rick_bostrom
Onda Kattan Racing
mmmmm ...... Pabst.
(Easily distracted)
(Easily distracted)
2009 Stewards Proposal #19: SFI Belt Expiry
- Thread starter mikeblaszczak
- Start date
rick_bostrom
Onda Kattan Racing
So I reviewed the SFI spec and it is well thought out and quite scientific in it's approach with one exception. It defines all the parts, the rational behind the testing, minimum failure strengths required and ............ just an unsupported note limiting webbing to a maximum of two years of useable service life. A blanket note informs the reader "Any information not supplied herein shall be taken from Aerospace
Standard "SAE AS 8043 - Torso Restraint Systems" which does have an "Environmental Standards" reference which addresses testing for light exposure with and without water and a standardized salt spray exposure and accelerated aging.
Anecdotally, since I hang out on the same conspiracy crazy Production car forums as my buddy Tobias, I had heard the story of the belts being lifespanned as an offshoot of similar materials used in boating but didn't want to relate it for two reasons:
1) It was a rumor and I didn't want to pollute the water unless I had more facts
2) I was really hoping it was just a wives tale and we weren't really making important safety decisions based on the aging of sailboat rigging.
The engineering side of me says the rest of the SFI spec looks pretty solid and well thought out as a minimum acceptable standard for safety. It really looks like the service life limit was added when someone realized that the spec could potentially open up some huge liability holes if the potential deterioration of the belts wasn't addressed.
SFI has been very friendly and helpful with my inquiries - I have asked for additional data on how the useable life was arrived at.
More info to follow.
Ken: From an engineering standpoint the webbing itself has very definite properties - very black and white. The fibers aren't likely to be damaged by the "G" loads of braking and cornering since they are certainly in the range of less than 1% of the yield strength. The only place where I could see repetitive use wear in the webbing occuring is in the form of chafing or abrasion where it is connected to a metal part like a latch or mounting eye. Failure tests are performed on each individual piece of the system and then to the system as a whole, but no tests cycle regular use loads through the system hundreds or thousands of times then measure for wear. It would be an interesting test though ....... if I couldn't find a way to have a root canal or something instead.
(I will throw this to Randy, since it is probably what he is thinking - I'd be better off just buying new belts and spending the time I have used researching and writing this on proper preparation of my race car! He is very likely right.)
Standard "SAE AS 8043 - Torso Restraint Systems" which does have an "Environmental Standards" reference which addresses testing for light exposure with and without water and a standardized salt spray exposure and accelerated aging.
Anecdotally, since I hang out on the same conspiracy crazy Production car forums as my buddy Tobias, I had heard the story of the belts being lifespanned as an offshoot of similar materials used in boating but didn't want to relate it for two reasons:
1) It was a rumor and I didn't want to pollute the water unless I had more facts
2) I was really hoping it was just a wives tale and we weren't really making important safety decisions based on the aging of sailboat rigging.
The engineering side of me says the rest of the SFI spec looks pretty solid and well thought out as a minimum acceptable standard for safety. It really looks like the service life limit was added when someone realized that the spec could potentially open up some huge liability holes if the potential deterioration of the belts wasn't addressed.
SFI has been very friendly and helpful with my inquiries - I have asked for additional data on how the useable life was arrived at.
More info to follow.
Ken: From an engineering standpoint the webbing itself has very definite properties - very black and white. The fibers aren't likely to be damaged by the "G" loads of braking and cornering since they are certainly in the range of less than 1% of the yield strength. The only place where I could see repetitive use wear in the webbing occuring is in the form of chafing or abrasion where it is connected to a metal part like a latch or mounting eye. Failure tests are performed on each individual piece of the system and then to the system as a whole, but no tests cycle regular use loads through the system hundreds or thousands of times then measure for wear. It would be an interesting test though ....... if I couldn't find a way to have a root canal or something instead.
(I will throw this to Randy, since it is probably what he is thinking - I'd be better off just buying new belts and spending the time I have used researching and writing this on proper preparation of my race car! He is very likely right.)
Last edited:
Lance Richert
Well-known member
Aviation and/or military (tanks, etc) are other big customers for roughly the same product. They also stopped using nylon many years ago due to the same concerns for UV light.
mikeblaszczak
Well-known member
Why is that your hope? Is it your assertion that sailboat rigging is not a safety-related product?
