in these matters and wanting assurance by a defense attorney that the sanc-body at least tried to perform 'due diligence' and required the racer to wear one, decide that the GRA had done all it could? Possibly. That question is what fancy lawyers get a lot of money to advise on. Yeah - GRA, IMO, is taking a gamble here, and I have serious doubts about the outcome (especially once a John Edwards-clone explains how SFI really works). Hopefully the 'doomsday scenario' is never tested. But who knows?
Im trying to be realistic and think that is it safety? Yeah, but ultimately its all about survival as a sanctioning body. When/if that day comes, thay jury is going to want to hear, "we made him wear a HNR, and it met the prevailing industry standard at the time. How can we say its the standard? Because these 5,000 other orgs use it too, starting with NASCAR, NHRA, yada yada." Now, ask yourself: in any prospective jury....what would the percentage of amateur road-race enthusiasts be to, say, percentage who heard of/watched NASCAR? Is that right? No. But right and legal liability in this country intersect only periodically.
What RSI presents is not just an option, its a paradigm shift. Its my opinion that RSI must get some as-yet undetermined number of orgs to sign up to its alternative process to achieve critical mass. Then, perhaps a typical jury would buy it as a reasonable industry standard. That's kind of what I meant by 'legal weight'. Poor language on my part.
Im not defending SFI here. IMO the fraidy-cat world of liability (thanks, John Edwards, et al) makes otherwise-rational people scurry for cover, including under hole-filled ratty blankets that arent really made for the purpose. I hope RSI gets off the ground and changes the environment. I really do.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Well said.
Of course, the issue with RSI is a chicken and egg one, sort of. Somebody has to be first, but, as you point out, in the world of scaredy cat legal advisors, that's a tall order.
Of course, the issue with RSI is a chicken and egg one, sort of. Somebody has to be first, but, as you point out, in the world of scaredy cat legal advisors, that's a tall order.
You've brought something back into the conversation that hasn't been touched on recently, John. That history IS important but as Jake points out, it's been inconsistently applied and misappropriated to support particular interests.
I'll say it again: If we really care about egress - and we should - we can do something about it and address the entire range of potential entanglements we put in our race cars, by requiring that we all demonstrate how quickly we can get GTFO. Make it part of the annual and do spot checks in post-race impound. Heck - do surprise inspections by meatballing people on the last lap of a session, then telling them to bail out under a stopwatch at the black flag station in the pits.
Just disentangle the policies so we know what's supposed to accomplish what.
K
I'll say it again: If we really care about egress - and we should - we can do something about it and address the entire range of potential entanglements we put in our race cars, by requiring that we all demonstrate how quickly we can get GTFO. Make it part of the annual and do spot checks in post-race impound. Heck - do surprise inspections by meatballing people on the last lap of a session, then telling them to bail out under a stopwatch at the black flag station in the pits.
Just disentangle the policies so we know what's supposed to accomplish what.
K
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
What is the NASA requirment in this space? IIRC, SWC allows you 14-15 seconds or you don't get your tech.
16.2.2 Emergency Exit Time
The car must be setup to allow drivers to exit the car quickly in an emergency. Drivers
should be tested from time to time to ensure that they can meet the specified time for
exiting the car in the event of an emergency. The driver must demonstrate the ability to
exit their car within ten (10) seconds by opening the door (for cars with doors) or formula
/ sports racers; and within fifteen (15) seconds by way of the window opening for
sedans. Drivers must be wearing all of their required driver’s gear and be tightly belted
into the driver’s seat when the clock starts. Anyone that fails this test may be penalized
with penalties ranging from a warning to exclusion from participation until corrections are
made. Note- passing the Emergency Exit Time test does in no way guarantee anything,
as many different situations may present themselves in a real emergency. The test is an
exercise for the driver as well as functioning to demonstrate the ability to exit the vehicle.
That should probably be something like "all driver's gear that will be used during sanctioned practice, qualifying, and/or race sessions." Much of what we hang on ourselves isn't required and may potentially serve as an impediment.
Your point about opening the drivers' eyes is an excellent one, Jim.
K
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I once tried to do and "egress" in my garage all stapped in with Isaac with my eyes closed, figuring that would be the best way I could fake an upside down or smoke filled car. (Highly unlikely, but whatever). The first try wasn't pretty. (It wasn't the Isaac that was the issue, it was the window net). Eye opening, indeed!