2009 Stewards Proposal #19: SFI Belt Expiry
- Thread starter mikeblaszczak
- Start date
This legal advice is worth exactly what you paid for it:
THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF SPORTS CAR CLUBS, A NONPROFIT CORPORATION
UBI Number 601808650
Category REG
Profit/Nonprofit Nonprofit
Active/Inactive Active
State of Incorporation WA
Date of Incorporation 06/18/1965
Expiration Date 06/30/2010
THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF SPORTS CAR CLUBS, A NONPROFIT CORPORATION
UBI Number 601808650
Category REG
Profit/Nonprofit Nonprofit
Active/Inactive Active
State of Incorporation WA
Date of Incorporation 06/18/1965
Expiration Date 06/30/2010
Thanks. It comes up right away when "The" is used in the search.
Richard Broadhead
Flag & Com
As stated previously, EVERY harness set made has either a date of manufacture (SFI certified type and expire 2 yrs from that date) or, an expiration date (FIA certified and expire on the date SHOWN on the tag).
OBVIOUSLY the harness should be free of cuts or oil saturation which comes under the heading of 'common sense'.
Assuming ICSCC uses SFI and FIA certifications on racing equipment then they 'should' comply with what those certifications state are the useful life.
To do anything else could be considered 'negligent'
Put the belt thing to rest at the November meeting.
Last edited:
westipton
Well-known member
This whole issue is a large load of BS IMHO. The military uses the same belts and harnesses for a very long time, (well over 5 years), and they are obviously exposed to a lot more stress, UV's and G's then we'll ever see. The military may not admit this publicly, but the pilots will. This 2 year replacement cycle benefits the manufactuter, and covers the tail of the distributor, but it hoists an expense on us that is unnecessary.
Chat with any of those military pilots, including a bunch of them that run Sovren, and they just laugh at how proposterous this rule is. The great majority of our race cars sit in a shop or garage, and in a trailer during transport. So the exposure to the elements is extremely minimal, and the stress from driving around a track, no matter how fast your car may be, is just as minimal.
I realize it's a CYA situation, but a touch of common sense would be nice to see with these people who make up these rules. If the FIA says 5 years, then it should be 5 years - minimum.
Chat with any of those military pilots, including a bunch of them that run Sovren, and they just laugh at how proposterous this rule is. The great majority of our race cars sit in a shop or garage, and in a trailer during transport. So the exposure to the elements is extremely minimal, and the stress from driving around a track, no matter how fast your car may be, is just as minimal.
I realize it's a CYA situation, but a touch of common sense would be nice to see with these people who make up these rules. If the FIA says 5 years, then it should be 5 years - minimum.
Richard Broadhead
Flag & Com
absolutely agree, Wes.
Yes it's a necessary CYA thing for the club. Only way around it is if the club had members who are P.E.'s in materials engineering who could invalidate the SFI tests and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the belts so certified actually DO have a longer useful life.
And yup, simple solution is buy FIA belts
Mentioned above, initial cost is slightly more but you save money if you're going to race longer then 5 years based upon the replacement cycle
Last edited:
Randy Blaylock
Highlander Motorsports
The pilot analogy is a BS analogy.
Pilots experience a relatively slow build up of G's in aircraft when compared to a car crash. The typical maximum brief load any pilot can sustain is 12 Gs, and these are experienced in an axis that is aligned with the spine, which does not load the belts. More commonly, pilots can experience a maximum sustained load of 9 Gs with specialized equipment like pressure suits, but again, the load is in an axis aligned with the spine, so there is no appreciable strain on the belts. The circumstances where the belts may be loaded would be in negative G situations, but the typical limit for humans even with specialized equipment is -2 to -3 Gs max, before "red out".
The belts in our race cars are designed to operate in a completely different environment and manner. In the human body, death or serious injury is likely in sudden events over 50Gs. Many race car crashes have recorded impacts exceeding 100Gs. The belts work in such a way that they mitigate this sudden G load somehow to improve survivability. I don't know exactly how, and I don't really care, I'm just glad that they do.
If a pilot is going to experience G loads above 15Gs, it's likely because they're crashing, and they will either be killed, or will have punched out. In either case, the age or condition of the belts is completely irrelevant.
So the comparison is, well, crap.
What I find preposterous, is that so many of my fellow Conference family members find my personal concern of potential liabilty as a Conference official to be a so called "clanging of a bucket" or some other thing that is intended to infer that I'm acting rashly or hysterically, when it affects them not a whit.
What I find to be BS is that so many think common sense means anything, when someone comes along looking for a payday. Since when did common sense prevent the awarding of huge judgements for the most assinine stuff anyway?
What I find to be preposterous, is that we collectively are so stupid to insist that we know better based on stubborness, or cheapness, or because of some over-susceptibility to conspiracy theory, and that we continue to insist belts are fine simply because we say so.
