Sfi press release (1 Viewer)

[Dragracer]

The latest press releasse from SFI, dated yesterday 4/21, goes over all the Impact products that are decertified and it's a whole lot of items.

One of the sentences in the SFI release states: "Impact's participation in the SFI specification programs ends June 22,2010".
That sounds like after 6/22 Impact is not going to have anything to do with SFI after that date, and will not be able to SFI certify any items after that date. Doesn't that kind of put Impact out of business?

Can someone out there give me a clarification on this. It looks like Bill Simpson certainly stepped into some deep s$#&$ and has ruined a stellar reputation in motorsports.
Certainly glad we don't have any Impact items.

 

[Dragracer]

Well I just found the answer to my question. I called SFI and my supposition was totally correct.

As of 6/22/2010 Impact Racing will not be part of the SFI Foundation in any way, shape, or form. They will not be allowed to legally market any item that requires a SFI certification as they will no longer be a participant in SFI.

 

[Rollout96]

So not only have they screwed the customers who bought stuff a few years ago but also ALL recent customers as I am sure they will go out of business and therefore not stand behind ANY of their products!!

 

[Too many to list here]

Impact! Racing Products-Impacts Statement

 

[Randy]

Impact! Racing Products-Impacts Statement

Looks like a bunch of BS and spin to me. The suits failed testing.

Didn't Tony get burned when he blew up at the 2008 Winternat's? They are lucky no one was killed wearing their junk.

.

 

[Dragracer]

Randy, you are right, I hoped you would comment. I thought the SFI news release was very specific in what Impact equipment can be used and what can't but also said that as of June Impact is no longer a SFI company and cannot put a SFI certification on anything they manufacturer. I checked with SFI and that's what they told me. So if I knew today that as of June Impact was not able to furnish any items that require SFI certification why in the world would I go out today and by their products.
If I had any, we have Simpson & Crow, I would immediately trash them and do whatever I had to do to get a replacement from one of the genuine companies. I wouldn't trust even the 2009-10 items.
The Simpson statement sounds like they plan on going rounds with SFI in court. Best of luck. Even if Impact was someway able to win in court it could very well take years and nobody in their right mind is going to buy Impact equipment. Why would you, you can't use it and also any trust you had in Bill Simpson has blown away in the wind.
With Impact going to court, if thats what they do, and in the mean time can't supply a SFI product how are they going to keep their doors open -NOT.
Goodby Impact and this time Bill Simpson is not going to be able to open up another company because his reputation has already been totally trashed.

 

[Curt]

Looks like a bunch of BS and spin to me. The suits failed testing.

Didn't Tony get burned when he blew up at the 2008 Winternat's? They are lucky no one was killed wearing their junk.

.

Randy,
You have been at the forefront of the issue. I have tried to sit back and see what all the facts showed. Well as far as im concerened its a done deal. My son wears Impact gear. NOT ANY MORE! even if they were to replace with the new 2010 gear there is now way I would trust it. I help a great friend get started in T/D 1.5 years ago. he has over $10,000 in custom gear. All just as far as im concerned. We ordered a new Sparco in Tucson.

I wouldnt even were the helmit anymore. Whos to say that the Snell stickers are not fake, and just havent been caught??? Shame on Bill for risking peoples life for the all mighty dollar. thanks again buddy for taking a lead on this problem.

 

[sdwarf36]

Some of the logic around here is beyond me-Basiclly the concenus seems to be "If a person can cheat on their income taxes-then they could be a murderer." Right? If you have the nerve to NOT give away x$ on everything you sell-then you MUST be able to sell known inferior unsafe products. (I'm leaving the firesuit issue out for my examples here) SFI even said it was never a question of the quality or safety of the de-certified products-just they had fake (we didn't get our cut) tags on them.

It seems not everyone is ready to chuck Impact under the bus right yet. This is from a press release sent to SCCA members concerning Impacts de-cert. after June 10th.

"SCCA is delaying enforcement of the decertification pending further evaluation. More information will be shared as it becomes available.
In the interim each driver should evaluate their personal use of the affected equipment. "

 

[Randy]

Some of the logic around here is beyond me-Basiclly the concenus seems to be "If a person can cheat on their income taxes-then they could be a murderer." Right? If you have the nerve to NOT give away x$ on everything you sell-then you MUST be able to sell known inferior unsafe products. (I'm leaving the firesuit issue out for my examples here) SFI even said it was never a question of the quality or safety of the de-certified products-just they had fake (we didn't get our cut) tags on them.

It seems not everyone is ready to chuck Impact under the bus right yet. This is from a press release sent to SCCA members concerning Impacts de-cert. after June 10th.

