RedlineMan

Yes, Bill;

You have it. It's a little hard to make out the different layers of belt, but that is it. Or, you can judge by this handy little diagram I did (albeit upside down from yours).



One thing though, your loop is still a bit large there. You would want to have it closer to the belt bar than that. If you were to allow no slack at all, you would see how the belt can camlock itself in positions other than pulling straight toward your shoulders, so you need a little slack, but not much.

fatbillybob

I think we already have that. It is called the aluminium NASCAR full containment seat a la Ultrashield superseat for example. However, while the seat can take full body mass the seat was never designed to take full body mass when mounted without belts that really support the full body mass by being linked to the car. I have no doubt the seat can take it as is but the anchor points of the seats to the car is the weak link. You would need Redline Man's fort knox 16 8mm bolt 10.9 grade to distrubute enough load . The seat is still like the unibody car. It is strong as a unit but you still can not just weld your roll cage to the 18g tin floor without reinforcement to distribute loads. We would need to do the same things with seats furthur complicating an already complicated problem of how to proper fit a seat to a car. Harness contact the car at only 5-6 nodes and it is easier to find those IMO than building the required adequate frame to hold an entire seat since the later has more contact to the car. Anyway...very cool problem. I would like to see this happen in the future. When someone figures out the math of where and how I would have to mount such a seat I'll be an early crash dummy...hoping never to crash. You know the best safety device is the one you never have to use.

RedlineMan

A couple of points...

Based on FBB's latest Cranial Flood.

Even the Ultrashield Super Seat is a lawn chair compared to the ISP/LaJoie/Butler monsters the NASCAR boys go to work in. Those NASCAR seats are simply a big alloy cacoon, and are litterally built right into the tube chassis (or it is built around them), mounted solidly top to bottom. The side panels are huge and the head halos are massive and VERY heavily braced.

You do make a good point about the belt mounting. It IS easier to mount belts in an ultra effective fashion than it is seats, given our converted street car usage. Trying to use factory mounting points is a real problem unless you are building a "real" race car with tubed endoskeleton to mount stuff to. Welding in a few reinforcing plates for belt mounts is pretty easy by comparison. Often times, the factory points - at least in Porsches - work very well.

I think the 10.9 thing is overkill, and possibly ill-advised if you were only using 4 mounts points. It seems to me that a fastener should have a slight margin of strength above and beyond its purpose, but no more. In other words, I don't really see any advantage in using a "stronger" bolt in a setup where the load is already well distributed. I see a DEFINITE dissadvantage in using a fastener that is far stronger than what it is holding together when the mount points are somewhat isolated. The super hard fastener may not offer any yield whatever, may enter undue stress into its host, and cause a failure of this mount material.

In any event, seat mounting IS a real sticky wicket. I play that game every day. I currently am sizing up an Ultrashield Super for installation in a new customer 944T Club Racer. It currently has generic plastic seats mounted with commercially common side brackets, but converted to the floor holes with flat alloy plate of unknown qualification. This is a very common solution, but not one that I see as effective enough. I will do a full photo report on what is there now - by way of common example of what NOT to do - and also what better brilliant solutions I come up with.

fatbillybob

This time I dissagree with your dissagreement regarding our agreement with seats and loads. Actually, there are +/- as always. The plus to using a 10.9 is that it is physically easier to find a quality 10.9 that may be really 10.9 than it is to find an 8.8 that is an 8.8. There is huge fastener conterfeiting and with all the good looking crap coming from China the fastener world just got harder to live in. Second if you use a 10.9 and it is crap it probably is as good as a 8.8 which is what you really neded anyway. Third, it is easier and cheaper for me to stock everything 10.9 which is overkill than all the sizes I need in all the class grade I need too. So just for logistics 10.9 make sence especially for the home/shop. Fourth if you do reuse fasteners in non-critical areas the 10.9 will take more on/off abuse than a lower grade. Fifth, there is no disadvantage to materials held in compression by 10.9 except that the material may fail if weaker than the fastener which IMO is no worse than the fastner failure. You see if its in my brake system either way I'm just as screwed. Sixth, there is no disadvantage in shear for the same reason. The only drawback I see is a 10.9 is heavier than an 8.8 and if you want to shave pounds you add up all the fasteners and wow that's alot of weight. But the corallary to that is work on a Porsche and work on a Honda there is a huge difference in the easy for mechanics. I can't tell you how many crappy (acceptable for the job) locktited fasteners I've had to cut off a honda. I just won't work on one anymore.

993944S2

Hi Guys;

I've done some searching but need some help. Can anyone point me to the harness "locator" clips. I'm really not sure what they are called. They clamp to the roll bar and keep the shoulder belt located. I think they are sold by McMaster Carr.

Thanks for any help.

Don

Bri Bro

These worked well for my 1 1/2 bar.

P/N 6436K23
Two-Piece Clamp-On Collar Steel, 1-1/2" Bore, 2-3/8" Outside Dia, 9/16" Width $6.53 Ea.

Phone630) 834-9600 Fax630) 834-9427
Internet:www.mcmaster.com E-mail:chi.sales@mcmaster.com