This whole argument is silly in the first place, not to mention intellectually dishonest, because there are other areas in the rules that are so much more a prime target for the stated criteria. For instance; why are there rules governing the maximum age of helmets? The tag in the helmets don't say anything about expiry. We arbitrarily pick a maximum age.
And yet there is so much angst about following an actual, specific expiry when it comes to harnesses.
WTF?
Pilots experience a relatively slow build up of G's in aircraft when compared to a car crash. The typical maximum brief load any pilot can sustain is 12 Gs, and these are experienced in an axis that is aligned with the spine, which does not load the belts. More commonly, pilots can experience a maximum sustained load of 9 Gs with specialized equipment like pressure suits, but again, the load is in an axis aligned with the spine, so there is no appreciable strain on the belts. The circumstances where the belts may be loaded would be in negative G situations, but the typical limit for humans even with specialized equipment is -2 to -3 Gs max, before "red out".
The belts in our race cars are designed to operate in a completely different environment and manner. In the human body, death or serious injury is likely in sudden events over 50Gs. Many race car crashes have recorded impacts exceeding 100Gs. The belts work in such a way that they mitigate this sudden G load somehow to improve survivability. I don't know exactly how, and I don't really care, I'm just glad that they do.
If a pilot is going to experience G loads above 15Gs, it's likely because they're crashing, and they will either be killed, or will have punched out. In either case, the age or condition of the belts is completely irrelevant.
So the comparison is, well, crap.
What I find preposterous, is that so many of my fellow Conference family members find my personal concern of potential liabilty as a Conference official to be a so called "clanging of a bucket" or some other thing that is intended to infer that I'm acting rashly or hysterically, when it affects them not a whit.
What I find to be BS is that so many think common sense means anything, when someone comes along looking for a payday. Since when did common sense prevent the awarding of huge judgements for the most assinine stuff anyway?
What I find to be preposterous, is that we collectively are so stupid to insist that we know better based on stubborness, or cheapness, or because of some over-susceptibility to conspiracy theory, and that we continue to insist belts are fine simply because we say so.
This whole argument is silly in the first place, not to mention intellectually dishonest, because there are other areas in the rules that are so much more a prime target for the stated criteria. For instance; why are there rules governing the maximum age of helmets? The tag in the helmets don't say anything about expiry. We arbitrarily pick a maximum age.
And yet there is so much angst about following an actual, specific expiry when it comes to harnesses.
WTF?
westipton
Well-known member
Well, your response is total crap in my opinion Randy, but then we rarely agree, so no suprise there. Our belts will be compromised in the event of a catastrophic event, which thank God we rarely experience in club racing, otherwise they have absolutely no reason to fail in 2 or 5 or 10 years. Without stress on those belts they can last indefinitely, and telling me that a high speed heavy G load on an aircraft belt is less than what we experience is also total crap.
If I have an accident, and have a large hit, then I will be the first to replace my belts without any hesitiation. Otherwise it's a waste of time...
If I have an accident, and have a large hit, then I will be the first to replace my belts without any hesitiation. Otherwise it's a waste of time...
mikeblaszczak
Well-known member
FIA belts and SFI belts are tested and designed differently.
Steve Adams
Just this guy, ya know?
I can't believe how some of you just don't get it.
IT DOES NOT MATTER if we disagree that SFI belts need to be replaced (remember, we're just talking about the webbing) every 2 years. IT DOES NOT MATTER if emprical data would seem to indicate that it's unnecessary to replace the SFI belts every 2 years. IT DOES NOT MATTER even if we were to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to PROVE that SFI belts don't need to be replaced every 2 years.
So long as SFI only rates their belts for 2 years, ANY accident in an ICSCC-approved car with SFI-rated belts older than 2 years is a GUARANTEED opening for an insurance company to sue SOMEONE in the pursuit of recouping their costs if anyone gets hurt... even if that "hurt" is minor. Not because insurance companies are evil or because someone who willingly took a risk is now suing, but simply because the insurance companies are trying to save money wherever possible and reclaim money "lost" in payouts.
IT DOES NOT MATTER if we disagree that SFI belts need to be replaced (remember, we're just talking about the webbing) every 2 years. IT DOES NOT MATTER if emprical data would seem to indicate that it's unnecessary to replace the SFI belts every 2 years. IT DOES NOT MATTER even if we were to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to PROVE that SFI belts don't need to be replaced every 2 years.
So long as SFI only rates their belts for 2 years, ANY accident in an ICSCC-approved car with SFI-rated belts older than 2 years is a GUARANTEED opening for an insurance company to sue SOMEONE in the pursuit of recouping their costs if anyone gets hurt... even if that "hurt" is minor. Not because insurance companies are evil or because someone who willingly took a risk is now suing, but simply because the insurance companies are trying to save money wherever possible and reclaim money "lost" in payouts.
