IMPACT Racing has been SFI DEcertified
03-31-2010, 05:57 PM
#76
Three Wheelin'
Sorry about the Kyle/Adam mixup, that was a dumb thing for me to say. I knew better.
gbaker, I sure am not going to argue about the G's a human can survive, because I honestly don't know. 180 G's on a 200 pound parson would be 36,000 pounds. That's a lot. Don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing, I am just astounded.
Bill
gbaker, I sure am not going to argue about the G's a human can survive, because I honestly don't know. 180 G's on a 200 pound parson would be 36,000 pounds. That's a lot. Don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing, I am just astounded.
Bill
03-31-2010, 06:24 PM
#77
Race Director
What's the problem with FIA? My helmet is BSI (FIA) and my harness is Schroth (FIA). I dislike manufacturers setting standards if only because they have a major incentive to make us replace perfectly good equipment based on some arbitrary "best before" date. Where I live a harness in a race car has a useful life or a lot more than 2 years for example. Cars are garaged and or under covers except for 30 odd days at the track. I have never figured out why PCA lets me use a 20 year old seatbelt in a 911 but not a 3 year old SFI harness. Very odd no?
I hope that clears things up. FIA: good, SFI: not so much, but serves a purpose in the USA. I just wish there were something to replace SFI that was independent.
03-31-2010, 06:55 PM
#78
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been tried. Doesn't work. Ask the crash lab at Wayne State about "stretchy belts."
The increased time to decelerate allows the kinetic energy to build as the square of the relative velocity. It's counter intuitive, I know. I made the same mistake.
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
The increased time to decelerate allows the kinetic energy to build as the square of the relative velocity. It's counter intuitive, I know. I made the same mistake.
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
04-01-2010, 09:02 AM
#79
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04-01-2010, 09:27 AM
#80
I'm Still Jenny
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Methinks you're confusing time to decelerate(say 100mph to 0mph body speed ) vs time to start decelerating the body(say time from crash till your body starts decelerating). Increasing the time to decelerate is a good thing, increasing the time to start decelerating the body(like loose belts) is a bad thing.
04-01-2010, 10:12 AM
#81
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite all the specs, there really is no "industry standard" impact scenario -- although 100Gs would be a good place to start.
04-01-2010, 11:12 AM
#82
Race Director
Yeah, the numbers are huge. The problem is that SFI only tests belts to ~12,000#, IIRC. If you use a safety factor of 2:1 and assume a 200# driver, that's only good for ~30Gs. This is why we never reuse belts when testing head and neck restraints at 50-70Gs.
Despite all the specs, there really is no "industry standard" impact scenario -- although 100Gs would be a good place to start.
Despite all the specs, there really is no "industry standard" impact scenario -- although 100Gs would be a good place to start.
People worry about the belt material, but the hardware is an issue at that point at well. I am guessing the SFI tests are still worthless and therefore their justification for changing the belt certs was just a WAG pulled out of their heinie.
04-01-2010, 12:18 PM
#83
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do they specify the test be conducted?
04-22-2010, 06:19 PM
#84
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFI PRESS RELEASE
April 21, 2010 - SFI issues the following press release. Please review this carefully:
1. Impact Racing has withdrawn its appeal of the decertifications of its products bearing SFI 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1, and 16.5 specifications manufactured in the years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. The decertifications of these products are now permanent.
2. The decertifications are based upon a number of the affected products being non-compliant with SFI specifications concerning labeling and construction. In addition to the presence of non-compliant SFI tags and the absence of DOMs on products, 3.2A/5 suits made prior to 2009 have been constructed with non-compliant materials that, in SFI’s judgment, pose a safety risk to users of these suits.
3. Impact Racing is permitted to maintain the certification for products bearing SFI 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1, and 16.5 specifications manufactured in 2009 and 2010. SFI’s investigation of the labeling and construction of these products is ongoing. Impact’s participation in the SFI specification programs ends June 22, 2010. [Emphasis added.]
