jcb-memphis

Let's just say it would be nice...

What is the best folding seat for my needs out there.. Boy do I wish you could get by a fixed seat and get into the back.....just not a real choice.

Thanks!!

JB

JB

Kerry

It makes perfect sense to me, John. Not because of personal experience - I'm just a dilettante in this field - but because I have read exactly the same lab and field results from various sources. What surprises me is how little of this hard won data has spread beyond the industries that generated it.

sechsgang

honestly, I would try to get a 997 gt2 seat...VERY expensive, but has to be one of the best folding seats for the job...

sechsgang

Sorry...but I couldnt let Dell have all the fun!

(Plus, its better practice for my interests...haha)

RedlineMan

Indeed;

I never made this personal, or never intended to. I was talking logic and reason, not personalities. I was not trying to challenge anyone's intelligence, just their perspective. And it stuns me as well that this notion I am trying to get accepted (the reality of the situation) is met with such resistance, and the common belief that is so easy to refute is so wide spread and pervasive. Not that it is intuitive, because it obviously is not, quite. Ha... so much of this safety stuff is like that. I just don't see why it is so hard to fathom?

If you speak to people that see this stuff on a regular basis - crash estimators, investigators, repair techs, ambulance attendants, crash biomechanicists (I happen to have been the first three) - you universally get the same answer; occupant projection into the car is what injures and kills people in a roll. To take this topic to its ultimate extension - Even IF they were crushed by a roof coming in on them, they would have died from impacting it first before it applied enough force to kill them by its movement.

The most common incident scenario, by a country mile, is a car going out of control, remaining upright and clobbering something in some fashion. Happens at virtually every event, eh? Rollovers are quite rare. Staticitcally infinitesimal by any measure. Instances where roofs come down far enough to substantially impact occupants are a minute fraction of that exceedingly sparse statistic. We are worried about this? I am more worried about the casual DE guy getting the perception that if he does not want to use a roll bar, for good reason, that he has to forgoe the harnesses and seats.

Next to a helmet, seats and belts are the greatest safety devices we have available to us. By fostering the above perception with ill-informed rules making or "suggesting", we REDUCE safety for the vast majority of drivers likely to experience the most common form of incident.

Does this not make sense to anyone else? I've tried to talk to PCA, and they are completely deaf. The only way to manage this reversal is to go from the ground up. You all reading this are on the ground. GBaker obviously has some serious foundation here, and SJanes has given this some thought previously. Kerry then had the wherewithall to pipe up. He's though it over. At the moment of these posts, it was a discussion of four, and Dell -vs 308 views for this topic.

And from this most important topic we get... Crickets?.............

RedlineMan

Jeff;

If you follow my reasoning, and accept it as the reality it is, then you should see that you CAN increase your safety - in the vast majority - with a harness MOUNT apparatus that is fairly easily removed, proper seats, and belts. If you cannot find the stuff, bring me the car and I will BUILD it for you!

LVDell

John, you have my apologies as well. I just can't stand it when one person thinks their non-empirical evidence is better than another persons non-empirical evidence and then calls the other a myth. My stance is NOT that mine is better or yours is better but rather stems from growing tired of seeing safety priorities all out of whack in the grid from the new and relatively new drivers as well as the vets. It makes NO SENSE to run without a rollbar if you are going to run 6pts for the very thing the 6pt usually bring you.....INCREASED SPEED. With that increased speed comes the responsibility of more safety.

Maybe I am just a safety freak. I have almost everything safety related in my car (and person) and that which is lacking is getting done in the coming months.....full cage in place of the rollbar, fire suppression in place of the FE, and electrical cutoff.

ps. I agree that it is probably more dangerous in a 3pt during a rollover than a 6pt. I would defer that the 3pt person would probably receive MORE damage than the 6pt person in a roof collapse without a rollbar. Your point was well made and for that I agree now. I still believe the best of both worlds needs to be had (6pts and a rollbar)

RedlineMan

We're cool!

I disagree somewhat, however. I would look at this a bit differently. You might say that a driver can go faster with harnesses, but this is the result of increased comfort and control. The harness is therefore causal, with possible speed resultant. I would argue that harnesses may PREVENT more accidents because of this increased control. Increasing speed is up to the driver's comfort level and objectives.

And in the case of a dual use car, I think it DOES make sense to use harnesses without a roll bar, for the reasons and using the logic stated previously. One has to take into account their equipment level, and drive accordingly. Realizing this is the slipping point!

