48 replies to this topic

[FTodaro]

Sounds like Lawyer Speak to me

I was going to use my Trump voice

[Brandon]

And not to throw even more data points into this discussion, but there are apparently some composite seats that support integral back-brace installation (aka, no drilling).

I don't recall the exact vendor but this would give the appearance back support is not something unknown to the industry...

 

To Dave W's point about the homologation/certification of and by the FIA, the "expiration" of a certificate (which the FIA does NOT do for seats as he notes): does anyone else feel this is something seemingly arbitrary by the various sanctioning bodies?  Similar to a "if the belts expire, how couldn't the seats also expire" position?

 

I'm not questioning the implied safety aspect of replacing a seat after X-years from the build date (that's up to the competitor), but absent an entry in the log book regarding a crash/impact it doesn't appear there is support for doing so otherwise.

[Bench Racer]

Let's see now:

 

Dewhurst suggests "we" could soft mount a composite seat so it would only flex a 1/4 inch.

 

Hedrick suggests one might consider using an adhesive to attach a plate to the back of a composite seat.

 

Seems like two similar blue sky thoughts.

 

Then out of a canon comes a shot, "I am not trying to fight with any engineers on all the scientific data of adhesives (this means you Dewhurst)."

 

Without the shot this post would not exist.

[ner88]

So, how does one know if a seat with a back support is safer than a seat with an expired date???

I don't recall any testing???

I like my aluminum seat even more, now, if they only made an aluminum helmet...........

[Mark McCallister]

I for one have no intention of ever drilling a hole for a brace in a composite seat that wasn't designed for it.  That seems like utter insanity to me.  Let me count the ways.

 

I googled "FIA seat failure" and found no descriptions of actual events, just a bunch of random forum discussions like this one.  I would still love to hear about such a failure.

 

If the intent is to force the manufacturers to begin designing all their FIA 8855-1999 seats with braces, which may be smart, that may work, but it seems like a better approach would be for SCCA to work with FIA on making that a part of the next standard rather than try to box manufacturers into doing something not required by the standard.  How many options are there other than the Racetech 4119, which is difficult to mount in a Miata due to its size, for FIA seats with integrated back brace provisions? 

 

I'd love to have a FIA 8862-2009 seat, but they still cost more than a Miata.

[pitbull113]

Typical knee jerk reaction to a problem that doesn't exist. Just like the head and neck restraint rule. Thank you SCCA.

[Danny Steyn]

 

I googled "FIA seat failure" and found no descriptions of actual events, just a bunch of random forum discussions like this one.  I would still love to hear about such a failure.

 

Some time ago I was offered a ride in a pro-race in a nicely built car. However the car had made contact with the wall at Daytona, had been rebuilt, and looked absolutely awesome, inside and out.

 

While going through scrutineering, the sanctioning body made us remove the FIA certified seat from the car, pulled away the fabric cover and foam cushion and looked at the composite material for signs of plastic deformation. Sure enough they were there, and with a small amount of force applied laterally to the hip bolsters, were actually able to reveal the fracture in the carbon seat material. From the outside the seat looked perfect, but on inspection there was no way that it would pass scrutineering and we ran around the pits looking for a replacement seat. 

 

Same happens to aluminum when pushed past the plastic deformation limit. 

[speedengineer]

There is a clarification coming in SCCA that says - . Upon expiration of FIA certification, FIA seats may be used but must have the seat back firmly attached to the main roll hoop, or its cross bracing. 

 

Looks like that clarification you mentioned has come out in the April prelims that were just published:

 

http://cdn.growasset....pdf?1457364282

 

 

 

3. #18687 (Charles Tanck) Proper Interpretation of Section 9.3.41. Seats
In GCR section
9.3.41, add the following language:"The driver’s seat shall be a one-piece bucket-type seat and shall be securely mounted. The back of the seat shall be firmly attached to the main roll hoop, or its cross bracing, so as to provide aft and lateral sup-port. Seats that have been homologated to and mounted in accordance with FIA standard 8855-1999, or seats that have been certified to FIA. Standard.8862-2009 or higher need not have the seat back attached to the roll structure.Seats with a back not attached to the main roll hoop or its cross bracing may be mounted on runners only if they were part of the FIA homologated seats assembly specified in an FIA homologated race car. The homologation labels must be visible. Seat supports shall be of the type listed on FIA technical list No.12 or No. 40 (lateral, bottom, etc.). Passenger seat back–if a folding seat, it shall be securely bolted or strapped in place.  Upon expiration of FIA certification, FIA seats may be used but must have the seat back firmly attached to the main roll hoop, or its cross bracing."

[Danny Steyn]

Also note that some of the more expensive composite seats, like the Racetech RT4119HRW model that I use, have reinforced section that extends around the back of the seat all the way around the shoulder containment wings.

 

This reinforced area contains factory pre-installed threaded inserts for mounting back braces when needed. The reinforced section that contains the back brace mounting is clearly visible in this photo

 

[ChrisA]

Danny, I also have that Racetech. Nice seats!    It was designed and tested for FiA homogulation with the shoulder attachment points anchored. Without the shoulders anchored it would not pass FiA tech/certification because that was not how it was tested.

