Yo,

Barwick, I understand that you want to try and help/save people with your original post. That's a great and noble thing.

I'm trying to do the same thing. I am trying to inform people that there is a harness that is specifically designed for street applications that will increase your chances of surviving accidents. That harness is made by Schroth.

http://www.schroth.com/

What I don't agree on is your blanket statement: "You will get crushed." in a rollover. You provide no proof of this. There is no data presented to verify this.

Again, if this was the case would Schroth be allowed to sell these "Neck Snappers" in the United States? In Germany? I've driven multiple NASA and other sanctioned events and no one has ever said, "Dear God, don't use those things without a rollcage! You'll die!" Why do people wear them at open track events and autocrosses if they're so dangerous? Especially since the chances of rollover at an open track event is far greater than on the street?

BMW and Porsche has Schroth belts as factory options in some of their cars. Would they open themselves up to liabilty if they were this horrible threat to safety?

You say that Schroth's are just the same as any other belt, nothing special about them. I urge you to do some research on their website and check out their patented ASM system. They are different and special. They are the only harnesses that you can legally wear in the United States and Germany since they have passed stringent Government safety standards.

If your only retort to the facts I've provided is to make fun of the company's name...then this argument is effectively over.

Kevin
1989 GTUs "Thanks for playing."

essentially though 4 pt. harnesses are 4 pt. harnesses, there isn't much difference between one to the other witht he exception of varying degrees of material quality and hardware quality. i think that it's great that schroths are DOT approved and I'm sure most of the ones on the market would be, it's just that the degree of effort and money to GET the approval is too large for most companies. it's all about standards and i'm sure the schroths pass in a rollover but it's safer to wear OEM's in that situation (unlikely situation ion our cars, but a situation nonetheless).

It is strongly recommended that the shoulder harnesses are fitted as close to horizontal as possible. It is a must that the angle of the shoulder harness does not exceed 45 degrees in relation to the theoretical horizontal axis of the mounting points. -sparcousa.com

It has also been stated by several people on here that they should be mounted as close to horizontal as possible.. If you took the time to read and pay attention you would of realized that they are talkin about the lap belts realitive to the floor. Here is the link so you can re-read it. http://www.teamsimpson.com/catalog/r...s/restinfo.asp

No one here said that that an FD cant roll.. We said that the chances of that happening are very slim. My mom used to work for state farm and over 80% of accidents were t-bone, front end/side/back collision, etc. Only about 2% were actual roll-overs. Most of the ones that rolled over never saw the top of the car and ended up on their side.

I hate people that just keep on assumin and dont listen. NO one here has said that a harness is safer w/o a roll cage/bar.

Yes let the ignorant remain ignorant, and right now that seems to be you. If you put mods. on your car you accept the risk assoicated with them. PEROID. Again, I hate to tell you but no where here do i see anyone saying that a harness is safer than OEM belts w/o a cage/bar. The only person saying that is RarestRX and his belt is DOT approved. It would not be DOT approved if it didnt do its job right and caused someones head to be slamed into their shoulders in a roll-over.

ASM: Anti Submarining Mechanism.

How does that allow you to lie flat during a rollover like a stock street belt?

Yo,

I'm no engineer, crash specialist, or biomechanical engineer...nor pretend to be. That's why I buy stuff from companies that hire all those people (Like Schroth). But since it looks like it's okay to pull crash theory out of one's ass and post it on this forum, I'll give it a shot:

The ASM is a patented energy conversion device located on the inside shoulder belt. It uses the belt material sewn together that pulls apart and lenghtens during initial impact...I'll say the inside belt lengthens 2 to 3 inches. This dampens the initial inertial shock, helping reducing peak loads on the head and neck while preventing the wearer from sliding underneath the lap belt and submarining. What else? It will let you slip sideways towards the inside of the vehicle while the roof is collapsing.

Did I get that right, the roof collapsing? We're talking about a catastrophic roof failure in your theoretical rollover, right? The safety cages fails and the A and B pillars collapse...letting the roof drop 10 to 20 inches?

If that's what you're talking about you act like a catastrophic roof collapse is like a big pillow coming down at your head at 3mph..."Ooh, I better duck out of the way! Luckily my OEM belts allow me to do this!" *duck* "Phew! Luckily I could lay flat underneath the dashboard...I'm saved!"

It's just stupid...and I can't believe I'm wasting my time on this.

If you're so worried about a catastrophic roof failure then you shouldn't wear /any/ belts because it will be better to be ejected out of the vehicle instead of being compacted into chum inside of it.

*sigh*

Again, you've answered none of my simple questions:

Where's the proof of all these rollover fatalities?

Why does SCCA/NASA allow Schroth belts to be run at their events if they're inherently dangerous without a rollbar?

Why is Schroth allowed to sell them if they're that dangerous?

Why should a proven safety item that helps 80% of the time be thrown out because it supposedly fails 20% of the time?

I could go on and on...but Schroth has a funny name...so they must suck. You're right.

