FS: Euro 997 GT3 - Carrera GT Carbon seats
06-08-2013, 12:00 AM
#18
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problem. Much rather arm the public with accurate info than let you unknowingly compromise yourself. Now you know the law you can make an informed decision. 
That still doesn't change the fact I hate these sorts of bull**** laws and I covet those seats like a crack ***** chasing a vial of rock.
That still doesn't change the fact I hate these sorts of bull**** laws and I covet those seats like a crack ***** chasing a vial of rock.
06-08-2013, 12:06 AM
#19
Rennlist Member
Sounds like a shop can not (is not supposed to) do this for you, but it does not read like the law prevents you from doing so?
06-08-2013, 12:18 AM
#20
In a quarrel, your opposing side simply might have better lawyers...
06-08-2013, 12:19 AM
#21
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The law is written in such a way that if you knowingly do something to your car that makes it noncompliant you are liable and must request permission from the NHTSA.
On NHTSA's site- http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/adap...e_ask_ques.htm
Eddie, I'm sorry this has gone off tangent. 
On NHTSA's site- http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/adap...e_ask_ques.htm
Can a modifier use the exemption for FMVSS 208 to disconnect air bags or install air bag on/off switches?
Yes, unless it is the only modification being made that would take the vehicle out of compliance; 49 CFR Part 595 Subpart B covers this situation. The new exemption to FMVSS 208 applies only where a retrofit air bag on-off switch cannot accommodate the individual's disability and the air bag system is affected in the course of a necessary modification. An example is deleting the air bag because a client needs a reduced-diameter steering wheel. The seating position must be supplied with a lap and shoulder safety belt meeting the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 209 and 210.
If the only thing you need to do to accommodate the vehicle user is to install an air bag on/off switch, follow 49 CFR Part 595 Subpart B. Use the make inoperative exemption for FMVSS 208 at 49 CFR 595.7(c)(14), if the client needs a switch or air bag deactivation in conjunction with other modifications for which you will be using exemptions under 49 CFR Part 595 Subpart C. If the only thing you plan to do that will take the vehicle out of compliance with any FMVSS is to deactivate the air bag, then the vehicle owner must write a letter to NHTSA's Chief Counsel requesting permission to do so, according to the instructions found on our web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/airbags/rule/section09.html.
Yes, unless it is the only modification being made that would take the vehicle out of compliance; 49 CFR Part 595 Subpart B covers this situation. The new exemption to FMVSS 208 applies only where a retrofit air bag on-off switch cannot accommodate the individual's disability and the air bag system is affected in the course of a necessary modification. An example is deleting the air bag because a client needs a reduced-diameter steering wheel. The seating position must be supplied with a lap and shoulder safety belt meeting the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 209 and 210.
If the only thing you need to do to accommodate the vehicle user is to install an air bag on/off switch, follow 49 CFR Part 595 Subpart B. Use the make inoperative exemption for FMVSS 208 at 49 CFR 595.7(c)(14), if the client needs a switch or air bag deactivation in conjunction with other modifications for which you will be using exemptions under 49 CFR Part 595 Subpart C. If the only thing you plan to do that will take the vehicle out of compliance with any FMVSS is to deactivate the air bag, then the vehicle owner must write a letter to NHTSA's Chief Counsel requesting permission to do so, according to the instructions found on our web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/airbags/rule/section09.html.
06-08-2013, 12:46 AM
#22
Rennlist Member
Such a pain.. I think in ROW if one requested the club sport package, the side airbags are automatically deleted (for the 996 GT3, at least) because of the 996 airbags are on the door, and the front cage's side bar would be in the way.
So in US if we want to do a full cage, technically one would need the permission from NHTSA?!
So in US if we want to do a full cage, technically one would need the permission from NHTSA?!
06-08-2013, 12:58 AM
#23
Great seats and a very reasonable price, especially if they're the fire resistant perlon and they're in new condition.
As for law and liability, it's all subject to litigation, no broad statements of what's allowed and what's unlawful. These references are to businesses, not owners. The law does not allow for the action or inaction of one person to indemnify another from their responsibility, nor is ignorance of any law a defense. In short, it's all a matter of case by case litigation. The examples given are misleading and, to this little, black duck, implausible. As a business, you can hardly replace the cigarette lighter with a non-OEM unit for fear of a "burn victim" filing suit, but as an owner, you can install a small thermonuclear reactor to keep the coffee warm in your travel mug.
