JackOlsen

fatbilly, the closer to your head it is, the better. So long as it's padded, you want to reduce the amount of time your head has to accelerate before it hits a thing.

The test: hold your head a quarter inch from a wall, and then hit it into the wall. Repeat with your head two inches from the wall. Which hurts more?

smokey

I almost resisted getting involved in another thread on harness bars, but John's comment about "doing something dumb in the interest of safety" got to me. I don't want to rekindle the debate, because there isn't a debate: anyone who has studied freshman engineering and can draw a vector diagram knows that looping the belt over the bar and then to the seat belt anchors below increases the stress on the bar. And I personally don't care any more, because I don't use a harness bar; I use John's roll bar. However, for those that do use a harness bar, how can we get PCA to remove this idiotic rule? If the harness bar is not strong enough to hold the belts directly, it's useless, because it will fail earlier with the belt looped around it and attached to the seat belt mounts on the seat below. End of rant, and I apologize for another diatribe on this.

Z-man

Which is precisely why I switched to a full face helmet!
Nice test!


-Z-man.

RedlineMan

Z & Brian P -

Good point boys. I wear Smith & Wesson shooting glasses of varying shades - depending on conditions - at all times. I once was hit by a rubber snard so close to my eye that it wattered to the point that I was not able to see out of it. It doesn't seem probable that something could come in the side window at speed, but it does indeed happen. This is not quite the scenario one would hope for entering the braking zone for "The 90" and going through "The Esses" at the Glen! It was interesting!!

Jack -

Great example! For anyone who cannot gain safe distance from solid objects through more efficient placement of tubing or seats, you would be better off to get closer... using the high density padding, of course!



Smokey (mysterious customer/friend! ;-) - I agree. My rule specifying roll cage spec material should be the minimum. There will always be people that don't get it or stop thinking short of full discovery and exhaustion of possibilities.

Here's a good one. I have a customer/friend (causual DE guy, 4-8 days a year, good driver, but conervative) who hemmed and hawed about buying one of my roll bars. Mostly did it to support my efforts, I guess.



In the interim, he buys a Stable Energies C-pillar harness bar. This thing is 1" tubing if it's lucky, but more astonishingly, the mount tabs (4" flat iron) position the bar directly BELOW the mount holes!!!

I aksed the guy what he thought would happen if he hit something? Of course the thing would swing forward that 4 inches, plus the stretch of the belts (4-6") and... BIFF.

So he gets one of my bars, has it for a couple weeks, then says he doesn't want it. Never really gave a good explanation of why. Doesn't like the racer boy look or losing the back seat I guess... not that he ever uses the back seat!!! He then goes back to the harness bar!!!???
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We just have to accept that some people just won't get it on their own, and need rules. But, we have to try our best to build consensus by floating our ideas like this. This is the process of understanding and enlightenement, and to that end it is not only good, but essential!

SeaCay

John,

I like oakley Pro M Frames with "heater" lenses. Excellent coverage, and you can change lenses to whatever the environment calls for. They aren't cheap, but you can get good deals on ebay.

Seeing as I was a search and rescue specialist (USAF Pararescue) for 12 years (in a former life), I tend to go the long way when it comes to safety. I've seen all kinds of stuff that I want to stay away from.

RedlineMan

Hey;

Been there too. Auto Damage Appraiser!



Life's short. Sometimes shorter than one thinks or knows.
Think Smart Safety!!!