:rolleyes:

Kevin
1989 GTUs "Next..."

Oh high and mighty one.. you are the epitome of knowledge..

Ok, this is getting old. Multiple people on here, including racers and engineers (myself being one) have gone over this with you. 2-3 inches isn't going to allow your body to move sideways like OEM belts would in a rollover. You will be held upright in a rollover, and you will be hurting, probably dead with scorhoscratchmynutsoth belts. They will do what they're designed for, and that is HOLDING YOU UPRIGHT.

With OEM belts, you will be flung sideways either when the car is flipping, or when the roof finally collapses and your body moves sideways with nothing to resist it from doing so.

Darwin's theory of evolution will haold true for those who don't listen Barwick, don't argue with the ones who are going to do themselves in

Yo,


This is easy!

I just click on "quote" and just type some little thing here at the bottom...and I'm all done!

Kevin
1989 GTUs "Funny how you can't answer any of those relatively simple questions."

Fc's have a very rigid construction. The unibody style also makes it quite a bit stronger. Id rather be in a FC in an accident than some soccer moms minivan.

Freaky,
Ok first thing...relax. No bones to pick here. Apologies I was not too specific regarding Simpsons installation instructions. Cursory glance... only spec they denote for shoulder belts is "Anchor shoulder straps at a point four inches below top of shoulder." And from the pic it looks pretty close to 45degs. And in my haste I misread the prior note as being applicable when in fact it was referring to the lap belts. So chill eh? My bad.

It was that it was inferred in a prior post that FD's are *highly unlikely* to roll over for a number of reasons. My point was that yes they can regardless of the CofG and even though the probability is low it is still a probability. It's then up to the owner if they are willing to take that risk. But when it is espoused that someone else should not be concerned about rollovers, then most certainly I will take issue with the assertion and. As I've said I've witnessed several pretty scary rollovers. That's all...nothing more. To me
2% is still 2%. A fraction of 2% is still a fraction of 2%. To me the % is too high to NOT consider. Driving a car that *may* hurt you in a rollover is always at the discretion of the driver.

Ummm ok. So what is RarestRX7 saying about using his DOT approved Schroth harnesses in a car *without* a rollbar? I seem to think we are talking apples and oranges. The issue is, is it safer to use a harness on the street than the OE belts. And there are many caveats. That is my understanding of the issue. Nothing more nothing less. And my position is no it is not. DOT cert or not. My biggest contention being the inconsistnacy with which harnesses are installed. Which in retrospect is very difficult to do properly without a rollbar with which to anchor the shoulder belts. Anchor to the hatch area and the belts are too long and will stretch, anchor to a reat strut bar - no evidence strut bar can take the load, anchor to the floor area behind seat and...see above. Sorry but I just don't see it. At least not enough to make a blanket statement that YES using harnesses on the street is a good thing to do. There are many conditions involved that I feel many in this thread have been overlooked.

Yessirreee Bob thats me. Mr ignorant. ;)
BTW personal attacks...not very nice. I'm not here to make enemies. My comment was generic and not specific and not at all intended to be derogatory. Some people simply are ignorant of information often not ever having been exposed to the information. So please ease up on the hostility eh?

Amen..thank you. We have some agreement.

Did the DOT approve RarestRX7s installation? No they certified THE BELTS!!! (Does Schroth have a rewebbing interval? I dunno but something else to consider.) Above all that's the most important point I'd like to make - the installation. I'd bet strong money an insurance company would have a field day with an injured driver if all he was using, and was involved in an accident, was an aftermarket harness, DOT approved or not. And as was mentioned probably the only reason the Schroths are DOT cert'd is because they shelled out the money to go through the VERY expensive federal process of getting them cert'd. All the major manufacturers make good quality harnesses IMO. Any will do the job adequately when installed and maintained as part of a properly prepared safety system.

Oh and I will NOT wear a harness in a car on the track when instructing if the same car does not have a roll bar as well. I'll take my chances with the OE belts :)

Enough of my prattling.
Peace,
Crispy
And if it matters, BS and MS in Mech engineering, driving on the track for 7 years, FD and FC (x2) owner for 13 years, instructor for 3 local clubs and schools, and currently preparing for SCCA racing....not a harness engineer specifically but I've seen a fair bit ;)

How about every time I try and do that, you go off on how scratchmynutsoth belts are safe in rollovers without a rollcage?

Yo,

Bro, I said it before...and I should have listened to my own advice:

If your only retort to the facts I've provided is to make fun of the company's name...then this argument is effectively over.

Now that you've done it not once, not twice, but /three/ times...this argument is definitely over.

A quick recap for all the people playing at home:

Barwick posts, "Harnesses on the street will kill, or seriously injure you in a rollover accident if you do not have a rollbar."

I post, "Really? I wear a Schroth harness in a street car without a rollbar. Prove it to me!"

Barwick posts, "Um...well...Scorororoioiuth! Scorhoscratchmynutsoth! Scratchmynutsoth!"

I post, "Ooookay, so you have no proof."

