Hi All;

How many of those who attended the Zone 1 48 Hours at Watkins Glen read the info packet? If you did, you should have noted the latest "upgrade" in harness rules contained therein. This - along with the new for 08 club-wide restraint rules - are where things are headed, and you can expect to see more of it in the future.

Unfortunately, anyone who has dipped a toe in the safety equipment waters knows that it is a deep and swift current, and it is easy to lose your footing and be swept from the comfort of the shoreline and into the rapids of compromise, misconception, and unintended consequence.

The intent of all these new rules is to improve safety. Unfortunately, this has also complicated the situation for those who might seek to improve their lot. Knowledge is Hell, Ignorrance is Bliss. I also feel there are some who have lost sight of the shore, if not their footing on it.

With an eye toward helping the process toward a successful resolution, I forwarded this disection of the passage to PCA President Mr. Kelly, with a CC to Zone 1 Rep Mr. vonBose. The Zone text is in red, my thoughts are in blue. I am unaware if this is having any effect, but I'll keep trying. Anyone else's thoughts are welcome, of course.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Kelly;

I continue to be interested in helping PCA make wise decisions regarding increased safety in our DE program. I had the opportunity to chat with Botho at the 48 Hours this past weekend, and he graciously listened to some of my ideas, as much as we had the chance to delve into them. To expand on what we touched on, let me highlight a rules quotation from the Zone 1 48 Hours information packet. To illustrate points that I feel are important, let me parse this language and offer my thoughts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suggested Driver/Passenger Safety Restraint Systems:

The following discussion represents the types of driver/passenger restraint systems that are STRONGLY RECOMMENDED for use by all driver education participants.

The stock factory occupant restraint systems with a 3-point shoulder/lap belt were designed and tested to protect occupants in a very effective fashion. However, these SYSTEMS are designed only for use in conjunction with the stock seat. If additional support is desired, these systems can be supplemented by a simple 3” lap belt. The lap belt may be used with the Factory 3-point shoulder/lap system. The additional lap belt should be secured before fastening the Factory belts.

Stock, “modified” or race cars with 5/6 point harness:

If the participant installs a 5/6 point driving harness, several additional changes are required to be made in order to create a fully safe occupant restraint SYSTEM. First a seat designed to be used with a harness must be installed. This means that the seat is required to have proper routing for the harness, both through the back and base of the seat for the respective shoulder and anti-sub belts. Secondly, because the addition of the harness means that the occupants are fastened upright in the vehicle, a properly installed roll bar or roll cage must be used to complete the SYSTEM. The use of one without the other makes an unsafe environment and is not a complete system.

Stock seats will not be allowed with 5/6 point harnesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following discussion represents the types of driver/passenger restraint systems that are STRONGLY RECOMMENDED for use by all driver education participants.

The addition of this first segment claiming that these are “strongly suggested” is not enough to render this an acceptable mandate. While it is good that they did not want to appear to be ramming things down people’s throats, it does nothing to change the fact that some of the arguments are fallacious, and the information therefore questionable, or just plain wrong.

The stock factory occupant restraint systems with a 3-point shoulder/lap belt were designed and tested to protect occupants in a very effective fashion. However, these SYSTEMS are designed only for use in conjunction with the stock seat. If additional support is desired, these systems can be supplemented by a simple 3” lap belt. The lap belt may be used with the Factory 3-point shoulder/lap system. The additional lap belt should be secured before fastening the Factory belts.

This would seem to be an utterly reasonable common sense approach to having the best of both worlds, and indeed I support it. On the other hand, the idea of mitigating the escape of the driver from a shoulder harness when using a stock seat by using a complete harness system with the stock 3-point belt system secured over the top of it has been rejected out of hand because “no one has tested it” to make sure it works effectively.

If we employ the logic used to justify the use of only the lap belt to using the entire harness system along with the 3-point system, how is the result any different? Both work alone, and it stands to reason that they might also work together. Further, can we not also use the same argument to deny use of both setups? Has anyone tested a harness lap belt with a stock 3-point to see if it indeed functions as the Zone assumes?

The highlighted section may flow logically from the premise to its conclusion, but if the premise is incorrect, the argument is nonetheless fallacious.

These are mere quibbles compared to the last segment.

If the participant installs a 5/6 point driving harness, several additional changes are required to be made in order to create a fully safe occupant restraint SYSTEM.

