Belt webbing life......
12-09-2002, 10:05 PM
#1
Race Director
Thread Starter
Belt webbing life......
The SCCA is seeking feedback from its membership regarding a proposal to require belts to be replaced every two years rather than the current every five years. This is due to a recommendation by SFI which is due in part to studies done by DuPont and by the military that shows that belts lose 80% of their strength after two years of outdoor exposure.
This is likely to impact PCA racers as well since A) the PCA often follows the SCCA's lead, and B) it's an SFI recommendation.
I'm a strong advocate of safety, however, I question the decision for the following reasons:
1) Has anyone ever heard of belts failing that were properly installed?
2) I don't see any scientific or engineering studies determining how much strength belts have to actually have to be safe (seems kind of strange doesn't it?).
3) The hardware that the webbing attaches to is weaker than the webbing itself. What really is the weak link?
4) I checked the FIA web site and their standard remains 5 years.
As I said, I'm an avid supporter of safety, but this sounds to me like a knee jerk, cover your butt reaction. I personally cannot support this change until I see some sort of engineering study beyond how much the webbing weakens. And while I'm not terribly cynical about such things, I cannot help but think this is being sold to SFI and the SCCA to sell more belts.
I'm writing this first of all so all SCCA members are aware of this issue (see your January 03 Fastrack), and secondly so that others potentially affected are aware of the issue and what is going on. There is apparently an article on the SFI web site, but it's only available to members IIRC.
This is likely to impact PCA racers as well since A) the PCA often follows the SCCA's lead, and B) it's an SFI recommendation.
I'm a strong advocate of safety, however, I question the decision for the following reasons:
1) Has anyone ever heard of belts failing that were properly installed?
2) I don't see any scientific or engineering studies determining how much strength belts have to actually have to be safe (seems kind of strange doesn't it?).
3) The hardware that the webbing attaches to is weaker than the webbing itself. What really is the weak link?
4) I checked the FIA web site and their standard remains 5 years.
As I said, I'm an avid supporter of safety, but this sounds to me like a knee jerk, cover your butt reaction. I personally cannot support this change until I see some sort of engineering study beyond how much the webbing weakens. And while I'm not terribly cynical about such things, I cannot help but think this is being sold to SFI and the SCCA to sell more belts.
I'm writing this first of all so all SCCA members are aware of this issue (see your January 03 Fastrack), and secondly so that others potentially affected are aware of the issue and what is going on. There is apparently an article on the SFI web site, but it's only available to members IIRC.
12-19-2002, 05:32 PM
#2
Three Wheelin'
I am glad to get a chance to respond to your letter. I think the SCCA is doing this at the request of the belt mfgs. I don't know about any military study. I spent over 30 years in the Army, and National Guard. When I first went to Flight School in Army Aviation, I believe the standart was 5 years. Sometime in the Seventies, it changed to a "condition change item." What that meant, was if the belts looked worn, they were replaced. There was not even a date on the belts anymore. I retired in the summer of 2001, and it had not been changed back to "time change" by then. Most of our helicopters were parked outside, a heck of a lot more than any race car. I have seen a heck of a lot of helicopter crashes, and I have never seen a properly installed belt fail. Nor have I in 20 years of racing cars. I did read the Earhnhart thingie, but I bet the belt was installed poorly. Everyone has gone nuts over that wreck anyway. I would not be surprised, to see the mfgs want us to change them every race. (Big bucks for them)
In my opinion, it is a huge waste of money and time.
Bill Seifert
1983 944 Race Car
In my opinion, it is a huge waste of money and time.
Bill Seifert
1983 944 Race Car
12-19-2002, 05:57 PM
#3
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was the impetus for this change? The belt manufacturers? I would like to see hard test results before I throw away a good belt that hasn't been stretched or been in the sun or in solvents or whatever. Different belt materials stretch different amounts. I can't believe Ernie Irvine was wearing an open face helmet when he had his crash. Those NASCAR guys sit close to the wheel. Anyway, I would educate myself about belts so I'd know just what they're going to do in a crash. And wear a good quality helmet support or a HANS device.
