Landracing Forum Home

Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: QikNip on February 07, 2018, 04:05:53 PM



Title: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: QikNip on February 07, 2018, 04:05:53 PM
After reading the 2018 arm restraint rule I concluded my Simpson restraints are not compliant. I called Simpson and they were unaware of the new rule, but after I explained it they suggested their part number #AR.AUD. This unit uses a slide bar, so would assume it will suffice, but since they didn't know of the SCTA rule, it's a risk. Regrettably I can't attach a photo since Photobucket went skizo on their pricing. I can however email one to anyone who might like to offer an opinion.
Rick


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Beef Stew on February 08, 2018, 12:31:16 AM
After reading the 2018 arm restraint rule I concluded my Simpson restraints are not compliant. I called Simpson and they were unaware of the new rule, but after I explained it they suggested their part number #AR.AUD. This unit uses a slide bar, so would assume it will suffice, but since they didn't know of the SCTA rule, it's a risk. Regrettably I can't attach a photo since Photobucket went skizo on their pricing. I can however email one to anyone who might like to offer an opinion.
Rick

You DO NOT need PhotoBucket to post photos! The main problem is that the LandRacing code is so old the it can't deal directly with https://  URLs.

Here's a photos from Simpson's site https://simpsonraceproducts.com/harnesses/arm-restraints/#gallery Copy this URL into your browser, then click. You will then see the photo. If you can find the #AR.AUD. photo on Simpson's site you can than post the https:// URL here so that we can see the photo.

Photos can be anywhere on the web, a manufacturers site, iCloud, Amazon's Photo Cloud, a Racing History site—anyplace that has a URL for the photo.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: CTRon on February 08, 2018, 08:51:52 AM
I keep reading the rule and they dont want the d rings but they want the bar type adjusters like the seat belts would have??  So those restraints in those pics would be no good?  I have sown in restraints on my jacket that have the d rings so im guessing mine are no good too?? Very confusing!
Ive been looking all morning and cant seem to find any that dont have d rings


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: deep in debt motorsports on February 08, 2018, 09:54:42 AM
I feel we need pics of what is legal and what is not legal please......


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: CTRon on February 08, 2018, 11:32:06 AM
Seems like they changed a rule and the parts to fix it dont exist :?


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Dynoroom on February 08, 2018, 11:44:43 AM
The SCTA is looking for a 3 bar adjuster as shown here.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: QikNip on February 09, 2018, 11:05:16 AM
The SCTA is looking for a 3 bar adjuster as shown here.

Thanks for posting the pictures! Any idea what the Deist part number is? In looking on line, I'm not having any luck finding that picture anywhere.
Rick


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: thundersalt on February 09, 2018, 01:55:30 PM
Big Ben at DJ knows what we need


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: QikNip on February 09, 2018, 02:24:40 PM
Big Ben at DJ knows what we need

At the risk of exposing my ignorance, who it Big Ben and who is DJ?  :?
Rick


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: thundersalt on February 09, 2018, 02:40:00 PM
DJ Safety and DEIST are the same company now http://djsafety.com/


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: kiwi belly tank on February 09, 2018, 11:59:24 PM
Yes, my new Deist 7point harness looks like some white guy made it. Jim would roll over in his grave if he saw it.
  Sid.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Buamotorsport on February 11, 2018, 01:52:15 AM
Interesting. I was with Simpson today. Their ‘D’ rings are one piece and can cert that. Trouble is they cannot make my new fire suit until the rule is clarified.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: QikNip on February 11, 2018, 11:04:06 AM
Interesting. I was with Simpson today. Their ‘D’ rings are one piece and can cert that. Trouble is they cannot make my new fire suit until the rule is clarified.

In case you don't have it handy, here's the rule revision:

4.   Section 3.D.3 Arm/Leg Restraints: Page: 42
Add what is in bold after the first sentence in the first paragraph; SFI specification 3.3 arm restrains with a manufacture date of 2006 or later are required in all vehicles. IN ADDITION:
ALL ARM RESTRAINT HARWARE MUST BE OF A SINGLE PIECE MANUFACTURE. I.E. NO TWO PIECE OR WELDED “D” RING STYLE ADJUSTERS. ADJUSTABLE TETHERS SHOULD USE A 3-BAR SYSTEM SIMILAR TO THAT USED IN LAP BELT ADJUSTERS. NON-SOWN IN RESTRAINTS SHALL HAVE A TIGHT FIT AROUND THE NARROWEST PART OF THE ARM. ALL ARM RESTRAINTS MUST BE DEMONSTRATED TO BE EFFECTIVE.
 
