48 replies to this topic

[Chris Ashcraft]

Ok so i am getting ready for the upcoming season and just going over the car in some detail of safety. When i got this car is had the OMP seat in it, i have used it the last 3 years and have never had an incident in it. The seat was stamped in 04' is it time to replace it even though technically it is still useable under the GCR.

 

Thanks guys,

 

Chris

Attached Files

•  OMP SEAT.jpg   49.33KB   1 downloads

[Brandon]

NASA expires a seat after a certain number of years.  I'm not certain of their reasoning or support/justification for their date but that's food for thought (the expiration part).

 

Not being a materials expert, you're left to reviewing the mounting and touch points of the seat to various parts of the car looking for wear/fatigue and decide whether you're comfortable continuing to use it.

I'd remove it from the car, pull off the cover (and any padding) to give the whole thing a once-over under very bright light focusing on the screw mounting points and anywhere it might be coming into contact with the car.

 

I'd also give OMP a ring to determine whether they have a lifetime delineation for any of their products irrespective of the FIA stamp or NASA's expiration timeframe.

[speedengineer]

NASA expires a seat after a certain number of years.  I'm not certain of their reasoning or support/justification for their date but that's food for thought (the expiration part).

 

I don't think NASA does actually.  They just mandate that FIA seats that are expired then must utilize a seat back brace, where as a seat back brace isn't needed when the seat is in cert date.

[Brandon]

NASA CCR (their "GCR"):

https://nasa-assets..../282/2016.1.pdf

 

PDF page 58, document page 46, section 15.6.21 (Seat Back Support)

 

It looks to be the particular FIA spec (1999 vs. 2009) that determines lifetime of the seat within NASA rules.

1999 == 5 years from stamp on seat

2009 == 10 years from stamp on seat

 

They (NASA) don't provide any justification or reasoning why seats older than these ages require seat back bracing other than it's just the rules.

 

IOW, if you're racing SCCA events, if the seat has no outwardly visible issues related to its integrity it passes tech.

For NASA, it must not be outside of the age set forth by the FIA spec it's certiifed to.

[wheel]

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. 

[space]

...must have the seat back firmly attached to the main roll hoop, or its cross bracing.

 

 

Not sure how you would do that with many seats.  Has anyone done this with a "non-aluminum", (non-kirkey type) seat? 

[ner88]

Who would be liable, should someone get hurt from a seat that is mounted outside of the manufactures/certification recommendations?

[wheel]

Everything you do in motorsports is at your own risk.  

[FTodaro]

...must have the seat back firmly attached to the main roll hoop, or its cross bracing.

 

 

Not sure how you would do that with many seats.  Has anyone done this with a "non-aluminum", (non-kirkey type) seat? 

Yes have seen it done, but not a good idea IMO. The rule should be worded to allow the brace to "support" not "attach" to a composite seat, as the Attachment part can make the seat weaker by attaching.

 

This is an arbitrary rule in that i have bought composite seats that were stamped 4 years old when i bought them new. Same issue with safety belts. I now only buy from the Manufacture authorized dealer who builds and dates them when shipped.

[Brandon]

Everything you do in motorsports is at your own risk.  

 

Not disagreeing with the statement outright, but when you, as a sanctioning body, require a modification to a manufacturers part which they do not recommend or warrant being suitable, that tends to raise questions.

 

Considering the other sanctioning body merely requires a brace in contact with the seat back (not firmly attached), I'd say they're better positioned to defend any potential liability suit.

 

Can the SCCA consider following NASA's lead with the seat-back requirements and not dictate "firmly attached" to the seat back?

[wheel]

After the FIA time elapses, the seat becomes just like any other seat and must be braced as the rule was written.  My memory of why the rule was written was that there were some seats that could be moved side to side without a back brace.  Having the brace in contact would not fix that problem.  I can bring up the "brace in contact" idea with the rest of the team.  

[Mark McCallister]

Is there data that suggests that expired FIA seats have contributed to injury or death in "survivable" incidents?

[Bench Racer]

Do we really believe we couldn't soft mount a composite seat so it would flex only 1/4 inch any direction at it's mount location?