Again, a quibble. “Fully safe,” and according to whom? If PCA seeks to limits its liability, as has always seemed to be the case, the wording should simply be “Safer,” “increased safety,” or the like. The finality that the word “safe” offers is hardly in evidence, nor is it guaranteed, given the topic in question.

First a seat designed to be used with a harness must be installed. This means that the seat is required to have proper routing for the harness, both through the back and base of the seat for the respective shoulder and anti-sub belts.

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the variety of safety systems and configurations available, and their plusses and minuses. There is a method of configuring an anti-sub strap on a seat with no sub hole that is perfectly acceptable, safe, and effective. It is by no means the preferred method, but it does work, and in some instances is more effective than routing a generic single sub through a seat base hole.

While I agree with what this portion is attempting to address, it fails to do so adequately if the entire body of knowledge is factored in. Yet another example of how difficult it is to mandate anything to do with this topic. To draft a truly catch-all document is monumentally difficult, but to do less is giving it short shrift.

Secondly, because the addition of the harness means that the occupants are fastened upright in the vehicle, a properly installed roll bar or roll cage must be used to complete the SYSTEM. The use of one without the other makes an unsafe environment and is not a complete system.

This is where the game is truly lost. To bring back my foggy memory of Philosophy again, a logical conclusion does not mean a correct one. If indeed occupants were in danger of being impacted by a collapsing roof, then this argument might hold water. It is, however, full of holes, and is an increasingly popular myth that I have been arguing against since its inception.

There is a bizarre notion out there that persons ensconced in a 3-point belt will be free to slink themselves down in a seat and avoid being squashed by a roof coming in on them, or that the same freedom of movement will allow the roof caving in to push them out of harms way. This is absurd and utterly inane. If you know enough about crash dynamics to understand kinetic energy, you understand that no human being is strong enough to overcome the many hundreds if not thousand of pounds of force acting upon them in even a relatively mild incident.

If we turned the tables around, we could say – using the same logic – that racers do not really need harnesses in a roll over because the cage structure of the car will protect them, and a 3-point system will suffice. I do not think you will get many takers on that one, so why does the reverse seem so popular? All of these crazy ideas are moot in any event, as the car crushing the occupants is not the problem.

Where roll-overs are concerned, it does not take an advanced degree in bio-mechanics to realize that the occupant(s) projecting out of the seat and striking the car is the real demon here. I do not know of a single person injured – let alone killed – by rolling over and being crushed by a roof at a DE event. Yet, we have thousands of people every year killed and injured on our roadways because the 3-point belt is not up to the task of retaining them in the seat in a rollover.

Occupants are injured or killed by hitting the car, not the car hitting them. This is an obvious fact that can be proven by simply looking at wrecked cars in relation to the level of injury of the occupants. As a former insurance appraiser, I’ve seen it many times. 3-point belts do not work in roll-overs, and the roof of a car does not often come down to a point where the occupant(s) would be seriously injured by it. Harnesses are vastly superior at keeping occupants in seats and not allowing them to project wildly about. Occupants would be much safer in any event with a harness than a 3-point system.

Further, this mandate has a more insidious hidden aspect to its nature. Prospective participants might look at this and incline toward installing tubing in their cars without thought to the full ramifications of this. Having tubing inside a car where a helmet is not worn – such as any street car – is decidedly NOT a good idea. Since it is indeed the case that occupants impacting something inside the car is what is injuring them, then a piece of steel tubing is certainly not going to improve that situation, regardless of how well padded. Unless it is seamlessly integrated into the interior like the existing structure of the roof components are by the interior panels (reducing the injurious irregular shape of the tubing structure as well as its hardness), tubing has the potential to be downright deadly!

What would happen if someone followed these rules to the letter, but not the intent? Installed some flimsy plastic seat (of which there are far too many available), a harness, and roll bar? What would happen if they were rear-ended at a traffic light, slid back up the flimsy flexible seat as it deformed rearward, and crushed their skull on the roll bar?

To guide people into doing things without giving them complete information is ill-advised at best. In some cases, it is actually illegal (I believe it is against the law in at least Ontario Province to have tube structures inside a street car). I feel that PCA needs help here. To some extent, it is my feeling that no one really understands this stuff as deeply as they think they do. Perhaps PCA has indeed had some high level consultations I am unaware of, but this appears not to be the case to me (at least in total) when I read what comes out of the existing process. My intent is to merely shine light, not make enemies. I stand ready to do that if the need is seen.