Based on my read, unless a D ring is stamped, or cut from a solid piece of metal, it doesn't meet the rule. Is that what Simpson will certify?
I'd love it if that's the case ... and that the SCTA will accept that assertion. :cheers:
Rick




Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Stainless1 on February 11, 2018, 11:56:20 AM
MUST BE OF A SINGLE PIECE MANUFACTURE. I.E. NO TWO PIECE OR WELDED “D” RING STYLE ADJUSTERS

Read this again.... no 2 piece adjusters..... don't read anything into it... it will require single piece adjusters.... the adjusters are the length from lap belt connection adjusters


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: jacksoni on February 11, 2018, 12:00:21 PM
I think all "D" ring adjusters are two pieces- like a helmet strap-. Doesn't matter if the "D" ring is stamped or welded ring, there are still two of them to make it work. The adjuster needs to be one piece of metal, as shown above by Dynoroom.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: deep in debt motorsports on February 12, 2018, 04:33:52 PM
My G-Force arm restraints have the adjusters like shown,single piece.I just clip one end to Simpson suit and other end to belts.I don’t use the part that goes around arm so I think I am still legal?Part #471-4087 adubk at jegs


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: CTRon on February 12, 2018, 09:17:27 PM
My G-Force arm restraints have the adjusters like shown,single piece.I just clip one end to Simpson suit and other end to belts.I don’t use the part that goes around arm so I think I am still legal?Part #471-4087 adubk at jegs

Interesting.. have you run bville before with that setup? I have sown in rings in my jacket too an if they will allow this ill get the same ones


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Stan Back on February 12, 2018, 09:31:52 PM
I'm thinking that clipping on to the "narrowest" part (wrist?) of a floppy suit ain't gonna cut it.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: deep in debt motorsports on February 12, 2018, 10:41:38 PM
Yep,ran this last year,it clearly states adjusters!!!These are the style they are wanting and doesn’t say anything about sewn in being illegal,says,if it is NON-sewn in then must fit tight at smallest part of arm so that means if sewn in must be all good!! I feel rule change is for adjuster only????


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: CTRon on February 13, 2018, 10:30:58 AM
I'm thinking that clipping on to the "narrowest" part (wrist?) of a floppy suit ain't gonna cut it.

The rings are sown into the jacket.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Buamotorsport on February 13, 2018, 03:14:39 PM
Having spent time with Allan from Simpson at Pomona this past weekend there is without doubt confusion as to what is acceptable and what isn’t. I know that Simpson are trying to clarify the rule and what is or what isn’t acceptable.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Frankie7799 on February 13, 2018, 04:33:04 PM
I just bought brand new Simpson arm restraints late last year as my previous ones were out of date. Guess Ill have to look at them when I get home and figure out if they are legal or not


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Tman on February 13, 2018, 05:04:08 PM
I just bought brand new Simpson arm restraints late last year as my previous ones were out of date. Guess Ill have to look at them when I get home and figure out if they are legal or not

We are looking into it as well


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: QikNip on February 15, 2018, 02:50:06 PM
I got tired of trying to figure it out, so I ordered a set yesterday from Deist. Not worth $40 to waste any more time! :dhorse: :-D
Rick


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: thundersalt on February 15, 2018, 04:34:56 PM
Just Recieved


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Rex Schimmer on February 16, 2018, 03:24:43 PM
Pegasus Racing actually has the specified adjustment plate available for 1.75 to 2 inch straps. Duke and I are going to look at his Simpson arm restraints and see if they could be converted to this type of adjuster, would that void any type of warrentee or the SCTA new rule? We also considered having some water jet cut from some stainless plate to the exact strap width. Going with the DJ stuff is probably the best way.

I know that the SCTA does not make these type of changes without a good reason, have they seen failures of arm restraints with the welded "D" ring configuration?

