18 replies to this topic

[ECOBRAP]

Hey all,

 

Wondering which harness manufacturers re-certify or re-web their belts.

 

So far, all I know if is Autopower in San Diego.

 

I know Schroth (my current belts) does not.

 

 

 

 

Also, for optimal HANS setup, 2 inch portion of shoulder belts is correct?

 

Best,

Matt

[38bfast]

Safecraft does

[Carl]

Crow Enterprizes too.

[ECOBRAP]

Thanks for the info, 3 good options.

 

Looks like SFI can be re-certified (2yrs). Is FIA re-certifiable (5yrs)?

[Rick Worth]

Ultra shield does and within just a few days

[Bul Winkle]

Echoing Crow - Very reasonable, and very responsive.

 

Had a set of G-Force Pro Series - they do reweb as well, but had no webbing material available for either new or reweb programs. oops... Now I have three sets that are reweb capable....

[Ron Alan]

Safecraft does

Best belts IMO...especially for endurance cars with multiple drivers/changes.

 

I originally had SFI belts which were rewebbed after 2 years...basically 4 year life. They currently sell SFI and FIA it looks like...don't quite understand why but if the difference is 4 years vs 5 years the money is about the same. If you only run SCCA, I think they accept the SFI for a 5 year period? I know NASA sticks to the manufacturers sticker on expiration. 

 

https://www.safecraf...y-harness-5010/

[Tom Hampton]

Ron-

There isn't a difference. The material science says the webbing strength is unknown after more than 2 years and is completely dependent upon storage conditions. Minimum strength cannot be guaranteed after 2 years. Period. That's based upon aerospace and military testing of all the available webbing materials in worst case conditions.

Sfi takes the strict party line for wosrt case material degradation, thus limits to two years of life. FIA assumes the storage conditions are better than worse case, thus you should get better than worst case life. However, there is no test data to support the FIA life of 5 years. Further, there is no definition to the better than worst case storage conditions assumed by FIA. Temperature, moisture, uv exposure, etc.

In other words, that's a long way round to say FIA chose an arbitrary lifetime with no data to support it. A wild ass guess.

[Steve Scheifler]

Tom, and the mere fact that racing orgs surely know all that or should, yet chose to treat them differently based solely on which tag was paid for (the bottom line) is clear enough proof that it’s pure litigation CYA ultimately driving decisions.

Some years back SCCA first raised the issue of tightening limits, got lots of pushback, then said they decided against it, and then the next season did it anyway without any warning, then a few seasons later did yet another partial reversal. Part of the stated rationale, a big part the way I read it, was the effect of UV (sunlight predominantly) on the webbing. The “worst case” you mentioned being an open cockpit car sitting in direct sunlight (not even under a canopy) pretty much continuously for a couple years. It was an utterly ridiculous standard. They might just as easily ban drinking water because you can in fact kill yourself by drinking too much. And then there’s the “minimum” standard they need to meet. I don’t recall what that is and it would be harder to argue with anyway, but it too is likely quite extreme.

I know I’m always asking these questions, but when has anyone ever heard of a properly installed belt that wasn’t already cut or damaged, snapping? I fully expect there are a few examples in the archives, rules were really lax and belts were not as good back in the day, but I’ve been around this stuff since the 70s and have never known it to happen. I also know that street car belts are different, but in the end they aren’t THAT different, and if 10+ year old 3-point belts were snapping with any regularity resulting in injuries I’m pretty sure someone would be screaming about it.

For the record, I’m fine with an expiration, some people need to be forced. But when I plunked down the bucks for Safecraft I waited until they could send some tagged with January of the new year and still winced at how long they were good for. I think any SFI or FIA belt should be five years (then end of 5th year) BUT subject to annual inspection for any cuts, fraying, sun bleaching, etc.

But in the end the cost simply isn’t high enough to be a battle worth fighting, so I settle for a good rant now and then.

[Tom Hampton]

Of course it's cya. So is the entire safety section. What's your point?

But, scca (or any org) should not be in the business of determining the safety of components. Selecting standards applicable for the race conditions sure. But, it shouldn't be up to the org to override the standard defined by a true safety organization.

Its bad enough that FIA had no basis for their standard, but at least allegedly the folks at FIA are actually technically trained. Scca personnel can barely write English words into a rule book. I certainly don't want most of them trying to understand the pythagorean theorem.

