So where's the March FasTrack?

Lotsa IT-based letters huh?

Phew!

<div align="left">14. ITS - Remove the restrictor plate from the 1992-95 BMW 325i/s (Peterson).</div>
</span><div align="left">15. ITS - Spec a restrictor place for the Mazda RX-7 (Peterson).</div>
<div align="left">16. ITS - Do not penalize the BMW E36 (Robertson).</div>
</span></span></span></span></span>
 
What did you smoke this morning. Last I checked, R3, Hutchens II, and the well thrashed (on this board) HANS all display SFI 38.1 stickers.

This rule was comming, its been rolling around the back walls of PCA for a while also. Basically they are trying to ban joe racer from making his own H&N to save some money and it turns out not to work. And therefore if your going to highly recommend people use a devices you need to make sure it adhears to a standard. I dont see anyone here complaining about the SFI requirments on nets and belts, only H&N, and that propogates from one company.
 
What did you smoke this morning.[/b]
Click to expand...
Don't be an ass, James. "Last time I checked" two other popular ones, the Isaac and the Wright, do not.

Basically they are trying to ban joe racer from making his own H&N to save some money and it turns out not to work.[/b]
Click to expand...
And in the process, basically, they are banning the above-mentioned units which have been tested and proven to work, in some cases in a super fashion to the SFI-blessed ones.

I dont see anyone here complaining about the SFI requirments on nets and belts...[/b]
Click to expand...
You, obviously, have not been paying attention.
 
Greg your right that was a little harsh. My apologies, I was out of line.

What was posted was that SCCA banned ALL (not some), H&N devices because companies certify the meet the specifications not SFI. But doenst SFI have to witness the test in order for a product to bear the SFI certification? If not couldnt anyone just apply for a sticker with falsified data?

While I understand ISAAC and Wright are not SFI, what do you expect them to do in the litigation centric world we live in? I dont mean to be rude but I guess since I hang out with WAY too many lawyers I tend to understand the power of requiring a certification from a recognized orginzation. I would like to see the wright and ISAAC find a way to certify, the more the merrier. But lets face the facts, they have to cover themselves from the home brew devices somehow and this is the most clearly defined way they can do it.


Well, I have only been reading here the past year. I saw noone complaining about the requirement for SFI belts, the only complaint I have seen the expiration of the belts which we all know spurred off the results from NASCAR. But I dont hear people saying the SFI requirement for the nets and belts are flawed or otherwise complain. Also now with the clarification that nets dont expire that should shut down that complaint that kicked up from previous stuff.
 
However, your litigation centric view should also understand that the when the SFI very explicitly states that it does not certify any product in its licensing agreement then NO product meets a certified by the SFI Foundation requiremnt. An SFI label is a manufacturer representation. This does matter to lawyers and if they were involved in the wording of the rule they should be fired.

Also there is no other SFI standard that was so blatantly written with glaring conflicts of interests. It is highly questionable that any device could really pass section 2.4 of the specification. And section 2.5 has nothing to do with restraint of the H&N and is a fallacy anyway since single point release does not exist in SCCA club racing. And lastly if the standard wants to get into those issues then they should address full egress from the car not just releasing the belts.
 
James, I do not understand your militant - and often times rude - responses to folks that disagree with you on this issue; it's almost your own personal HNR jihad.

At the risk of continuing this off-thread discussion, I direct folks to other threads (where you'll find similar comments from similar people):

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=6874

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=6876

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...neck+restraints

On a side note, given that the SFI spec does not allow attachments to anything other than the driver, and given that Jay Wright succumbed to the racing-related injuries that motivated him to design his device in the first place, it's highly unlikely that these devices will ever pass SFI 38.1 (a spec that, as I understnad it, was developed with the assistance of the designer of the HANS Device...coincidental, I'm sure.)
 
1. Section 17.1.4.D.5.d.6, clarify by adding to the end as follows: This includes the use of spherical bearings, so long as no suspension
component is modified to facilitate their installation. Retention of spherical bearings by use of tack welds is allowed, as long as the welds serve
no other purpose.
 
Your right, I do come off a way I never intended. I will just stay out of the discussions and hope one day someone can actually improve the SFI spec to include other effective devices.

For me, I will continue to follow the letter of the rule in my duties as a driver and as an official.