Gary Siemion
Member
I share Kyles rage and I do hold that insurance companies are evil.
So when is it appropriate to make a stand? I say now. I do not support the proposed rule to shorten the legal life of the belts.
Academically this has nothing to do with the qualifications by SFI or FIA. This has to do with insuring against a risk which is the basis for any insurance policy. So what is the risk and how is that risk determined.
The risk is some injury specifically as the result of some belt failure. I can understand how some may get sucked into the black vortex of thought presented by the insurers, manufacturers and the testing organizations because they are the ones with the loudest for profit voice. I find that their voice in this matter is for the most part unsubstantiated no matter how many sun ladden sail boats or ultimate failure tests are cited.
What I find would be more pertinent would be some hard data that demonstrates the actual risk. Please show me the study, the research on how many injuries have actually been inurred in amature sportscar racing due to a belt failure. Please, proponents of cowtowing to the lawyers that you claim you dislike (or in my case hate) demonstrate to me the actual risk. How many injuries in ICSCC, in SCCA, in NASA have been attributited to a belt failure in the last year. The last 5 years. The last 20 years! Exclude NASCAR, CART, F1 and all the mega speed events. And if/when you do find what I believe will be a very, very, very, very few incidents if any, what is the probability as calculated by the acual incidents' number divided by the number of opportunities. I believe it is infinitesimal. It is so low it is for all practical purposes non-existant. Everything that has been presented in this thread thusfar to quantify risk has been projection, conjecture, hypothesis, guessing and all to the pleasure of the for profit insurance and equipment manufacturers with their bias testing organizations. Show me the data! Not what could happen. What's happening?
I truly get Kyle's take on the American social upheval taking place and am sick of it too. So when is it time to make a stand. I say leave the belt rule alone (actually I'm all for extending it for god's sake along with the rediculuous helmet rule!) It is a low probability risk. And if a suit (misspelling inteintional) should come along let's stand together and fight for what we believe to be more fair. Do you stand for being bullied on the race track? If not now when? The next lifetime?
I built an SM 5 years ago and raced it maybe 5 events at the most. It has a set of Simpson Platinum belts that are only SFI rated. (as an aside I discussed with the appropriate Simpson representitive the disparity of these gorgeous belts not being rated by FIA. He stated that Simpson didn't want to pay the exorbitant fee that FIA was demanding. Are you starting to get the picture here?) I was going to bring it out for last race at Seattle. The truck and trailer were all loaded save the car in the trailer. As I started to enter the car to load it on friday I saw the belts and it dawned on me that they were out of date. It didn't dawn on me before that moment because my ADHD wacky perception was just concentrating on the quality of the belts themselves not the little clothe tag with little holes punched in it. The belts are perfect. In disgust I started the car and put it back in the shop under it's car cover with lights out. And there it sits with it's beautiful set of belts.
Ladies and Gentlemen if we continue to choose to let irrelevent and malevelent entities dictate to our health as individuals and as a community both racing and more macro social communities, we will eventually go the way of the dodo. That's not OK with me.
So when is it appropriate to make a stand? I say now. I do not support the proposed rule to shorten the legal life of the belts.
Academically this has nothing to do with the qualifications by SFI or FIA. This has to do with insuring against a risk which is the basis for any insurance policy. So what is the risk and how is that risk determined.
The risk is some injury specifically as the result of some belt failure. I can understand how some may get sucked into the black vortex of thought presented by the insurers, manufacturers and the testing organizations because they are the ones with the loudest for profit voice. I find that their voice in this matter is for the most part unsubstantiated no matter how many sun ladden sail boats or ultimate failure tests are cited.
What I find would be more pertinent would be some hard data that demonstrates the actual risk. Please show me the study, the research on how many injuries have actually been inurred in amature sportscar racing due to a belt failure. Please, proponents of cowtowing to the lawyers that you claim you dislike (or in my case hate) demonstrate to me the actual risk. How many injuries in ICSCC, in SCCA, in NASA have been attributited to a belt failure in the last year. The last 5 years. The last 20 years! Exclude NASCAR, CART, F1 and all the mega speed events. And if/when you do find what I believe will be a very, very, very, very few incidents if any, what is the probability as calculated by the acual incidents' number divided by the number of opportunities. I believe it is infinitesimal. It is so low it is for all practical purposes non-existant. Everything that has been presented in this thread thusfar to quantify risk has been projection, conjecture, hypothesis, guessing and all to the pleasure of the for profit insurance and equipment manufacturers with their bias testing organizations. Show me the data! Not what could happen. What's happening?