12-19-2002, 09:02 PM
#4
Instructor
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's see - if we put nylon or styroform in a landfill it has a life of about 10,000 years. If it is used in a helmet or seatbelt it's life is reduced to formerly 5 years and now 2? I'm sorry but I don't get it. Note the reference to outdoor use. How many open cockpit race cars sit outdoors when they are not being used. I hope the study can be posted so we can see what it actually says.
12-20-2002, 12:05 PM
#5
Race Director
Thread Starter
[quote]Originally posted by Bill L Seifert:
<strong>I am glad to get a chance to respond to your letter. I think the SCCA is doing this at the request of the belt mfgs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe so as well and that is the reason for this message. I have a VERY hard time giving SFI much credibility now. I don't believe they have done any real testing or any studies to determine what level of protection is required. All I see is belt manufacturers automatically improving their sales.
It's scary if they are making decisions concerning our safety without doing proper testing. I'd be more than happy to accept a 2 year rule if studies and proper testing tell us it really is in our best interest. I have a hard time with it when it is based upon very limited information that I think is not being studied properly. I could be wrong, but everything I've seen on this matter points to this.
I have written to SFI requesting information on the specifics of their standard and have received no response so far. I urge all SCCA members to respond to the request for member input. If SFI recommends it and SCCA adopts it, virtually all organizations will certainly fall in line.
[quote]Originally posted by Bill L Seifert:
<strong>I don't know about any military study. I spent over 30 years in the Army, and National Guard. When I first went to Flight School in Army Aviation, I believe the standart was 5 years. Sometime in the Seventies, it changed to a "condition change item." What that meant, was if the belts looked worn, they were replaced. There was not even a date on the belts anymore. I retired in the summer of 2001, and it had not been changed back to "time change" by then. Most of our helicopters were parked outside, a heck of a lot more than any race car. I have seen a heck of a lot of helicopter crashes, and I have never seen a properly installed belt fail. Nor have I in 20 years of racing cars.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. I haven't been racing cars long, but I've been reading all I could about it for over 30 years and I've never heard of a belt failure when the belt was properly installed.
[quote]Originally posted by Bill L Seifert:
<strong>In my opinion, it is a huge waste of money and time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amen.
<strong>I am glad to get a chance to respond to your letter. I think the SCCA is doing this at the request of the belt mfgs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe so as well and that is the reason for this message. I have a VERY hard time giving SFI much credibility now. I don't believe they have done any real testing or any studies to determine what level of protection is required. All I see is belt manufacturers automatically improving their sales.
It's scary if they are making decisions concerning our safety without doing proper testing. I'd be more than happy to accept a 2 year rule if studies and proper testing tell us it really is in our best interest. I have a hard time with it when it is based upon very limited information that I think is not being studied properly. I could be wrong, but everything I've seen on this matter points to this.
I have written to SFI requesting information on the specifics of their standard and have received no response so far. I urge all SCCA members to respond to the request for member input. If SFI recommends it and SCCA adopts it, virtually all organizations will certainly fall in line.
[quote]Originally posted by Bill L Seifert:
<strong>I don't know about any military study. I spent over 30 years in the Army, and National Guard. When I first went to Flight School in Army Aviation, I believe the standart was 5 years. Sometime in the Seventies, it changed to a "condition change item." What that meant, was if the belts looked worn, they were replaced. There was not even a date on the belts anymore. I retired in the summer of 2001, and it had not been changed back to "time change" by then. Most of our helicopters were parked outside, a heck of a lot more than any race car. I have seen a heck of a lot of helicopter crashes, and I have never seen a properly installed belt fail. Nor have I in 20 years of racing cars.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. I haven't been racing cars long, but I've been reading all I could about it for over 30 years and I've never heard of a belt failure when the belt was properly installed.
[quote]Originally posted by Bill L Seifert:
<strong>In my opinion, it is a huge waste of money and time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amen.
12-20-2002, 12:27 PM
#6
Race Director
Geo....Thanks for the heads up... Keep us informed!!
Next think they will say is that you have to count the times you buck and buckle... Each belt will have life only 20 user "pulls"!
Next think they will say is that you have to count the times you buck and buckle... Each belt will have life only 20 user "pulls"!
12-20-2002, 02:35 PM
#7
Three Wheelin'
Hey gang, right after I posted my reply to the original listing here on the forum, I looked up the change in Fastrack News in the January Sportscar. It is on the first page of Fastrack, page f-1 Number 17.38 Item 3. I then responded to the SCCA Comp Board. I would like to ask everyone to do the same, if they get enough emails, I think they probably won't change the rule.