Rex


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Dynoroom on February 16, 2018, 04:00:14 PM
I know that the SCTA does not make these type of changes without a good reason, have they seen failures of arm restraints with the welded "D" ring configuration?

Rex

Yes, more than 1


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Ron Gibson on February 16, 2018, 04:29:24 PM
I think we need way more clarification of what is actually required for hardware and where. My Pyrotect restraints have a large welded D- ring on the end of the strap that the seat belt latch goes through,  a pair of small D rings to tighten the arm bands, and a one piece "ADJUSTER" on the restraint strap between the arm and the belt. I have no idea if this is legal for SCTA.

Ron


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Stainless1 on February 16, 2018, 10:11:08 PM
I know that the SCTA does not make these type of changes without a good reason, have they seen failures of arm restraints with the welded "D" ring configuration?

Rex

Yes, more than 1

Lee Kennedy kept ours after the incident... although they did not fail, he sent them to DJ for inspection... He also mentioned they had "several d ring failures" in arm restraints and was working on a rule change.... Left my arm restraints with DJ to be put in compliance with the new rules...  Must be about time to call them again and see if they are ready


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: revolutionary on February 27, 2018, 09:32:48 AM
Guess my new -20 suit with sewn in D-rings is not legal now. Rad


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: deep in debt motorsports on February 27, 2018, 10:10:29 AM
Guess my new -20 suit with sewn in D-rings is not legal now. Rad
from the way i understand the rule change is,only the adjusters are the change,not how it attaches to the arm or belts.If I am wrong I would love to have this confirmed!


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: jacksoni on February 27, 2018, 11:48:32 AM
I think we need way more clarification of what is actually required for hardware and where. My Pyrotect restraints have a large welded D- ring on the end of the strap that the seat belt latch goes through,  a pair of small D rings to tighten the arm bands, and a one piece "ADJUSTER" on the restraint strap between the arm and the belt. I have no idea if this is legal for SCTA.

Ron
4. Section 3.D.3 Arm/Leg Restraints: Page: 42 Add what is in bold after the first sentence in the first paragraph; SFI specification 3.3 arm restrains with a manufacture date of 2006 or later are required in all vehicles. IN ADDITION: ALL ARM RESTRAINT HARWARE MUST BE OF A SINGLE PIECE MANUFACTURE. I.E. NO TWO PIECE OR WELDED “D” RING STYLE ADJUSTERS. ADJUSTABLE TETHERS SHOULD USE A 3-BAR SYSTEM SIMILAR TO THAT USED IN LAP BELT ADJUSTERS. NON-SOWN IN RESTRAINTS SHALL HAVE A TIGHT FIT AROUND THE NARROWEST PART OF THE ARM. ALL ARM RESTRAINTS MUST BE DEMONSTRATED TO BE EFFECTIVE.
To me, this means any welded ring is likely to be non allowed even if it is not part of the adjuster. This needs clarification from/by the inspectors. Photos of the restraints posted earlier show a proper 3 bar adjuster but what looks like a D ring or similar as part of the attachment with velcro that goes around the arm. Even though the above quote says "adjusters" it may be questioned.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: deep in debt motorsports on February 27, 2018, 12:42:58 PM
I think we need way more clarification of what is actually required for hardware and where. My Pyrotect restraints have a large welded D- ring on the end of the strap that the seat belt latch goes through,  a pair of small D rings to tighten the arm bands, and a one piece "ADJUSTER" on the restraint strap between the arm and the belt. I have no idea if this is legal for SCTA.

Ron
4. Section 3.D.3 Arm/Leg Restraints: Page: 42 Add what is in bold after the first sentence in the first paragraph; SFI specification 3.3 arm restrains with a manufacture date of 2006 or later are required in all vehicles. IN ADDITION: ALL ARM RESTRAINT HARWARE MUST BE OF A SINGLE PIECE MANUFACTURE. I.E. NO TWO PIECE OR WELDED “D” RING STYLE ADJUSTERS. ADJUSTABLE TETHERS SHOULD USE A 3-BAR SYSTEM SIMILAR TO THAT USED IN LAP BELT ADJUSTERS. NON-SOWN IN RESTRAINTS SHALL HAVE A TIGHT FIT AROUND THE NARROWEST PART OF THE ARM. ALL ARM RESTRAINTS MUST BE DEMONSTRATED TO BE EFFECTIVE.
To me, this means any welded ring is likely to be non allowed even if it is not part of the adjuster. This needs clarification from/by the inspectors. Photos of the restraints posted earlier show a proper 3 bar adjuster but what looks like a D ring or similar as part of the attachment with velcro that goes around the arm. Even though the above quote says "adjusters" it may be questioned.