"SCCA is delaying enforcement of the decertification pending further evaluation. More information will be shared as it becomes available.
In the interim each driver should evaluate their personal use of the affected equipment. "

Sherman:

Welcome to the conversation. Go through the archives and read the posts about brand new firesuits failing SFI testing miserably (ours and Richard Putz were the first that started this whole thing) and the bogus boots that failed, etc. Your comment "SFI even said it was never a question of the quality or safety of the de-certified products-just they had fake (we didn't get our cut) tags on them" tells me you haven't been paying attention or are new to the conversation which has been going on for quite a while.

Put one of your loved ones (son, daughter, wife) in one of the bogus suits and light the fuse in a funny car and get back to us on your "If a person can cheat on their income taxes-then they could be a murderer" comment.

Souinds like you have a lot of catching up to do.

RG

 

[sdwarf36]

Randy-no-I'm not new to it-and I'm fully aware of your feelings + many posts on the subject-thats why i put in (I'm leaving the firesuit issue out for my examples here)"

This was toward the posts that state things like (paraphrasing) "the Snell tags could be fake" "how do we know the belts are good?' posts.
Not everyone on this site has $2k firesuits-I bet this whole deal affects far more of us commoners that buy things off the rack- belts -shoes-helmets-etc.
I DO have a dog in the fight-not as big as yours- I'm the president of a hillclimb club that starts our season soon-many of our drivers have Impact gear-and I have a set of belts i bought in '08. I have to make a decision for myself-as well as what is best for our club. What if June 11 they kiss + make up after I told everyone to replace their equipment? What if I do have them reweb my belts-and the bad PR does kill the company? I'm torn on this-I like the stuff from them I have-but if that little tag is the only thing that keeps me from using it-I just have to suck it up and change brands.

 

[Randy]

SFI responded yesterday to the "Spin":

"SFI PRESS RELEASE - Response to the Impact Racing Press Release of April 22, 2010

April 22, 2010 - Yesterday, SFI advised the racing community that Impact Racing suits bearing 3.2A/5 certifications “made prior to 2009 have been constructed with non-compliant materials that, in SFI’s judgment, pose a safety risk to users of those suits.” Impact responded by attacking SFI certification programs (although Impact and the other major equipment manufacturers have agreed to and participated in the development of these well-established programs); by claiming it could not get a fair hearing of the decertification appeal (although Impact asked for and received an expedited appeal procedure); and by claiming that “SFI’s actions have caused racers unnecessarily to question their safety.” It is this last point that requires a very specific response.

Scientific testing just conducted on 2008 Impact 3.2A/5 suits has determined that the thread melts away in a fire. This causes the fabric to come apart since there is no longer thread to hold the suit together. SFI believes this poses a significant safety risk to the racer involved in a fire. Rather than being constructed with Nomex (heat resistant) thread, the suits were constructed with some sort of unknown non-compliant thread that melts during heat testing. This thread failure is contrary to the SFI specifications that Impact agreed to follow.

The reason that this failure was not discovered sooner is that Impact provided SFI with Nomex thread samples in order to get their products tested and certified initially. Manufacturers are only supposed to provide samples of the actual materials to be used in their products. It appears that Impact failed to comply with this procedure regarding thread. Finally, one suit tested failed to have the proper thermal protective properties in the material itself. Again, such a failure poses a significant safety risk. This safety failure by Impact is consistent with a pattern of non-compliance:

1. Last year, SFI discovered that Impact SFI 3.2A/15 and SFI 3.2A/20 rated fire suits produced in 2007 and 2008 were also made with thread that melted during testing. In addition, these suits were often poorly constructed, without sufficient protective layers of Nomex material. SFI ordered the immediate decertification and recall of these potentially dangerous products.

2. Last year, SFI discovered that Impact SFI 3.3/15 and SFI 3.3/20 boots produced in 2008 were defective. Their materials failed heat resistant testing. SFI ordered the immediate decertification and recall of these potentially dangerous products.

3. Hans Performance Products discovered last year that Impact deliberately manufactured and sold counterfeit Hans helmet clips and attached them into the helmets of unsuspecting customers. These foreign made knock-offs were inscribed with the “SFI 38.1” inscription. Impact has never participated in this program. These counterfeiting activities were occurring at the same time that Impact was manufacturing counterfeit SFI conformance labels and patches. Hans filed suit against Impact in federal court last year in Atlanta. SFI intervened and joined in the suit against Impact. That suit is pending.

4. In 2004, SFI discovered that Impact gloves bearing SFI 3.3/20 specifications were made of material that was too light and failed heat resistance testing. SFI ordered their decertification and recall.

Impact’s press release claims that there “have been no burns or other injuries reported to Impact by any racer wearing Impact Race Products since its inception.” If this is true, the avoidance of injuries is due in large part to the policing of Impact products by SFI.

