SFI Head & Neck mandatory for NASA in June 08

[vpnwiz]

Since that forum is down at the moment...

 

Wow. Before I saw that link I was going to say that any certification "lab" asking for donations is questionable at best.

But to take money from the very businesses that your certifying products for ?????? At least RSI is seeking monetary help from US RACERS...

 

But to hide the fact that RSI is wholly owned by a manufacturer with an interest in the product being "certified" is just wrong. That makes it very hard to trust anything else written, declared, or "published" by that person.

 

Again, I seem to recall several topics on this at rr-ax.com w/o any of the black helicopters.

 

Ethically there is no comparison here. Baker brought this on himself when he chose to hide his ownership of the site. It exhibits poor judgment which - honestly, sincerely - makes me question motive and, like I wrote, anything else that comes from them.

 

SFI is completely up front that it is manufacturer funded. It's even in bold print.

[gbaker]

Ethically there is no comparison here. Baker brought this on himself when he chose to hide his ownership of the site.

Why do you say that? No one at RSI is hiding anything. My role as keeper of the paperwork is right on the Web, where Mike said it was. If anyone wanted to "hide" something they would have done so.

 

Can you find the same info about SFI?

 

SFI is completely up front that it is manufacturer funded. It's even in bold print.

Sounds like a conflict to me. Too bad it's not up front about test results.

 

So which would you rather have, a safety organization funded by manufacturers or one that expressly refuses funding from manufacturers?

[Tiger Racing]

Since there is not a way for an owner to determine if a "once used" device still meets all the required limits of your original design and, since an adequate re-test (even by you) can not be performed, I think a reasonable person would interpret your manual to caution against the continued use of a device that has been in an accident.

Do reasonable people recognize that most companies tend to err on the side of caution, especially when it comes to protecting themselves against possible lawsuits? Haven't you ever read the disclaimers associated with firesuits? It seems that the companies don't offer any warranty that their product will actually protect anyone from injury or death.

 

C.

[vpnwiz]

Ethically there is no comparison here. Baker brought this on himself when he chose to hide his ownership of the site.

Why do you say that? No one at RSI is hiding anything. My role as keeper of the paperwork is right on the Web, where Mike said it was. If anyone wanted to "hide" something they would have done so.

 

Can you find the same info about SFI?

 

SFI is completely up front that it is manufacturer funded. It's even in bold print.

Sounds like a conflict to me. Too bad it's not up front about test results.

 

So which would you rather have, a safety organization funded by manufacturers or one that expressly refuses funding from manufacturers?

 

If all the manufacturers involved have an interest in funding a safety program - then NO, I don't have a problem with that.

 

You run a company that requires trust from a customer in order to purchase your product. This particular issue we are discussing is all about appearances. SFI is upfront about who pays their meal ticket. How many "normal" people would know to whois a domain to get the owner? Yeah right. So if normal people don't have access to the information IMO it's hiding something. If you had a statement on the RSI site that it was owned by your company would this even be an issue? No. But it doesn't exist. You can call it whatever you want, but I call it unethical.

 

Patrick

[Bruce L.]

Gregg started the RSI thing and the website and he has been working to transfer the reins to a group of people to move it forward. Somebody has to start change initiatives - makes sense that it is someone on the "inside" who sees the problems with the current approach... (which has its own dubious history)

bruce

[gbaker]

Patrick,

 

Oh, I agree there is a perception problem, which is why I'd prefer not being associated with RSI at all. In fact, I think Jerry ought to own it.

 

If all the manufacturers involved have an interest in funding a safety program - then NO, I don't have a problem with that.

The issue is really some--not all--manufacturers writing the specs. Do you have a problem with that?

 

So if normal people don't have access to the information IMO it's hiding something.

I agree. This is why everyone has a huge problem with SFI hiding test results for safety equipment.

 

If you had a statement on the RSI site that it was owned by your company would this even be an issue?

That would be a false statement. It is not owned by Isaac, LLC.

 

I appreciate your concern, Patrick, but RSI is a very straightforward effort initiated by sanctioning bodies. It provides a mechanism for those bodies, and drivers, to ensure that the safety products they use perform to a particular level. Nothing more, nothing less. No one has any influence over the test results; they are what they are.