And 3 bar system SIMILAR to that used in lap belt.Mine now have a 3 bar system but is it similar enough?


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: wickedwagens on March 02, 2018, 10:43:25 AM
Just Recieved

I bought these same ones last year.  I'm curious as they are 3 bar style, but also two pieces.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: jacksoni on March 02, 2018, 11:48:54 AM
The rule, quoted above, clearly says "single piece manufacture". Two piece 3 bar are likely to be problematic.   :cry: JMO


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Stainless1 on March 02, 2018, 12:08:05 PM
Just talked to DJ, they inspected our arm restraints and HNR after the crash, they said ours will come back in compliance with the new rules. 
The way I see the new rule is no more D-ring adjusters...


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: jacksoni on March 03, 2018, 07:49:25 AM
Pegasus Racing actually has the specified adjustment plate available for 1.75 to 2 inch straps. Duke and I are going to look at his Simpson arm restraints and see if they could be converted to this type of adjuster, would that void any type of warrentee or the SCTA new rule? We also considered having some water jet cut from some stainless plate to the exact strap width. Going with the DJ stuff is probably the best way.

I know that the SCTA does not make these type of changes without a good reason, have they seen failures of arm restraints with the welded "D" ring configuration?

Rex
Rex- depending on your restraint strap width, there are a lot of adjusters out there that probably would work, including of course the Pegasus ones. My straps are 1" wide and a bit less than 1/8" thick, doubled about .20". I just got a couple of these from West Marine- other sources available for sure. Stainless, thicker than the hardware that attaches the strap to my seat belt- made by Pensafe that makes climbing gear and other safety stuff- and the fit is perfect for my straps. West marine is not the cheapest place in town but $3.29 retail I suspect is a lot less than you can get them water jet cut for. :wink: 
https://www.westmarine.com/buy/west-marine--1-stainless-steel-three-bar-adjustment-slide--P002_068_005_508?pCode=534297&cm_sp=Onsite-Recs-_-DY-_-Search-Results-Test


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Stan Back on March 03, 2018, 01:05:32 PM
Is the SFI tag still good for a modification?


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: jacksoni on March 03, 2018, 04:54:38 PM
Is the SFI tag still good for a modification?
Now I am sure that was a very tongue in cheek question.  :evil: :cheers:
Am sorta thinking that you send your restraints to mfg and they take out the D rings, install a 3 bar and send them back, the same applies. Not tested by SFI ( I assume they test these things, not just say Acme Safety made them so they pass, here is your tag.) Another can of worms.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: revolutionary on March 09, 2018, 05:48:54 PM
So I have the double d-ring arm restraints sewn into my suit. If I am correct, I cannot cut these off it because it will be a modification of the suit rendering the SFI null. SO I will need to buy slip on arm restraints and just leave the sew ins dangling around as an extra hazard.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Happy Pappy on March 09, 2018, 06:31:43 PM
 Last year I cut off my old sewn in out dated restraints, never had a problem. Inspectors only wanted to see the tag on my suit and the slip on restraints. Of course your results may be different?

Chris


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Joe Timney on March 11, 2018, 11:23:57 AM
What does SFI say about this new ruling???


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: jacksoni on March 11, 2018, 11:34:40 AM
Joe- have you had any feedback from Stroud or other suit/harness mfg's?


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: NathanStewart on March 12, 2018, 05:03:56 PM
Just Recieved

Hey Brian, those brand new DJ restraints you just bought aren't legal!  That's not a true 3 bar adjuster. 