I truly get Kyle's take on the American social upheval taking place and am sick of it too. So when is it time to make a stand. I say leave the belt rule alone (actually I'm all for extending it for god's sake along with the rediculuous helmet rule!) It is a low probability risk. And if a suit (misspelling inteintional) should come along let's stand together and fight for what we believe to be more fair. Do you stand for being bullied on the race track? If not now when? The next lifetime?
I built an SM 5 years ago and raced it maybe 5 events at the most. It has a set of Simpson Platinum belts that are only SFI rated. (as an aside I discussed with the appropriate Simpson representitive the disparity of these gorgeous belts not being rated by FIA. He stated that Simpson didn't want to pay the exorbitant fee that FIA was demanding. Are you starting to get the picture here?) I was going to bring it out for last race at Seattle. The truck and trailer were all loaded save the car in the trailer. As I started to enter the car to load it on friday I saw the belts and it dawned on me that they were out of date. It didn't dawn on me before that moment because my ADHD wacky perception was just concentrating on the quality of the belts themselves not the little clothe tag with little holes punched in it. The belts are perfect. In disgust I started the car and put it back in the shop under it's car cover with lights out. And there it sits with it's beautiful set of belts.
Ladies and Gentlemen if we continue to choose to let irrelevent and malevelent entities dictate to our health as individuals and as a community both racing and more macro social communities, we will eventually go the way of the dodo. That's not OK with me.
Last edited:
Ken Killam
Fats
Is there an expiry on tires? How about a HANS, or type device?
westipton
Well-known member
The lack of common sense when it comes to issues like this is amazing to me Scott. We may have to accept it, for now, but we don't have to like it, and we sure as hell have the right to express our opinions, although there are those who obviously don't think we have that right.
Aircraft belts go through so much more stress than what our belts experience there is no comparison, so trying to say that isn't relevant is totally illogical. Do you guys think they just take-off and land and fly straight and level in between? You apparently have no idea what loads those planes experience flight after flight, year after year, as well as the constant UV's hitting them out on an unprotected flight line. I wonder why there are no time limits or mandates in their arena? Anyway, enough of that.
It is the best way I could think of to show a relevant comparison, and how needless this rule is, but I also realize that we can't do a damn thing about it because the lawyers and insurance people will always have the final say - so once again we spend money we shouldn't have to. And the argument about it being a small expense is also irritating. Most parts and pieces we buy are small, but keep adding them up and the bottom line to race just keeps getting bigger.
So we can blindly accept it, or we can at least discuss it, which I used to think was the intention of this forum, but I'm rapidly losing faith in that concept.
Aircraft belts go through so much more stress than what our belts experience there is no comparison, so trying to say that isn't relevant is totally illogical. Do you guys think they just take-off and land and fly straight and level in between? You apparently have no idea what loads those planes experience flight after flight, year after year, as well as the constant UV's hitting them out on an unprotected flight line. I wonder why there are no time limits or mandates in their arena? Anyway, enough of that.
It is the best way I could think of to show a relevant comparison, and how needless this rule is, but I also realize that we can't do a damn thing about it because the lawyers and insurance people will always have the final say - so once again we spend money we shouldn't have to. And the argument about it being a small expense is also irritating. Most parts and pieces we buy are small, but keep adding them up and the bottom line to race just keeps getting bigger.
So we can blindly accept it, or we can at least discuss it, which I used to think was the intention of this forum, but I'm rapidly losing faith in that concept.
Richard Broadhead
Flag & Com
Gary,
Although I agree with your 'outrage' at the premise that SFI belts have reached the end of their useful life in 2 years, I'll take the bait on the debate
As a race sanctioning body, ICSCC has accepted SFI and FIA 'standards' as the basis for 'assuring' our insurance carrier that we are doing everything possible to make our racing as 'safe' as possible. For the club to arbitrarily choose not to follow one of those standards regarding a safety issue exposes the club to unnecessary liability.
AGREE, if the sail boat industry study is truely the methodology SFI used to determine the life of harness webbing, this is NOT a valid test for your 'typical' road racing car. However, unless ICSCC takes on the financial burden of challenging the SFI results and instituting an alternative study, we have no basis for overthrowing their opinion and setting a different standard.
Keep in mind that SFI also address's the oval trackers with their standards. In some cases I DO suspect that a good number of those cars sit on an open trailer in the yard between race weekends nationwide
I DID do a search to try and find such data. None exists that I can find. However, I don't think your opinion of leaving out the 'mega speed' stuff is valid.
Although in the end, Dale Earnhardt's fatality was caused from a basal skull fracture (due to not wearing a HANS), his belts DID indeed fail (which may have rendered the HANS useless any way). Not simply because of a webbing failure but due to being improperly mounted. Hard to believe but a factoid.
I agree. However it's not American social upheval. Be HAPPY we are here! You do realize, in Europe a racing fatality OFTEN results in some form of criminal charges being filed against somebody? LONG LIVE America!!