And that's where we are currently. You have done a craptacular job in convincing me my Schroth belt's are a danger to me in a rollover accident. You have provided absolutely no proof of your assertion.

Your only reply is to make bastard ad hominem attacks on the Schroth company's /name/.

It's so weak, it's laughable.

Unless you can start providing any kind of /proof/ of your assertions...it appears to me that you're talking out of your ass.

Kevin
1989 GTUs "Buh-bye!"

And the eight or so members on here that have come with verifiable evidence from long time race drivers and engineers isn't enough? Scorhowtoieth belts are harnesses, plain and simple. You yourself said they stretch 2-3 inches. Measure the distance from your shoulders straight up, to your shoulders leaned over completely sideways in your seat without belts, and tell me if it's 3 inches.

proof
 

Just because there isn't much physical evidence of something happening doesn't mean it can't or won't. Much of it is common sense. If you drop something, it will fall, you don't have to ask someone that. It might be true that the car's roof may not collapse if it just rolls over and lands on its roof, like the one parts car. But what if it rolls over and hits the roof twice? three times? the structural integrity of the roof is no longer there, and your roof can and will fall farther down each time. My post isn't determining whether or not harnesses are unsafe or not, but rather that the roof can collapse. Also, no matter what driver errors there might have been, it doesn't matter, the point is the roof under possible circumstances. You may be thinking, "Hey, when you roll over multiple times, sometimes your roof doesn't hit the ground every time!!!!!11". That's true, but my point still stands.

My friend's friend (yeah, I know it sounds made up now, but I don't call him my friend because I barely know him, but I've met him several times) was going 140 down a farm road in his 92 integra. He lost control and flipped 14 times. 8 of those times, he hit his roof on the ground. Each time the car hit, he would be thrown around, and as the roof got closer, his arm went out the sunroof, because it had little other places it could go. It was crushed and he had to have a skin graft to fix it. When the crash was over, he was in a position that NO racing harness i've ever seen would allow. He was ducked down and moved to his right over the console.
Had he had a rollcage (and we'll just ASSUME that there was no way he'd hit his head on it, even though there definately was) a harness would do great and his arm would be just as useful as it was before he shifted for the last time.

Just thought I'd share.

Has any one here considered the absurdity of actually being strong enough to lean over the proper direction during a roll over accident?

The forces applied to ones body during a roll over accident would be somewhat well strong. If I would be able to 1 react that fast during a roll over and 2 lean over in the proper direction during such a wreck I would amaze myself.

This is way to absurd.

You don't lean yourself over, it just happens automatically by the forces of the accident. Unless you have harnesses on, in which case you don't lean at all, and get crushed.

here is my cage
http://rx7.cyberosity.com/87GTR/pics...3/IM001889.jpg


http://rx7.cyberosity.com/87GTR/pics...3/IM001888.jpg



will take some better pics today

Yo,

Dude, what thread are you talking about? 8 members? Race drivers and engineers? I haven't seen anything of any merit that would prevent me from wearing my Schroth's on the street without a cage.

"Scorhowtoieth"? Wow, number 4! Change the record, it's getting old.

Wow, that's quite a breakthrough! I'm going to contact all the major automakers to tell them to stop making their A pillar and B pillars so strong so the roof doesn't collapse in a rollover. Heck, the stock 3 point belts will save you "automatically" in a catastrophic roof collapse. You'll lean over and the roof will gently and lovingly press you down underneath the dashboard.

Imagine all the money those automakers could save on steel...let the roof collapse, you'll be okay! Some guy on the RX-7 Forum with no credentials or proof says so! Man, what fools those automakers are...making a safety cage of steel to prevent the roof from collapsing...when they'll be just fine with the stock belts.

It's a miracle.

:rolleyes:

Kevin
1989 GTUs "No one has ever been killed in a catastrophic roof collapse while wearing OEM belts! Barwick says so!"

RarestRX: are you twelve years old? Have you ever been in an accident? Have you talked to those who've been in them? Especially in rollovers, you get tossed around. You go sideways and every which direction, hence "it automatically happens" that you lean sideways. Unless you're wearing.. *dum* *dum* *dum*... harnesses.

Can you argue with that fact? No.. let's move on.

Now that you're still straight up in an accident, what happens when the roof collapses again? Oh that's right, I refer to the 2 or 3 pictures of rollovers people have provided.

Not to mention the testimonies from what, 3 race instructors who refuse to wear harnesses when they're on the track if the car has no cage? Now why would they do that.. the cars must not have been equipped with the magical scorotthhhhhhhhh harnesses.

Barwick, do you post on cc.com?

Your style reminds me of the tech flame wars over there. :) Especially the "scorhoscratchmynutsoth" stuff.

Anyways, there should be plenty of evidence and material here to properly educate people that have questions on this type of thing.

This stuff is simple vector physics here people- I learned all the concepts necessary to understand this type of situation in fucking high school... It’s not like there is anything to argue about.