I will enjoy the rest of the rules arguments from the sidelines like others opt to.
 
Seen This??? To BoD for approval....

Effective 11/1/06: Change section 11.3.1 to read as follows:
The first three (3) finishers in each class shall be immediately impounded for a minimum of thirty (30) minutes after the completion of each
race, unless otherwise provided in the Supplementary Regulations. The Chief Steward may direct that the additional finishers in any class be
impounded immediately following a competition. It is the driver's responsibility to ascertain his or her finishing position and present his or her car
to impound immediately, without going to the paddock, if among the top three (3) in class. Failure to do so promptly may result in a penalty. Each
impounded car shall be given an inspection that shall, at minimum, include verification of conformity to the minimum weight and <strike>track
dimensions where applicable </strike> two additional items as appropriate for the class, as determined by the Chief Technical Inspector and Chief
Steward. During the weighing, if there is any doubt about the weight, the car shall be weighed in both directions. If there is any other doubt about
the car's conformity to the rules, any appropriate methods may be used by the Technical Inspector to determine the car's legality. The Chief
Steward may also order the removal of a wheel or intake choke(s) or restrictors during impound. These inspections are not subject to the fees
outlined in section 6.11.3.E. Additional inspections may be conducted through the protest procedures outlined in section 13.4.


comments??
 
Well I'm so happy I have now experienced one of those defining moments in SCCA membership. I can now go on about how I was "lied to be national." Where's my ticker tape parade and commerative plaque?

Seriously, I specifically asked the question about SFI 38.1 and how it would affect the use of my newly purchased ISAAC device and was told by the head of risk management that SCCA was not going to prevent me from using the device. Now, this is a classic case of getting an answer from one of the people that should know, while the decision is made by another group. :018:

What's more the rule is meaningless since H&N devices aren't required. so I'll just say my ISAAC device is there to keep my head up while I sleep in the car while on grid. :P

Also, did anyone happen to catch that all window nets must latch at the top so that they fall down when released. I'm sure that's going to catch some people also.

But, keep in mind those items still have to be approved by the BOD. So write letters early and write letters often if you don't agree with something. I know I'll be sending a couple things in.
 
For me, I will continue to follow the letter of the rule in my duties as a driver and as an official.
[/b]
Click to expand...
But you should also be concerned about whether or not the letter of the rule meets the intent. The letter of this rule fails in all respects - as an official you would be obligated to prohibit the use of any H&N restraint as no H&N restraints are certified by the SFI Foundation. Clearly not the intent of the rule - but if you were to follow the letter of the rule...



I can't recall where now, but I could have sworn I have seen the window net language before.

Regarding letters - mine was sent before posting here. As long as the H&N restraint is a recommendation, so should manufacturer certification of 38.1 compliance also be a recommendation. SCCA should be covered just as well by strongly recommending 38.1 compliance as by "optionally" requiring it.

I am curious as to whether or not I am going to be told to remove my Isaac in grid...
 
comments??
[/b]
Click to expand...

May not change anything for us Regional IT racers. Look at the rules preceeding and post the section being changed:

11.3. IMPOUND
A. Post-race impound is mandatory at all National Championship
events and recommended at all other events.
B. ...(EDIT - Removed for space. see GCR for complete text)

11.3.1. Minimum Impound Inspection
The first three (3) finishers ...(EDIT - Removed for space. see GCR for complete text)

11.3.2. Impound Waiver
A waiver of appearing at post-race impound may be implemented at
non-National Championship events in the presence of the Chief of Tech
prior to the race with the approval of the Chief Steward .
 
But you should also be concerned about whether or not the letter of the rule meets the intent. The letter of this rule fails in all respects - as an official you would be obligated to prohibit the use of any H&N restraint as no H&N restraints are certified by the SFI Foundation. Clearly not the intent of the rule - but if you were to follow the letter of the rule...
I can't recall where now, but I could have sworn I have seen the window net language before.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. If I really have an issue at an event I will turn to my specialty cheif or the tech shed for clarification. I will stick to letters, and clarification from sr officials, but I will no longer discuss my views since I come off too strong and attacking.
 