Richard Broadhead
Flag & Com
Hmmm, interesting standard. But the question is, where is it applied?
When this topic of belts has come up on Apexspeed (several times over the years) retired or current Air Force pilots have stated that belts in bombers and fighters have NO life restrictions other then inspection for wear and tear.
Their cockpits ARE indeed exposed to full sunlight day after day. They have mentioned climbing in to cockpits of 15/20 year old aircraft and fastening up the original belts!
P.S.
If you really want to get a jump ahead of the safety game MANDATE the use of head/neck restraints. Might ask the clubs insurance carrier if this would reduce the premiums per event?
Last edited:
planb
Gary Poole
Jeez, you rule guys are killing racing for me!
As someone who only occasionally races, these rule changes make it even more difficult to justify participating. The belts in my car are now five years old, been in the car about six race weekends (never actually been "used",) and otherwise have been sitting, covered, in my garage. You can't tell them from new. I literally did not attend the race in Spokane this year because the cost associated with doing a single race are prohibitive to me.
Likewise, I've been racing 20 years averaging about 1.5 races per year and have had to buy four helmets (OK, so one of those got "used", but the others are as new.)
Ya ya ya, racing is expensive, blah blah blah, but if the belts don't show any visible deterioration why do they need to be replaced? Actual condition of the belts is what should matter.
And of course the belt manufacturers want then to be replaced often - it's their business!
OK, I'm done ranting....
As someone who only occasionally races, these rule changes make it even more difficult to justify participating. The belts in my car are now five years old, been in the car about six race weekends (never actually been "used",) and otherwise have been sitting, covered, in my garage. You can't tell them from new. I literally did not attend the race in Spokane this year because the cost associated with doing a single race are prohibitive to me.
Likewise, I've been racing 20 years averaging about 1.5 races per year and have had to buy four helmets (OK, so one of those got "used", but the others are as new.)
Ya ya ya, racing is expensive, blah blah blah, but if the belts don't show any visible deterioration why do they need to be replaced? Actual condition of the belts is what should matter.
And of course the belt manufacturers want then to be replaced often - it's their business!
OK, I'm done ranting....
Randy Blaylock
Highlander Motorsports
The easy answer is the ugly part of life, lawsuits.
As a Conference volunteer, here's a situation I'd hate to see happen;
Racer "X" crashes car at Conference race, gets killed. Racer "X" had the forethought to take out a life insurance policy covering this risk, the insurance company pays beneficiaries plan payout amount. As if that isn't bad enough...
...insurance company doesn't like paying out money, looks for ways to recover money, and sues Conference, every Conference volunteer official, the track, and probably the guy working the corner for some cause thinly related to any kind of reality. Even though the family of racer "X" wants no part of this. If you think this won't happen, think again, because it has already, just not with us.
Maybe the insurance company is savvy enough to note that the harnesses in racer "X"s car were out of date according to the industry standard, and normally accepted standard by most racing sanctioning bodies. The insurance company also notes that Conference is so short-sighted that we just disregard this industry standard, because we feel like it, even going so far as to codify it in our rules. B-I-N-G-O!
The best case outcome to this hypothetical is that the above mentioned parties to the suit spend thousands of dollars and countless hours to successfully defend themselves against the suit. Worst case is Conference ceases to exist, and the insurance company wins a judgement that basically says to me and my family, "thank you very much for whatever assets you have, plus any assets you ever hope to have"...
I know this is an extreme doomsday example, but it is not out of the realm of possibility. All for the cost of a set of harnesses every three years.
My unqualified and unsolicited opinion on this matter has evolved to what seem to me to be two options. Either mandate (EB) that harnesses meet labeled expiry, or remove all reference about expiry from the Comp Regs. To continue to allow expired harnesses appears to amount to Russian Roulette.
As a Conference volunteer, here's a situation I'd hate to see happen;
Racer "X" crashes car at Conference race, gets killed. Racer "X" had the forethought to take out a life insurance policy covering this risk, the insurance company pays beneficiaries plan payout amount. As if that isn't bad enough...