Looks like you where utterly owned by 2 other people, so I don't even need to respond. ;) Who is the one that doesn’t know what they are talking about now?

Yo,


Ah, deploying your favorite juvenile retort: the ad hominem attack. *Yawn* I think it's doubly ironic that you're calling me immature...yet have made fun of Schroth's name with "scratchmynut"...not once, but twice. Did you giggle when you typed that? Please. I stand corrected, you are the epitome of maturity. :rolleyes:

I've been in a rear end accident. I've talked to a forum member who's been in a rollover accident. Yes, I've made the huge leap of logic that it's like being in a spin cycle. "You get tossed around...You go sideways and every which direction..." Exactly why I wear Schroth harnesses on the street. Thank you for proving my point. The Schroth's will prevent me from being tossed around like a ragdoll inside my car. I will not argue the fact that OEM 3 point belts allow you to be tossed around in a rollover and harnesses will keep you in place. One of the reasons I wear them and Schroth sells a ton of them. Yes...let's move on.

Ah, finally! So you finally come out and say it...we're talking about a catastrophic roof failure. Both A, B and C pillars fail and the roof collapses 10 to 20 inches...like this:

http://www.negative-camber.org/crisp...mwrollover.jpg

Got it.

So, according to you..if I'm wearing my Schroth's...I'll be killed...but if I'm wearing my OEM belts...I'll be okay. Because I can be "tossed around...go sideways and every which direction" Okay, I follow you.

So by your reasoning /no one/ has ever been killed or injured in a catastrophic roof failure when they've been wearing the OEM belts?

Wow. That is a revelation. Have you talked to Mazda about this? Like I said before, I'm sure all the major manufacturers would love to save all that money they use to beef up the A and B pillars so they won't collapse. Heck, all you have to do is wear your OEM seatbelt and you'll be okay if the roof collapses two feet ontop of your head. Got it. Brilliant.

I'll try to lay off the sarcasm, but it's tough. You and I both know people get killed/injured in catastrophic roof failures with OEM belts...why do you think manufacturers work so hard to keep the roof from collapsing?

The key question now becomes:

How many people are killed/injured in catastrophic roof failures while wearing their OEM belts? 100%? 50%? 5%?

Next:

How often does this kind of catastrophic roof failure really happens in the real world? 100%? 50%? 5%?

And that brings up the last question:

Out of all car accident types (front end, head on, rear end, t-bone), how many are rollovers? 100% 50% 5%?

That is why I'm asking for proof. Give me some stats, newspaper reports, lawsuits against Schroth. Prove to me that I am in grave danger (your original post) by wearing Schroth belts on the street without a rollbar.

If it turns out that only 3% of all accidents are rollovers, and out of that 3%, catastrophic roof failure only happens 15% of the time...then that is an "acceptable risk" to me.

If it turns out that 50% of all accidents are rollovers, and out of that 50%, catastrophic roof failure happens 75% of the time...then that is an "unacceptable risk" to me and I will cease to use Schroth belts.

But if people are killed 50% of the time /anyways/ while wearing the OEM belts, why wouldn't you take advantage of the added safety of harnesses for all the rest of the accidents?

The main reason I am arguing about this is: I am trying to help/save people...just like you are with your original post. The difference is...I am weighing the risk/reward factor.

By your own admission, OEM belts allow you to be thrown around the inside the vehicle during accidents...while harnesses keep you in one place. If the only time harnesses fail is 2% of the time, why would you try and dissuade people from using them if they are more effective and safer the other 98% of the time?

It makes no sense to me.

Kevin
1989 GTUs "Longest...post...evar! *chuckle*"

yup barwick thats exacly what i was waiting for, for you to talk about being thrown around in your car. What is a OEM Seatbelt made for?? well first of all your saftey and second ease of use therfore sacrificing some restraint in holding you in. fact of the matter is OEM belts really ony restrain you in front and rear collisions. it wouldnt restrain you very well in a roll over you would be floppin everywhere. also about that picture of the BMW why did you post that?? is that an rx-7 or is it built exacly like an rx-7 it looks to me to be a car with a trunk not a hatch if you look at a rx-7 it doesnt have a trunk and without having that trunk there is more metal from the the bottom of the windows up witch would seem to hold the roof up better wouldnt it? also that car ahas a big rear side window wich an rx-7 doesnt have it has 4 windows total not 6. last time i checked glass doesnt really do well in holing weight up.

But whatever let everyone think what they want, to everyone there own, if people want to increase only there chance of living if there car happends to roll over and when it happens to roll over the roof also happend to totaly collapse fine be it but, me, i personaly would want to try and protect myself in the big majority of things that can happen in a wreak. but thats my opinion just dont come crying to me if you get slamed into the side front or top of your car.
Just every one remember everyone else has there opinions on everything so let it be, you can give advice but, seems like most people wont take any advice and just act like they didnt hear it cuz they want to belive what they want to belive

Do *NOT* Sticky this Post!