[Steve Scheifler]

I actually agreed with you for the most part, just from a different angle, although I’m not aware of the facts behind your statements regarding the FIA rating. As to my point in the first part, it sounds as though NASA has adopted the dumbest possible approach IMO while SCCA has at least attempted a rational compromise.

However, referencing a standard and adopting it verbatim are two very different things. I have no problem with someone of reasonable intelligence drilling down into the details of a “standard”, recognizing that certain aspects are not directly applicable to a given situation, and making rational adjustments accordingly. That doesn’t necessarily require any particular level of technical knowledge or eloquence of prose depending on the underlying assumptions.

We both probably have too much of the wrong kind of time right now, and it shows. You in recovery mode, me in caregiver mode looking for any distraction between frequent little tasks and mini-crisis to absorb my attention. Hopefully people have learned to just tune me out.

[Tom Hampton]

Fair enough. I happen to live and breathe the aerspace world. I deal with the untrained getting out of their swim lane all to often, so I take a very dim view of it.

Yes you're probably right about our time. Although at the moment I'm being shouffered through downtown Dallas traffic. So, I'm not convalescing, although not that far removed from it. It's good to be upright.

[Steve Scheifler]

I love it, a new branch to keep this going! Speaking of swim lanes, part of the problem as I see it is sometimes exactly that, well defined lanes occupied by over-specialized and functionally myopic people with little interest in a broader view or input from those who have it and just MIGHT be able to contribute something useful, or even from their counterparts in adjacent lanes because they are SO certain those lanes are in no way entangled. In this case I’m thinking of recent and ongoing experience with members of the medical professions at a leading and renowned hospital/university/research institution.

[Tom Hampton]

Lol. Ok. The beat a metaphone to death...

I'm perfectly OK with a any engineer swimming in most any other technical lane. Most have a couple of different skills,and there is a lot of overlap, anyway.

I'm even ok with p&l types having good technical ideas, and vice versa. Swim lanes should always be more like guidelines. A division of labor more or less along skill lines... So that most everyone is doing what they are good at.

But, there are those who think they know what they do not. And that is where I draw a much bolder line. As Clint Eastwood has said, "a man's got to know his limitations."

The medical system? That's a whole other kettle of fish. Not knowing your situation, I can only offer one piece of advice: don't back down (not that I can imagine you would). I had 4 major arguments, raised voice type arguments, during my recent ordeal regarding my care.

Ive described it both as "adversarial" or "combative" medicine.

Given you comments about swim lanes that may not have anything of value for you.

[Steve Scheifler]

Thanks for playing along, that was excellent, but I suspect your doctors would see certain parallels.

In my case I’m the advocate not the patient so I feel obliged to exercise more restraint than I would on my own behalf, which I’m mostly able to do when not overly sleep deprived. But I make it up in persistence and charm.

[Tom Hampton]

In my own situation, there's probably only one who feels that way about me. The other three acknowledged there error (in some way) prior to my departure.

The dissenter? Well that was the ER doc who refused to acknowledge that there was anything wrong prior to my second 6 day hospital stay. I literally had to fight my way into admission, only to have a complication from surgery that took 6 days to get under control. She felt it was just "normal" post-operative pain. So, I don't care what THAT doctor thinks.

[Andy Mitchell]

Its bad enough that FIA had no basis for their standard, but at least allegedly the folks at FIA are actually technically trained. Scca personnel can barely write English words into a rule book. I certainly don't want most of them trying to understand the pythagorean theorem.

 

Oh, dude... I know you probably said that in fun, but really? There are other (somewhat competent) people out there involved in this sport of ours.

 

[Ron Alan]

Some fun reading gentleman! Having zero knowledge about manufacturing/expiration dates, my only thought, which I resist the urge to fall back on...but at times it overwhelms me...COMMON SENSE! And 2 years vs 5 because because of 3 specific letters just makes me scratch? 

[Tom Hampton]

Oh, dude... I know you probably said that in fun, but really? There are other (somewhat competent) people out there involved in this sport of ours.

Yes, that was obviously a bit of hyperbole. And, I didn't say there weren't. Nevertheless, that rulebook is an absolute mess.