Agree. However, you do realize our current helmet certification and life cycle standards are a DIRECT result of the death of Mark Donohue when his helmet failed (due to an impact with a hard object) and his estate sued Bell??? That was a mega-dollar 'event'! Can ICSCC absorb that kind of $$ hit for the sake of standing up to the-man?
Interesting for sure. But, as most if not all European racers use FIA belts, why would Simpson take themselves out of that market? Unless, they don't feel they can sell enough to make a return on the investment.
FIA belts run about $100 to $150 more then SFI's. With the extended life, it work out to be a savings to make the investment. In 10 years of racing, you'ver replaced FIA's 2wice compared to FIVE SFI sets.. Hmmm a no brainer to me.
True, but until some better entity is established to set 'some standards' for safety of racing equipment, ICSCC has to live with what's available. Yes, there are other sanctioning organizations that do not use SFI or FIA standards but, they are 'typically' not around for 50 plus years like ICSCC
People have built 'better' mouse traps but not many work better then the snapper and a piece of cheese!
P.S.
If you think we want to spend $300 every 5 years to replace harness that's just not true. But it's 'life' (maybe)
Although I agree with your 'outrage' at the premise that SFI belts have reached the end of their useful life in 2 years, I'll take the bait on the debate
As a race sanctioning body, ICSCC has accepted SFI and FIA 'standards' as the basis for 'assuring' our insurance carrier that we are doing everything possible to make our racing as 'safe' as possible. For the club to arbitrarily choose not to follow one of those standards regarding a safety issue exposes the club to unnecessary liability.
AGREE, if the sail boat industry study is truely the methodology SFI used to determine the life of harness webbing, this is NOT a valid test for your 'typical' road racing car. However, unless ICSCC takes on the financial burden of challenging the SFI results and instituting an alternative study, we have no basis for overthrowing their opinion and setting a different standard.
Keep in mind that SFI also address's the oval trackers with their standards. In some cases I DO suspect that a good number of those cars sit on an open trailer in the yard between race weekends nationwide
I DID do a search to try and find such data. None exists that I can find. However, I don't think your opinion of leaving out the 'mega speed' stuff is valid.
Although in the end, Dale Earnhardt's fatality was caused from a basal skull fracture (due to not wearing a HANS), his belts DID indeed fail (which may have rendered the HANS useless any way). Not simply because of a webbing failure but due to being improperly mounted. Hard to believe but a factoid.
I agree. However it's not American social upheval. Be HAPPY we are here! You do realize, in Europe a racing fatality OFTEN results in some form of criminal charges being filed against somebody? LONG LIVE America!!
Agree. However, you do realize our current helmet certification and life cycle standards are a DIRECT result of the death of Mark Donohue when his helmet failed (due to an impact with a hard object) and his estate sued Bell??? That was a mega-dollar 'event'! Can ICSCC absorb that kind of $$ hit for the sake of standing up to the-man?
Interesting for sure. But, as most if not all European racers use FIA belts, why would Simpson take themselves out of that market? Unless, they don't feel they can sell enough to make a return on the investment.
FIA belts run about $100 to $150 more then SFI's. With the extended life, it work out to be a savings to make the investment. In 10 years of racing, you'ver replaced FIA's 2wice compared to FIVE SFI sets.. Hmmm a no brainer to me.
True, but until some better entity is established to set 'some standards' for safety of racing equipment, ICSCC has to live with what's available. Yes, there are other sanctioning organizations that do not use SFI or FIA standards but, they are 'typically' not around for 50 plus years like ICSCC
People have built 'better' mouse traps but not many work better then the snapper and a piece of cheese!
P.S.
If you think we want to spend $300 every 5 years to replace harness that's just not true. But it's 'life' (maybe)
Last edited:
kyle_nickels
"The Okie"
I said, twice now, I was going to husH up on this. But being the Okie I am here goes again.
I do not hate insurance companies. Quite the opposite. They have their place now. I just want to limit their authority over my life.
I do not hate lawyers. Quite the opposite. They have their place now. I just want to limit their authority over my life.
I do not hate politicians.... well not quite the opposite. They have their place now. I just want to limit their authority over my life.
I do not hate FIA or SFI or any other organization trying to keep me safe. Quite the opposite. They have their place now. I just want to limit their authority over my life.
I just don't hate anyone really. I just want to protect my freadom. I did so actively for 26 years, and continue to do so in a different capacity.
This forum is terrific. A place where we can all tell our minds, and, I SINCERELY HOPE, can walk away learning something from each-other, respecting the others opinions, and being able to have a beer with them afterwards with no hard feelings.
That is the beauty of ICSCC compared to so many other places.