...insurance company doesn't like paying out money, looks for ways to recover money, and sues Conference, every Conference volunteer official, the track, and probably the guy working the corner for some cause thinly related to any kind of reality. Even though the family of racer "X" wants no part of this. If you think this won't happen, think again, because it has already, just not with us.
Maybe the insurance company is savvy enough to note that the harnesses in racer "X"s car were out of date according to the industry standard, and normally accepted standard by most racing sanctioning bodies. The insurance company also notes that Conference is so short-sighted that we just disregard this industry standard, because we feel like it, even going so far as to codify it in our rules. B-I-N-G-O!
The best case outcome to this hypothetical is that the above mentioned parties to the suit spend thousands of dollars and countless hours to successfully defend themselves against the suit. Worst case is Conference ceases to exist, and the insurance company wins a judgement that basically says to me and my family, "thank you very much for whatever assets you have, plus any assets you ever hope to have"...
I know this is an extreme doomsday example, but it is not out of the realm of possibility. All for the cost of a set of harnesses every three years.
My unqualified and unsolicited opinion on this matter has evolved to what seem to me to be two options. Either mandate (EB) that harnesses meet labeled expiry, or remove all reference about expiry from the Comp Regs. To continue to allow expired harnesses appears to amount to Russian Roulette.
Last edited:
Richard Broadhead
Flag & Com
Planb,
I feel your pain. Jeff has only done 7 or 8 races. Five in 2008 and 2 this year due to financial concerns with the economy. ANY racing expense over $25 is painful to us. Which is why Jeff has NEVER been on the track with a new set of tires.
We purchased 5 year Willans belts at the start of 2008 and at the beginning of next year, they'll be half way through their useful life with ZERO wear. The only GOOD NEWS when it comes time to replace for $350 is, you can sell the used ones on E-bay for a few bucks to recover some of the cost. Other sanctioning body's do not follow the replacement rule or, they get used in dune buggy's.
Willans belts about $324 from Averill:
http://racing-stuff.com/behind_the_wheel.htm#Willans
Last edited:
Lynn Rimmer
Good2Go
Ditto to what Randy said.
Either we implement/mandate the use of the latest, greatest and safest to Cover Our A - - es or some nice friendly Insurance Company will visit with their own seperate race group of lawyers.
Unfortunately people are no longer being held responsible for their own actions. (because someone else butts in and says their not)
It's always someone else's fault.
We could have a special waiver that states ICSCC and EVERYONE connected to it are not liable/responsible for whatever happens, but that would take a hearbeat to figure out a way around that peice of paper not being legal/binding too.
If ICSCC is trying their best to keep all of us as safe as they can, it is one hell of a responsibility and thank heavens we have people that care enough to do so.
I know that I am not a driver, but corner workers and Safety personnel are the first line of defense when it comes to something major happening, so this can affect us too.
That's my $.02 (CDN) worth.
Either we implement/mandate the use of the latest, greatest and safest to Cover Our A - - es or some nice friendly Insurance Company will visit with their own seperate race group of lawyers.
Unfortunately people are no longer being held responsible for their own actions. (because someone else butts in and says their not)
It's always someone else's fault.
We could have a special waiver that states ICSCC and EVERYONE connected to it are not liable/responsible for whatever happens, but that would take a hearbeat to figure out a way around that peice of paper not being legal/binding too.
If ICSCC is trying their best to keep all of us as safe as they can, it is one hell of a responsibility and thank heavens we have people that care enough to do so.
I know that I am not a driver, but corner workers and Safety personnel are the first line of defense when it comes to something major happening, so this can affect us too.
That's my $.02 (CDN) worth.
kyle_nickels
"The Okie"
Folks this is all speculation and supposition. I asked earlier what the insurance company that Conference uses had to say about it. We pay them to take care of us, lets see what they think.