Respectfully Submitted; John Hajny - Central NY PCA

 

Outstanding John. I think it's pretty scary when people start mandating safety rules based upon assumptions. I cannot fathom the idea of a 3" lap belt with a factory 3 pt. Nobody knows the effectiveness of this and there is a large chance that they could work against each other.

 

Well ... I just stumbled in here (I can't keep up with the volume of posts on Rennlist, so I stopped trying, I just glance at 'recent posts' once in a while), but there's a couple of things I should address, because one of them seems to be aimed towards statements I made years ago:

First, the easy (I don't expect debate on this). The Ontario point is not correct. Yes, police here are giving out tickets - but not for having a roll cage, but for modifying seatbelt attachment points, or the belts themselves, i.e., one has a rollcage/bar, one wears harnesses mounted to the cage/bar, one will get a ticket for not wearing the factory seatbelt, and another for screwing around with the factory mounting points. Solution: wear the factory seatbelt, mounted in the factory positions, un-modified. Then, put the harnesses on (if you want to). This is supposedly legal (according to the police, anyhow - I do not believe it has gone to court). Note that I'm not commenting on the relative safety of any of this.

Second, the bend your neck/3-pt harness "bizarre" notion. As someone (maybe the one) who stated this (more or less) many years ago, I'd like to point out that, at least in what I wrote, I was referring to only a roll-over situation with no other impacts, and when comparing stock (seat and 3-point harness), vs. 4/5/6-pt belts running to a simple harness bar (now called harness guides, not a 'truss'), with no helmet, on the street.

Many people were of the opinion that the latter case was safer - in a rollover. I had two points (and others, but let's not go there) saying that it was not:

a) If stock seats were employed, given the design of the Porsche seats (of recent vintage, i.e., no separate headrest), then I said that I thought that the shoulder belts of a 4/5/6-pt racing harness would fly off, making the combination less safe than the factory three point. That was, and is, my opinion, based on Schroth's research (which used to be on their website, but I can't find it now). The response was that a sternum strap would take care of that, to which I had no response. However, I believe that subsequent research has shown that sternum straps can be a bad thing.

b) If a fixed-back seat was employed, it was argued that the harness and bar would keep you in the seat 100%, i.e., no significant belt stretch, no movement of the belts on the bar, no significant body movement. I said that if this was the case and the roof crushed, then one's neck would be snapped sideways by the collapsing roof. How could it not?

OTOH, in the same situation in the stock 3-point, one's body (not neck) would be (involuntarily) pushed sideways by the collapsing roof, and I said I experienced this, i.e., anecdotal evidence.

I said nothing about the relative importance of types of protection. I know people who feel safer in a harness/racing seat/no cage because they feel the additional active safety it offers them is more important than any possible decrease in passive safety. That is their belief, and I'm fine with that - because it is a belief.

In a particular kind of rollover - in fact, a particular kind of accident - one solution may/will be 'safer' than another. What weight does one place on which kind of accident, and which kind of safety?

As we can never know everything, all this safety stuff is faith - either way (or probability, if you don't like the word 'faith'). If one believes one will never roll-over, then obviously one doesn't have to implement safety measures in that direction. If one believes one will never drive into water, then one never needs to carry the relevant safety equipment (or do the training) to escape one's vehicle. If one believes that one will never impact head-on into a concrete wall, then one has a lower need for the safety equipment that would help in that instance.

We will always have incomplete information, and facts that contradict themselves, or are subsequently shown to be wrong (or right). One does what one can, but, in the end, it comes down to one's personal beliefs (and the rules )

I have had little to no involvement with the PCA DE program for a number of years, simply because my interests have changed (and my income has not ). I am in no position - and have no desire - to comment on that appropriateness/logic of what has been proposed, or the appropriateness/logic of your response. I did, however, want to address those two points ...

 

I agree with most of what John says. The wording is poor. I can even read into it that if I have a rollbar in my car, which is required in all softtops in DE if I'm not mistaken, that I have to have a harness adn compatible seat. So just to get in the door with a Boxster I would have to have a harness/bar/seat combo.

I do however disagree with John on one point.

You talk about all the stats of people dying in rollovers due to a 3pt not being suffcient but can you point out to me one point in which someone driving on the street died while driving in a car with a cage.