4. Any Impact product with SFI specifications 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1, and 16.5 without a date of manufacture (DOM) is deemed to be a decertified product unless the manufacturer has provided the product user with proof that it was manufactured in 2009 or 2010. This proof must be presented to track officials upon request. Impact believes that its products made in 2009 and 2010 have the DOMs affixed to products to the extent mandated by SFI specifications.
April 21, 2010 - SFI issues the following press release. Please review this carefully:
1. Impact Racing has withdrawn its appeal of the decertifications of its products bearing SFI 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1, and 16.5 specifications manufactured in the years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. The decertifications of these products are now permanent.
2. The decertifications are based upon a number of the affected products being non-compliant with SFI specifications concerning labeling and construction. In addition to the presence of non-compliant SFI tags and the absence of DOMs on products, 3.2A/5 suits made prior to 2009 have been constructed with non-compliant materials that, in SFI’s judgment, pose a safety risk to users of these suits.
3. Impact Racing is permitted to maintain the certification for products bearing SFI 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1, and 16.5 specifications manufactured in 2009 and 2010. SFI’s investigation of the labeling and construction of these products is ongoing. Impact’s participation in the SFI specification programs ends June 22, 2010. [Emphasis added.]
4. Any Impact product with SFI specifications 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1, and 16.5 without a date of manufacture (DOM) is deemed to be a decertified product unless the manufacturer has provided the product user with proof that it was manufactured in 2009 or 2010. This proof must be presented to track officials upon request. Impact believes that its products made in 2009 and 2010 have the DOMs affixed to products to the extent mandated by SFI specifications.
04-22-2010, 06:41 PM
#85
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And impacts response:
Impact strongly disagrees with SFI’s decertification of its products manufactured in the years 2005-2008. Impact is working diligently to resolve this issue with SFI. Impact decided to stop the internal SFI appeal process because it became obvious that Impact could not get a fair hearing.
Impact’s track record of providing safety to racers is unmatched. There have been no burns or other injuries reported to Impact by any racer wearing Impact Race Products since its inception. Impact has seen drivers wearing its gear walk away unharmed from very serious explosions and wrecks. We stand behind the safety of our products 100% and have always placed the safety of racers at the forefront of our mission and company. Bill Simpson has worked at the goal of saving racers’ lives for over 52 years and his name is synonymous with motorsports safety.
Impact’s vocal position has been that SFI’s certification programs are seriously flawed and antiquated and do not address the issue of safety. Accordingly, SFI is applying standards to us that it has not applied to any other product manufacturer.
Impact regrets that SFI has chosen the path of decertification and lawsuits against Impact as a way to handle any concerns it has. Bill Simpson and Impact Racing have always worked closely with SFI and all sanctioning bodies to help improve driver safety in motorsports and come up with many innovations in safety. Impact would like to have resolved this issue in a different way. Unfortunately, SFI’s actions have caused racers unnecessarily to question their safety.
Impact will do everything in its power to resolve this dispute and help our loyal customers through it. We are committed to clearing Impact’s name and moving onward with our job of providing the best safety equipment money can buy to racers across the country and world.
Impact strongly disagrees with SFI’s decertification of its products manufactured in the years 2005-2008. Impact is working diligently to resolve this issue with SFI. Impact decided to stop the internal SFI appeal process because it became obvious that Impact could not get a fair hearing.
Impact’s track record of providing safety to racers is unmatched. There have been no burns or other injuries reported to Impact by any racer wearing Impact Race Products since its inception. Impact has seen drivers wearing its gear walk away unharmed from very serious explosions and wrecks. We stand behind the safety of our products 100% and have always placed the safety of racers at the forefront of our mission and company. Bill Simpson has worked at the goal of saving racers’ lives for over 52 years and his name is synonymous with motorsports safety.
Impact’s vocal position has been that SFI’s certification programs are seriously flawed and antiquated and do not address the issue of safety. Accordingly, SFI is applying standards to us that it has not applied to any other product manufacturer.