As for all the what-ifs, yes there can always be some person or family member money happy if something bad happens. No stopping that thanks to the present frame of mind of the Courts, Lawyers, and public. We do need to consider it, write it into our plans, and do our damndest to not have anything happen. But lets face it, if you want to race there is risk. Take up knitting if you are concerned. I do not like to see any wreck or injury, (I don't mind off-road excursions that do not result in damage or injury, just grass cutting- those are fun to watch)
Lets not get too carried away with a belt manufacturer running scared because their lawyers is telling them they have to limit their liability. I'd like to see ONE incident where the failure of a belt caused a most unfortunate result. If you can be ejected from an airplane experiencing unbelievable Gforces using original belts I see no reason to shorten the time of our replacement. The argument that the belts are not exposed to lengthy or direct sunlight here in the PNW is not a valid reason to me. Condition of the belt is. I inspect harnesses, sligns, belts, straps and tiedowns at work for servicability and condition all the time. We have both old and new. It is condition that matters.
I agree that safety devices such as the HANS can save lives and limit injury. I don't have one myself, YET, but will get one as soon as my budget can handle it. Am I taking a risk? Yes, and I know I am, but do so because I love to race. Does that make me negligent? Not in my mind. Maybe I should sue HANS or their distributors for not providing me with one even though I can not afford one right now because they KNOW it may save my ass. I put a car into the wall 2 times, both times came away in good shape, replaced the belts both times, and finally learned my lesson that it hurts to do that . Yet I still race and am allowed to do so. Is anyone negligent there???
How far do we carry this speculation out? I think about as far as I can throw an elephant. Our safety requirements need to be logical and realistic and NOT based on speculation and what-ifs. As the say in Mizzourah, "Show Me".
As for all the what-ifs, yes there can always be some person or family member money happy if something bad happens. No stopping that thanks to the present frame of mind of the Courts, Lawyers, and public. We do need to consider it, write it into our plans, and do our damndest to not have anything happen. But lets face it, if you want to race there is risk. Take up knitting if you are concerned. I do not like to see any wreck or injury, (I don't mind off-road excursions that do not result in damage or injury, just grass cutting- those are fun to watch)
Lets not get too carried away with a belt manufacturer running scared because their lawyers is telling them they have to limit their liability. I'd like to see ONE incident where the failure of a belt caused a most unfortunate result. If you can be ejected from an airplane experiencing unbelievable Gforces using original belts I see no reason to shorten the time of our replacement. The argument that the belts are not exposed to lengthy or direct sunlight here in the PNW is not a valid reason to me. Condition of the belt is. I inspect harnesses, sligns, belts, straps and tiedowns at work for servicability and condition all the time. We have both old and new. It is condition that matters.
I agree that safety devices such as the HANS can save lives and limit injury. I don't have one myself, YET, but will get one as soon as my budget can handle it. Am I taking a risk? Yes, and I know I am, but do so because I love to race. Does that make me negligent? Not in my mind. Maybe I should sue HANS or their distributors for not providing me with one even though I can not afford one right now because they KNOW it may save my ass. I put a car into the wall 2 times, both times came away in good shape, replaced the belts both times, and finally learned my lesson that it hurts to do that . Yet I still race and am allowed to do so. Is anyone negligent there???
How far do we carry this speculation out? I think about as far as I can throw an elephant. Our safety requirements need to be logical and realistic and NOT based on speculation and what-ifs. As the say in Mizzourah, "Show Me".
Steve Adams
Just this guy, ya know?
The issue here is really simple: Presently, Conference rules do something different than the manufacturer's recommendation. Whether that recommendation makes sense or not, whether the tests they used to determine it make sense or not, whether our conditions are wildly different from those in the tests... none of that matters.
I suffered a solo bicycle accident back in July. Some weeks after my insurance was done paying out for my medical expenses, I got a letter from a company they'd hired to investigate whether anyone else was OR COULD HAVE BEEN at fault. Why do you think they did this? To see if there were grounds for a lawsuit that would help them recoup their (perfectly valid) payout.
And so, if someone crashes their car in 3 year-old, SFI-rated belts, belts that seem to be (and probably are) in as-new condition, makes a perfectly-reasonable claim on their insurance for a broken wrist, and then the insurance company finds out that ICSCC allowed the insured party to use a harness that was outside the manufacturer's recommended lifetime... well, what do YOU think is going to happen? Conference is gonna get sued for negligence by the insurance company.
I suffered a solo bicycle accident back in July. Some weeks after my insurance was done paying out for my medical expenses, I got a letter from a company they'd hired to investigate whether anyone else was OR COULD HAVE BEEN at fault. Why do you think they did this? To see if there were grounds for a lawsuit that would help them recoup their (perfectly valid) payout.