Tubing is no harder or softer than the structure underneath that formed pastic on the A and B pillars.

This is similar one of those supposed 'logical' arguments that you seem to be arguing. Might sound like common sense but has anyone actually tested this?

The cage can make the car safer and less safe but in what areas are going to be the most important.

 

No I can't and you are right that it is based on inference, and the bio-mechanics of a crash.

If there were stats on "caged traumas", they would certainly be "statistically insignificant"... unless you were one of the statistics. Might change the significance if you were the one who was dead, no?

Well...

There's an easy one to shoot down. Take a hammer, strike a solid blow to a sheet steel unibody, and then a roll cage. Which one do you think will deform more easily?

Some things are purely obvious, wouldn't you agree? Beyond the hardness of a steel tube, the irregularity of the surface that stands to be impacted when a tube is present offers many angles from which you'll get your neck compressed or snapped. A standard cars interior is NOT a perfect realm, but there is no way you could argue that adding tubing to it would do anything but make it WORSE where it concerns occupants impacting it in ANY case.

 

It might seem obvious that a cage in the interior is an obvious place to hit your head but how is it really any different than things like the A and B pillar. The addition of the cage does increase the number of places you can impact in an accident that much is undeniable. However you should also take into account that benefits that the cage can give a driver. While it might make the number of places to impact go up it also adds a significant amount of protection at the same time.

The normal thing that people always say is bad about a cage is that you have this hard piece of steel for your body to hit. Well with the addtion of good padding how is it really any different than that of the other steel in the car. As for your hammer demonstration why not use a rack of ribs and tell me if there is any difference in the pieces of metal after you hit them. The difference isn't going to matter much to the human body. The only difference is that it is 2 inches closer to you in some instances. So how close is to close? Are there any standards in the car industry that states how far away a piece of steel must be from the driver? I don't think there is. All I know is that in a Chevy Aveo the structure of the car is right next to me but even in a 944 there is some room. So can it be quantified how much more dangerous it is to have a cage in a car for an occupant concerning impacts? Probably but that takes a lot more science and math than I am able to do and the results are probably going to be quite debatable as I see it.

Now what about the benefits of a cage. I've seen a lot of side impacts where the integrity of the drivers compartment was totallly compromised and the driver was seriously injured or killed because of it. What if they had a cage in the car and the drivers area had not been compromised. Same thing for a roll over. Can the benefits of a cage be easily quantified, no for the same reasons already stated.

So does the good outweigh the bad in the use of a cage on a street? My belief is that there is an overall benefit in the addtion of a cage to everyday driving in a pure safety sense. Yes the impact issues upon occupants is increased, but I'm gonna feel that has more to do with the absolute increase of the impact surfaces and not the type of impact surfaces. The one certain benefit without question the structure of hte cage strengthens the car and adds to the safety of the car in that aspect. The one undeniable downside to a cage on the street is that it's a pain to get in and out of the car.

Yes this a lot of assumptions but it is no different than the assumptions being made saying that cages are bad on the street. So to go back to your statement about it being pretty obvious. No it very much isn't obvious and there are many factors that need to be addressed when determining whether or not a cage is safe on the street.

 

I tend to agree Joe.

 

There is a major difference between an added roll bar / cage vs the existing structure. Production cars rely on a "system" of their own. Basically, a car is designed to behave in a pre-planned (well, as much as can be planned) way in an impact. We run many digital & physical tests, using various sized occupants, and most of this is not news to this forum. I remember one instance where new regulations required the header on one of our new cars to move up almost 30mm, in order to clear the chin/nose of a 95th percentile male in an unbelted impact.

So yes, a roll cage is safer, especially when used in a race car, with the proper seat/harness setup. While making the car stiffer, a cage can potentially interfere with the intended crush zones, especially if the cage is elaborate enough to tie to additional points in the car such as suspension pickups.

So imagine a situation, where a passenger is not seated perfectly straight & true in a seat. Imagine they are grabbing something from the map pocket, reaching for a bag just behind the seat, etc. Suddenly, an accident occurs. Yup, most of us don't anticipate a hit on the street, vs. knowing you're off on the track & and the wall's a comin'... Now what happens? Will the occupant narrowly miss the mess of tubes, none of which would be in the way if the occupant was properly cinched in? That's the real problem, I think.

