new rules for helmets and HANS?

No Bob, there is no logic at all for replacing belts ever 24 months. But if you spend a bit more and get the FIA belts they are good for 5 years.
 
No Bob, there is no logic at all for replacing belts ever 24 months. But if you spend a bit more and get the FIA belts they are good for 5 years.

Actually, Wes, I agree FIA belts are the ONE TRUE WAY. But, it was pointed out to me that with a 'bit of luck' on the time of your purchase you might get 3 seasons out of SFI belts because, they expire in Dec following their 2nd birthday...
 
For ICSCC, SFI belts expire on the last day of the month listed as the expiry date, expressed as month/year.

The logic of the rule is that Conference accepts the industry standard, to do otherwise would be satisfying from a practical perspective, but indefensible in a liability test.
 
For ICSCC, SFI belts expire on the last day of the month listed as the expiry date, expressed as month/year. The logic of the rule is that Conference accepts the industry standard, to do otherwise would be satisfying from a practical perspective, but indefensible in a liability test.

I cannot say I disagree with that Randy. What many of us question isn't the rule itself. Rather, the wisdom of the people who came up with the rule.

BTW: On the tags.....
FIA belts list the date of expiration... SFI belts list the date of manufacture.

P.S.
Anybody have a copy of the SCCA rules? People are telling me that per SCCA, SFI belts "expire" in December of their 2nd birthday regardless of the month of manufacture on the belts... Yes? No?
 
P.S.
Anybody have a copy of the SCCA rules? People are telling me that per SCCA, SFI belts "expire" in December of their 2nd birthday regardless of the month of manufacture on the belts... Yes? No?

This is from the 2011 SCCA GCR (Section 9.3.19.G):
"G. All driver restraint systems shall meet one of the following: SFI specification 16.1, 16.5, or FIA specification 8853/98 or 8854/98.
1. Restraint systems meeting SFI 16.1 or 16.5 shall bear a dated SFI Spec label. The certification indicated by this label shall expire on December 31st of the 2nd year after the date of manufacture as indicated by the label. If for example the manufacture date is 2006 the second year after the date of manufacture is 2008.
2. Restraint systems homologated to FIA specification 8853/98 and 8854/98 will have a label containing the type of harness designation (‘C-###.T/98 or D-###.T/98) and date of expira- tion which is the last day of the year marked. All straps in this FIA restraint system will have these labels.
3. If a restraint system has more than one type of certification label, the label with the latest expiration may be used."


So, yes, per the SCCA's GCR, the SFI-rated belts do expire on Dec 31 of their 2nd birthday. That means that my current belts, which were manufactured in May 2009, expire on Dec 31, 2011, as far as the SCCA is concerned. But, as Randy pointed out, per the ICSCC's rules, my belts expire on May 31, 2011.
 
Last edited:
Even the industry is not in agreement on belts. I spoke to two manufacturers and asked them if their belts would fail after two or three years or if they amse a different belt for FIA and they didn't indicate any failure or special process. It boils down to do they want to spend the money for GIA certification or SNELL rating. Talking to Snell they are still using the original test from when he first started in the 60's with no plan to upgrade or relook at it. They have a good hung going and do not intend to change it. Why would they? $$$$. So it is all just something written on paper that people have come to believe as fact with no substantiation. Sounds like what is happening in America across the board. We are herd animals.
 
And I will, of course, disagree. When we talk about indefensibility there is absolutely no precident suggesting that following or not following an "industry standard" (which is not a correct description of SFI ratings anyway) will change our level of liability in the event of a lawsuit. Additionally, lawsuits are often the result of an emotional response to catastrophic loss and much less about who is "right" and "wrong" or even whether those terms can be adequately defined.

The SFI requirements are something we voluntarily inflict upon ourselves which I have no problem with provided it; 1) reflects the will of the membership, 2)they understand why they are doing it, and 3) what they are gaining or losing by doing so. So far this has been a very emotional discussion about making ourselves feel better about the perception of reducing risk to our drivers, but is that really the case? Let's take a look.

1) SFI requires seatbelts to meet some ultimate yield strength and stretching requirements and dictates that certain details be met to avoid shearing or tearing of the web material at it's metal connectors. This is good - these are the kind of tests that a driver wants to know his belts have passed before having an accident. The question is, how do they decide the age that a belt will no longer pass those tests? Do they take belts 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, (etc) years old and determine at what point they will no longer pass those tests? No. Do they do accelerated aging studies and retest repeatedly until they no longer met the specs? No. They use a study done on sailboat rigging as an example of the worst case aging and element exposure have on webbing material and use those values to determine when the webbing could potentially no longer withstand the forces required in the test. Scientifically, I can see the idea of having to review a worst case example and it's effects on safety gear provided it remains applicable. If you store your convertible race car on your ocean going containership and use the seatbelts to secure it to the deck then I understand why this kind of test would be important.

2) SFI is a non-profit foundation that is in the business of creating safety specifications for the racing industry. Do I think they are bad people? No. The people who work at SFI are not volunteers - they get paid. The companies who want to put SFI rating stickers on their products are the ones who pay for the operation of SFI. Belt manufacturers seem highly likely to want to sell belts every two years rather than every five. If someone showed me a way that I could increase my sales by 150% without increasing market share or developing any new applications I would be pretty dang happy. Every additional belt sold needs an SFI certification which means growth for the SFI and it's employees. It is not possible for any organization that pays it's employees to be completely altruistic even if they are non-profit. Bear in mind, I am not anti-SFI and I am not denigrating the idea of organizations dedicated to increasing safety. We should be looking at them to advise us on safety not dictating safety. It is ultimately up to the people who's safety is actually being protected to make wise choices about how much is needed.