And so, if someone crashes their car in 3 year-old, SFI-rated belts, belts that seem to be (and probably are) in as-new condition, makes a perfectly-reasonable claim on their insurance for a broken wrist, and then the insurance company finds out that ICSCC allowed the insured party to use a harness that was outside the manufacturer's recommended lifetime... well, what do YOU think is going to happen? Conference is gonna get sued for negligence by the insurance company.
Ken Killam
Fats
Never make a rule that you are not willing/able/capable to enforce.
Once ICSCC commits to an absolute, they are bound to it as are the participants.
Is the "recommended" expiration date documented (on the belts) as month/year? It may be necessary to make a note in the vehicle log during the annual tech, and then monitor that date throughout the year (every event) for compliance.
So now, If one slips through that process, and becomes a factor in some catastrophic situation, then ICSCC might certainly be held negligent for not following/enforcing their own regulations.
Why? Because the regulation is a firm 'will/shall/must-type regulation as opposed to a highly recommended/suggested regulation.
What is the manufacturer "suggested" shelf life of a belt set. Does it consider the environment of the storage facilities?
Just sayin'... You can wrap yourself in armor, but that may just make you more vulnerable.
Once ICSCC commits to an absolute, they are bound to it as are the participants.
Is the "recommended" expiration date documented (on the belts) as month/year? It may be necessary to make a note in the vehicle log during the annual tech, and then monitor that date throughout the year (every event) for compliance.
So now, If one slips through that process, and becomes a factor in some catastrophic situation, then ICSCC might certainly be held negligent for not following/enforcing their own regulations.
Why? Because the regulation is a firm 'will/shall/must-type regulation as opposed to a highly recommended/suggested regulation.
What is the manufacturer "suggested" shelf life of a belt set. Does it consider the environment of the storage facilities?
Just sayin'... You can wrap yourself in armor, but that may just make you more vulnerable.
Richard Broadhead
Flag & Com
This issue IS addressed at tech EVERY race or, on an annual basis if you get an annual.
SFI:
Belts have a tag with date of manufacture. The service life EXPIRES 2 years from that date.
FIA:
Belts have tag with the date their service life EXPIRES which is the end of the year 5 years from date of manufacture.
In both cases, the tags are installed at the factory during manufacure. There is zero allowance for 'on the shelf' life in the store. That is why very few vendors stock a huge inventory. Products are available on short turn around from the manufacturers.
Last edited:
rick_bostrom
Onda Kattan Racing
I've overposted on this subject already, so I will say my final piece and go back in my hole.
I live in the real world and I see what is happening throughout society and frankly, I don't like it. I wholeheartedly agree that we should do the logical things that keep us safe and protect our personal ability to contribute to our families, our friends, and our society and being alive and able to use our undamaged brains and functional extremeties is very helpful for that. I will freely admit that regardless of whether I have to replace my belts every two years or five years it won't be the deciding factor controlling whether I race or not.
Frivolous or even just excessive litigation is a direct outgrowth of the mistaken belief that every time something bad happens to someone it is interpreted as an unfair infringement of their rights that someone will have to pay for. Any one who chooses to strap themelves into a race car, whether their belts are brand new or five years old, should clearly understand that they are CHOOSING a slightly elevated personal level of risk. They are also doing something that could have an effect on the future of their wife, children, friends, co-workers, fellow racers, and society in general. If there is ANYONE out there who either can't make this concious decision or justifies it by saying that it doesn't matter because insurance will make everything fine no matter what happens then they are probably not responsible enough to be allowed on a hot track!
Insurance companies have gained fearsome power over the citizens of this country because we are willing to compromise our principles to avoid the threat of them welshing on a bet that they willingly made when they thought they couldn't lose. I don't know what I find more repulsive; insurance companies using obscene amounts of their customer's money to apply overwhelming legal force to avoid paying rightful claims on ridiculous exclusions or people making outlandish claims for "accidents" that they consciously decided to make happen then can't live with the possible consequences they chose to ignore.