Both the facts and the logic of this post are flawed. Let's start with the logic:

For starters, let it be said that a roll over is an extremely rare occurrence on the street. Cars are much more apt to spin out then to roll over. Furthermore, we're talking RX7's here, not SUV's so that chance is slimmer still. Street accidents are most likely to be one car hitting another in which case the tighter restraint (i.e. harness) is ALWAYS better. If you have any doubts, look into the work Col. Stapp:

http://www.edwards.af.mil/history/do...val_track.html
http://www.stapp.org/stapp.html

In the rare case that a car DOES roll over, it isn't likely to cave in the roof if the rolls over once or twice. We're not talking about tin cans here. The structure of a modern car is designed with the knowledge that at some point it may roll over. NHTSA tests it. Will any given car survive multiple rolls? Probably not. But to induce a street car to roll multiple times takes truly stupid driving. The one case I've personally known where a car has rolled over multiple times was when the driver (drunk and stoned at the time) tried to take an off ramp at 110MPH and panicked. In a Ford Explorer...

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testin...Info.html#iq16


Now on to your facts:

1. You posit that in an accident, a person in a caged car wearing no helmet will bash his head into one of the roll cage members. In a properly designed and fitted roll cage this SHOULD never happen. Under no condition should your head be able to hit any member of the roll cage. Even with a helmet, such a system is unsafe because the first time your helmet impacts the roll cage your helmet will irreparably damaged. Helmets are made to take only one impact (the idea being that the helmet's structure undergoes plastic deformation so your skull doesn't). Even a more minor impact like dropping a helmet from waist level will render it useless.

http://www.shoei-europe.com/en/faq.php
http://www.smf.org/faqs.html

2. You claim that a person in a rolling car will be able to maneuver themselves to the point where they will avoid be crushed by the collapsing roof. This is hard to believe. First, many people will be so freaked by what's happening that they'll freeze. Second, the period of time from initial impact of the collapse of the roof is very small, probably in milliseconds. There is no human alive that car react that fast. Third, during the roll, you will NOT be flung to the side. The seat bolsters prevents this. Don't fire off any emails about your cousins, friends, uncles, brother in law who survived such and such an incident because he had a seat belt and not a harness. To you I'll say one thing: their lucky. For any person to survive multiple rolls to the point where the roof is flattened is a matter of luck. Besides, how many of these people emerged unscathed?

Lastly, if roll cages are so dangerous, how are integrated roll cages fitted in many ultra-high performance road cars (Porsche Ruf Turbo-R, Porsche GT3 etc)?

http://ruf-automobile.de/english/index1.htm


If my comments have offended anyone I apologize in advance. It just galls me when people with little technical background or experience make wild claims.

Yo,

Finally, another voice of reason steps in. Thanks Hamza!

Props to RX-7Blazin as well, he gets it.

I thought I was pissing into the wind here.

To get rid of a proven safety system because it fails in one of the rarest, if not THE rarest accident...is extremely shortsighted.

Kevin
1989 GTUs "Firmly in place."

yup this hamaza just told it as its should be and has multiple sights to back him up, i have yet to see any proff on the other side of this argument, im up to changing what i think if you can back it up with some way of showing me how its extreamly dangerous to use a harness while driving on the street. dont discourage people from using racing harnesses, they in my opinion they can save more lives than take lives(remember thats my opinion). its just there has to be alot of stuff going on for all this to happen before mabe your stock belt will come in, if you havent already broke out your front and side windows with your scull. so can you all see what im saying and what a few other people are trying to get across??? and could you please reconsider what you sayd and admit your wrong(or i will reconsider if you show me something to show they kill not save)
thanks
Ryan

hey here is a great sight on seatbelts
www.howstuffworks.com
it has alot of interesting stuff you can read about and also has an artical on seatbelts, just search for seat belts, check out how a collision works in the seatbelt artical and check out the links to many seatbelt pages at the end of the artical

I dont know if somethign similar has been said already, I only read the first few posts...

I rolled my 89 GTU a few years ago. I had my seat belts on, and after all was said and done, I walked away without a scratch. I went off the road at about 70, into a very large, deep ditch trying to avoid a car coming the other way in the middle of the road around a turn. Once I hit the dirt, the car spun, I hit a tree backwards, spun some more, and then rolled over. After the dust settled, my car was on its roof, and stayed that way for about 2 hours waiting for the tow truck. Like I said, I walked away without a scratch.

The B pillar was only crushed down about 1/2". The A pillars were barely moved, and the windshield, while shattered, was still in the proper shape. I attached a pic of the car after I stripped it. I wish I had a closer pic of the roof, but I cant seem to find all of the pics I had after the wreck.

Im not an expert, but given the condition of the cabin of my car after that wreck, I would not be worried that the roof would crush into my head, regardless of what seat belts I was wearing.

whoa, glad u came out ok!!

https://www.rx7club.com/forum/attach...postid=1959347
https://www.rx7club.com/forum/attach...postid=1901881
there we go we now have 2 pics of a rolled rx-7 (both where stripped:D ) but you have provided pic of a rolled bmw. from what i can see in both the pics is there was minimal damage done to both cars that would have not caused the roof to come down on your head. cars are built differently and from what im seeing an rx-7 can hold up pretty good in a rollover.

and mazdaspeeed in that crash would you have rather had a harness or your stock seat belt??