Impact regrets that SFI has chosen the path of decertification and lawsuits against Impact as a way to handle any concerns it has. Bill Simpson and Impact Racing have always worked closely with SFI and all sanctioning bodies to help improve driver safety in motorsports and come up with many innovations in safety. Impact would like to have resolved this issue in a different way. Unfortunately, SFI’s actions have caused racers unnecessarily to question their safety.
Impact will do everything in its power to resolve this dispute and help our loyal customers through it. We are committed to clearing Impact’s name and moving onward with our job of providing the best safety equipment money can buy to racers across the country and world.
04-23-2010, 06:06 PM
#86
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And another SFI rebuttal.
April, 2010
SFI PRESS RELEASE - Response to the Impact Racing Press Release of April 22, 2010
April 22, 2010 - Yesterday, SFI advised the racing community that Impact Racing suits bearing 3.2A/5 certifications “made prior to 2009 have been constructed with non-compliant materials that, in SFI’s judgment, pose a safety risk to users of those suits.” Impact responded by attacking SFI certification programs (although Impact and the other major equipment manufacturers have agreed to and participated in the development of these well-established programs); by claiming it could not get a fair hearing of the decertification appeal (although Impact asked for and received an expedited appeal procedure); and by claiming that “SFI’s actions have caused racers unnecessarily to question their safety.” It is this last point that requires a very specific response.
Scientific testing just conducted on 2008 Impact 3.2A/5 suits has determined that the thread melts away in a fire. This causes the fabric to come apart since there is no longer thread to hold the suit together. SFI believes this poses a significant safety risk to the racer involved in a fire. Rather than being constructed with Nomex (heat resistant) thread, the suits were constructed with some sort of unknown non-compliant thread that melts during heat testing. This thread failure is contrary to the SFI specifications that Impact agreed to follow.
The reason that this failure was not discovered sooner is that Impact provided SFI with Nomex thread samples in order to get their products tested and certified initially. Manufacturers are only supposed to provide samples of the actual materials to be used in their products. It appears that Impact failed to comply with this procedure regarding thread. Finally, one suit tested failed to have the proper thermal protective properties in the material itself. Again, such a failure poses a significant safety risk. This safety failure by Impact is consistent with a pattern of non-compliance:
1. Last year, SFI discovered that Impact SFI 3.2A/15 and SFI 3.2A/20 rated fire suits produced in 2007 and 2008 were also made with thread that melted during testing. In addition, these suits were often poorly constructed, without sufficient protective layers of Nomex material. SFI ordered the immediate decertification and recall of these potentially dangerous products.
2. Last year, SFI discovered that Impact SFI 3.3/15 and SFI 3.3/20 boots produced in 2008 were defective. Their materials failed heat resistant testing. SFI ordered the immediate decertification and recall of these potentially dangerous products.
3. Hans Performance Products discovered last year that Impact deliberately manufactured and sold counterfeit Hans helmet clips and attached them into the helmets of unsuspecting customers. These foreign made knock-offs were inscribed with the “SFI 38.1” inscription. Impact has never participated in this program. These counterfeiting activities were occurring at the same time that Impact was manufacturing counterfeit SFI conformance labels and patches. Hans filed suit against Impact in federal court last year in Atlanta. SFI intervened and joined in the suit against Impact. That suit is pending.
4. In 2004, SFI discovered that Impact gloves bearing SFI 3.3/20 specifications were made of material that was too light and failed heat resistance testing. SFI ordered their decertification and recall.
Impact’s press release claims that there “have been no burns or other injuries reported to Impact by any racer wearing Impact Race Products since its inception.” If this is true, the avoidance of injuries is due in large part to the policing of Impact products by SFI.
SFI was heartened when Impact finally admitted its own fault for previously making non-compliant gloves, boots, suits and helmet clips and acted to address those problems. SFI holds out the hope of a similar outcome regarding its pre-2009 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1 and 16.5 products, and that it will act in the best interests of the racing community without further prodding by SFI. However, admission of their fault will not change the fact that these products remain decertified and that Impact’s participation in all SFI programs will end June 22, 2010.