Put the seats in and damn the torpedoes. If your passenger bumps their noggin on your roll bar, they can sue you. If a chance passerby gets a crick in their neck from turning to show their disdain for the noisy exhaust on your "modified" vehicle, they can sue you. It's the USA ... 44% of the people are bat**** crazy 92% of the time ...
As for law and liability, it's all subject to litigation, no broad statements of what's allowed and what's unlawful. These references are to businesses, not owners. The law does not allow for the action or inaction of one person to indemnify another from their responsibility, nor is ignorance of any law a defense. In short, it's all a matter of case by case litigation. The examples given are misleading and, to this little, black duck, implausible. As a business, you can hardly replace the cigarette lighter with a non-OEM unit for fear of a "burn victim" filing suit, but as an owner, you can install a small thermonuclear reactor to keep the coffee warm in your travel mug.
Put the seats in and damn the torpedoes. If your passenger bumps their noggin on your roll bar, they can sue you. If a chance passerby gets a crick in their neck from turning to show their disdain for the noisy exhaust on your "modified" vehicle, they can sue you. It's the USA ... 44% of the people are bat**** crazy 92% of the time ...
06-08-2013, 01:16 AM
#24
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Such a pain.. I think in ROW if one requested the club sport package, the side airbags are automatically deleted (for the 996 GT3, at least) because of the 996 airbags are on the door, and the front cage's side bar would be in the way.
So in US if we want to do a full cage, technically one would need the permission from NHTSA?!
So in US if we want to do a full cage, technically one would need the permission from NHTSA?!
Technically. That is if the airbag operation is interfered by said addition. But on a more realistic viewpoint, I personally wouldn't want bare steel bars anywhere near me to crack my head open on in an accident- hence roll bar behind the occupants in my car and not roll cage. That is my risk assessment of that issue.
Edit- also, many of these issues with side airbag/front airbag derives from PCNA probably submitting only one standard to the NHTSA for compliance- they submitted the whole hog so to speak. If they had also submitted an minimum equipped version with no thorax/side airbags, the CS option probably could be road legal and selectable in the options list. Big manufacturers in general self comply- they submit packages for the compliance including crash test data to the NHTSA and rarely rely on third party labs to perform the tests.
CGT- it's in black and white that to be in compliance with the law, if one deactivates/removes an airbag, he/she must get approval for non-conformance/noncompliance for public road use from NHTSA. There's no grey area.
06-08-2013, 01:57 AM
#25
Is this federal law or state? Which state? Which year of vehicle? What dispensations has the manufacturer received in the past? When do the relevant laws apply? Are these laws with criminal penalties or regulations subject to enforcement and charged as infractions? Has this seat been allowed in earlier or later models? Has this seat or bar been sold by the maker over the counter? Has this seat or bar been sold over the counter by a Porsche dealer in the given state or any other state? If there's an injury accident, did it happen at a private facility like a race track or on a public road or on private property. Can the injury or death be connected to the function or absence of function of the given supplemental device? Gray area. Landing personal jet in gray area. Doing cocaine off a young lady's decolletage
in said gray area. : )
Just kidding! Hell, I ran those seats for years, they're as safe as any seat in a 2005 car and probably safer than any adjustable seat. Just don't put them in a 911 with rear seats -- that would be criminally negligent, no two ways about it.
Personally, if I want to make my car safer and it's my intent for the car to be safer (shell seat, harness, HANS, half cage) and someone gets hurt, the least of my concerns is the bureaucracy. My concern is the safety of myself, my passengers and those around me. If some red tape merchant wants to fine me, that's just unlawful taxation and nothing to do with public safety. The law is preoccupied with intent and my intent would be to provide optimal safety for all concerned. That's a gray area, too.
06-08-2013, 08:26 AM
#26
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, my issue is not safety. I think we all agree those seats as they sit are safe and are probably far safer than any seat with a hinge. The carbon bucket will allow flex and dissipate energy better than any metal framed two piece seat as long as they do not have any seat back brace installed.
