begginers racing seat help!
02-01-2010, 11:52 AM
#46
Race Director
Look it is clearly safer to run with a roll cage than a 3 pt belts. However somewhere between roll cage and nothing is still a big benefit.
In any flat plane (ie non-roll over) impact you are much better off with 5-6 point harness securly mounted. I suggest that 75% or more of the incidents you might have on a track are non-roll over types. As such a harness with no bar is better than 3 pt belts 75% of the time. 25% of the time in roll over you are then no better than stock. Even then I suggest you are safter witha 5-6 point harenss as these will not allow you flop around in the car as much as standard 3 pt belts.
Now if the roof comes down so hard that it pancakes you are in trouble any way it goes. The mustang case shows even with a bar you can be in trouble. Some say they are lucky since their crappy seats collapased? Not sure how you call that lucky.
Anyway saftey is a give and take process. The most convient way to run on the street is 3 pt belts and no harness. The safetest way is helmet, fire suit, harness, seat and complete roll cage with door bars. However that is not a very easy way to go to the store for some milk.
So any street car will then need some level of compromise. Each level has its weak points in certain type of incidents. You need to determine what is level that best balances your needs and risk levels.
BTW... even when you put in cage... it has compomises too that can make it better in some incident type, but worse in others.
02-01-2010, 11:59 AM
#47
Drifting
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Suburban DC
Posts: 2,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem to have the opinion that a harness is designed to work in conjunction with a roll bar/cage. That's just not true. The harness is designed for two purposes - keep you more firmly planted in the seat, thereby giving you greater control of the car, thereby reducing your risk of an accident. The second purpose is obvious - it better restrains your body in the event of a collision.
The roll bar is designed to keep the roof from collapsing during a rollover. The roll cage does that, plus adds chassis rigidity.
The factory system is designed to protect the driver/passenger in primarily a frontal collision. It also is designed to allow the occupants of the vehicle a reasonable and comfortable degree of motion. I don't mean to be an ***, but the notion that the seatbelt was designed with the roof as a system is preposterous.
I have seen plenty of crashes in DE's, including my first time out, when I hit a wall after losing control of a car doing about 120. I have never seen a car flip at a DE. I have never seen a car flip that was not involved with contact with another car (which I have never seen, or even heard of, in a DE). The only time I have ever seen a rollover in anything other than professional racing was at an SCCA event.
So really the question is the level of risk - there is absolutely no question that a (properly tethered - which does NOT necessitate a roll bar) harness will better protect you in a non-rollover accident than a standard OEM three point belt. As stated, it will also put you in a better position to avoid an accident. It becomes a detriment in the event of a rollover in which the roof collapses (which isn't common even in rollovers). But as for the improper installation - again, that is completley non-sequitur to the rollover provision.
I am not going to lie and tell you that I can quantify the benefit of a harness over a standard belt, though I imagine someone like Schroth can. And even if I could, without some sort of statistics on the amount and severity of a rollover in a DE, it is meaningless, because we are talking about relative risk.
I disagree with you on the DE rules changing to reflect your position. If anything, I see the opposite. It used to be that the driver could use a harness without providing one for the instructor. Now, the instructor has to be provided one if the driver has one.
Having said all of that, do I really like the idea of a harness without rollover protection? Nope, and I was prepared to hold off until I had one. However, when you take a step back, and actuallly consider the likelihood of certain events happening, it actually makes more sense, IN MY OPINION, to run with a harness, even without rollover protection.
As far as the rolleyes thing at folks with the opinion you have goes, you are just as defensive about your opinion as anyone else is about theirs. I only take a "rolleyes" approach when folks refuse to question things, or think things through. You are just as guilty as anyone about dismissing the opinion of those of us who disagree with you. What is rediculous is thinking you can assume that something designed for the street should unquestionably be applied on the track. We change our brake pads, our tires, our shocks, springs, bushings, etc. ad nauseum. Why not an equally critical eye over the safety related devices?
The roll bar is designed to keep the roof from collapsing during a rollover. The roll cage does that, plus adds chassis rigidity.
The factory system is designed to protect the driver/passenger in primarily a frontal collision. It also is designed to allow the occupants of the vehicle a reasonable and comfortable degree of motion. I don't mean to be an ***, but the notion that the seatbelt was designed with the roof as a system is preposterous.
I have seen plenty of crashes in DE's, including my first time out, when I hit a wall after losing control of a car doing about 120. I have never seen a car flip at a DE. I have never seen a car flip that was not involved with contact with another car (which I have never seen, or even heard of, in a DE). The only time I have ever seen a rollover in anything other than professional racing was at an SCCA event.
So really the question is the level of risk - there is absolutely no question that a (properly tethered - which does NOT necessitate a roll bar) harness will better protect you in a non-rollover accident than a standard OEM three point belt. As stated, it will also put you in a better position to avoid an accident. It becomes a detriment in the event of a rollover in which the roof collapses (which isn't common even in rollovers). But as for the improper installation - again, that is completley non-sequitur to the rollover provision.
I am not going to lie and tell you that I can quantify the benefit of a harness over a standard belt, though I imagine someone like Schroth can. And even if I could, without some sort of statistics on the amount and severity of a rollover in a DE, it is meaningless, because we are talking about relative risk.
I disagree with you on the DE rules changing to reflect your position. If anything, I see the opposite. It used to be that the driver could use a harness without providing one for the instructor. Now, the instructor has to be provided one if the driver has one.