I don't know where you got that information, but there is no rollcage that I've ever seen in a amateur or even professional race car that the helmet (or bare head) would not contact the cage. Even just sitting still, most or all cages would be hit by the driver's head. In an accident, whent he harnesses stretch a little bit, it's even more dangerous. The space constraints make it simply impossible for a cage to be designed otherwise. The only cars that are "safe" as far as head hitting something that I've seen are open wheel race cars. Otherwise racing bodies wouldn't require every single rollcage to be padded.

As for the helmets.. If you drop it though, you have to get it re-certified or replaced. Auto racing helmets are made to take multiple impacts during one accident. Because the helmet hits the rollcage multiple times in a rollover or other accidents. Obviously the second and third and so-on contacts at the same spot are harder on the head, but they're supposedly made to hold up decent with multiple impacts during the same accident, and then be replaced.

Where do you people get off accusing me of saying "You maneuver yourself out of the way during a rollover"? I've said time and time again, harnesses hold you upright, OEM belts allow you to be moved sideways (the only way you can go during a rollover).

And what happens if they're wearing harnesses during a catostrophic roof failure? They have no chance of being moved around at all. See where the roof is now, that's about what, four inches below the average person's shoulders would be sitting straight up? That head is going to be hurting.

Hamza,
Some great data and I agree this thread shoudl not be made *sticky*
But some clarification I think is needed if you have more data. ;)

Roll *cages* are designed as best they can to protect the driver but are limited by the structure of the vehicle. In a hard impact there is always a strong possibility a driver may impact (head, arms legs etc) a tube of the roll cage. And the reason roll tubing is required to be padded in any location even remotely close to the driver. In a perfect world this might be the case but in reality it is most likely not attainable to design the "perfect cage." WRC cars for example that maintian the OE chassis and have cages, their drivers frequently get their heads rung in rollovers.

I do agree that helmets are designed a certain way to protect the noggin. But be careful what sites you post., Shoei AFAIk makes motorcycle helmets...an SA helmet.
If you are driving a car though M is the snell standard and which has different testing requirements (your snell citation was unclear what the exact testing requiements are and I don't have the time to search), most notable a roll bar impact test. And perhaps someone can clarify, I was under the impression that an M cert'd helmet is good for multiple impacts unlike an SA helmet which is good for one. Anyone?

I think the focus has become blurred. I for one do not believe any human can move themsleves during an accident to escape injury. You're body goes where the laws of physics say it will. However, the argument of harness vs OE belt was to say that an OE belted individual *might* escape injury in a catastophic rollover by being pushed (over the console, into the footwell, wherever) out of harms way when the roof is crushed. A harnessed individual will remain fixed in place and might not escape injury so easily.

Are these vehicles sold in the US as US DOT certified or are they sold as Porsche aftermarket tuner upgrades? Or as most tuner hardware is advertised as "for off-road" use only. Granted Ruf sells them in Europe as street legal so there is some jsutification for thier adequacy. Then again the Europeans, i.e., Germans do many things we in US would consider unsafe or the equivalent of committing legal suicide if you were a corporate entity.

Feeding the fire :D
Crispy

Crispy: M certified helmets are made for motorcycles and are not rated fire resistant. A certified helmets (SA95, SA2000, etc) are made for Automobiles, and auto racing, and must be somewhat fire resistant (because everything else the driver is wearing is fire resistant too).

Yo,

Gotta make this quick 'cause I'm going out town.

I understand your theory Barwick:

If you are wearing harnesses and your car suffers a catastrophic roof failure, you're in for a world of hurt.

But...you make it out like the person wearing the OEM belts is in for a fun little tumble and will pop out going, "Let's do that again! Fun!"

They're not. People get killed in roof failures, that's why manufacturers try to prevent it.

Since we've established you're talking about catastrophic roof failures, it begs 3 questions:

How often do cars roll on the street?

How often do the roofs collapse on those cars?

How often to people die in those cars with OEM belts?

I think it's shortsighted to warn people about the grave dangers of wearing street harnesses because of catastrophic roof collapse. I believe the chances of that actually happening are so miniscule, there is no way I would give up the added safety of my Schroths in the majority of real world threats I have to deal with: front end collision, side collision and rear end collision.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/hot/rollover/figure1.gif

Schroth has done extensive testing to ensure their harnesses are superior to the OEM belts in the above situations...even rollover. Who's to say that the ASM module doesn't lengthen enough to allow your miraculous sideways escape? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't...but the fact is that harnesses are better than belts in the majority of car accidents. They are safer. I don't think that's up for debate.

