Forums » Grassroots Motorsports » SFI De-certifies Impact Racing Products! 1 2 3

• 

  March 26, 2010 1:18 p.m. CGLockRacer Reader

  http://www.sfifoundation.com/

  March 26, 2010 - NOTICE OF DECERTIFICATION; NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST AND TERMINATION OF ALL CONTRACTS OF PARTICIPATION ISSUED TO IMPACT RACING SFI Foundation, Inc., has issued a Notice of Decertification; Notice of Cease and Desist, and a notice terminating all Contracts of Participation to Impact Racing. Effective April 27, 2010, all products manufactured and/or distributed by Impact Racing pursuant to SFI Specification Programs 3.2A, 3.3, 16.1, and 16.5 are decertified. Evidence obtained by SFI shows that over a period of years Impact Racing has engaged in the production and use of counterfeit SFI conformance labels and patches, and affixed them to Impact products for use in motorsports. Under the Contracts of Participation between SFI and Impact, SFI conformance labels and patches may only be obtained from SFI and no other source. Evidence shows that Impact had counterfeit SFI labels and patches made in Asia and then affixed them to Impact products it distributed to members of the racing community. To SFI’s knowledge, Impact never advised its customers that its products contained phony SFI labels and patches. Impact never advised SFI of its systematic and longstanding practice of counterfeiting and distributing SFI patches and labeling. Impact has been directed to cease and desist from this practice. SFI has directed Impact to immediately notify all affected customers to remove the counterfeit labeling and to offer the affected customers a full refund of the purchase price. SFI is requesting that all counterfeit conformance labels removed from Impact products be sent to SFI. SFI has elected not to decertify these products immediately in order to minimize the potential hardships to members of the racing community that have been brought about by Impact’s counterfeiting activities. SFI has also elected to terminate all Contracts of Participation with Impact Racing effective 90 days from March 24, 2010. Under the terms of the Contracts, either party may terminate the agreements without penalty upon 90 days notice. This means that Impact will no longer be able to participate in any SFI programs after this 90 day period. SFI has taken these actions in the best interests of the safety and integrity of the racing community. This is in keeping with SFI’s mission and purpose.

  Dangit! Glad I didn't custom paint the helmet I got last year like I had wanted to.

• 

  March 26, 2010 1:22 p.m. DukeOfUndersteer SuperDork

  WOW!!!

  We are flashin trannys... wait that came out wrong

• 

  March 26, 2010 1:22 p.m. Vigo Reader

  crazy!

• 

  March 26, 2010 1:25 p.m. Cone_Junky New Reader

  In reply to CGLockRacer:

  Ouch! Don't feel sorry for Impact, which will probably (should) go out of business, but all the people who bought thier producfts and got screwed.

• 

  March 26, 2010 1:27 p.m. CGLockRacer Reader

  I have an Impact helmet and raced with it last year. I'm going to try and get my $$ back.

  I did notice that the de-certified specs do not apply to helmets, but if what has been written is true, I will change brands.

  Phil - www.TeamMatherMotorsport.com

• 

  March 26, 2010 1:34 p.m. DukeOfUndersteer SuperDork

  Lawsuit City, here we come!

  We are flashin trannys... wait that came out wrong

• 

  March 26, 2010 1:44 p.m. oldsaw Dork

  A quick search reveals that safety-gear pioneer Bill Simpson started the company.

  He took a big hit when Nascar deflected criticism away itself and towards improperly installed Simpson safety equipment.

  This situation will likely be even worse for the man.

• 

  March 26, 2010 1:53 p.m. Keith SuperDork

  It'll probably shut down Impact Racing, at least to anything but the APC crowd.

  Note how the letter references counterfeit SFI labels, but not the products themselves. Maybe Impact decided to save some cash by having the labels printed near the factory instead of buying them from the SFI. Doesn't mean the products were counterfeit. Still not a good idea, though.

  Square left in 50 caution ocean!

• 

  March 26, 2010 2:03 p.m. ultraclyde Reader

  Yeah, I'm not sure I'd be afraid to race with one of the helmets on, but I'd sure be pushing for a refund. Bad business choice by someone in procurement at Impact for sure.