[Grandam08]

 

I appreciate your concern, Patrick, but RSI is a very straightforward effort initiated by sanctioning bodies. It provides a mechanism for those bodies, and drivers, to ensure that the safety products they use perform to a particular level. Nothing more, nothing less. No one has any influence over the test results; they are what they are.

 

Mr. Baker,

 

Which sanctioning bodies ? F1, Nascar, ARCA, IRL, ALMS, Grand-am, SCCA, NASA, BMWCCA, PCA etc. I looked on the website and couldn't find the sanctioning bodies that participate listed. Trying to gather more info on this new concept.

 

-Damien

[pgipson]

Do reasonable people recognize that most companies tend to err on the side of caution, especially when it comes to protecting themselves against possible lawsuits? Haven't you ever read the disclaimers associated with firesuits? It seems that the companies don't offer any warranty that their product will actually protect anyone from injury or death. C.

 

Neither product liability protection for a manufacturer or suitability of a product for intended use was the issue in this discussion. The issue was replacement of the tethers every 2 years (recommended in the owners manual) and re-use after an accident (not recommended in the owners manual).

 

If you want to discuss those other topics as they might relate to safety equipment, then I would suggest that product disclaimers, while interesting reading, rarely trump the concept of implied warranty. And since the HANS info on the web, including the owners manual, does not have a statement similar to "NO WARRANTIES ARE GIVEN; ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED." it might be reasonable to believe that an implied warranty does exist as it relates to the intended use of the HANS device. At least the first time.

[gbaker]

 

I appreciate your concern, Patrick, but RSI is a very straightforward effort initiated by sanctioning bodies. It provides a mechanism for those bodies, and drivers, to ensure that the safety products they use perform to a particular level. Nothing more, nothing less. No one has any influence over the test results; they are what they are.

 

Mr. Baker,

 

Which sanctioning bodies ? F1, Nascar, ARCA, IRL, ALMS, Grand-am, SCCA, NASA, BMWCCA, PCA etc. I looked on the website and couldn't find the sanctioning bodies that participate listed. Trying to gather more info on this new concept.

 

-Damien

Damien,

 

There is no membership required, for either manufacturers or sanctioning bodies, so there won't be a list. Manufacturers whose products meet established test criteria are allowed to use the trademarked RSI logo on their label (similar to SFI). Sanction bodies simply include that label along with FIA and/or SFI labels.

 

Sanctioning bodies want an alternative to FIA and SFI. In fact, representatives of these organizations tell us that all want to see something else available to them.

[Grandam08]

 

Mr. Baker,

 

Which sanctioning bodies ? F1, Nascar, ARCA, IRL, ALMS, Grand-am, SCCA, NASA, BMWCCA, PCA etc. I looked on the website and couldn't find the sanctioning bodies that participate listed. Trying to gather more info on this new concept.

 

-Damien

Damien,

 

There is no membership required, for either manufacturers or sanctioning bodies, so there won't be a list. Manufacturers whose products meet established test criteria are allowed to use the trademarked RSI logo on their label (similar to SFI). Sanction bodies simply include that label along with FIA and/or SFI labels.

 

Sanctioning bodies want an alternative to FIA and SFI. In fact, representatives of these organizations tell us that all want to see something else available to them.

 

Mr. Baker,

 

So RSI does no testing, just uses results sent by manufacturers ? I see that the manufacturer's must certify that they test using a independant lab. Seems to be a pretty vague standard of testing. If they use RSI along with the FIA/SFI label as you stated, what is the real purpose of the RSI. FIA/SFI have been the standard for years. Will RSI replace these foundations? Does RSI check for lifespan of a product and or does the RSI sticker expire ?

 

In your last paragraph you say the representatives tell us that they want to see something else available. So I assume us means you. Isn't that somewhat of a conflict when the Certifying body is ran, owned, operated or started by a manufacturer or its owner. Once again, just trying to get all the facts, so I can understand how this new RSI works and what it's intended purpose is.

 

Thanks, Damien

[Mike Hurst]

...... Sanction bodies simply include that label along with FIA and/or SFI labels.

 

Please name a sanctioning body that recognizes, in their rules, RSI.

[gbaker]

...... Sanction bodies simply include that label along with FIA and/or SFI labels.

 

Please name a sanctioning body that recognizes, in their rules, RSI.

All of the majors recognize the RSI performance standards, because they are industry standards. I doubt that RSI is in any rulebooks yet because it was formed late last year.