What is up for debate is:

Does the risk of catastrophic roof collapse outweigh all the safety rewards of using Schroth harnesses on the street? It does not for me. I will continue wearing my Schroth belts in good health...much like the thousands, if not tens of thousands, across America and Germany.

Kevin
1989 GTUs "www.schroth.com"

Barwick,
DOH!!!! Got my SA (a for automobile duh!) and M (for motorcycle duh!) switched.
LOL
Thanks for the err correction :)
Crispy

Kevin,
No where and at no time have I seen any referecne to how one should properly install a 5 point harness in a car *without* a roll bar. Seriously, I for one would love to see such a set of guidelines and an example of thier correct application in an FD or FC.
Regards,
Crispy

barwick, I agree with you that in a rollover with the roof caving in on you if you have a harness you may no be able to move properly to get out of the way but that is the only incedent which a harness may be wose than OEM, on the other hand a harness is better in the majoriy of other accedents compared to a OEM belt.
I think the name of this thread should have been "In the case of a rollover with catastrofic roof failure a racing harness should not be used wihout the use of a roll cage"

and one more thing Barwick, can you at least agree with anything we have sayd on the oposite side of this argument??

yeah you might be safer with harnesses in just a side or rear impact, maybe even front. But at that point, the car that was designed for the OEM belts would react a certain way relative to the driver with OEM belts, while the harnesses put the driver in a different position.

Part of the whole accident survival is slowing down over the longest possible period of time. OEM belts do that very well, harnesses may or may not. There's a lot of factors in it.

As for the % of crashes that are rollover, that's right, BUT how many of those rollovers would be fatal if the person was wearing harnesses vs. oem belts? How many of the other accidents would be fatal if the person was wearing harnesses vs oem belts? It's kinda tough to say either way, but the one thing we can see is if the person was wearing harnesses in a rollover, they're hurting.

But I'm glad we finally came down to it. In a rollover, harnesses are more unsafe. In other accidents, they may be more or less safe, I can't say.

Yo,

Check the earlier pages, but the Scroth's mount to the factory attachment points in my Scirocco. I do not have Scroth's in my RX-7 due to the fact that my seat style is not allowed by Scroth, and I don't think I have factory mounting points underneath my carpet for the old 2 + 2 seats.

Here are some pics:

http://www.autotech.com/schrothgolf.JPG

You can see the Rallye 3 goes to the factory C pillar locatoin, while the Rally goes to the factory lap belt anchor points.

http://store3.yimg.com/I/soloracerdotcom_1691_104231

Schroth's guidelines for the Rallye 4's.

Hope that helps!

Kevin
1989 GTUs "No Schroth's for you!"

Yo,

Barwick, it's funny how you can say with absolute certainty your negative position on harnesses but can't bring yourself to say that they are safer in most automotive accidents.

Harnesses are indeed safer than OEM 3 points belts, reference the provided website:

http://www.stapp.org/stapp.html

As well as the crash data on Schroth's own website...not to mention their certification by TUV and the DOT. I don't think those government bodies would allow you to put something in your car that is /worse/ than your factory belts...only better.

To say they are "more unsafe" than OEM belts in a rollover is wrong. They are MORE safe because they keep your head away from the windows, the roof, B pillars, steeringwheel, etc. Why do you think cars are getting more and more airbags? Sidecurtain, etc? Because the OEM 3 point belts allow you to move around in the cockpit...while harnesses keep you in place.

What I think you meant to say was: They are "more unsafe" in a catastrophic roof failure.

That's like saying the harnesses are no good if a big rig pulls straight across the road and the roof of your car is sheared off. With the OEM belts you can duck sideways, but with the harnesses you'll be decapitated. Yeah, it might be true...but how often is that likely to happen? One in a million? Same thing with rollovers resulting in catastrophic roof failure...it's so rare as to be a moot point. Why would you throw the baby out with the bath water over such a rare and freak accident?

How rare is it? I certainly can't find any Schroth related fatalities in my various web searches...roof collapsing or no.

I think if your car rolls multiple times, the A, B and C pillars collapse and the roof drops 20" ontop of your head...you only survive by the Grace of God...not because of what kind of belts you were wearing.

In the real world of cellphones, SUVs and drunk drivers...a Schroth harness is a great investment in your own personal safety.

Kevin
1989 GTUs "The risk does not outweigh the rewards."

M2 sells a rear strut brace that doubles as a harness bar. There's probably one for the FC too, I just haven't seen one.

http://www.m2performance.com/safety.htm

Roll cages ARE limited by the structure of the vehicle.
I don't claim that it's impossible for someones head to touch a part of the roll bar at some point, it's just unlikely. Last May I drove two production cars at a racetrack in England. In twenty laps, never once did my helmet touch the roll cage. Neither did the instructors.

As for padding being everywhere, it's an extra degree of safety. Why does the SCCA require fireproof underwear even though your already wearing a nomex jumpsuit?

WRC cars? How many street cars will be equiped with WRC cages? Or even SCCA "halo" style cages? Of the street cars with cages that I've seen, I've never seen one.