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: NathanStewart on March 12, 2018, 05:06:16 PM
So I have the double d-ring arm restraints sewn into my suit. If I am correct, I cannot cut these off it because it will be a modification of the suit rendering the SFI null. SO I will need to buy slip on arm restraints and just leave the sew ins dangling around as an extra hazard.

What do the built in limb restraint attachments have to do with the SFI fire rating?  NOTHING.  Cut them off.  Unless the attachment points were down at your wrist, they were worthless any ways. 


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: ronnieroadster on March 12, 2018, 07:52:33 PM
Just Recieved

Hey Brian, those brand new DJ restraints you just bought aren't legal!  That's not a true 3 bar adjuster. 




  OK now Im sure were all really more confused Nathen who has the required correct arm restraints ?  Please help us? Pictures would be great.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Buickguy3 on March 12, 2018, 08:29:15 PM
  Nice to hear this. My new Deist restraints just got here Saturday.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Buamotorsport on March 12, 2018, 11:44:08 PM
This is now becoming silly. Can someone at the SCTA or DJ Safety please put something up on here to show exactly what is required otherwise there will be a lot of unhappy people.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: handyguy on March 13, 2018, 01:11:28 AM
    The arm restraint now is required to have only one piece parts.   Which means the adjuster piece that HAD a moveable  center bar  (known as the D-RING ) to adjust the length of the reach was loose in the center so you could easily tilt the piece to adjust the length.    NOW the adjusting piece is one piece  (square with 2 slots for the strap) is  adjusted like the seat belt at the bolted end by moving the strap a little bit at a time .  The arm restraint that KIWI STEVE had was from DJ SAFETY with 2018 date . I don't know what other companies have these available ..   Part of the reason I was there was to see for myself what was the offical answer to this new rule.  Driving a thousand miles to know the answer was partly why I went ..   My restraint is a 2016 DJ Safety and has the moveable  2 piece adjuster .  I need the new restraint .     AND  NOOO , you can't modify the old restraint yourself .. Has to be done by SFI authorized  dealer ..    Another new rule is about single axle brakes will require a PARACHUTE   no matter how slow you run !!!    The meeting was well attended by inspectors , but only 2 cars  and couple bikes . Next year hopefully more people can take advantage of a preseason  inspection  look at your car or bike ..  STEVE  ANDERSON  Inspector  , TUCSON , AZ..     40 BANTAM     T/O


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: deep in debt motorsports on March 13, 2018, 08:58:16 AM
Just Recieved

Hey Brian, those brand new DJ restraints you just bought aren't legal!  That's not a true 3 bar adjuster. 
[/quot
e]
PICS of true 3 bar adjuster please!


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: NathanStewart on March 13, 2018, 10:41:11 AM
I still don't have the 'right' restraints yet.  I have the same DJ restraints that Brian just bought and I confirmed that they do not meet the requirements of the new rule.  The bottom line is that the restraint CAN NOT have any kind of sliding "quick" adjustment.  It needs to be a locking 3 bar design that does not allow for quick slip adjustment.  I think the problem with this type of restraint is that if it can slip tight that it can also potentially slip loose.  By having a non-quick adjustment type restraint, you eliminate the chance of slippage which obviously makes the restraint more effective. 

Attached is the photo I was shown of an example of a restraint with 3 bar hardware.  See how it has a 3 bar adjuster just like your seat belts with the tail tucked back through so that only one bar is showing?  This is what you MUST have.  Anything else will not pass.




Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Sumner on March 13, 2018, 11:55:10 AM
I still don't have the 'right' restraints yet.  I have the same DJ restraints that Brian just bought and I confirmed that they do not meet the requirements of the new rule.  The bottom line is that the restraint CAN NOT have any kind of sliding "quick" adjustment.  It needs to be a locking 3 bar design that does not allow for quick slip adjustment.  I think the problem with this type of restraint is that if it can slip tight that it can also potentially slip loose.  By having a non-quick adjustment type restraint, you eliminate the chance of slippage which obviously makes the restraint more effective. 

Attached is the photo I was shown of an example of a restraint with 3 bar hardware.  See how it has a 3 bar adjuster just like your seat belts with the tail tucked back through so that only one bar is showing?  This is what you MUST have.  Anything else will not pass.