Nope... you're to be comended for thinking critically about your own situation, which is what all safety discussions I foster or feed are intended to do.

But... you didn't mention whether my thinking was starting to make sense to you or not....?

LVDell

Prevent? I would agree with that. Excellent point.

Does it make sense to the casual driver? Probably so. I think we are on the same page now in that the driver needs to take EVERYTHING into account and determine what level of safety they need or better yet, would be safe in.

Slipping point? I fell off that cliff long ago!

Thanks. I think it is probably due to my tremendous respect (not fear) for speed and also the little 9 month old that I cherish and want to make sure daddy is there for many, many, many years to come.

How'd you do that?

RedlineMan

Do what?

jcb-memphis

Thanks guys.

Plan:

Be smooth and smart.

Get a roll cage when I get to Red or Black....


Until then (and to be honest, I am someone who is super happy now...I have no "need" to prove anything, and at the big Zone 2 DE, there were more silly issues in the instructors group than the other groups...."

good seat

5pt

bk bar


Jeff

LVDell

Jeff, I would just add that you don't need to go to a cage in the higher speed categories but rather a good roll bar. Personally, the reason I am moving to a cage is b/c I will probably be starting my racing career in the next year.

DrJupeman

John H., I do not always agree with you on these boards, but for this topic I have been 100% in agreement for the months (years?) that this debate has been ongoing. This whole "dodge a crushing roof" rationale for using 3 points over harnesses without rollbars is beyond nuts to me. I wonder if the folks who started the rumor/story have ever been in any kind of impact to understand the forces involved? If you are in an accident where the roof is collapsing, you are not going to be able to dodge anything. You are a crash dummy along for the ride and hoping for the best. As with you, my observations from 15 years of track driving is that the odds are you will hit a wall 9.9/10 before you roll (and even when you roll, you've probably hit a wall first). It seems downright stupid to optimize safety for the .1/10 case (3 points) rather than the 9.9/10 case (5/6 points) - and I don't even think the .1 case should utilize any different safety gear! Always use 5/6 points in my book!

In short, and perhaps to return to the original point of the thread, is do not skimp on safety. I personally do not want to track in articulating seats if I can avoid it, but I understand the need for compromise. The fact is that there are not easily accessible statistics to base decisions on here, so you have to use your best judgement when choosing the safety setup that works for you. The reality is that most dual-purpose cars are not going to have the optimized safety gear that a dedicated track car could have, unless you're willing to do work between events installing/uninstalling equipment.

jcb-memphis

If Porsche would just wake up and sell the new GT2 seat to us mere mortals for 1k per seat, everyone would be happy.

6-8k for a set....insane. Those seats are what I want to use.....the aftermarket needs to read this and make copy cat seats. I don't need the airbags...etc.

Those seats would likely be fine...just fine.

RedlineMan

Thanks Charlie;

And extremely well said. This myhtical roof intrusion thinking makes so little sense, and yet is so "universal", that I am renedered nearly appoplectic at times. What I have been trying to do for a LONG time now is to flip this mythical notion on its head - as it were - and get the majority opinion flowing in the direction of the REALITY, not the perception.

To reiterate clearly, point by point;

- The cause of injury for virtually every accident is the projection of the occupant(s) out of the seat. Regardless of the equipment involved, or the physical strength of the occupants, they cannot hope to overcome the forces acting upon them in any way. Whatever is nearby to hit, they will hit without fail. The amount and quality of restraint and the severity of impact are the only limiting factors here.

- The highest percentage of impacts - by more than a wide margin - are linear collisions with retaining walls. Any other type of collision barely even rates statistical mention. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to concentrate on those forms of collisions. Not to ignore any other possibilites, but to optimize safety for the greatest number of people. ANY limitation in this regard (such as dissuading folks from using harness MOUNT bars in dual use cars) REDUCES safety for the majority.

The rules are leaning in a rather draconian direction. I agree with the race-seat-and-harness rule. I don't like telling people what they must do, but the belt dump phenomenon is too hard to control to leave to chance. Beyond that, they are infering that if you do not have a roll bar, you are not safe. This is patently absurd.

Any proper step along the trail - if correctly executed - is a positive step. For the dual use owner, getting a proper seat and harness mounting structure is an excellent first step, and will provide much improved safety in most any instance he/she is likely to encounter. If said person has the wherewithal to go further to a roll bar, or a dedicated track car even, that is a great move. Just don't try and tell me that there is no room for increased safety without tube structures, because there is virtually no evidence to support that.