I will vote my mind, and for what good it will do, know I did so with clear conscious. I will also follow the "rules" we, as a whole, vote for and determine are in our best interest.
THANK YOU ALL FOR PROVIDING ALL OF US THIS OPPORTUNITY!!!!!
PS: Wes, don't lose faith please, your opinions are well worth hearing, as are everyone elses.
I do not hate insurance companies. Quite the opposite. They have their place now. I just want to limit their authority over my life.
I do not hate lawyers. Quite the opposite. They have their place now. I just want to limit their authority over my life.
I do not hate politicians.... well not quite the opposite. They have their place now. I just want to limit their authority over my life.
I do not hate FIA or SFI or any other organization trying to keep me safe. Quite the opposite. They have their place now. I just want to limit their authority over my life.
I just don't hate anyone really. I just want to protect my freadom. I did so actively for 26 years, and continue to do so in a different capacity.
This forum is terrific. A place where we can all tell our minds, and, I SINCERELY HOPE, can walk away learning something from each-other, respecting the others opinions, and being able to have a beer with them afterwards with no hard feelings.
That is the beauty of ICSCC compared to so many other places.
I will vote my mind, and for what good it will do, know I did so with clear conscious. I will also follow the "rules" we, as a whole, vote for and determine are in our best interest.
THANK YOU ALL FOR PROVIDING ALL OF US THIS OPPORTUNITY!!!!!
PS: Wes, don't lose faith please, your opinions are well worth hearing, as are everyone elses.
rick_bostrom
Onda Kattan Racing
Just when I get out, I get SUCKED back in!
This discussion has progressed to arguing points that are not in any way helpful to any aspect of racing - safety, competitiveness, or even club unity. Conference is a grassroots organization that makes a place for a lot of people with barely modified cars on extremely limited budgets to come out and realize their racing dream and that insignificant little few hundred dollars you are tossing around is one less race entry for them. Most of those guys substitute passion for some of the dollars it takes to be able to live their dream. It takes a lot of trips to the junkyard and late nights in the garage to make up for an additional $200 to $500 bucks and you of all people should know that. Oh, and just for the record - Conference drivers do affect change every single year, it's one of the things that have made us so successful. I think I will continue to depend on the membership of Conference to think their way through problems and vote their conciences.
I agree strongly that we need to protect our drivers and if I thought this rule would do that at an acceptable cost, I would be completely on board. The truth is that the insurance carrier doesn't require us to have ANY certification on our belts. We impose that requirement on ourselves. The idea is to first prevent loss and secondly, if loss does occur, to show that we took into account foreseeable dangers and exercised good judgement in our effort to prevent loss. Not doing so suggests that we are casually ignoring danger which moves incidents from the "accident" category to "foreseeable outcome" catagory. Insurance companies like any opportunity to say " you were asking for it and you got what you had coming - why should we pay if you won't make an effort to protect yourself?"
Requiring seat belts at all is a reasonable step to prevent loss. It has been proven exhaustively by multiple sources using methods directly applicable to our situation that just wearing seatbelts hugely increases survivability in an accident. As a group, we have chosen to require ourselves to wear belts. Good rule, good outcome.
Because of environmental effects, at some point those same belts can no longer perform their intended task becasue their physical properties have eroded below their intended operationg envelope. I think we are all in agreement so far, nobody wants to take a 100G crash into a wall with belts that the thread has rotted in and will yield at 20G's. I think we are still together here.
In an effort to control even more risk we are trying to put a nice, easy to verify labely on the belts that will prove that we foresaw the potential danger of degraded belts and took steps to control it. Actually, this is a great idea provided it is a logical and scientifically determined certification that applies directly to the intended usage of the belts and provides a clear benefit to the user.
Ah, there is the problem. As I stated WAYYYY up the page, I'm all for things that can show a proven benefit for both the drivers and the organization as a whole without pushing costs out of reach. It doesn't matter whether you can't race because you are $200 dollars short or because a rule made your belts illegal, either way you don't get to race. I guess that raises safety right there, huh? If someone can't get out on the track they are then NO risk to us. Well, unless they are riding a bike ....... do we check bike helmet expiration? What! People aren't even wearing bike helmets at our races? Maybe you folks are chasing the wrong raccoon - Conference will suffer a much larger loss because of bicycle accidents than racing incidents this year.
All I need is to have faith in the testing procedure and I will happily support this rule and any other that makes my fellow racers safer at a do-able cost. A rule change could be passed in Conference that says "All belts must meet RBSL 2010 requirements to be legal for use in any car raced in Conference." If RBSL (The Rick Bostrom Safety Laboratory) belt age requirements are tested by me leaving a sample in the backyard and having the dog play tug o' war with it for 30 days, you would want to know that - right? All I really want to know is the testing procedure that resulted in SFI's determination that two years was max life for racing belts - if it looks reasonable to me then I am completely in favor of the rule. If, on the other hand, it is a planned obsolescence incentive for belt manufacturers to join the SFI and sell more belts then I am not in favor.
