kurt M

What is unsafe about a 5 or 6 point without a rollbar?

RedlineMan

Ha!

Well done, Eric. That's eactly what I am trying to do here. Shred the Blanket Statement. Anyone who says a 5-point doesn't work is wrong. Anyone who says a 6-point is automatically better is wrong. It is indeed a matter of a lot of IFS. IF you buy the right 6-point, and IF you know how to configure it, it will offer certain performance advantages. These advantages are incremental, but can be crucial in the nastiest of circumstances.

It is always best to get the highest performing safety gear you can, no question. However, it will only offer you all of its performance if you install it correctly.

TR6

I'm curious about this since I have a B-K harness bar that I was going to install. Why is a roll bar/cage better strictly in terms of harness mounting/routing? I understand a rollbar offers some rollover protection which a harness bar doesn't.
Thanks for the offer, I'll find you and check it out.

fatbillybob

I think you can generalize that a 6 is better than 5 because you need to assume you can install it correctly. Sure it is harder but not that much harder. I've seen plenty of badly installed 5pts too. I don't think a badly installed 5 is better than a badly installed 6. Bad is just bad. Once you start adding installation into the mix then we may as well stop promoting HANS, right side nets and fire systems all frought with installation nightmares. There are some that would say 99% of users install harnesses and seats wrong because they are not attached to the cage. Even installation is a compromise. All we can do is try to keep up with technology buy what buget affords and hope for luck. These are great threads to keep us thinking.

James-man

Anyone have 5 pt harnesses to sell cheap to those that do not need or have much regard for their *****?

Bull

Is there any safety device that is an improvement if it isn't installed properly? Or for that matter, any performance device that improves performance if it isn't installed improperly? Any comparison I make starts with the assumption that both are properly installed, of course.

chris walrod

I wrote this on a similar thread in the GT3 forum --

Another reason a roll bar should be used in conjunction with 5 or 6 point belts is that such belts are designed to keep you upright in your RACE seat whereas factory installed three point belts are designed to collapse with the standard factory installed seat in the event of the collapsed roof.

It certainly becomes a chain reaction slippery slope when either seats, aftermarket belts or a roll bar is installed. If one installs 5 or 6 point belts, you then need rollover protecion, then race seats to properly route the shoulder and anti-sub straps.

ltc

Yes

kurt M

[QUOTE=chris walrod;4594309]I wrote this on a similar thread in the GT3 forum --

Another reason a roll bar should be used in conjunction with 5 or 6 point belts is that such belts are designed to keep you upright in your RACE seat whereas factory installed three point belts are designed to collapse with the standard factory installed seat in the event of the collapsed roof.

[QUOTE]

Phiziks is a bitch. Think about the energy that is causing the roof to fail. Is it slowly crushing the roof as in a car crusher or is it the slamming flash of violence you see in a wreck? The energy that is acting on the car to crush the roof is acting on you inside the drivers compartment with the same power. You will not slump down or duck out of the way of the roof as it crushes in. You can't, no one can. If there is enough energy to crush the roof it is far more than a human can resist. You will be slammed against the roof with the same force that is crushing it twards you. No one is "pushed out of the way" or can "duck" during a roof crushing wreck. The energys are too great. Yes a seat, 6 point and roll bar adds protection but a seat and 6 point adds most of it. You are far more likely to be in a side front or rear hit than a roof crushing event. Don't pass on gaining the most over the last bit.

RedlineMan

I knew Greg Smith was eluding to this;

I kept silent until someone actually voiced it. I utterly dissagree, and will offer my Touche`.

The following excerpt is from a letter I sent to the PCA President, and Zone 1 Representative. The text in RED is a portion of that which appeared as "suggested procedure" in the Zone 1 48 Hours at Watkins Glen info packet. My rebuttal to what I see as misinformed "rules creep" follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RedlineMan

Understood, Bob;

Yet, when installation is up to people that don't know the difference, or understand it, it IS and REMAINS a problem. INFORMATION, INFORMATION, INFORMATION.

CORRECT information!!!

gbaker

Crashed, or un-crashed?

Gregg Baker
Isaac, LLC

RedlineMan

Yes... BUT...

(Pssst... there's more to it than that )

Greg Smith

I've been through the whole roll bar and harness debate more times that I can count. Bottom line is it's my opinion, take it as you wish.

ZAPmobile

One thing to remember is next year in PCA you must also have a racing seat if you are going to install a 5 or 6 point harness. As many have said the real difference between a 5 or 6 point is comfort.