the current Fastrack notes seem to include a proposal from the SCCA comp board the Board of Directors that would force us to change belts every 2 years instead of the current 5.....if you are opposed to the rule well then you'd better let the BOD know and fast..... consider the fellow with a 89 VD 1600 who only brings it out twice a year to keep his regional license current, he would need to replace belts every fifth time in the car! absurd....
Eye,
This topic is almost as hot on another forum as the "FF is Dead" thread here.
Basically, whether we agree it's good/bad/needed or horsesheet. The SFI spec 16.1 only certifies the belts for 2years. Any organization which opts to extend the period beyond what the SFI suggests is taking a big risk in our litigious society.
SFI also has time limits on certain drivers' suits. It's only a matter of time before that creeps down to the 2-3 layer "/5" suits. After all, the SFI is made up of participating manufactures who collectively set the standards and testing parameters.
[size="1"][ December 16, 2002, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Quickshoe ][/size]
A very serious issue. Having inspected thousands of installed harnesses over the past 4 years, I can assure you that for some racers, one year is too many, and for some the current 5 years is conservative. For those that abuse their harnesses by regular soakings in race gas, allowed to chafe half the thickness of the web, grinding good silica abrasives into, etc, replacement every event would be just about right. Unfortunately, some of these problems are being addressed by a shorter interval proposal.
Also unfortunately, for those that do take care of their equipment, there are no qualitative trackside testing methods to adequately determine the quality of your harness, so shorter intervals are going to happen. They are going to happen because you didn't raise hell with the CB via email.
It's time to make a stand. gm
[size="1"][ December 16, 2002, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Greg Mercurio ][/size]
This must be a world wide issue. The regulator here - CAMS - is now enforsing the previously ignored rule on belts.
If SFI certified, 2 years - FIA certified, 5 years. If dates arn't correct, you dont race.
They have also gone mad on Fire extguishers. If you are over the 6 month time, no race.
Charlie Warner
fatto gatto racing
'Cause there's bugger-all down here on earth!
I just thought I would bring this back to the top. I for one do not want to be replacing my belts every two years. The five year old set on my car now has about five races on it and I would like to see some data that shows me it isn't still safe. Anyone know what SFI is basing there recomendation on? What kind of testing they do?
I know Simpson use to re-webb their belts but I read on this forum that they will no longer do that. Are there any other Mfrs. that will reweb their belts. It seems stupid to have to throw all the hardware (the expensive stuff)away every two years.
Whats next, new suits every two years, new helmets, new fuel cells, shoes, gloves ... the list goes on and the costs go up. I think we need to hammer the comp board on this one as well.
Anything is possible, until it is proven impossible.
I went to the SFI website. There's a paper there that explains their position, but it's the worst piece of engineering I've ever seen published nationally. They claim that the belts lose 50% of their strength in two years of outside exposure. But there's no spec for how they simulated the environment, no analysis of sensitivities (UV, Temp, ozone). There's also no analysis of how that would effect stuff in the real world, where the belts have an EMORMOUS safety factor in the first place. So what if you lose 50%, you'd be jello if exposed to enough g's to break a set of belts.
I wrote 'em an e-mail and gave a bit of hell about poor engineering practice. I also wrote the comp board, but it was prior to my finding out what a piect of crap the SFI research was.
I think there should be a sensitivity analysis and perhaps indicator strips sewn on the belts. You could have a dot for temperature, one for UV, and one for ozone. Too much exposure and the dots turn a different color, and you have to replace the belts.
One of the guys at Bell said this is all a result of the Earnhardt crash. That a$$&*le did everything he could to jeopardize his personal safety (and for that matter a lot of the guys he crashed out) and now we're going to have to pay for it. Another good reason to hate NASCAR and the under the table, spineless way they handled that whole mess.
OBTW - this is another argument against the SCCA owning so much in the way of assets. Tracks, rights to series, Enterprises, etc. When it was just a club you couldn't get much if you sued us. Now we have much deeper pockets and have to protect the stash.
Keith Connolly<BR>K C Motorsport - UK
Simpson does not, in fact, reweb their belts anymore. I cannot say I blame them. We live in a very litigous society and I'm sure Simpson is a little gun-shy after the Dale Earnhart mess.