Having said all of that, do I really like the idea of a harness without rollover protection? Nope, and I was prepared to hold off until I had one. However, when you take a step back, and actuallly consider the likelihood of certain events happening, it actually makes more sense, IN MY OPINION, to run with a harness, even without rollover protection.
As far as the rolleyes thing at folks with the opinion you have goes, you are just as defensive about your opinion as anyone else is about theirs. I only take a "rolleyes" approach when folks refuse to question things, or think things through. You are just as guilty as anyone about dismissing the opinion of those of us who disagree with you. What is rediculous is thinking you can assume that something designed for the street should unquestionably be applied on the track. We change our brake pads, our tires, our shocks, springs, bushings, etc. ad nauseum. Why not an equally critical eye over the safety related devices?
02-01-2010, 12:00 PM
#48
Rennlist Member
Yep, an autopower rollbar. Clearly that shows that the bolt in rollbars that are mounted to single sided steel aren't a particularly good way to go. Welded rollbars that tie into structural parts of the car are much better.
My car will be a street/track car, so I'm going with fixed back seats, 6 point harnesses and a welded rollbar. I'll take the compromises of not having a full cage in the car with door bars to keep the utility of being able to drive it on the street.
My car will be a street/track car, so I'm going with fixed back seats, 6 point harnesses and a welded rollbar. I'll take the compromises of not having a full cage in the car with door bars to keep the utility of being able to drive it on the street.
02-01-2010, 12:07 PM
#49
Drifting
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Suburban DC
Posts: 2,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PCA near me is fine with harness bars as long as they are just used as guide bars, with the harness ends properly anchored. But with harnesses you also have to be within the calendar limits. What's silly about these rules is that you cannot use harnesses that are outside the calendar limits (a few years), but it's fine and dandy to buckle up 25 year old OEM seatbelts!
02-01-2010, 12:19 PM
#51
Drifting
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Suburban DC
Posts: 2,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I do know why harnesses clock-out. They are not the same fabric as 3 point belts and they do not stretch as much. They age in sunlight and tensile strength drops. That said, I'm willing to be that 5 year old 6 point harnesses offer more tensile strength than 25 year old OEM 3-point belts.
02-01-2010, 12:21 PM
#52
Race Director
PCA near me is fine with harness bars as long as they are just used as guide bars, which the ends properly anchored. But with harnesses you also have to be within the calendar limits. What's silly about these rules is that you cannot use harnesses that are outside the calendar limits (a few years), but it's fine and dandy to buckle up 25 year old OEM seatbelts!
Anyway my 5 year old FIA Schoth expired so I got a new one. Then I moved my 5 year old on to the pass side.
Any It gave a chance to feel harness of different ages. You know what? They got harder and stiffer as they aged. My 2002 vintage harness is very hard and stiff. My 2005 vintage harness is a little hard and stiff. My 2010 vintage harness is nice and soft. Both my 2005 and 2010 harness are FIA certed Schroths. It became very clear to me that a haress does age. Even when the car in stored out of direct sunlight. The harenssed feel much stiffer than the stock ones in my 88 Turbo S street car.
So I can only surmize the material used for the racing harness is not same as for the street car. The street car material seems better suited to exposure than the race car stuff. Now I can't say how old is too old, but seem to me that it was a good idea of to replace my 5 year schroths. As for the passenger harness? It is not my 5 year old schroth. The ones I ran went to the junk pile.
Just so you know passengers are not common in my car, but I like the ability to take one for a spin if needed. That is why I keep the seat and harness. Now how long will the passenger harness last? Not sure. I am fine for this year as I feel like I could get another year if was allowed to, but in 4 more years? Not sure... we shall see.
(BTW.. my race car is subject to race car expiration rules so that is what forced the change.)
02-01-2010, 06:25 PM
#53
I recall reading, perhaps ins 2004, an SCCA article about harnessess.. Of the ones tested at the lab, the belts lost, on average, 50% of their original strength in just 2 years.
The reason no club will not allow the factory belts is who wants to run up against that liability! DOT doesn't say you need to replace seatbelts. The manufacturer doesn't say it either.. Why would a car club recommend the opposite and open them up to disasterous possibilities? Same with helmets? Why is my just 1 year out of date helmet any less safe today than it was last year?
Safety is a remarkable "personal" issue imho. Some folks "feel" just as safe in a 3pt as another does in a 6-pt with a cage, racing suit and fire supression system. Lab data may show otherwise
The reason no club will not allow the factory belts is who wants to run up against that liability! DOT doesn't say you need to replace seatbelts. The manufacturer doesn't say it either.. Why would a car club recommend the opposite and open them up to disasterous possibilities? Same with helmets? Why is my just 1 year out of date helmet any less safe today than it was last year?
Safety is a remarkable "personal" issue imho. Some folks "feel" just as safe in a 3pt as another does in a 6-pt with a cage, racing suit and fire supression system. Lab data may show otherwise
02-01-2010, 07:07 PM
#54
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: BLOOMSBURG, PA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds like chance to me. Unless one can predict exactly how their forthcoming accident will occur....what sound decisions can you really make on what to put in place. I guess factory setup is the safest tested example. Its not like i'm autocrossing my car...
02-01-2010, 07:52 PM
#55
02-02-2010, 08:19 AM
#57
Race Car
And I disagree with the assertion that the factory setup is the safest tested example. You don't think Schroth et al all spends gobs and gobs of time testing their harnesses, and Sparco et all spend gobs and gobs of time testing their seats?