Look up on the SCCA web site, SCCA.org, and find the email address of the Comp Board. It is not listed per say, but next to list of Comp Board members, there is a thingie you can hit to email the Comp Board. Please, everyone reply.
Bill Seifert
1983 944 Race Car
Look up on the SCCA web site, SCCA.org, and find the email address of the Comp Board. It is not listed per say, but next to list of Comp Board members, there is a thingie you can hit to email the Comp Board. Please, everyone reply.
Bill Seifert
1983 944 Race Car
Trending Topics
01-09-2003, 01:24 PM
#8
Intermediate
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Northeast
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if this belt webbing degredation is such a problem, why don't we see huge numbers of belt failures in the umpteen zillion street accidents that occur everyday all over the world? Granted most street accidents are not as severe as a racing incident, but some are. Not to mention street belts spend most of their time out in the sun while people are at work and could be approaching 30 years of age.
Kelly
Kelly
01-09-2003, 07:09 PM
#10
Race Director
Thread Starter
BAH, I think this whole thing is a sad attempt to increase sales and I'm not prone to such thinking. I received SFI spec 16.1 the other day and to be honest, it downright scares me. The test procedures in it are a poor reflection of the real stresses a competition belt may see. The test loads are too low and the load is placed slowly and held for 10 seconds.
On top of all that, I've never heard of a properly installed belt ever failing. I'm going to look into this more and compare the FIA spec with the SFI spec. Quite frankly, the more I look into this, the lower SFI's credibility in my eyes.
What I am hoping to be able to do is rally SCCA members to convince the Competition Board to allow FIA homolugated belts to be replaced at the interval requried by the FIA. This will at least get the SCCA off the hook. With any luck, sales of FIA homolugated belts will jump and SFI homolugated belts will fall and SFI will rethink.
I'm not going off on this because of the cost iteslf, but rather the fact I think it's totally wasteful cost that's being added with no serious examination of the science or engineering behind it.
On top of all that, I've never heard of a properly installed belt ever failing. I'm going to look into this more and compare the FIA spec with the SFI spec. Quite frankly, the more I look into this, the lower SFI's credibility in my eyes.
What I am hoping to be able to do is rally SCCA members to convince the Competition Board to allow FIA homolugated belts to be replaced at the interval requried by the FIA. This will at least get the SCCA off the hook. With any luck, sales of FIA homolugated belts will jump and SFI homolugated belts will fall and SFI will rethink.
I'm not going off on this because of the cost iteslf, but rather the fact I think it's totally wasteful cost that's being added with no serious examination of the science or engineering behind it.
01-10-2003, 11:08 AM
#11
Race Director
Thanks George! 
Keep it up! <img border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" title="" src="graemlins/bigok.gif" />
The more I look at racing saftey equipment the more I like the FIA stuff anyway. Maybe I am just snob about this stuff, but the FIA stuff just seems better.
FIA Suit
FIA Composite seat
FIA Harness
Keep it up! <img border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" title="" src="graemlins/bigok.gif" />
The more I look at racing saftey equipment the more I like the FIA stuff anyway. Maybe I am just snob about this stuff, but the FIA stuff just seems better.
FIA Suit
FIA Composite seat
FIA Harness
01-11-2003, 01:11 AM
#12
Race Director
Thread Starter
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by M758:
<strong>The more I look at racing saftey equipment the more I like the FIA stuff anyway. Maybe I am just snob about this stuff, but the FIA stuff just seems better.
FIA Suit
FIA Composite seat
FIA Harness</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">For the most part, I'm right there with you. The one exception (and almost certainly you've made the same exception) is Snell. I think Snell is great, and truly independent. I'm having my doubts about SFI.
<strong>The more I look at racing saftey equipment the more I like the FIA stuff anyway. Maybe I am just snob about this stuff, but the FIA stuff just seems better.
FIA Suit
FIA Composite seat
FIA Harness</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">For the most part, I'm right there with you. The one exception (and almost certainly you've made the same exception) is Snell. I think Snell is great, and truly independent. I'm having my doubts about SFI.