For a downloadable .pdf of this press release, please click on the following link: SFI Press Release 04-22-10.
April, 2010
SFI PRESS RELEASE - Response to the Impact Racing Press Release of April 22, 2010
April 22, 2010 - Yesterday, SFI advised the racing community that Impact Racing suits bearing 3.2A/5 certifications “made prior to 2009 have been constructed with non-compliant materials that, in SFI’s judgment, pose a safety risk to users of those suits.” Impact responded by attacking SFI certification programs (although Impact and the other major equipment manufacturers have agreed to and participated in the development of these well-established programs); by claiming it could not get a fair hearing of the decertification appeal (although Impact asked for and received an expedited appeal procedure); and by claiming that “SFI’s actions have caused racers unnecessarily to question their safety.” It is this last point that requires a very specific response.
Scientific testing just conducted on 2008 Impact 3.2A/5 suits has determined that the thread melts away in a fire. This causes the fabric to come apart since there is no longer thread to hold the suit together. SFI believes this poses a significant safety risk to the racer involved in a fire. Rather than being constructed with Nomex (heat resistant) thread, the suits were constructed with some sort of unknown non-compliant thread that melts during heat testing. This thread failure is contrary to the SFI specifications that Impact agreed to follow.
The reason that this failure was not discovered sooner is that Impact provided SFI with Nomex thread samples in order to get their products tested and certified initially. Manufacturers are only supposed to provide samples of the actual materials to be used in their products. It appears that Impact failed to comply with this procedure regarding thread. Finally, one suit tested failed to have the proper thermal protective properties in the material itself. Again, such a failure poses a significant safety risk. This safety failure by Impact is consistent with a pattern of non-compliance:
1. Last year, SFI discovered that Impact SFI 3.2A/15 and SFI 3.2A/20 rated fire suits produced in 2007 and 2008 were also made with thread that melted during testing. In addition, these suits were often poorly constructed, without sufficient protective layers of Nomex material. SFI ordered the immediate decertification and recall of these potentially dangerous products.
2. Last year, SFI discovered that Impact SFI 3.3/15 and SFI 3.3/20 boots produced in 2008 were defective. Their materials failed heat resistant testing. SFI ordered the immediate decertification and recall of these potentially dangerous products.
3. Hans Performance Products discovered last year that Impact deliberately manufactured and sold counterfeit Hans helmet clips and attached them into the helmets of unsuspecting customers. These foreign made knock-offs were inscribed with the “SFI 38.1” inscription. Impact has never participated in this program. These counterfeiting activities were occurring at the same time that Impact was manufacturing counterfeit SFI conformance labels and patches. Hans filed suit against Impact in federal court last year in Atlanta. SFI intervened and joined in the suit against Impact. That suit is pending.
4. In 2004, SFI discovered that Impact gloves bearing SFI 3.3/20 specifications were made of material that was too light and failed heat resistance testing. SFI ordered their decertification and recall.
Impact’s press release claims that there “have been no burns or other injuries reported to Impact by any racer wearing Impact Race Products since its inception.” If this is true, the avoidance of injuries is due in large part to the policing of Impact products by SFI.
SFI was heartened when Impact finally admitted its own fault for previously making non-compliant gloves, boots, suits and helmet clips and acted to address those problems. SFI holds out the hope of a similar outcome regarding its pre-2009 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1 and 16.5 products, and that it will act in the best interests of the racing community without further prodding by SFI. However, admission of their fault will not change the fact that these products remain decertified and that Impact’s participation in all SFI programs will end June 22, 2010.
For a downloadable .pdf of this press release, please click on the following link: SFI Press Release 04-22-10.
04-23-2010, 09:23 PM
#88
Rennlist Hoonigan
which cost no drachmas
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
which cost no drachmas
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Wow. If they really used incorrect (and not sub standard materials) that is un believable. Either way, I'll never buy any of their stuff or any of Bill Simpson's future companies stuff.