Thanks Nathan and I believe Mike also posted the correct ones on page one of this thread....

(http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=17054.0;attach=58614;image)

(http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=17054.0;attach=58616;image)

Sumner


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Buamotorsport on March 13, 2018, 12:08:23 PM
My Simpson ones which are brand new do not comply. Simple as that, which is rediculous. I can see this being a real problem come August. Is there no other way to solve this. Has anyone approached any other manufacturer....Simpson tell me me they will not make them or it is not there intention..though I stand to be corrected.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: NathanStewart on March 13, 2018, 12:09:06 PM
Indeed he did.  :-D  Well now we can all be doubly sure that those are the ones to get... assuming they can be got.

I think the one thing that chaps me about this is that the SCTA is requiring one specific type of equipment even though all the other pieces meet the SFI spec.  So our requirement is now essentially higher than what a regulatory body consisting of a team of engineers have deemed acceptable through rigorous testing and analysis.  But I guess if it saves one person's hand or arm or life then it's worth it, right?  Better safe than dead.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: jacksoni on March 13, 2018, 12:10:25 PM
Nathan- a solid 3 bar adjuster is specified in the rule book. Got that. Does the "tail" of the strap HAVE to be tucked back through as is shown and your response implies. That is not specified in the rule. Is this one of the "we interpret the rule" (which does not specify) deals?

Thanks for your input.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: NathanStewart on March 13, 2018, 12:18:20 PM
Jack - good point.  Having to have the tail tucked back through actually isn't specified but knowing what we know about this type of hardware, the belt or tether isn't 'locked' unless the tail is sent back through leaving only one bar showing.  I am going to deduce that this will be the unwritten requirement as I believe one of the comments I heard after a recent crash was the someone's arm restraint simply came undone during their crash as in the tether just pulled right through the hardware and not that the tether actually broke or failed otherwise.  Leaving the tail untucked means the tether can slip through the hardware making the restraint totally useless thus I can assume/presume that in order for it to actually be effective, it must be 'locked' by having the loose tail tucked back through.  I don't think this really needs to be written as the equipment manufacturer's intention is that the tail be sent back through because that's how the system works.  The underlying rule has always been that safety equipment be properly installed and used PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS and tucking the loose tail back through would fall under that premise IMO.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: jdincau on March 13, 2018, 12:25:04 PM
That is what DJ seat belt install instructions say.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: RogerL on March 13, 2018, 12:54:21 PM
Just and FYI, I have Stroud restraints sown on the suit. Bob fixed me up with new "legal" 3-bar tethers for 30 bucks.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: ronnieroadster on March 13, 2018, 01:40:37 PM
Just and FYI, I have Stroud restraints sown on the suit. Bob fixed me up with new "legal" 3-bar tethers for 30 bucks.






  Are you sure the sown on location will meet the rule which if I read this correctly is now at the wrist?


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: thundersalt on March 13, 2018, 01:43:37 PM
Mine are the same as Mikes pics. actually better with the steel attaching point. I am showing up in may with these. Someone official needs tho straighten this $hit out and stop all the spectulation


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: jacksoni on March 13, 2018, 02:16:22 PM
Just and FYI, I have Stroud restraints sown on the suit. Bob fixed me up with new "legal" 3-bar tethers for 30 bucks.






  Are you sure the sown on location will meet the rule which if I read this correctly is now at the wrist?

As posted above rule says," NON sewn in restraints must be at the narrowest part of the arm" (wrist).


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: NathanStewart on March 13, 2018, 02:51:09 PM
Mine are the same as Mikes pics. actually better with the steel attaching point. I am showing up in may with these. Someone official needs tho straighten this $hit out and stop all the spectulation

Brian, yours are not the same as what Mike posted.  You have the exact same ones I do with a slip adjuster EXCEPT that a 3 bar has been added on.  You see that little fabric tab that's on the end of what you're calling the attaching point?  That's for releasing the adjuster to loosen/lengthen the tether.  I don't think I'm reaching too far but it looks to me that all they did was just throw on a 3 bar adjuster to lock down the tail end of the tether. 


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: thundersalt on March 13, 2018, 02:57:54 PM
Then that makes them legal


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: NathanStewart on March 13, 2018, 03:06:48 PM
That's good news for me if that's true.  I'm confirming on my end. 