Shoei was the first link that came up:D

I'm sure auto racing helmets are different (maybe they can take harder impacts before catastrophic damage), but I would imagine they would operate in similar principle to motorcycle helmets.

I *think* the GT3 can be legally driven here. Besides there are DOT legal roll-bars and cages...

Im sry.. im not the most diplomatic person in the world.. My appoligies as soon as i can figure out how to spell that.. :D

I've driven two production based racecars (a Mitsubishi EVO VII and a Subaru STI) on the track and never once contacted the cage in twenty laps of hard driving. These cars were owned by a gentleman who used to be the Chief Engineer of TWR (Tom Walkinshaw Racing). His crew chief used to be tech director at Arrows F1. I think they know a thing or two about racecar safety.

Moreover, your painting with too broad a stroke. There are many different roll cages and roll bars. An IHRA cage is different from an SCCA cage which is different from an FIA cage. They vary in construction, size, materials, extent of protection etc.. You shouldn't make blanklet statements about all of them. Most street cars with roll cages don't have enough cage for you to worrk about banging into it.

I used to work at a junkyard and have seen many badly wrecked cars. Of the 500+ wrecks I saw one "catastrophic roof failiure". And this was a car that was so badly wrecked that it was split in two!

What proof of this do you have?

If your lap belt is on, how exactly will you be able to move sideways? How easy is it do so in a tight car like an RX7? How likely is a person able to do this in rolling car? :confused:

In any type of impact, the tighter the restarint, the safer the driver. ALWAYS.

Seat belts DO NOT lengthen the time it takes you to slow down. They're there to prevent you from impacting whatevers in front of you. During an accident, or any time you brake hard, the seat belt locks and constrains you to your seat. In no way does it slow down your decelleration.

Evidently you don't understand the physics of collisions nor the way safety restraints work. Where have you observed these phenomenon? What eductaion do you have to back up your claims? Notice how other people posts are backed up by independent info. Why aren't yours?

Sad News
 

I'd like to add one final point, and relay some sad news.

This weekend, Subaru Rally Team USA driver Mark
Lovell, and co-driver Roger Freeman were killed in the Oregon Trail SCCA ProRally. Despite having top of the line safety equipment and 20+ years of experience, these two men died as a result of their accident.

Don't ever let safey equipment make you careless or complacent. Driving fast has always been, and will always be dangerous.

I can see both of your points. Yes a harness will keep you upright and planted firmly in the seat where if the roof did cave in you would have noplace to go. On the other hand weigh the chances of a rollover vs the chances of a collision (on the street not the track) and I bet you'll find very few rollovers in sports cars compared to collisions. The only drawback I can see is in the case of a severe side impact the harness could hold you in place while the middle of the door squished you but then again maybe the whole seat would move on inward as the door was crushing in.

After reviewing all the evidence posted here I publically change my opinion on this issue and will say that running a properly installed harness on the street would save more lives than harm them as long as they didn't give the driver a false sence of safety so he/she thinks they can take more risks since they have a harness.

RarestRX,
Great info thanks. But a concern...the two graphics you show are NOT in agreement? The upper "picture" shows the drivers shoulder belt attached the the C pillar yet the lower "graphic" indicates the "C" pillar as "anchor points are not suitable?"
I am glad to hear you note that the Schroths are not suitable for mounting in your RX7 due to the wrong kind of seats but seeing at this is an RX-7 forum this *KEY* piece of information is crucial for anyone planning on installing a set of harnesses in their RX-7. They say the devil is in the details and prior to this most have been blanket statements that yes it's ok or not it's not. I for one have been convinced that yes it might be appropriate that in some circumstances that yes it is ok provided specific criteria are met. But I will still submit that most if not all have some kind of deficiency in their own harness install.

Hamza,
I don;t think the argument is with your head touching the rollcage during normal driving but more so with during an impact where harness stretch, body compression and neck stretching can put your head far further from it's normal position when driving when subjected to crash impact loads. Even with an OE seat belt it's possible to get your face within inches of the steering wheel during an impact. Try doing that by yourself just sitting in the car. You won't even be close. But subject that melon on you neck to a 30g+ impact and your neck and harnes will stretch enough to get your head pretty damn close tho that steering wheel. :-(
Regards,
Crispy

https://www.rx7club.com/forum/attach...postid=1963688

Hamza,
Which should be the case. But in a collision all bets are off.

Every second counts. Nomex 2-3 seconds, underwear 1 sec. 5-6 seconds to get your self extricated from a car on fire. Sure thing you will want to wear those underpants ;) Nomex will not protect you from fire indefinitely. It merely buys you valuable time.

I've seen many street driven "caged" cars. Mostly "show" cars. Most folks that have caged an FD or FC *that I know* trailer them where they want to go.
As an aside there are those pseudo "jungle/monkey" show bars/cages that are a legal case waiting to happen. Front down tubes and drivers bars inches from your head, no padding, and they do nothing at all for driver protection. Merely for show. Very scary.

Crispy