[Bench Racer]

Interesting info for specific racetech seats and their DISCLAIMER fair warning.

 

http://racetech-usa....kit?search=boss

 

Click on Downloads for install instructions.

[Brandon]

So the proposed rule states something about "expiration" however I've been completely and utterly unable to identify any document, from the FIA or anywhere, that indicates there is an expiration date of their certification/homologation.

 

Their process appears to be to designate specifications, tests, and approve/certify facilities to run said tests for their specifications, and said attributes change every so often (1999, 2009...guessing there will be another in 2019).  Nowhere in their documentation can I find any reference to whether the build date designates a 'good until X-years from this date' or if any seat so homologated "expires" however many years after the build date.

 

Unlike belts certified by either organization (FIA/SFI), these have a 'not good after' date which would imply there is a difference/distinction between the two products (seats & belts).

 

If it's like a dealership saying they'll "void your warranty" for an aftermarket part, let's agree that's the case and ensure the rule is written appropriately (and remove the "expiration" reference) or at least clarify it so "...the SCCA considers a seat 5 years post-build date to be 'expired' and no longer a valid homologation..."

 

Just my $.02 as a rules whore who likes to see clear and articulated statements of facts as the basis for our GCR.  Especially since we're expected to abide them and have clearly delineated paths to challenge them.

[Mark McCallister]

Hey Brandon, the FIA homologation definitely does expire - I posted the link in the prelims thread, http://mazdaracers.c...l-2016-prelims/.  Expiration five years from year of manufacture, with 2 year extension possible after manufacturer inspection (if available). 

 

It's interesting that our three main safety certification foundations/orgs (Snell, SFI, and FIA) take totally different approaches...

[38bfast]

Just curious what would be the failure in a FIA seat be with a positively attached seat back brace? Bolted to the back of the seat.

[ner88]

Rather than making an arbitrary rule with no evidence to support any of this, why can't SCCA have some "outdated" seats tested.

SCCA, spend a few dollars have them tested before you pass on thousands of dollars of added costs to your members,

[Brandon]

Hey Brandon, the FIA homologation definitely does expire - I posted the link in the prelims thread, http://mazdaracers.c...l-2016-prelims/.  Expiration five years from year of manufacture, with 2 year extension possible after manufacturer inspection (if available). 

 

It's interesting that our three main safety certification foundations/orgs (Snell, SFI, and FIA) take totally different approaches...

 

Your Goog-jitsu is stronger than mine I guess.  That same document I found (for the -1999 spec), from the FIA website, had no reference to the 5-year term yet this later doc shows it as present, and even then this latest revision changes it from "lifetime of 5 years" to a "not valid after X".

 

If the FIA does not consider a homologated seat certified after 5 years from build date, then just like belts, they should not be allowed.

This leads to a RULE CHANGE from the SCCA regarding the seat standards and to not take effect until 2017 - though they could claim it's not a change but merely a clarification of a tech/scrutineer process (to ignore dates) but I'd not consider that an accurate assessment.

 

It's a procedural thing at this point (now that I've seen the confirmation of the FIA expiration) and IMO, the CRB has subverted their own processes by issuing this as a "clarification" and like Greg A indicates, giving folks only a week to become compliant with an actual rule change.

[FTodaro]

Brandon, I am going to write a letter can the SMAC take a closer look at this. IMO bracing is just as effective as attachment. The old rule was just as safe and effective. If I have the time, i am sure we can find some technical documentation that discusses the potential for stress points, and micro cracks  when you drill a hole in some plastic material. My analogy is  the zipper effect when you open a bag of potato chips, once the rip starts you end up with a lap full of chips.

[Steve Scheifler]

Sadly, as with belts I guess they need to draw a line based on worst case conditions, but it's ridiculous to retire a seat that has seen fewer laps in five years than some see in one, or one 24hr enduro for that matter. I'm pretty sure they would last a few millennia in a land fill so I don't get the "from date of manufacture" at all. Smacks of self-serving crap, and/or too much legal CYA at anyone else's expense. All makes a great case for an aluminum seat.

[Andy Mitchell]

Hi, I have an expired FIA seat and was about to either buy a seat brace or get a new seat for an upcoming event in June until one of my colleagues showed me this:

 

http://cdn.growasset....pdf?1459880104

 

Is this legit? Am I off the hook until 2017?

 

(and yes, I know I should get the brace/new seat now, it's just a matter of figuring out my priorities over the next couple of weeks) :-)

[pitbull113]

Hi, I have an expired FIA seat and was about to either buy a seat brace or get a new seat for an upcoming event in June until one of my colleagues showed me this:

 

http://cdn.growasset....pdf?1459880104

 

Is this legit? Am I off the hook until 2017?

 

(and yes, I know I should get the brace/new seat now, it's just a matter of figuring out my priorities over the next couple of weeks) :-)

Yes you're off the hook until Jan. 2017. You could also write a letter and tell the CRB how this new rule is complete bs.