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: thundersalt on March 13, 2018, 03:49:02 PM
phuq it!! I just sent them back with a pic of yours Nathan. :-D :cheers: better safe than sorry


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: NathanStewart on March 13, 2018, 04:07:24 PM
Well don't jump too far ahead... let me see if the added 3 bar is acceptable or not.  Honestly that's what I had thought about doing to the DJ restraints I already have but wasn't sure if it'd fly or not.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: thundersalt on March 13, 2018, 04:11:35 PM
I've been texting with Big Ben and he thinks mine will be ok . He just informed me he doesn't make the ones you pictured any more.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Buickguy3 on March 13, 2018, 08:39:44 PM
  I got the ones like Sumner posted from Deist. Took a while to find the proper part number to get them ordered but I was able to get them from Jegs. Couldn't find anybody else.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: deep in debt motorsports on March 14, 2018, 08:50:44 AM
Well i still cant see why my new G-Force #4087adubk wont work?3 bar adjuster and i only use the attachment from belts to my sewn in rings on my sleeves.I do not use the arm wraps,(not mandatory per rules if I am reading correctly). Cant post a pic,sorry


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: NathanStewart on March 14, 2018, 09:49:17 AM
(http://www.jegs.com/images/photos/400/471/471-4087adubk.jpg)

That sure looks like a welded ring on one end to me and the quick latch from my dog's leash on the other.  I think it's time to spend $50 and get some better stuff.  The arms you save could be your own.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: NathanStewart on March 14, 2018, 10:11:09 AM
Here's what I know right now.  The Deist restraint meets the letter of the rule to a tee.  Simply adding a 3 bar to the loose end of a quick adjust type restraint doesn't exactly meet the letter of the rule.  I think there's some discussion going on as to whether or not there's a enough grey area fuzz around the wording of the rule to allow an added 3 bar to be acceptable.   

The Deist part number is 60019.  Google results for that come up with two relevant results - one is the Deist catalog (which is showcasing SA95 helmets) and the other is some performance shop with an old outdated website that may have stocked these 10 years ago.  Someone I talked to says you can get the 60019 from Deist right now and then Brian says that Ben from DJ is saying "they" don't make them any more.  As best I know it, the 60019 from Deist, if it can be found, is possibly the only restraint that meets the rule as intended right now. 

Don't freak out yet... I'm still digging.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: deep in debt motorsports on March 14, 2018, 12:03:24 PM
(http://www.jegs.com/images/photos/400/471/471-4087adubk.jpg)

That sure looks like a welded ring on one end to me and the quick latch from my dog's leash on the other.  I think it's time to spend $50 and get some better stuff.  The arms you save could be your own.
thanks for posting,$50 is a non issue,the way I read the rule is it is only talking about adjusters,but I must be wrong.Thanks for info and I look forward to getting correct parts #s so I can place my order!


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Joe Timney on March 14, 2018, 04:22:17 PM
Joe- have you had any feedback from Stroud or other suit/harness mfg's?
[/quote
Neither SFI or Stroud Safety had heard about the problem...interesting!


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: ronnieroadster on March 14, 2018, 08:14:55 PM
Here's what I know right now.  The Deist restraint meets the letter of the rule to a tee.  Simply adding a 3 bar to the loose end of a quick adjust type restraint doesn't exactly meet the letter of the rule.  I think there's some discussion going on as to whether or not there's a enough grey area fuzz around the wording of the rule to allow an added 3 bar to be acceptable.   

The Deist part number is 60019.  Google results for that come up with two relevant results - one is the Deist catalog (which is showcasing SA95 helmets) and the other is some performance shop with an old outdated website that may have stocked these 10 years ago.  Someone I talked to says you can get the 60019 from Deist right now and then Brian says that Ben from DJ is saying "they" don't make them any more.  As best I know it, the 60019 from Deist, if it can be found, is possibly the only restraint that meets the rule as intended right now. 

Don't freak out yet... I'm still digging.
