04-23-2010, 10:08 PM
#89
And a volley back from Impact:
IMPACT PRESS RELEASE - APRIL 23rd 2010
Contrary to the assertions of SFI, there is no safety risk to users of Impact Racing suits bearing SFI 3.2A/5 certification tags. The issue that has been created by SFI involves thread used in Impact’s fire suits. The error in the assessment of SFI is revealed by its assertion that thread used by Impact Racing “melts away in a fire”. According to the analysis presented by SFI “this causes the fabric to come apart since there is no longer thread to hold the suit together”. This conclusion demonstrates the lack of understanding on the part of SFI as to what causes a fire suit to work and what causes a fire suit to be safe.
The thread about which SFI complains is not intended to “hold the suit together”. The fabric does not “come apart” in a fire. In a fire, the layers of fabric must be allowed to expand because it is expansion that creates the layer of air that insulates a racer from fire. Impact Racing understands the necessity of this process in fire suit construction. SFI does not.
SFI has been aware of the thread used by Impact Racing since January 14, 2009. Rather than acknowledge that SFI’s specification diminishes fire suit safety and changing the specification to enhance fire suit safety, SFI has, without foundation, accused Impact Racing of providing samples of a certain type to get SFI certification and then changing the lay-up for manufacturing. Impact Racing manufactures fire suits knowing that lives are at stake. Impact Racing fire suits are safe independent of SFI standards.
SFI has taken credit for the avoidance of burns or other injuries to users of Impact Racing products. According to SFI the absence of burns or other injuries to due “to the policing of Impact products by SFI”. The absence of burns or other injuries to users of Impact Racing products is a result of attention to design and commitment to safety throughout the Impact Racing product line. What SFI has deemed to be a “pattern of non-compliance” by Impact Racing is a dispute over standards that SFI refuses to change even under circumstances when change is in the best interest of the user of the product.
Impact Racing is engaged in discussions with SFI about its products, SFI standards, and SFI testing procedures. Impact Racing is committed to resolving these issues with SFI if it can be done without compromising the benchmarks Impact Racing has established to assure product safety.
IMPACT PRESS RELEASE - APRIL 23rd 2010
Contrary to the assertions of SFI, there is no safety risk to users of Impact Racing suits bearing SFI 3.2A/5 certification tags. The issue that has been created by SFI involves thread used in Impact’s fire suits. The error in the assessment of SFI is revealed by its assertion that thread used by Impact Racing “melts away in a fire”. According to the analysis presented by SFI “this causes the fabric to come apart since there is no longer thread to hold the suit together”. This conclusion demonstrates the lack of understanding on the part of SFI as to what causes a fire suit to work and what causes a fire suit to be safe.
The thread about which SFI complains is not intended to “hold the suit together”. The fabric does not “come apart” in a fire. In a fire, the layers of fabric must be allowed to expand because it is expansion that creates the layer of air that insulates a racer from fire. Impact Racing understands the necessity of this process in fire suit construction. SFI does not.
SFI has been aware of the thread used by Impact Racing since January 14, 2009. Rather than acknowledge that SFI’s specification diminishes fire suit safety and changing the specification to enhance fire suit safety, SFI has, without foundation, accused Impact Racing of providing samples of a certain type to get SFI certification and then changing the lay-up for manufacturing. Impact Racing manufactures fire suits knowing that lives are at stake. Impact Racing fire suits are safe independent of SFI standards.
SFI has taken credit for the avoidance of burns or other injuries to users of Impact Racing products. According to SFI the absence of burns or other injuries to due “to the policing of Impact products by SFI”. The absence of burns or other injuries to users of Impact Racing products is a result of attention to design and commitment to safety throughout the Impact Racing product line. What SFI has deemed to be a “pattern of non-compliance” by Impact Racing is a dispute over standards that SFI refuses to change even under circumstances when change is in the best interest of the user of the product.
Impact Racing is engaged in discussions with SFI about its products, SFI standards, and SFI testing procedures. Impact Racing is committed to resolving these issues with SFI if it can be done without compromising the benchmarks Impact Racing has established to assure product safety.