Is there anyone, anywhere that doesn't understand that insurance is a respectable and organized form of gambling? Insurers don't pay you money, the other people who are insured that are lucky enough to not have any misfortune pay you when you have an accident. The insurance company merely collects ten bucks from ten people then gives eighty to whoever has the misfortune to get hurt first and tucks a twenty in their pocket for helping. They are in it for profit and we are the customers! This whole "lets be proactive and make sure we slap some restrictions on ourselves so the insurance company can't back out on the deal" thing only encourages bad behavior.
It's no different than having your buddy say "Hey, man they have yummy cherry pies over there for ten bucks - you want to put in five bucks with me and we can split one?" When he comes back you he says " Well, I walked over there to get it so I am entitled to keep the whole pie since I worked harder than you did for it, and while you are at it give me another five bucks for thinking of the plan and being willing to talk you into it or I will beat the hell out of you and take all your money."
As earlier noted, it is a slippery slope and apparently we lost traction some time ago. Now its belt expiration without a reasonable published basis so we won't get sued. How long until it is fifteen point belts so we won't get sued? Horsepower or maximum speed limitations? Mandatory enormous safety bumpers? Air bags? Safer Barriers bolted all the way around the car? Will mandatory belt expirations be enough? If I though it would end there I wouldn't have bothered writing ONE response. Really - how much will be enough? From an actuarial standpoint, how much has Conference or their insurance carrier been affected by 3 to 5 year old belts that would have been better with 1 to 2 year old belts at this point?
It doesn't even relieve us of any liability. A catastrophic accident can lead to a lawsuit regardless of belt age or insurance waivers. We do the best we can to put observe and train our drivers, inspect the cars, and mark, eliminate, or guard hazards on the track but we are still rolling the dice every time the green flag drops.
As promised, I will politely withdraw having said more than my share. Thanks for reading and no disrespect to those who disagree. My relationship with many of those reading is one of the most important reasons for my involvement with IRDC and ICSCC and I would hope this would not harm that. We will have to agree to disagree.
Man must cease attributing his problems to his environment, and learn again to exercise his will -- his personal responsibility.
Albert Schweitzer
I live in the real world and I see what is happening throughout society and frankly, I don't like it. I wholeheartedly agree that we should do the logical things that keep us safe and protect our personal ability to contribute to our families, our friends, and our society and being alive and able to use our undamaged brains and functional extremeties is very helpful for that. I will freely admit that regardless of whether I have to replace my belts every two years or five years it won't be the deciding factor controlling whether I race or not.
Frivolous or even just excessive litigation is a direct outgrowth of the mistaken belief that every time something bad happens to someone it is interpreted as an unfair infringement of their rights that someone will have to pay for. Any one who chooses to strap themelves into a race car, whether their belts are brand new or five years old, should clearly understand that they are CHOOSING a slightly elevated personal level of risk. They are also doing something that could have an effect on the future of their wife, children, friends, co-workers, fellow racers, and society in general. If there is ANYONE out there who either can't make this concious decision or justifies it by saying that it doesn't matter because insurance will make everything fine no matter what happens then they are probably not responsible enough to be allowed on a hot track!
Insurance companies have gained fearsome power over the citizens of this country because we are willing to compromise our principles to avoid the threat of them welshing on a bet that they willingly made when they thought they couldn't lose. I don't know what I find more repulsive; insurance companies using obscene amounts of their customer's money to apply overwhelming legal force to avoid paying rightful claims on ridiculous exclusions or people making outlandish claims for "accidents" that they consciously decided to make happen then can't live with the possible consequences they chose to ignore.
Is there anyone, anywhere that doesn't understand that insurance is a respectable and organized form of gambling? Insurers don't pay you money, the other people who are insured that are lucky enough to not have any misfortune pay you when you have an accident. The insurance company merely collects ten bucks from ten people then gives eighty to whoever has the misfortune to get hurt first and tucks a twenty in their pocket for helping. They are in it for profit and we are the customers! This whole "lets be proactive and make sure we slap some restrictions on ourselves so the insurance company can't back out on the deal" thing only encourages bad behavior.
It's no different than having your buddy say "Hey, man they have yummy cherry pies over there for ten bucks - you want to put in five bucks with me and we can split one?" When he comes back you he says " Well, I walked over there to get it so I am entitled to keep the whole pie since I worked harder than you did for it, and while you are at it give me another five bucks for thinking of the plan and being willing to talk you into it or I will beat the hell out of you and take all your money."
