|
Kirk Knestis
|
 |
« on: April 21, 2008, 08:19:41 PM » |
|
I requested (as an SCCA and NASA member) that SFI send me copies of 38.1 and other spec's (back at the beginning of the new year?) and never heard back from them. Anyone else have better luck?
Kirk
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gregg Baker
|
|
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2008, 08:32:36 AM » |
|
We requested, and received, a pdf copy of 38.1 in the fall of 2004, when it was first issued. That is the only request we have ever made of SFI.
What is the SFI policy on the distribution of specs?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gregg S. Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
|
|
|
|
Robert Luke
|
|
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2008, 11:11:19 AM » |
|
I put a request in today. If I receive something I will let you know. The problem then becomes that I can not share this word for word, correct!?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kirk Knestis
|
|
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2008, 01:39:20 PM » |
|
It depends on how they license your use. If they don't give you explicit permission to duplicate it or include verbatim text out of the document elsewhere, then it's generally accepted that you aren't allowed to do so. Now, whether you can share THEIR document without duplicating it is a different question but I think it's a safe interpretation to say that simply putting it on a server somewhere for anyone to download is not OK, even if showing me a hard copy in person MIGHT be.
K
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gregg Baker
|
|
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2008, 02:21:25 PM » |
|
In general, one cannot publicly distribute copyrighted material. Scanning an SFI spec and posting it on the Web is probably a bad idea, as is building a hand-welded jalopy in your garage and hanging a Ferrari label on it.
However, there is the Fair Use Doctrine in U.S. copyright law which allows for further distribution if someone wants to review the material's contents. That's all that's happening here; people are just trying to verify a reported change in the load spec of 38.1 that was, reportedly, implemented in 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gregg S. Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
|
|
|
|
Robert Luke
|
|
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2008, 06:59:34 AM » |
|
Sent email at 10:10am that said: Can I receive a copy of SFI 38.1? I am a member of the SCCA. Thank You Robert Luke Got an email at 5:31pm that said a copy of the spec is attached. If you have any questions, please let us know. Maybe they don't like you Kirk  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gregg Baker
|
|
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2008, 07:47:17 AM » |
|
Robert,
Nice work.
Assuming they haven't moved them, the load limits should be in section 6.1.1. The original limits were:
Maximum upper neck tension = 4,000N (899#)
Maximum upper neck compression = 4,000N (899#)
Maximum value of Nij = 1.0
Have these values changed?
Also, what is the issue date of that spec?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gregg S. Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
|
|
|
|
Robert Luke
|
|
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2008, 08:07:31 AM » |
|
6.1.1
Maximum Upper Neck Tension 3,200N (719lbs)
Maximum Upper Neck Compression 3,200N (719lbs)
Maximum Value of NIJ 1.0
Effective Date: July 19, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gregg Baker
|
|
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2008, 08:25:20 AM » |
|
Thank you, sir. I'll pass that on to the Webmaster.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gregg S. Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
|
|
|
|
Gregg Baker
|
|
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2008, 03:10:57 PM » |
|
Done.
Thanks, Robert!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gregg S. Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
|
|
|
|
Chris Fries
|
|
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2008, 04:53:22 PM » |
|
Maybe Kirk could help Robert out by keeping an off-site backup of the SFI spec for him?
-Chris
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kirk Knestis
|
|
« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2008, 01:13:29 PM » |
|
If I can hang back that up for you, Robert I don't mind one little bit. We should probably have an archive of information and documents attached to the community somehow anyway that, while respecting copyright use restrictions, allows us to keep up with what's going on.
K
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Luke
|
|
« Reply #12 on: April 28, 2008, 07:39:06 AM » |
|
A backup sounds like a good idea. I'd hate for my computer to die and lose it. Let me know the best way to take care of this.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gregg Baker
|
|
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2008, 09:06:00 AM » |
|
A backup sounds like a good idea. I'd hate for my computer to die and lose it. Let me know the best way to take care of this.
Robert, You can shoot me a copy if you wish. Clicking the envelope icon on the left should make that happen. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gregg S. Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
|
|
|
|
Bruce Leggett
|
|
« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2008, 08:52:51 PM » |
|
since NASA, SCCA, BMWCCA, etc are members of the SFI Foundation, I don't see a problem with distribution of the SFI standards to any member of one of those organizations. So, they could be posted with the disclaimer that they are only for the use of a member of an organization that is a member of SFI.
Also, the SFI Foundation doesn't make money off the standard document itself - they make money off the cert labels that they sell to manufacturers. So, how would SFI be harmed by the further distribution of the document itself? It's not like a book that someone is hoping to sell and illegal distribution would cause loss of revenue.
With all that said, I'm just a logical engineer and not an IP lawyer.
bruce
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