  "It's hard to be a visionary in a world full of blind people." - JM

• 

  March 26, 2010 2:12 p.m. John Brown SuperDork

  With as big of a megalomaniac Bill Simpson can be I will be surprise if the decision was not his entirely.

  Internationally known as The Brown Stig

• 

  March 26, 2010 2:45 p.m. miatame Reader

  I dunno, I think it would be pretty stupid of Impact to release a bunch of products that weren't ever tested by SFI with an SFI badge. I bet what Keith said is closer to the truth. They probably had their equiptment certified by bought the majority of their badges from ASIA and not directly through SFI. I see a lot less wrong with this, but it still isn't right.

  I would be concerned if I had an Impact helmet but I wouldn't immediately throw it away.

• 

  March 26, 2010 2:55 p.m. MadScientistMatt Dork

  "The same Bill Simpson you trust." Riiiiight....

  "Mad Scientist" Matt Cramer

• 

  March 26, 2010 3:01 p.m. kb58 Reader

  What's not clear is whether the affected products failed SFI testing, weren't tested at all, or if it's just the patches themselves that are the problem. I can see SFI getting pissed regardless, though the third scenario is waaay different than the first two...

  Kimini, and now a mid-engine Seven, www.midlana.com

• 

  March 26, 2010 3:50 p.m. Giant Purple Snorklewacker SuperDork

  Well, forging stuff is certainly a bad business move... but f**k the SFI too. New belts and nets every two years? 5yrs for a fuel cell... riiight. Talk about a scam on behalf of a coalition of retailers.

  walterj, playing with the 'preferred username' feature

• 

  March 26, 2010 4:02 p.m. irish44j HalfDork

  Sounds to me like the products meet the certification, but SFI is butthurt that they didn't get the $$$$$ that they probably charge for the label.

  Also a bit obnoxious that they will screw ALOT of people by decertifying ALL IR products, all because they didn't get their money for some labels, which have zero effect on how safe the helmet is. Now all those people have to buy new helmets with real SFI lables....which of course means more $$$ into SFI's pockets. How about just decertify the products that they know don't have the genuine labels?

  Wonder how much they charge equipment manufacturers per label. $1, $5, $10?

  If the helmets do indeed still meet SFI standards, it would be much less of a dick move to simply to make IR buy a bunch of GENUINE labels and ship them to all customers who have the "counterfeit" ones, thus saving them from having to shell out hundreds of dollars on new gear when the stuff they have is perfectly safe.

  All this hubub about stupid stickers stinks of greed (by both parties).

• 

  March 26, 2010 4:04 p.m. Jensenman SuperDork

  Wow. First the Earnhardt thing (which is why he lost the first company), now this.

  AFAIK SFI has to supply the labels, that's set in stone, like Snell helmet stickers. So if Simpson was allowing fake labels even though the products passed testing, he's at fault.

• 

  March 26, 2010 4:06 p.m. irish44j HalfDork

  Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Well, forging stuff is certainly a bad business move... but f**k the SFI too. New belts and nets every two years? 5yrs for a fuel cell... riiight. Talk about a scam on behalf of a coalition of retailers.

  I've always thought the 2 years for new belts is the biggest scam ever. How is it that Subaru or Toyota or GM can make seatbelts that are perfectly safe 10 or 15 years sitting out in the sun in the driveway, in the humidity, etc....but expensive harnesses supposedly disintegrate and become unsafe after 2 years of limited use, probably sitting inside a garage and not exposed to the elements.

  Last I checked, the Navy/Air Force do not replace pilots' harnesses in fighter jets every 2 years.....

• 

  March 26, 2010 4:26 p.m. oldsaw Dork

  Jensenman wrote: Wow. First the Earnhardt thing (which is why he lost the first company), now this. AFAIK SFI has to supply the labels, that's set in stone, like Snell helmet stickers. So if Simpson was allowing fake labels even though the products passed testing, he's at fault.

  Simpson was scapegoted by Nascar in the Earnhardt debacle. He has much more direct involvement in this fiasco.

