LVDell

Oh forget it John, clearly nobody can have a contrary view to you. And the worse part is yours has ZERO empirical evidence yet you are adamant about your stance and dismissive of mine. So you prefer to error on the side of LESS safety even though you have no proof and follow that up as well with you haven't seen anything so it couldn't possibly have happened? That is poor logic.

sjanes

From Joe Marko (who is a safety expert) on rollovers:

joemarko: Rollovers are with such as sytem is most effective. The greatest cause of serious injury in a rollover is not being crushed by the roof but
joemarko: by you falling down on the roof at the end the incident or your body parts coming out of the window be it your head or hands and arms.
joemarko: There are very few injurys cause by roof collapse.

Full text of seminar can be found at: http://www.justracing.com/seminar_ar...wtopic.php?t=5

LVDell

So then there is no reason to have the roll bar? Sweet, time to take mine out as I will feel so much safer.

Sounds like PCA needs to require window nets then if there are going to be people running 3pts?

sjanes

That's not what anyone said Dell, but take your's out if you wish. The point was that you are more likely getting hurt by hitting the car than the car hitting you, so you are better off with a harness than a 3pt even without the rollbar.

But don't take my word for it, I'm not an expert either. Phone HMS and ask for Joe Marko, who is an expert.

LVDell

sjanes.....I wasn't being serious. I should have added a smiley.

I totally agree that a 6pt is better than a 3pt (in the proper seat) and would RATHER have a rollbar over a harness bar. I've got the approach to safety of more is better trying to cover all possible bases.

gbaker

I believe the point John was making is that the vast majority of injuries are caused by the driver striking the car, not roof collapse. Therefore, one must design the safety system for the former. Given the amount of body motion produced by even moderate impacts, a 6 pt. will be more effective than a 3 pt. in restraining motion.

Is it possible that the crushed-roof scenario may prove less injurious with a 3 pt? Well, yeah, it's possible, but the probability of occurrence is so low as to make it a non issue.

Oops. Beat me to it.

sjanes

ops, sorry. Agree that more safety is better (I had a rollbar for my first DE, and now have a cage), but everything short of a full race car is a compromise so people should understand the possible results of those compromises.

LVDell

I think we are all in agreement

sechsgang

Honestly, I think the rollbar is a great insurance policy as it only takes one freak accident for it to be useful...and thats not something that I plan on taking the chance on...ever.




BTW Dr., if you want a real track turbo, just buy mine for the track, use yours for the street...and have the best of both worlds!

Garen

How many DE's vs. street miles? The reason I ask, if you have the room and don't mind wrenching, you can always switch between the two setups. The harnesses can be attached with quick-release clips, and the bar is usually a simple item to install or remove. Yeah, it's a bunch of work, but before we get carried away with the safety benefits of having a rollbar in a DE roll-over, one thing is clear, rear passengers and a roll bar don't mix. Plus, we need future enthusiasts... so keep giving your kids rides in the car.

todinlaw

I have a roll bar, but I have no intention of using it except to hang my Schroth harnesses off of it and my Camera mount. Isn't that what its for?

Alan G.

please pardon the pun. Certainly choicing your own poison, but a roll bar in a street driven car without a helmet has very conciderable risk. Five or six points cinched tight would probably prevent the travel, but value vs risk of a roll bar on the street is not a clearcut call.

RedlineMan

Hmmmm...

That's a rather hysterical response, and rather uncharacteristic of you in my experience. I apologize if you took this to mean I was demeaning you personally. Not at all, Dell. This is not about you. It is about a falacy that sticks in my craw every time I see it floated again, and it is profered far too often for my taste. I don't know who first offered it, but it is utterly and totally devoid of statistical merit, and not based on reality in the slightest.

I am tired of trying to refute the THINKING you are portraying here, as the reality does not support it in any possible way you can offer. I have all the imperical evidence in the world, and it is irrefutable; You cannot name for us one single person who has been crushed by a roof in a rollover accident at a DE.

Look at what SJanes quoted from Joe Marko. Listen to what GBaker had to say. Re-read what I said. Apart from my frustration at dealing with this myth, my points were purely statistical, reaility based, and logical.

If you watch any given dynamic sled test, you will see the test dummy contort and twist in all manner of hideous ways. Reality is truly shocking, is it not? That is because the forces of gravity and kinetic energy are far too overwhelming for us to contemplate, let alone physically counter. WARNING - Capitals used for emphasis, not to demean anyone... THE WORLD'S STRONGEST MAN CANNOT PHYSICALLY COUNTER, RESIST, OR OVERCOME THE FORCE OF AN AUTOMOBILE CRASH. Can we stipulate this part #1 for the record? That's the first building block.

Part #2 - All you need to do is envision the same overpowering forces acting on a body in an inverted fashion to see that (even though the forces are in fact quite different) it is for all intents and purposes completely similar in one respect; the amount of projection out of the seat of the occupant. Given this, all should be able to deduce that it is the enormous force acting on the body, coupled with the highly elastic nature of the body, that poses the most danger. Again, re-read what Marko and Baker had to say. It is the occupant striking the car - due to bodily elasticity and forces levels that a human cannot resist- that poses the greatest danger.

So, if you can see the logic of what I've said, let's apply it to the question at hand. How do I ceate a true dual use car with accessible back seats, yet enhanced safety? Answer, you buy seats with articulated backs so you can have belt routing holes for safety, yet access the rear seat. You buy some form of harness mounting device (mount bar or roll bar) that can be removed fairly easily. Done.

The idea you (and PCA National for that matter) have offered here is setting up a scenario where drivers are being told they cannot have seats and harnesses because that is not a true system if they don't also include a roll bar. If they do not want a roll bar for whatever reason (like rear seat use), they are being led to believe they are less safe, and thus may eschew harnesses entirely. Ironically and unfortunately, this makes them less safe in a VAST majority of incidents they may encounter in their dirivng career.

You will never hear me argue that a true safety system does not include a well designed tube structure. That is great for dedicated track cars, and if you can make that justification, all the better. However, for those who cannot make that leap, it is unfair and actually illogical to tell them that they cannot increase their safety without limiting the usefullness of their daily ride.

Doesn't this make perfect sense to anyone else?

tkerrmd

traitor!!! but you are right

ok Dell and John carry on, very interesting!!

pcar928fan

Maybe get rid of the turbo and get a 997 Carrera and buy someones fully sorted and decent race car for $.25 on the $1! Building a race car/ dedicated DE car is an expensive proposition that will be nearly impossible to recoup your money from when you are done with it...

Glad you had a good time at your first DE...they are addictive. Good idea to get out of the green group first before you start spending a mint on all this stuff though...