SFI was heartened when Impact finally admitted its own fault for previously making non-compliant gloves, boots, suits and helmet clips and acted to address those problems. SFI holds out the hope of a similar outcome regarding its pre-2009 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1 and 16.5 products, and that it will act in the best interests of the racing community without further prodding by SFI. However, admission of their fault will not change the fact that these products remain decertified and that Impact’s participation in all SFI programs will end June 22, 2010."

 

[The Fish]

sfi responded yesterday to the "spin":

"sfi press release - response to the impact racing press release of april 22, 2010

scientific testing just conducted on 2008 impact 3.2a/5 suits has determined that the thread melts away in a fire. This causes the fabric to come apart since there is no longer thread to hold the suit together. Sfi believes this poses a significant safety risk to the racer involved in a fire. Rather than being constructed with nomex (heat resistant) thread, the suits were constructed with some sort of unknown non-compliant thread that melts during heat testing. This thread failure is contrary to the sfi specifications that impact agreed to follow.

The reason that this failure was not discovered sooner is that impact provided sfi with nomex thread samples in order to get their products tested and certified initially. Manufacturers are only supposed to provide samples of the actual materials to be used in their products. It appears that impact failed to comply with this procedure regarding thread. Finally, one suit tested failed to have the proper thermal protective properties in the material itself. Again, such a failure poses a significant safety risk. This safety failure by impact is consistent with a pattern of non-compliance:

1. Last year, sfi discovered that impact sfi 3.2a/15 and sfi 3.2a/20 rated fire suits produced in 2007 and 2008 were also made with thread that melted during testing. In addition, these suits were often poorly constructed, without sufficient protective layers of nomex material. Sfi ordered the immediate decertification and recall of these potentially dangerous products.

2. Last year, sfi discovered that impact sfi 3.3/15 and sfi 3.3/20 boots produced in 2008 were defective. Their materials failed heat resistant testing. Sfi ordered the immediate decertification and recall of these potentially dangerous products.

3. Hans performance products discovered last year that impact deliberately manufactured and sold counterfeit hans helmet clips and attached them into the helmets of unsuspecting customers. These foreign made knock-offs were inscribed with the “sfi 38.1” inscription. Impact has never participated in this program. These counterfeiting activities were occurring at the same time that impact was manufacturing counterfeit sfi conformance labels and patches. Hans filed suit against impact in federal court last year in atlanta. Sfi intervened and joined in the suit against impact. That suit is pending.

4. In 2004, sfi discovered that impact gloves bearing sfi 3.3/20 specifications were made of material that was too light and failed heat resistance testing. Sfi ordered their decertification and recall.

Impact’s press release claims that there “have been no burns or other injuries reported to impact by any racer wearing impact race products since its inception.” if this is true, the avoidance of injuries is due in large part to the policing of impact products by sfi.

Sfi was heartened when impact finally admitted its own fault for previously making non-compliant gloves, boots, suits and helmet clips and acted to address those problems. Sfi holds out the hope of a similar outcome regarding its pre-2009 3.2a, 3.3, 16.1 and 16.5 products, and that it will act in the best interests of the racing community without further prodding by sfi. However, admission of their fault will not change the fact that these products remain decertified and that impact’s participation in all sfi programs will end june 22, 2010."

enough said!!!!!!

 

[Jenn]

It seems not everyone is ready to chuck Impact under the bus right yet. This is from a press release sent to SCCA members concerning Impacts de-cert. after June 10th.

"SCCA is delaying enforcement of the decertification pending further evaluation. More information will be shared as it becomes available.
In the interim each driver should evaluate their personal use of the affected equipment. "

I'm not in the SCCA, but I'm not ready to chuck my drivers into the burn unit on the off chance that their suits would be defective, of poor quality.

This being said, I only have three IMPACT items. Two head Socks, one set of shoes. I was about to purchase an Impact fire suit for my brother's Top Dragster car when I believe it was Mr. Richard Puts who alerted the racing forums to the debacle in which Impact was facing.

Let me ask you this, WHY if YOU were creating a quality product, with quality materials, with quality service would you counterfeit a seal the essentially means that you've created a quality product?

If I was in the business of creating safety devices meant to save lives, and I earned the seal of approval, I'd fork over the extra $$ to prove that my quality was genuine. The only reason I would see a reason to contract a forgery is if I wasn't proud of my product.

 

[Curt]

I'm not in the SCCA, but I'm not ready to chuck my drivers into the burn unit on the off chance that their suits would be defective, of poor quality.

This being said, I only have three IMPACT items. Two head Socks, one set of shoes. I was about to purchase an Impact fire suit for my brother's Top Dragster car when I believe it was Mr. Richard Puts who alerted the racing forums to the debacle in which Impact was facing.

Let me ask you this, WHY if YOU were creating a quality product, with quality materials, with quality service would you counterfeit a seal the essentially means that you've created a quality product?

