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!)