3) I am completely in favor of increased safety for racers bearing in mind that there is a cost/benefit anaysis to be done even in very emotional subjects like driver safety. If spending an extra $1000 a year will save ten lives I think all responsible adults would agree it is money well spent. If spending a trillion dollars a year would eliminate one sprained finger most of those same responsible adults would say it was a frivolous expenditure. Somewhere in the middle of those two examples there is a point where the majority would agree that there is a dollar and effort figure that makes sense and one more dollar or one more minute does not. No one in Conference has ever had an injury attributable to aged belts. As a matter of fact, I couldn't find any mention of any road racer having injuries attributable to aged belts. As a further matter of fact, I couldn't find a news article for anyone having been injured in any form of race car attributable to aged belts. In contrast, there is no shortage of news reports from people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. We must conclude therefore that your chance of being injured as a result of aged belts is significantly less than being abducted by aliens. Perhaps SFI should get involved in preventing alien abductions because personally, I am much more concerned about anal probing than racing with four year old belts.

4) Last, but not least, it's interesting that this decision was made more on the basis of lawsuit and insurance considerations than the possibility that one of our fellow drivers could be injured or killed. I don't think there is a single person driving in Conference who thinks that they are at any more risk with a three year old SFI belt than they were with a two year old SFI belt. We like to haul our two favorite boogiemen, ("We'll lose our insurance" and "Anything that is percieved as more safety cannot even be disputed") out from under the bed to make us feel better about our sanctimonious desire to protect the less intelligent. Frankly, it doesn't demonstrate any moral or mental superiority to prove you are more interested in my safety than I am. As a group we need to institute a proven and common sense ruleset intended to address a minimum required safety level while not pushing the bar so needlessly high that it excludes participation. For the most part, Conference safety rules have been well thought out and have slowly increased when a known weakness or problem presented itself. The drivers were educated, specific safety considerations were cited, concensus was reached, and we moved forward as a group. Our insurance does not dictate safety rules to us, was not going to raise our rates if we stayed with our old belt life requirements, and had not offered us any premium reduction to institute shorter ones. Conference voluntarily mandated the change which had no proven benefit to the members, provided no identifiable margin of increased safety, and increased operating costs because some other less member driven racing organizations had done so.

Now, after all is said and done, if the majority of the membership are in favor of shorter seat belt lfe requirements then so be it. I believe in the will of the majority and respect the opinion of my fellow racers. I don't like rules that are dictated, especially when I can't see a proven need.

(The opinions expressed are mine alone and are intended for informational and entertainment value. Your safety is still your responsibility - think wisely!)
 
BTW: I may not like to be dictated to or forced into getting something, especially if it is put in the threat of a possible law suit, but I do believe in being safe and have purchased a head and neck device. My policy is I like to keep my blood inside my body.

I fully agree with Ricks #4!
 
There's apparently a big argument with the SCCA from their drivers in regards to some safety rules and the SFI. It looks like it spawned when it was appeared that SCCA was originally going to require HANS only as opposed to other various forms of H&N restraints. It was sort of the straw/camel argument after the whole seat-back brace decision on FIA homologated seats.

Then it transformed into a philosophical debate on the inert problem with the SFI. I will quote a post from a thread on another board that explained it all very well:

Except that you seem to be missing the BIG PICTURE. I've thought SFI was a bad idea since 1987, when they made their pitch to me at SEMA over suits. That was almost 20 YEARS before I bought an Isaac.

Getting this particular unit SFI approved is NOT a fix - even if [name removed] thought it was a safe/smart move, which he doesn't - but arguing the problems of their approach, vis-a-vis actual safety for SCCA drivers, gains even less traction than trying to address the Isaac situation as an instance of the policy. I'll try shouting:

YOU ALL ARE LETTING A TRADE MARKETING ORGANIZATION MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT YOUR SAFETY. THAT SHOULD SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF YOU.

Did that help? No. Didn't figure it would.


I apologize for re-stirring the pot but from my point of view, once the SFI mandated belts be replaced every 2 years I felt the organization lost ALL legitimacy as a standard for safety.
 
But... the sky could fall.

BTW, is there an expiry date on your SFI rated drivers' suit? After washing, and wearing so many times it may no longer maintain the same 'test' rating that it did when originally manufactured. I hope nobody irons them.

Just extending the logic a bit. No body is safe in this game. And the bodies that are being protected are not necessarily behind the wheel.
 
But... the sky could fall.

BTW, is there an expiry date on your SFI rated drivers' suit? After washing, and wearing so many times.....


FUNNY thing, Ken. There is NO expiration date on ANY clothing... go ponder that one. Suit, gloves, underware, balaclava, socks can be 15 years old and washed 200 times.. still good per SFI.

BUT be sure to change your harness every 2 years... LOL
 
Don't talk too loud about the suits, gloves, etc. They might hear you and start mandating that you replace them to their schedule as well.
 
Not typing. Wrenching. Crap - need new belts ...........

Seriously, not getting sucked into this again. Just want to get the time to get my car on track. Preachin' to the choir brotha - GPDA all the way, need those eight cylinders singin' sweetly in my ear.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top