SCCA is likewise trying to minimize its exposure to liability. Someone else's 2 year old belts might be much more worn than your own. And it may not be all that evident to the naked eye.
It's sort of a gray area to leave the decision up to an inspector. Better to make a definitive expiration schedule.
Anyway, here's some good news:
I listed the 9 year old Simpson Camlock belts from my Crossle on eBay. The current bid is up to $76.00 and there is still one day left.
When I deduct that from the price I'll pay for new ones, it's not all that bad.
I had my Simpson Belts re-webbed by a fellow in Brisbane, and they were certified for another 2 years.
The cost of re-webbing - $120. A new set $450 - $550. With the re-webbing, I was able to get exactly the length I wanted.
By the way, there is no correlation between the new price of belts and the rating. Some $550 belts have a SFI 2 year rating, and some $450 belts have a FIA 5 year rating.
If I was racing a pre 1970 car there is no requirement to have belts at all, so the change out time does not apply
Charlie Warner
fatto gatto racing
'Cause there's bugger-all down here on earth!
My five cents worth is this:
1) As a Chief, I will enforce whatever the CB prints, like it or not.
2) As a competitor, I will change my harnesses every 2 years, because that's the only thing keeping me in the car in the event of something really bad happening. It's my choice, and it's cheap insurance.
3) As stated many times, it's your right to proptest this proposal. If you are going to pitch a fit here, then cut and paste the post to the CB.
4) Rick, you made a lot of good points, but the purpose of the harness is to keep your body in place and allow the structure to spread the accelerations over time , and to minimize or eliminate secondary impacts beween the structure and you.
I've seen some really horrendous installations, with poorly considered angles for forces to react through, so you can find instances where the belts break before you turn to Jello.
gm
I replaced my belts [Wilans] in Feb 2002, they have an SFI label but also have tags on them labeled FIA and the FIA tags also state on their opposite side "valid until 2007"....Hmmmm, I guess that if the proposal to the BoD is passed, then I'm good for the 5 years no matter what.. but still this 2 yr proposal is bad for the membership. Please list below if you have voiced, Emailed or written to the SCCA Board of Directors.....Eye did and i think ya'll should too. Bad belts less than 5 yrs old can be weeded out at an annual inspection with a simple note in the cars log book.....we don't need no stinkin' rule.
I agree with Eye and I'm e-mailing the comp board and Ken Brown this morning.
Anything is possible, until it is proven impossible.
Greg - I thought the purpose of the design diagrams in the GCR was to prevent by rule the lousy installations (angles, etc) that you are referring to. Not to mention homologation, which is to certify the safety of the basic design. But wait! - there's no homologation for GT and Production chassis......There I go uncovering those pesky SCCA inconsistencies again.
Again - if it's a bad install that should be covered under the GCR. If it's frayed, that should be visible to a blind man. What's not clear is how much fraying is acceptable and there needs to be clear, scientifically based guidance on that, because it's rare for a belt to have no fraying after just a few uses, there's too much of an opportunity for it to rub on seats, it's own hard parts, etc. And if it's exposure to the elements, then some pretty simple technology can take care of that. Hell, one could do something really simple like overbraid the belts with another fiber to decrease exposure. That's the problem with the SFI spec - it doesn't consider reality.
Someone brought up questions of re-webbing. There should be no danger there. The manufacturers do not do 100% x-ray or any other NDT on the hard parts, just a visual inspection. That ought to be enough when the belts are re-webbed. Remember, the SFI is concerned about the webbing, not the hard parts, and the sewing process is the same whether new or re-used. Every US manufacturer except Simpson re-webs their belts. It's just an excuse to gouge.
If I get a chance I'll go see the guys in our parachute shop after the new year. They sew parachute and ejection seat rigging for tests - I'll see if I can get some data on spec'd loads for the basic webbing and G's that they've seen on the sled.
Keith Connolly<BR>K C Motorsport - UK
Rick: All valid points. However, just because the GCR mandates does not mean that people actually read or implement whats's there.