We know these cars (997) are safe with or without the thorax airbag present. The reason why we know that is because these cars are available ROW without them with certain equipment packages.
What I am concerned about is liability. As in, good old fashioned bull**** Federal Government regulations that make nary a sense yet we are required to comply to, or be held liable for the consequences IF something goes wrong. I've seen too much BS in my day to want to deal with any sort of Fed repercussion.
Fed laws trump state. Common fact. I deal with this issue every couple of months when it comes to clarifying laws for potential Skyline GT-R owners. It doesn't matter if the state says you can take your airbag off your car- if the Feds say it isn't kosher, it isn't, and unless they specifically state it IS kosher, it isn't. They are like the SCCA in that regard. Now, how and when they check for compliance is another thing, but you can be sure if you are in an accident and you do not have the prerequisite paperwork, they will find out and you will be held liable. That of course affects insurance too- auto policies will not cover injuries in vehicles not in compliance or without prior NHTSA approval. Of course, if you are in an accident, you probably could have used that thorax airbag anyways, but if you're in an accident, the last thing you want is the NHTSA to go after you for noncompliance (they have and will). No need to make a ****ty day worse.
It's really the same BS argument the NHTSA uses for everything, basically to justify their existence. There are certain things I agree with that need structure and law, such as mandatory bumper heights, minimum speeds for zero damage (good luck on that one), etc., but if an owner chooses to put him/herself at risk by modifying safety equipment it should be allowed with the basic requisite notification to the insurance carrier. It's like the motorcycle helmet law- wearing one is good, saves lives, etc., but should be up to personal choice to actually don the melon keeper (I would wear one but I don't tell people they should).
Again, I cannot reiterate how much I want these seats. If I had a 996 it would be a no-brainer.
We know these cars (997) are safe with or without the thorax airbag present. The reason why we know that is because these cars are available ROW without them with certain equipment packages.
What I am concerned about is liability. As in, good old fashioned bull**** Federal Government regulations that make nary a sense yet we are required to comply to, or be held liable for the consequences IF something goes wrong. I've seen too much BS in my day to want to deal with any sort of Fed repercussion.
Fed laws trump state. Common fact. I deal with this issue every couple of months when it comes to clarifying laws for potential Skyline GT-R owners. It doesn't matter if the state says you can take your airbag off your car- if the Feds say it isn't kosher, it isn't, and unless they specifically state it IS kosher, it isn't. They are like the SCCA in that regard. Now, how and when they check for compliance is another thing, but you can be sure if you are in an accident and you do not have the prerequisite paperwork, they will find out and you will be held liable. That of course affects insurance too- auto policies will not cover injuries in vehicles not in compliance or without prior NHTSA approval. Of course, if you are in an accident, you probably could have used that thorax airbag anyways, but if you're in an accident, the last thing you want is the NHTSA to go after you for noncompliance (they have and will). No need to make a ****ty day worse.
It's really the same BS argument the NHTSA uses for everything, basically to justify their existence. There are certain things I agree with that need structure and law, such as mandatory bumper heights, minimum speeds for zero damage (good luck on that one), etc., but if an owner chooses to put him/herself at risk by modifying safety equipment it should be allowed with the basic requisite notification to the insurance carrier. It's like the motorcycle helmet law- wearing one is good, saves lives, etc., but should be up to personal choice to actually don the melon keeper (I would wear one but I don't tell people they should).
Again, I cannot reiterate how much I want these seats. If I had a 996 it would be a no-brainer.
06-09-2013, 06:53 PM
#29
Admin
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Such a pain.. I think in ROW if one requested the club sport package, the side airbags are automatically deleted (for the 996 GT3, at least) because of the 996 airbags are on the door, and the front cage's side bar would be in the way.
So in US if we want to do a full cage, technically one would need the permission from NHTSA?!
So in US if we want to do a full cage, technically one would need the permission from NHTSA?!
About the rest, I do agree.
I could never understand the US / RoW differences for such trivial matters. It's not like we don't have enough stupid laws here already..
06-10-2013, 09:11 PM
#30
Rennlist Member