Located the Deist Safety 60019 Arm restraint at Jegs for $40.00 now the question is should we buy these?
 Ronnieroadster


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Rcktscientist on March 14, 2018, 10:49:42 PM
I have Deist arm restraints built into my -20 gloves, love them. I have a pair that is a little small for me if anyone's interested.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: jimmy six on March 18, 2018, 03:39:13 PM
I took a set of out of date Diest arm restraints which were like new. I choose another brand for the last few years because I liked the loose or nylon style at the latch point of the belts.(G-Force)  They were inspected by them and up dated. They also had aluminum anchor points on the belt which were replaced by the current steel ones.

Once the Diest style are length set they would be impossible to adjust or take off in a vehicle ready to leave the line or under competition keeping the "jack offs know it alls" from removing/loosening them.

I like the idea of them being on the gloves because having them low on the forearm is not the strongest part of the bone. (Words of Stand 21) but I will wear them where told as everything in my car is a short reach.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: deep in debt motorsports on March 29, 2018, 01:59:03 PM
Bump for any new info??Elmo is around the corner :?


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: NathanStewart on March 29, 2018, 04:19:23 PM
I sent two emails and made a follow up phone call.  I'm waiting for a reply.  For the time being the Deist 60019 looks to be the way to go.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: deep in debt motorsports on March 29, 2018, 04:41:03 PM
Thanks :cheers:
I went and pulled the trigger,wont ship until 4/10 best case(JEGS).Dont want to miss out on my first Elmo for a rule change


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: jdincau on April 06, 2018, 04:49:22 PM
Tony and I just made the trip down the hill to DJ. They added the required hardware at no cost. No sewing needed, just unthreading the adjuster adding the three bar and re threading. Here is what they look like now.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: revolutionary on April 07, 2018, 04:42:05 PM
Tony and I just made the trip down the hill to DJ. They added the required hardware at no cost. No sewing needed, just unthreading the adjuster adding the three bar and re threading. Here is what they look like now.

Is DJ over in Glendale?


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: jdincau on April 07, 2018, 06:13:48 PM
yes


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: Buamotorsport on April 07, 2018, 11:14:26 PM
I now have 2 sets...one from Simpson and 1 from D J.... it will be interesting to hear what tech says.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: NathanStewart on April 12, 2018, 10:14:48 AM
Okay, I've got some clarification to share.  This should be the same info that will be distributed to SCTA clubs and members.  There are two main points of concern.  First is that welded D rings have been shown to mechanically fail when used as a tether adjustment either in the cuff that goes around the arm or the length adjuster to the driver's belts.  Second is that welded D rings are made of round steel wire and the round profile lacks "bite" to keep the tether from slipping out.  Because of these two reasons, welded D rings are only acceptable as an attachment point if there are two rings being used. 

Non-welded D rings (stamped) are made out of sheet presumably and have a square edge profile thus they "bite" into the tether much better and do not slip and also do not mechanically fail since they're made from one piece.  It seems the DJ restraint that keeps getting pictured is okay to use as is BUT it's not a bad idea to have it updated to add in the 3 bar adjuster to lock down the tail of the tether.

The attached pic is a good example of what's not acceptable.  The adjustment around the wrist is a slip tether through welded D rings and even though you can't really see it, I believe the adjustment for the belts attachment is also a slip tether through welded D rings.  Double no go. 


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: jacksoni on April 12, 2018, 11:49:13 AM
Thanks Nathan. My Stroud suit has sewn in reinforcements at wrist with double D rings adjuster at the suit with a separate strap to the seatbelt. If I understand your comment correctly, if I use the two D rings as the attachment of the strap that goes to the seat belt and a 3 bar for the adjuster part that this would pass. Do you think (as an inspector) that if we print out your comments and bring to inspection that we will be OK?


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: NathanStewart on April 12, 2018, 03:05:26 PM
These pics should show what it is you're describing.  These were shown to me as an example of an acceptable use of D rings as an attachment point only with 3 bar hardware added in.

Nothing I say on here has any official standing whatsoever so no, I wouldn't bother doing that.  I believe the info I'm providing now is supposed to be distributed out through official channels at some point.  I'm just trying to give you guys early notice is all.


Title: Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
Post by: jacksoni on April 12, 2018, 05:25:50 PM
Got it. thanks very much Nathan.