I have in the past condemned harnesses, and the bitching was loud and long. Jeez, it's a safety item! At the Laguna Seca Vintage event, I saw harnesses over 10 years old, looked like Fido's backside, and refused the entrants their Tech Stickers until replaced. Apparently Vintage cars can suspend the laws of physics in a sudden change in acceleration, and therefore don't need a harness rule. Given the number of cars visiting the Impound Area via the wrecker, I'd lobby HARD for a harness rule for Vintage!
BTW there is no latitude in the GCR. Read Section 20.3 "..and in new or perfect condition."
Do you really want a Scrutineer making a value judgement based on that criteria? While you're ranting at the CB, you might take a shot at some better wording for 20.3. I will too.
Happy New Year. Up the Participation Numbers!!!
Belts every two years is a stupid idea. I can only believe it is intended to sell more belts. Properly cared for they will last much longer than the 5 years now mandated even by most vintage groups. We need to tell SCCA to cut out these dumb things they keep doing.
From Simpson's website:
FORMULA CAR 6-WAY BOLT-IN PULL UP
INDIVIDUAL HARNESS BOLT-IN
ProductNo.
29114 $219.95
Bout the price of a new tire. nuff said
Well lets see, rod ends are only $25 to $65 each and if one of them brakes at the wrong time that could be "bad", so lets replace them every two years. And what about the fire system, might not work if it has gone through several seasons and wet races so lets replace that too. Besides they only cost the price of a tire or two so why not. Of course, then there is the fire suit. Sun probably effects that too as well as the cleaning after each race weekend so it needs to be replaced as well. Oh yea!!!!!- the fuel cell- that needs to be replaced and then there are those pesky wheels that might crack and then there is the -------
Nuff said. Neil
Touche!
I too have seen some that I wouldn't want to use, but as Neil points out; where does this line of thinking stop. You can apply this reasoning to way too many things on the car.
I'm seeing rental rates go up.
In case all of you didn't read the original post over on f2000.com, here a piece of it:
[quote]
ADDITIONAL INFO FROM D/SR WEB SITE ON 12/09/02:
I just got back from the PRI show and I had a very long talk with Ken Brown who was at the SCCA booth.
I brought this entire topic up to him and here were his comments. Firstly, this entire discussion is motivated by the insurance industry. Ken told me that SCCA is the only sanctioning body (I don't know if he means pro or not) that does not mandate belt changes every two years. He went on to say that if we don't replace every two years and everyone else does, our insurance rates will either increase or at least not decrease. That in turn will be felt by the club members. Additionally, the two years will only apply to SFI rated belts. FIA and the like which don't have manufacturing dates, but rather expiration dates will be dealt with separately. How I don't know.
Here's the real kicker. He made it quite clear that I should not be surprised if in the not to distant future, SCCA mandates head and neck restraints. Which systems will be acceptable? Ken seemed to say that the data they have indicates that currently the only system SCCA may approve in HANS. The bottom line is this. Ken said that before the belt issue is finalized, SCCA top brass will be meeting with SFI, FIA, physicians and other "impartial" people before a decision is made (about head restraints).
END
[/quote]The important part in my opinion, is the requirement of head and neck restraints in the not to distant future. I'm aware of the advantages of this type of restraint and it would probably be a good idea to use one, but mandated? I would assume that like helmets, belts, et al, the the HANS device will have a finite life span and we'll be replacing these every few years too.
And you thought rod ends were expensive...
Steve Gomas
None of this had me too upset until the part about Simpson no longer rewebbing their harness products. The SFI discussion is at
[url="http://www.sfifoundation.com/seatbelt.html"]http://www.sfifoundation.com/seatbelt.html[/url]
"Seat Belts Should be Inspected and Recertified Every Two Years: Restraints must be maintained, inspected, and replaced or rewebbed every two years because they degenerate from exposure to the elements and over time"
I suppose we should accept SFI's research as independent of the revenue needs of the manufacturers, but we don't have to buy products from manufacturers who will not reweb their harnesses. Problem is, we can expect all the manufacturers to follow Simpson's lead. Has anyone considered that a material (Nylon 6.6) that loses 80% of it's initial strength in normal use just might not be the right material??
