RarestRX

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."

jon88se

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).

Freaky Monkey007

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.

Barwick

ASM: Anti Submarining Mechanism.

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

RarestRX

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 *** 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.



Kevin
1989 GTUs "Next..."

Barwick

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.

banzaitoyota

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

RarestRX

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."

dr0x

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.

CrispyRX7

iTrader: (139)

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

Barwick

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

RarestRX

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 ***.

Kevin
1989 GTUs "Buh-bye!"

Barwick

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.

jasonw3579

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.

mprime

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.

Barwick

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.

87GTR

iTrader: (61)

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

RarestRX

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.



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

Barwick

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.

Dyre

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 ******* 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?

RarestRX

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.

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:



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*"

Rx-7Blazin

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

Hamza734

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.

RarestRX

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."

Rx-7Blazin

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