18.1.3. Forward braces and portions of the main hoop subject to contact by the driver's helmet (as seated normally and restrained by seatbelt/shoulder harness) shall be padded with non resilient material <strike>such as Ethafoam® or Ensolite®</strike> with a minimum thickness of one half (1/2) inch. Padding meeting SFI spec 45.1 or FIA 8857-2001 is <strike>strongly recommended </strike> required.

Last time I looked I didn't see a SFI or FIA rating stamped on padding. How do you enforce this?
 
James-

I express my views on rule interpretations and prefer to get beat up/questionsed/corrected, as I like to be open to see how my fellow drivers (my real peers) would like to be represented in a stewards eye... I will not "set in stone" any of my "interpretations" or "rulings" as I am always open to interpretation, and the SOM as a whole makes a decision, not any one steward (At least thats how it is in the Northeast).

I hope you don't take your peers attack on you personally, I learn everytime I get upset at someone here, that we are all friends in the end, thats why we all hang out!!! Understand thier view of your post and make changes to your responces as you see fit, if you don't see fit then stand by your word (or post).

Back on topic:

I can see the justification to the changes that are being made, I can also see why A LOT of people could be upset. I don't think these changes if made or not made will make everyone happy wich is unfortunate. As Bill and Jason pointed out though, read all the way through to see how it could effect or not effect you.

Raymond "interesting stuff" Blethen
 
Expect the price of rollcage padding to go up noticably, once it becomes clear that it needs SFI stickers. You pay for every one that you buy.

1. IT - Increase the spec weight of the VW Golf III to 2,450 lbs (Gran). The car is specified appropriately.[/b]
Click to expand...

DAVE? Geez, guy. Are we that much of a threat? ;)

And no elimination of the stupid VIN rule, even after I sent such a nice note to the Bored, telling them how much faith i have in the ITAC. This is why I'm not a politician.

K
 
Another tidbit, under Judgement of the Court of Appeals, Davis vs. SOM. "The Court cites SCCA appeal COA-03-04-SW as historical precedent for this decision."

Interesting...
 
My letter to the SCCA dated 2/21/06






To whom it may concern;

I am writing to voice my disproval with the SCCA's endorsement of only SFI rated head and neck restraints. While I very clearly understand the need for approval by a sanctioning body (ie SFI), I totally disagree with making it mandatory on an optional piece of protective gear. I use and fully endorse the ISAAC device as do MANY of my fellow competitors. After having done countless hours of research I have chosen the ISAAC because of its superior performance in real world and sled testing. I will not use or purchase any other head and neck device. It is abhorent that the SCCA would rather a competitor wear no device than a non-SFI device. In my opinion this leaves the SCCA rather vulnerable and exposed to potential legal consequences should the unthinkable occur. It would be horrific for a competitor to suffer morbidity and mortality at an event while their ISAAC or Wright device sat in their trailer on-site but unused. I emplore the SCCA as a member, a doctor and a competitor to rethink its stance on head and neck restraints.

Thank You for your careful consideration of this very important issue.

Sincerely,
Robert A. Breault, DMD
member # 344538




Hope it has meaning....... :( :( :(

R
 
Raymond,

I understand what your saying. Believe me those closest to me in the region have developed a bit of a filter and have gotten used to my responses. I do read and learn a lot here, but at the same time, like you, I understand a lot of justification behind the rules.



Steve,

I have to replace all of the padding in my car next winter. But I have seen the SFI spec padding, and its a half moon pad with self adhesive but on the entire length of one of the edges it has a repeating SFI 45.1 sticker that runs the length of the padding. So even if your trimming it to fit you still have the SFI stickers on all the padding.
 
The H&N issue is simply amazing.

The Golf III / Jetta III one is interesting as well. IIRC, we were told that the 'process weight' for that car was 2450#.

Interesting stuff on the 1.7 Mk II Scirocco in ITC. They fixed the gear ratio, but then turn around and say that the engine specification is correct. Darin, would you please contact me off-line about this one.

Also some interesting stuff related to SIRs. A couple of cars are shot down in ITS because they 'exceed the performance parameters of the class', while a car for EP gets shot down while they 'collect more data on SIRs'.

The fact that the 'allow .040 overbore for the E36' was 'tabled for further research' probably does not bode well for non-OEM 040-over pistons.

I'm also somewhat surprised that the 15" wheel request for the 1.9 Z3 was shot down, for the reason given. Last I looked, snow tires were DOT-approved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top