Oh, and as far as the liability fearmongering? If we feel that FIA belts are more rigorously tested and still allow SFI then we are making a choice that negatively affects liability. Lets say we go ahead and adopt the SFI recommendation even though this forum discussion clearly indicates we have no idea what process was used or whether the results apply directly to our conditions. That is a lack of due diligence and negatively affects our liability. It's no different than building your cage out of eggshell because that material is endorsed by the Coalition of Egg Producers. It may very well protect an embryonic chicken who crashes into a bed of straw from a height of four inches but doesn't transfer well to competition automobiles. IT'S MY SAFETY, I WANT TO KNOW.
I called SFI as noted earlier. I recieved test specs from SFI on belt strength testing via e-mail. Well detailed and something I could fully accept with one exception. A single, unsupported by data or test method note that very simply stated a two year service life. I returned them an e-mail asking for specifics of how the belt life was determined. The response was a SFI membership packet in the mail for both myself and Kevin Skinner, Conference President - but no supporting data concerning the determination of belt life-span.
Last, but not least, I am all for getting out ahead of a problem and making racing as safe as reasonably possible. I don't need someone to die from an outdated safety belt to make the question important to me but statistics are not really illustrating a dire need to correct the outdated belt "problem". Plain old fashioned economics (very much out of favor in this country these days) states that if you raise the price of something it will negatively affect demand. Do we really want to keep some number of people from racing every year becasue of an unsupported fear that someone might be injured or killed every 80 to 100 years?
Show me the benefit and I am in favor. Ask me to vote blindly because other folks who are voting blindly have unsupported good feelings and want me to join in? - nope.
This discussion has progressed to arguing points that are not in any way helpful to any aspect of racing - safety, competitiveness, or even club unity. Conference is a grassroots organization that makes a place for a lot of people with barely modified cars on extremely limited budgets to come out and realize their racing dream and that insignificant little few hundred dollars you are tossing around is one less race entry for them. Most of those guys substitute passion for some of the dollars it takes to be able to live their dream. It takes a lot of trips to the junkyard and late nights in the garage to make up for an additional $200 to $500 bucks and you of all people should know that. Oh, and just for the record - Conference drivers do affect change every single year, it's one of the things that have made us so successful. I think I will continue to depend on the membership of Conference to think their way through problems and vote their conciences.
I agree strongly that we need to protect our drivers and if I thought this rule would do that at an acceptable cost, I would be completely on board. The truth is that the insurance carrier doesn't require us to have ANY certification on our belts. We impose that requirement on ourselves. The idea is to first prevent loss and secondly, if loss does occur, to show that we took into account foreseeable dangers and exercised good judgement in our effort to prevent loss. Not doing so suggests that we are casually ignoring danger which moves incidents from the "accident" category to "foreseeable outcome" catagory. Insurance companies like any opportunity to say " you were asking for it and you got what you had coming - why should we pay if you won't make an effort to protect yourself?"
Requiring seat belts at all is a reasonable step to prevent loss. It has been proven exhaustively by multiple sources using methods directly applicable to our situation that just wearing seatbelts hugely increases survivability in an accident. As a group, we have chosen to require ourselves to wear belts. Good rule, good outcome.
Because of environmental effects, at some point those same belts can no longer perform their intended task becasue their physical properties have eroded below their intended operationg envelope. I think we are all in agreement so far, nobody wants to take a 100G crash into a wall with belts that the thread has rotted in and will yield at 20G's. I think we are still together here.
In an effort to control even more risk we are trying to put a nice, easy to verify labely on the belts that will prove that we foresaw the potential danger of degraded belts and took steps to control it. Actually, this is a great idea provided it is a logical and scientifically determined certification that applies directly to the intended usage of the belts and provides a clear benefit to the user.
Ah, there is the problem. As I stated WAYYYY up the page, I'm all for things that can show a proven benefit for both the drivers and the organization as a whole without pushing costs out of reach. It doesn't matter whether you can't race because you are $200 dollars short or because a rule made your belts illegal, either way you don't get to race. I guess that raises safety right there, huh? If someone can't get out on the track they are then NO risk to us. Well, unless they are riding a bike ....... do we check bike helmet expiration? What! People aren't even wearing bike helmets at our races? Maybe you folks are chasing the wrong raccoon - Conference will suffer a much larger loss because of bicycle accidents than racing incidents this year.