If I was in the business of creating safety devices meant to save lives, and I earned the seal of approval, I'd fork over the extra $$ to prove that my quality was genuine. The only reason I would see a reason to contract a forgery is if I wasn't proud of my product.

Well I think the reason that you would use fake tags because of greed. I bigger problem is the safety. However even if their suits were made to standard, useing fake tags, come on! You have to know that SFI is gonna put a stop to that. And when they did it was the customers who get screwed.
If I buy your product in good faith. And You as the seller dont like SFI's rules. Then dont misrepresent what you sell me. That between SFI and Impact.

 

[hotrod]

This isn't the first incident where the threads failed. When Ron Dudley had his bad fire in the St. Moritz funny car, the threads melted away on his gloves. You could see that the burns on his hands actually looked like threads. I was talking about this very incident with Jim Deist a couple of years ago and he stated that he knew of the other manufacturers cheating on the threading to save money even way back in the 80's. Jim never did. He was adamant that his stuff be made correctly to provide total protection. I always bought Jim's stuff because I knew that I would be safe.
I sure miss Jim.

 

[Jenn]

Well I think the reason that you would use fake tags because of greed. I bigger problem is the safety. However even if their suits were made to standard, useing fake tags, come on! You have to know that SFI is gonna put a stop to that. And when they did it was the customers who get screwed.
If I buy your product in good faith. And You as the seller dont like SFI's rules. Then dont misrepresent what you sell me. That between SFI and Impact.

Exactly, greed because you are skimping on the quality materials every where else.

On the boxes is says No warranty or gaurantee expressed or implied. That'd be all fine and good if you product actually did what it was supposed to. They aren't fire proof suits, they are fire retardant suits and when the threads burn away and expose the flesh, they aren't retarding like they should.

 

[twok4hd]

It's a shame that a person with Simpson's reputation would do what has been proven here. I wore nothing but his stuff years ago and always felt safe wearing it. It's a shame that it has come to this. I still have my last Simpson helmet as a keep sake, but I might as well throw it away now.

 

[Sean D, shondoo]

It's a shame that a person with Simpson's reputation would do what has been proven here.

That's pretty much where I'm at with it, Glenn. I wonder how quick he would be to wear one of these suspect suits and do what he did while sitting on the wall at the Brickyard when he first started years ago?

Bottom line, if he's actually guilty of what's he's been accused of (and it appears that he is), I think he should be banned from producing products for life. It would be one thing if he was producing compliant products and was trying to prove a point to SFI, but he wasn't. The suits were junk and put the racers that put their faith in his products at serious risk. He should be done.

Sean D

 

[sdwarf36]

THIS IS NOT MEANT TO DEFEND THE COMPANY-I'm just posting to get both press releases in the same place. (another site I go to just posts the Impact press releases-here just the SFI's )

IMPACT PRESS RELEASE - APRIL 23rd 2010



Contrary to the assertions of SFI, there is no safety risk to users of Impact Racing suits bearing SFI 3.2A/5 certification tags. The issue that has been created by SFI involves thread used in Impact’s fire suits. The error in the assessment of SFI is revealed by its assertion that thread used by Impact Racing “melts away in a fire”. According to the analysis presented by SFI “this causes the fabric to come apart since there is no longer thread to hold the suit together”. This conclusion demonstrates the lack of understanding on the part of SFI as to what causes a fire suit to work and what causes a fire suit to be safe.

The thread about which SFI complains is not intended to “hold the suit together”. The fabric does not “come apart” in a fire. In a fire, the layers of fabric must be allowed to expand because it is expansion that creates the layer of air that insulates a racer from fire. Impact Racing understands the necessity of this process in fire suit construction. SFI does not.

SFI has been aware of the thread used by Impact Racing since January 14, 2009. Rather than acknowledge that SFI’s specification diminishes fire suit safety and changing the specification to enhance fire suit safety, SFI has, without foundation, accused Impact Racing of providing samples of a certain type to get SFI certification and then changing the lay-up for manufacturing. Impact Racing manufactures fire suits knowing that lives are at stake. Impact Racing fire suits are safe independent of SFI standards.

SFI has taken credit for the avoidance of burns or other injuries to users of Impact Racing products. According to SFI the absence of burns or other injuries to due “to the policing of Impact products by SFI”. The absence of burns or other injuries to users of Impact Racing products is a result of attention to design and commitment to safety throughout the Impact Racing product line. What SFI has deemed to be a “pattern of non-compliance” by Impact Racing is a dispute over standards that SFI refuses to change even under circumstances when change is in the best interest of the user of the product.

Impact Racing is engaged in discussions with SFI about its products, SFI standards, and SFI testing procedures. Impact Racing is committed to resolving these issues with SFI if it can be done without compromising the benchmarks Impact Racing has established to assure product safety.

 

[Gary H]

You'd think Impact would get an independant lab to test their stuff. But what if it met or exceded SFI's requirements?