Point is, you rely on huge dollars worth of testing, engineering, scruteneering, and design that goes into a modern automobile. When you add a cage, you simply assume it's degree of safety, but don't have the helmet & tight belts that are used on the track to go along with the ride.

I'm a designer in the automotive industry by trade, & not an engineer, so before anyone starts quoting tensile strength numbers, metal fatigue properties, etc, please note that my comments are meant to offer a different point of view. And for the record, my own car is equipped with a roll bar, one piece seats, 6 pointers for track use & 3 pointers for street use.

After all of the above, I do believe that Porsche themselves offer club-sport variants in Europe with full cages for street consumption, don't they? 993 RS/CS, 993 GT2 CS come to mind...

Regards,

Garen (87 930)

 

A roll bar in a street vehicle, without a harness and helmet, could potentially be very dangerous for the occupants in a vehicle accident. I've invstigated vehicle accidents for over a decade, and although I've never investigated an accident where a roll bar was installed, I've seen the evidence of where bodies have come in contact with respective interior parts of a vehicle while the occupants were using seat belts, and it is clear that the a head or limb could contact certain parts of a roll bar. This is not limited to roll overs, front and rear impacts may also violently move body parts in less than desirable directions.

 

Ummm...

Before things go too far astray, I never said that a cage in a street car did not provide some possible benefit. I do not deal in such absolutes because I am fairly experienced in the car game. However, I feel that the risk added is also something that needs to be addressed. It is my experience that unintended consequences resulting from less than fully vetted decisions are usually a big surprise, and rarely to the good.

You can quibble about this point or that, and everyone is free to do anything they feel is appropriate. My first concern is that people think 360* around an issue before they mandate - let alone suggest - safety actions.

 

+1 to that. I'm with you.

-Garen (87 930)

 

This is interesting.

I know a few people who just had the factory seats in their ZO6 modified so they now have shoulder harness holes to comply with PCA rules. Every other group they run with does not require this. Since they run a few PCA events every year, the modification was justified.

Problem is, none of these guys have a roll bar, just a harness bar for the belts. So now they are probably going to be told they must run with the factory 3-point belt versus their harness. This will also force them to leave their HANS device in the trailer.

 

You mean roll bar or roll cage? I have one of John's bars in my car as a way to attach my harnesses. Someone told me that it was inherently unsafe (I drive it to the track) since I could hit my head on it.

If that was the case, I would have had to rise 6" out of my seat, get my head backwards between the top of the seat and roof and travel a few more inches before I hit the bar. I think I would be long dead before hitting my head on it.

Whoever mentioned that the cage would interfere with intended crumple zones...I found that interesting. I guess if you think about it, the modern car is designed by a team of people and vigorously tested. The roll cage is designed by one person and hopefully never tested!

 

I am fully in the camp with John that one needs to address all the ramifications that a rule like the harness rule can have.

My only issue is with the general attitude that roll bars and cages are less safe on the street than without mainly due to the ability to impact yourself on the bar during an accident. While I agree that the chance of impacting something 'seems' to be higher when there is a roll bar/cage, is it really that much higher. Also there is the added amount of safety in the strength of the drivers compartment with a cage. That increase in safety (good example would be in a T-bone accidnet) is it enough to balance or even out weigh the potential increase in risk of body parts impacting a cage. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that it's at least a push if not an overall increase in safety to have a cage in the car on a street.

 

It seems as though Zone 1 has taken the PCA Minimum Standards one step further. PCA Minimum Standards state that when using harnesses a roll bar or cage is "strongly encouraged" to complete the system. It seems as though Zone 1, as posted by John, stated that a roll bar or cage "must be used". So if your Corvette friends run in a region other than Zone 1 that allows the use of harness guide bars or trusses then they won't need to re-change their setups.

I am increasingly surprised that the National PCA allows such a variance of policy in their DE program. In a sport/pasttime/hobby which carries such a high level of risk, it would seem to me that they would develop a reasonable, well though out list of policies that are required to be adhered to, unaltered, by all regions.

Differing safety restraint rules, windows up/down, no standardized run group designations (colors, letters), M and SA rated helmets -- all these rule variances between regions cause confusion and potential hardships for those attending the events. PCA has 13 different regions, all with their own set of DE rules and regulations. IMHO one club = one set of rules, would simplify things greatly for both participants and individual regional DE Committee members.

John, you had the floor yet didn't bring up the 5-year rule on aftermarket belts?