 

I understand we have many attorneys present. How many racers have seriously read the risk waiver we sign for each SCCA event? Item # 5 always gives me the chills.

 

Risk Waiver:

http://cdn.growasset....pdf?1435268210

[space]

Thanks Frank.  That's what I was fishing at.  Doesn't seem like a very good idea to have people trying to modify these types of seats.  I would consider myself very capable at builds and modifications on anything, but there's no way that I'm doing this.  I guess if that rule goes though I'll be buying a new seat.  These seats flex a little.  I have to believe it affects the testing (good or bad).  Altering that will impact the safety aspect of these seats.  Good or bad, I'm not really sure, but it will change it.

[wheel]

There is really nothing for the rule to go through.  The rule is not changing, it is just being clarified to say that you can continue to use the seat after the FIA time period, with proper bracing.  There were questions about whether the seats had to be replaced, or could be used with bracing.  Of course, you are free to replace the seat with a new FIA seat, if you really feel that strongly about it.  

[Chris Ashcraft]

I have decided that after watching some of the incidents last year that i am going to be replacing the seat i have carefully looked it over and while it seems to be fully intact i am just not willing to chance it.

 

I needed a seat for my iracing setup anyways...lol

[davew]

I am speaking second hand. A friend of mine contacted FIA about their assorted certifications. What he found was interesting. He found someone who could interprit the french rules into english.

 

FIA did put an expiration on seat belts. 5 years from date of manufacture.

 

FIA did NOT put an expiration on seats. Similar to helmets, they put out new certification rules. The seats are certified to meet the rules at the time of manufacture. Again, think of a helmet, you can buy a helmet in 2014 with a 2010 Snell rating. It is a brand new helmet built in 2014, but meets the most current 2010 standards. There is not neccisarily a change in the certification standards. The standards from 2010 may be identicle to the 2015 standards. Since the standards have been re-approved, the date is changed.

 

I feel all sanctioning bodies should re-evaluate their seat rules, based on what actually makes a difference. Not what some arbitrary decision maker thinks he knows.

 

Dave

[Sean - MiataCage]

...must have the seat back firmly attached to the main roll hoop, or its cross bracing.

 

 

Not sure how you would do that with many seats.  Has anyone done this with a "non-aluminum", (non-kirkey type) seat? 

 

I have not done it myself, but there are industrial adhesives that one might consider using to attach a plate to the back of a composite seat.  Many of the new car manufacturers use adhesives in the construction of some of their larger vehicles.  I have seen tensile strength testing that after gluing 2 pieces together and pulling them apart in the tester the failure point is higher than with a single piece of material only.

 

There are a lot of engineers on here and I am not one.... I am not trying to fight with any engineers on all the scientific data of adhesives (this means you Dewhurst) I am just pointing out that there are adhesives on the market that are likely less of a failure point than I have seen from many $99 seat back braces on the market with flimsy little attachment points and no side to side support.

 

Sean

[FTodaro]

I had a motorcycle helmet defect case where the MFG used cheap plastic to make the shell. When they drilled a hole in the shell for the helmet snaps, it would cause them to prematurely fail.  I am not an engineer either but i do know Drilling a hole into a composite type seat has a probability of introducing micro cracks into the structure of the seat and could cause a premature failure.

 

I actually think this is a serious matter. As a club, i would not be requiring this, if it turns out to be introducing a problem where none existed.

 

I would argue the default should be to use the brace, If one is even needed, as a support, unless the MFG would agree and support the modification. I am confident, that by drilling hole you would be voiding any guarantee of fitness for its intended use. 

[davew]

I had a motorcycle helmet defect case where the MFG used cheap plastic to make the shell. When they drilled a hole in the shell for the helmet snaps, it would cause them to prematurely fail.  I am not an engineer either but i do know Drilling a hole into a composite type seat has a probability of introducing micro cracks into the structure of the seat and could cause a premature failure.

 

I actually think this is a serious matter. As a club, i would not be requiring this, if it turns out to be introducing a problem where none existed.

 

I would argue the default should be to use the brace, If one is even needed, as a support, unless the MFG would agree and support the modification. I am confident, that by drilling hole you would be voiding any guarantee of fitness for its intended use. 

 

Sounds like Lawyer Speak to me