Applying the same "industry standard" from the major series (F1, CART, etc.) to club racing is just more bad science. In the aggregate, it will probably be less expensive to ignore the industry standard and pay the additional insurance premiums. IMO, SCCA should be the "industry standard" for club racing, and has enough statistical history for this to be a defensible position.
I am now signing off to Email Simpson re. my decision not to buy their helmets, suits, etc. if they don't believe their metallic harness components can last more than two years.
[size="1"][ January 03, 2003, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: bob darcey ][/size]
I just got an e-mail back from Willans, they will not reweb their harnesses.
Pyrotech will however for $50 + S&H.
Anything is possible, until it is proven impossible.
That was one of the problems with the SFI position. It only considers one material, and has no standard for the environment. You'd think that they would at least have used an ANSI standard or one of the old Mil specs. Military aircraft belts are replaced every two years, but they are rarely in a hangar and the temperature under the canopy can get over 180 deg out here in the desert sun.
Simpson just went to polyester in their Platinum series (more $) but presumably same life!
I'm getting Pyrotect - and my E-mail to Simpson went out last week. They haven't replied. For SoCal guys, Bell/Pyrotect owns the old Filler shop in Sun Valley and they can custom make just about anything there.
Wonder if this will apply to Solo, and if not, why not - and, if it effects race car harnesses why not the street car belts?
I did some web research and there are several companies (3M being one of them) that make exposure indicators for temperature and UV.
Keith Connolly<BR>K C Motorsport - UK
The non reworking of an older harness by the manufacture does not surprise me.
Given the recent 'issues' with the belts, how do you suppose they'd pass on their hardware? They don't want the risks and I suppose it's also a business decision like it or not.
However, if you consider the time on the belts over a two year period of say 10 races per, total of 20. $235/20= 12 per race. This is a rather small amount.
On the other hand, other manufactures may jump on the band wagon too for mandated replacements as we've pointed out and of course do so in the name of safety. Hmmm.
I agree 100% with Neil. Anything can be rationalized. Let's stick with the facts. How many catastrophic belt failures have we had in SCCA, in how many years, in how many miles, whith how many different cars? Changing a rule on the speculation that insurance costs might go up and if they do not they might not go down is just as ridiculous. ( Aside from flawed logic, do you really think membership prices will go down with insurance cost?) My son started in CF at 16 years of age. I do not want him to be in an unsafe situation. He has a head and neck restraint, though arguably may not need it at the speeds we are running.I buy the best plumbing for fuel systems, have a new fuel cell and all new AN hardware and rod ends.( I believe the quality of any other hardware, ie. grade 5 from the hardware store, is now to suspect to use in critical applications ) Just like signing the entry form and liability releases, safety and racing is an individual decision. We have all seen racers try to "beat" the inspector at annual. ( fuel ports,torn fire suits etc,etc) This is an expensive country club to be a member. We do our own work and it still costs $1300 per race weekend. In view of this I believe one of the primary reasons a number of race cars are parked is cost.The advantage to SCCA club racing is the quality of the people you are surrounded by. Period. You do not have this at the local circle tracks, been there, been successful, done it and will not return. Let us rationalize this, fewer cars mean fixed costs to be shared by fewer people this could equal higher costs to SCCA,us. Guys, if you do not feel safe with your program you probably aren't, so change it. Don't legislate it. Thanks for allowing the venting, safety is important to us and I believe our operation is as safe as it can be. The never ending cost escalation could put us on the sideline, so added cost burden should be based on absolutes and on historical documentation not what ifs.
This just in from Willans:
[quote]
Dear Sir,
Reference your e-mail of 3rd January 2003
Our Insurance Product Liability does not extend to the re-webbing of harnesses only the manufacture of new.
We manufacture to FIA standards.
In Europe the FIA sanctioned life span of a harness is 5 years plus the year of manufacture.
For your information European harnesses are predominantly made with terylene/polyester webbing and USA harnesses to date have been predominantly made with nylon.
As I am sure you are aware U.V. (ultra violet) degradation of nylon webbing is significantly faster than it is with terylene/polyester hence the disparity between the two sanctioning bodies.