[gbaker]

Damien,

 

The intended purpose is to provide sanctioning bodies and racers the same (or greater) confidence offered by FIA or SFI labels, but with improved transparency of product performance, and more flexibility for manufacturers.

 

Right now FIA has no performance specs for some products, and SFI won't disclose test results. Worse, the specs are design specific, so necessarily exclude new ideas--same problem you have when the jet engine doesn't meet the propeller spec.

 

All testing is done by independent labs conducting established test protocols. This is no different than FIA nd SFI. Anyone can contract with the lab to run the test. Anyone con submit the test results to RSI, which verifies the results with the lab.

 

"Us" is Jake Gulik, who leads an advisory group; me, who volunteered to take the arrows; and Dr. Kirk Knetsis who runs http://rsicommunity.org/

 

See http://www.catchfence.com/html/2008/mt032108.html for more FAQ.

 

Manufacturers set expiration dates. If you can buy a Kryptonite harness you should not have to replace it every two years.

[FlyingDog]

I received an answer from Jerry Kunzman and John Lindsey. An SFI 38.1 device is required. The Isaac is not 38.1 compliant so it would not be allowed.

[jon dawes]

Hey Matt, can I have the last 42 minutes [i'm a slow reader] of my life back, thank-you-very-much?

 

You Porsche guys just don't give up, do you?

 

Hehe...

 

JD

[Lisa@BMC]

I'm just getting into NASA specific racing, but as a racer, club owner and shop owner, I think anything to promote safety for everyone on the track is good. I am glad to see this rule. As for which devices meet the 38.1 spec, I leave that up to the experts. Thanks to NASA for making safety important!!

[philstireservice]

I have an Isaac and a Hans...

 

I wear the Hans when I have to.......I wear the Isaac because I want to !!!

[gbaker]

I received an answer from Jerry Kunzman and John Lindsey. An SFI 38.1 device is required. The Isaac is not 38.1 compliant so it would not be allowed.

Sorry, but that's not Jerry's answer to the question of whether the ISAAC is allowed. He expressly said it is allowed, and his letter is posted in this thread.

[Greg G.]

I received an answer from Jerry Kunzman and John Lindsey. An SFI 38.1 device is required. The Isaac is not 38.1 compliant so it would not be allowed.

 

Sorry Greg, but I can confirm that this is correct. Racers must use one of the devices that is listed under the SFI 38.1 approved list. I just got a Leatt for myself.

[gbaker]

Jerry put it in writing:

 

Gregg,

 

This is incorrect. Please call me if you have any questions.

 

Jerry Kunzman

 

 

From: Gregg Baker [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:40 AM

To: [email protected]

Subject: SFI

 

Jerry,

 

It has come to our attention that NASA intends to mandate head and neck restraints next season and that it has excluded the best performing product available, the Isaac® system. Is this true?

 

Regards,

Gregg S. Baker, P.E.

Isaac, LLC

301 East Pine Street, Suite 150

Orlando, FL 32801

Phone: 321/206-8177

Fax: 321/206-3145

 

... and confirmed over the phone.

 

Isaac users will not be turned away at NASA events.

[Greg G.]

Gregg,

 

It is pretty simple. Here are the rules in the CCR:

 

15.17.8 Head and Neck Restraint

Use of a head and neck restraint system or device, carrying an SFI 38.1 certification, is

mandatory for all drivers as of July 2, 2008. References and information can be found in

“Appendix D,” section #29.0 of the CCR.

 

29.1 Head and Neck Restraint Systems

29.1.1 General

There is an up to date list of devices that are SFI 38.1 certified located here:

http://www.sfifoundation.com/manuf.html#38.1. If the device is not on this list it will not

fulfill the use mandate.

29.1.2 Installation and Replacement

Any systems used MUST be installed and used according to the manufacturers

directions. The driver is ultimately responsible for the proper installation and use of

these devices. It should be noted that “webbing based” systems should be replaced at

least every three years or sooner if the manufacturer specifies such. Any device that

shows signs of wear or abrasions should be sent back to the manufacturer for repair or

should be replaced. “Homemade” repairs are not allowed.

 

These rules apply to racers only. Let me bold this part for clarity: If the device is not on this list it will not

fulfill the use mandate.

 

Any HPDE or TT driver is free to choose another H&N restraint system (including the Isaac), or not use one at all. If NASA, Jerry, Ryan, or John intended for anything else, it would be written in the CCR.