All I need is to have faith in the testing procedure and I will happily support this rule and any other that makes my fellow racers safer at a do-able cost. A rule change could be passed in Conference that says "All belts must meet RBSL 2010 requirements to be legal for use in any car raced in Conference." If RBSL (The Rick Bostrom Safety Laboratory) belt age requirements are tested by me leaving a sample in the backyard and having the dog play tug o' war with it for 30 days, you would want to know that - right? All I really want to know is the testing procedure that resulted in SFI's determination that two years was max life for racing belts - if it looks reasonable to me then I am completely in favor of the rule. If, on the other hand, it is a planned obsolescence incentive for belt manufacturers to join the SFI and sell more belts then I am not in favor.
Oh, and as far as the liability fearmongering? If we feel that FIA belts are more rigorously tested and still allow SFI then we are making a choice that negatively affects liability. Lets say we go ahead and adopt the SFI recommendation even though this forum discussion clearly indicates we have no idea what process was used or whether the results apply directly to our conditions. That is a lack of due diligence and negatively affects our liability. It's no different than building your cage out of eggshell because that material is endorsed by the Coalition of Egg Producers. It may very well protect an embryonic chicken who crashes into a bed of straw from a height of four inches but doesn't transfer well to competition automobiles. IT'S MY SAFETY, I WANT TO KNOW.
I called SFI as noted earlier. I recieved test specs from SFI on belt strength testing via e-mail. Well detailed and something I could fully accept with one exception. A single, unsupported by data or test method note that very simply stated a two year service life. I returned them an e-mail asking for specifics of how the belt life was determined. The response was a SFI membership packet in the mail for both myself and Kevin Skinner, Conference President - but no supporting data concerning the determination of belt life-span.
Last, but not least, I am all for getting out ahead of a problem and making racing as safe as reasonably possible. I don't need someone to die from an outdated safety belt to make the question important to me but statistics are not really illustrating a dire need to correct the outdated belt "problem". Plain old fashioned economics (very much out of favor in this country these days) states that if you raise the price of something it will negatively affect demand. Do we really want to keep some number of people from racing every year becasue of an unsupported fear that someone might be injured or killed every 80 to 100 years?
Show me the benefit and I am in favor. Ask me to vote blindly because other folks who are voting blindly have unsupported good feelings and want me to join in? - nope.
Last edited:
Steve Adams
Just this guy, ya know?
Rick, before you start throwing stones about how other people are approaching the issue, you might want to take a look at the big ol' glass house you're standing in.
Randy Blaylock
Highlander Motorsports
I apologize to you Wes, and anyone that took my post as a personal attack. While I did not intend it that way, I did and do intend to also express my opinion very strenuously. And here's why.
I don't disagree with the philosophical points made by those that want to take a stand against what appears to be an affront to our personal freedoms.
But, whether or not there is a realistic chance, even one in a kazillion, that first some incindent happens, and then that someone gets sued, if you're not associated with Conference in some official capacity it is not your head on the chopping block.
Again, those of you that are so willing to take a stand, you're doing so on the backs of the people that make Conference work. There's no consequences for you if you're wrong. Sure seems like you don't give a damn about that.
Am I wrong?
I don't disagree with the philosophical points made by those that want to take a stand against what appears to be an affront to our personal freedoms.
But, whether or not there is a realistic chance, even one in a kazillion, that first some incindent happens, and then that someone gets sued, if you're not associated with Conference in some official capacity it is not your head on the chopping block.
Again, those of you that are so willing to take a stand, you're doing so on the backs of the people that make Conference work. There's no consequences for you if you're wrong. Sure seems like you don't give a damn about that.
Am I wrong?
kyle_nickels
"The Okie"
Randy,
I do believe you are very wrong that we all do not give a damn about it. This is why we are all sharing our views and opinions. I do not do anything on the backs of people, but am willing to make my stand. It all depends on how hard a stand one takes.
I do not know how you can say we do not feel the consequences. We do, either way. Remember, either position(s) can be right or wrong.
I speak my mind, upset some folks, make others happy, but still make my point, and as I said, will support Conference whole-heartedly if this is the way we as a majority so vote.
I do not believe that there is any danger for any Conference official or member in any way shape or form if this is, or is not adopted. There has been, nor likely will be any direct act of negligence on anyones part. If this concerns you then I would advise not holding an official Conference or Club related position.
I do believe you are very wrong that we all do not give a damn about it. This is why we are all sharing our views and opinions. I do not do anything on the backs of people, but am willing to make my stand. It all depends on how hard a stand one takes.
I do not know how you can say we do not feel the consequences. We do, either way. Remember, either position(s) can be right or wrong.
I speak my mind, upset some folks, make others happy, but still make my point, and as I said, will support Conference whole-heartedly if this is the way we as a majority so vote.
I do not believe that there is any danger for any Conference official or member in any way shape or form if this is, or is not adopted. There has been, nor likely will be any direct act of negligence on anyones part. If this concerns you then I would advise not holding an official Conference or Club related position.