Regards
John Fenning
[/quote]The Simpson platimum series is now made with polyester webbing. The platimum belts are about the same as the other ~$250. Does anyone know what is used in automotive(passenger car) seat belts? I bet it is polyester from the feel of it.
Anything is possible, until it is proven impossible.
I just ordered Pyrotech 6-pt. Camlock belts today. They are currently on sale for $142. Not a bad price compared with the others.
Just wanted to let ya'll know. ;)
I just checked out the Simpson website and their latest catalog. No mention of FIA certs despite Poly webbing in the Platinum Series. In their pic of the belts, there's a tag that looks a whole lot like a SFI tag - compared it to my Simpson and Willans tags just to make sure.
Keith Connolly<BR>K C Motorsport - UK
Since this topic went cold, I thought I'd revive it with a few questions.
First of all, I have a set of belts with the manufacture date of March 1998. Are these still "current" under the GCR - here's a quote from the 2002 GCR:
[quote]Section 20.DRIVER ’S RESTRAINT SYSTEM
8. All driver restraint systems shall meet SFI Specifications 16.1., and shall bear a dated “SFI Spec 16.1.”,label. The certification indicated by this label shall expire on December 31st of the 5th year after the date of manufacture as indicated by this label.[/quote]Is 2003 the 5th year after date of manufacture of my belts (3/98) and the belts are ok until Dec. 31, 2003? Or is this the 6th year after the date of manufacture?
Second question - is the rule change requiring replacing SFI 16.1 belts every 2 years a done deal? And are FIA-certified belts ok for 5 years?
This makes a huge difference - I can buy SFI certified belts for @ $140-175 - but will I have to buy them every 2 years? If so, it makes more sense to buy FIA-certified for @ $250 once every five years (as long as they're still approved for 5 years).
Is this really supposed to be a puzzle?
Dan Maxwell
Crossle 32f, CF #53
My interpretation is that your belts aren't five years old until next month and you get a grace period until the end of the year.
The rule is 5 years AFTER the date of manufacture, so take your year of manufacture and add 5. 1997 harnesses expired on 12/31/02, 1998 harnesses will expire on 12/31/03 and so on.
The latest Fastrak has numerous mentions of the proposed change, and it is stilll in limbo. Member input is still being accepted.
gm
Dan....about your 5 or not 5 yr old belts....my advice is get an annual as soon as possible because 1] then the belts would be good for another full year, 2]or you find out from the Tech inspector (never argue with the tech inspector) that they are expiring on some date or other.
understand that you can get your car's annual done more often than once a year...no rule says you can't do that - i did it one time by mistake - the inspector was more than happy to sign me off a second time even though it had been less than a year but of course he did inspect the car tah second time too.
Eye, have you been into the medicinal alcohol again? Annuals are Annuals. The only time you should need another is if yours was voided due to significant damage.
As for harness expiration, the GCR is the controlling document, not some Tech Inspectors opinion on date. It is plainly stated as 12/31/xx five years after the year of manufacture.
Having an annual will not extend the life of your harnesses for another year, it will only keep us from looking at them at every event. If you need to hide your harnesses, you should probably change them.
Once again, Topeka is still taking input, so make your vote count.
gm
my experience with an annual is not always from jan 1 to jan 1 but from [as example] from aug 1 to aug 1 but if you had another sooner than that year then that one would stand for a calender year ..... if i'm wrong here then i would be happy to have someone correct me here because then eye learn something in the process too, no problem, but i swear it worked that way i nthe past when i had the MG checked sooner than the year....after that no one would be looking at your belts again for a year....the tech people at registration only would look at your log book
C'mon guys! You and your car are subject for inspection at any time that you are racing! It's just stupid to think that because you had an annual that you won't be caught for expired belts or any other infraction. You MAY not be caught, but the best option is always to ensure that you are 100% legal!
Larry Oliver
International Racing Products
...and steward
[quote]Originally posted by EYERACE:
[b] my experience with an annual is not always from jan 1 to jan 1 but from [as example] from aug 1 to aug 1 but if you had another sooner than that year then that one would stand for a calender year ..... [/b][/quote]If you take a look at GCR 11.1 (page 82) you will find that annuals are good for the calendar year, not a full year from the date they are done.
thank you, jack
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