  The SFI has not stated Impact products are unsafe, yet. If money changes hands and the company in re-instated as a "certified" supplier, we'll have the only answer necessay.

• 

  March 26, 2010 4:28 p.m. Keith SuperDork

  It's all about the material. You can feel the difference in material between an SFI harness, an FIA harness and a seatbelt. The graphs of strength loss in nylon (SFI-spec) webbing over two years are pretty easy to find, and it's a very dramatic drop.

  

  I have no idea how often military harnesses are changed, but you can bet they're not made out of the cheapest possible stuff and it would not surprise me one bit if they were on a very rigid replacement schedule.

  Square left in 50 caution ocean!

• 

  March 26, 2010 4:35 p.m. DILYSI Dave SuperDork

  Bill Simpson is a douchebag. SFI is a corrupt organization that masquerades as a product safety organization while really just collecting money from racers pockets. So to see one screw over the other is win-win IMO.

• 

  March 26, 2010 4:39 p.m. John Brown SuperDork

  irish44j wrote: I've always thought the 2 years for new belts is the biggest scam ever. How is it that Subaru or Toyota or GM can make seatbelts that are perfectly safe 10 or 15 years sitting out in the sun in the driveway, in the humidity, etc....but expensive harnesses supposedly disintegrate and become unsafe after 2 years of limited use, probably sitting inside a garage and not exposed to the elements.

  OEM belts are not certified for a 200mph accident. Racing belts are. Racing belt material might be safe used in an OE environment like OE material.

  Internationally known as The Brown Stig

• 

  March 26, 2010 4:41 p.m. irish44j HalfDork

  Keith wrote: It's all about the material. You can feel the difference in material between an SFI harness, an FIA harness and a seatbelt. The graphs of strength loss in nylon (SFI-spec) webbing over two years are pretty easy to find, and it's a very dramatic drop. I have no idea how often military harnesses are changed, but you can bet they're not made out of the cheapest possible stuff and it would not surprise me one bit if they were on a very rigid replacement schedule.

  then I guess the obvious question would be "why aren't harnesses made of what seatbelts are made out of?" so people could use them for more years.

  I'm going to find out the answer to the military harness question on Monday (I work with a bunch of fighter pilots and crew chiefs)....

  but I suspect the answer will be "yes, a consistent schedule" but that's because whatever contractor who makes them knows that the military will pay up, so they probably "say" something just like SFI does about harnesses.

  I'd love to know more about that chart you posted. Is this strength loss based on any conditions? - humidity? - sitting out in direct sunlight for 2 years? - everyday use?

  etc....

  and where that chart is from....if SFI, it would be pretty self-serving.

• 

  March 26, 2010 4:58 p.m. dean1484 Dork

  Yikes either way it does not look good for Impact. To bad as Bill has been a stand up guy for several people I know. I really wonder if this was bill or some one inside that either just did not know. SFI may not have shipped the labels for some reasons and someone down the manufacturing chain may have just ordered hem from some place thinking that is how it was done.

  I am not trying to defend Bill Simpson here I don't know him but I have used his products for many years and spoken to him directly in the past when I needed something.

  Respectfully, Dean

• 

  March 26, 2010 5:31 p.m. keethrax Reader

  irish44j wrote: but I suspect the answer will be "yes, a consistent schedule" but that's because whatever contractor who makes them knows that the military will pay up, so they probably "say" something just like SFI does about harnesses.

  So if the answer is rarely it proves your point because they don't change them often. And if the answer is often instead, it still proves your point because it's clearly a scam.

  With your mind so clearly already made up, why bother even asking?

  '08 Mazdaspeed3, '00 PontiacGrand Prix GT

• 

  March 26, 2010 5:37 p.m. JThw8 SuperDork

  In 12 years as an Air Force crew chief I cannot recall ever replacing a harness. Granted I worked on cargo jets and its entirely possible I just missed the operation, bit its probably not as strict as you think.

  OTTER: "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part." BLUTO: "We're just the guys to do it."

1 2 3  

You'll need to log in to post.