As earlier noted, it is a slippery slope and apparently we lost traction some time ago. Now its belt expiration without a reasonable published basis so we won't get sued. How long until it is fifteen point belts so we won't get sued? Horsepower or maximum speed limitations? Mandatory enormous safety bumpers? Air bags? Safer Barriers bolted all the way around the car? Will mandatory belt expirations be enough? If I though it would end there I wouldn't have bothered writing ONE response. Really - how much will be enough? From an actuarial standpoint, how much has Conference or their insurance carrier been affected by 3 to 5 year old belts that would have been better with 1 to 2 year old belts at this point?
It doesn't even relieve us of any liability. A catastrophic accident can lead to a lawsuit regardless of belt age or insurance waivers. We do the best we can to put observe and train our drivers, inspect the cars, and mark, eliminate, or guard hazards on the track but we are still rolling the dice every time the green flag drops.
As promised, I will politely withdraw having said more than my share. Thanks for reading and no disrespect to those who disagree. My relationship with many of those reading is one of the most important reasons for my involvement with IRDC and ICSCC and I would hope this would not harm that. We will have to agree to disagree.
Man must cease attributing his problems to his environment, and learn again to exercise his will -- his personal responsibility.
Albert Schweitzer
Randy Blaylock
Highlander Motorsports
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said Rick, and also lament the issues you articulated with just as much intensity as you.
But, I can't agree that we do the best we can to eliminate hazards. To allow a longer time period than is recommended on a label, when our cousin sanctioning bodies do not, is a hazard we are fully aware of that can easily be mitgated at a small price.
I would be willing to take a stand on the issue, and you may see me as spineless, but I simply see the upside of asserting something for the sake of a philosophical point as vastly outweighed by the practical realities and very real downside.
But, I can't agree that we do the best we can to eliminate hazards. To allow a longer time period than is recommended on a label, when our cousin sanctioning bodies do not, is a hazard we are fully aware of that can easily be mitgated at a small price.
I would be willing to take a stand on the issue, and you may see me as spineless, but I simply see the upside of asserting something for the sake of a philosophical point as vastly outweighed by the practical realities and very real downside.
Last edited:
planb
Gary Poole
First, I'd like to say that one reason why I keep dipping my toes in racing is because of the people involved. This is one great group of usually (except when occasionally blinded by the red mist) people. Evidenced by the intelligent debate I'm reading here.
But, I have forever heard of the great evils of not having strict enough rules for fear of the crushing liability that might ensue in the event of some unfortunate event... but so far as I can tell, that has never happened. At least not in conference, and I only vaguely remember one such possible occurrence in SCCA???
Isn't tech inspection, by qualified individuals, proof enough of acceptable integrity of safety equipment? What is the REAL risk to conference or the tech inspectors if a belt failure were to occur during a racing event?
But, I have forever heard of the great evils of not having strict enough rules for fear of the crushing liability that might ensue in the event of some unfortunate event... but so far as I can tell, that has never happened. At least not in conference, and I only vaguely remember one such possible occurrence in SCCA???
Isn't tech inspection, by qualified individuals, proof enough of acceptable integrity of safety equipment? What is the REAL risk to conference or the tech inspectors if a belt failure were to occur during a racing event?
Steve Adams
Just this guy, ya know?
I'll quote myself:
This has NOTHING to do with worrying about a Conference member getting all pissed off and suing Conference and EVERYTHING to do with how the insurance companies are looking for any and every way possible to save or, in this instance, recoup money.
Whether we think it's right or not, whether we as rational individuals think it's necessary or not... that's completely irrelevant. What IS relevant is whether there is risk there, risk that is easily mitigated by going with the manufacturer's recommendation. No sense building a castle if you're just going to leave the front gate open.
kyle_nickels
"The Okie"
Will someone please provide me with the name and phone number/email of ICSCC's insurance carrier? If that is the only way to get an answer on this I will be glad to ask them the question.
Does ICSCC have a legal rep who can address this also?
Does ICSCC have a legal rep who can address this also?
kyle_nickels
"The Okie"
Thanks, but I mean the actual insurance carrier. If we can't get the straight skinny one way I'll ask another.