Don't use Racing harnesses without a rollcage, rollcage shouldn't be used on street
07-13-03, 10:23 PM
#76
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
07-13-03, 10:34 PM
#77
mad scientist
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.
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.
07-13-03, 10:48 PM
#79
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there we go we now have 2 pics of a rolled rx-7 (both where stripped
) 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??
Last edited by Rx-7Blazin; 07-13-03 at 10:52 PM.
07-14-03, 09:21 AM
#80
SCCA Rookie
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 1,936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Hamza734
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Hamza734
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.
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.
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.
07-14-03, 09:27 AM
#81
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
Crispy
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.
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
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
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?
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
http://ruf-automobile.de/english/index1.htm
Feeding the fire
Crispy
Last edited by CrispyRX7; 07-14-03 at 09:34 AM.
07-14-03, 11:56 AM
#82
SCCA Rookie
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 1,936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
07-14-03, 12:07 PM
#83
NA Powah, Every Hour!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sacramento, CA, U S of A
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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"
Originally posted by Barwick
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.
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.
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.
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"
07-14-03, 12:51 PM
#85
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
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
07-14-03, 02:20 PM
#86
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"
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"
07-14-03, 04:47 PM
#88
SCCA Rookie
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 1,936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
07-14-03, 05:31 PM
#89
NA Powah, Every Hour!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sacramento, CA, U S of A
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
You can see the Rallye 3 goes to the factory C pillar locatoin, while the Rally goes to the factory lap belt anchor points.
Schroth's guidelines for the Rallye 4's.
Hope that helps!
Kevin
1989 GTUs "No Schroth's for you!"
Originally posted by CrispyRX7
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
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
Here are some pics:
You can see the Rallye 3 goes to the factory C pillar locatoin, while the Rally goes to the factory lap belt anchor points.
Schroth's guidelines for the Rallye 4's.
Hope that helps!
Kevin
1989 GTUs "No Schroth's for you!"
07-14-03, 06:38 PM
#90
NA Powah, Every Hour!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sacramento, CA, U S of A
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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."
Originally posted by Barwick
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.
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.
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."
07-14-03, 08:16 PM
#91
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by CrispyRX7
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
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
http://www.m2performance.com/safety.htm
07-14-03, 09:09 PM
#92
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
07-14-03, 09:37 PM
#93
Full Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phx movin back to ATL in a year
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by CrispyRX7
So please ease up on the hostility eh?
So please ease up on the hostility eh?
07-14-03, 09:52 PM
#94
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
07-14-03, 10:05 PM
#95
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
07-14-03, 10:16 PM
#96
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
07-15-03, 10:26 AM
#97
Da Monee Pit
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Littlefield, Texas
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
07-15-03, 10:35 AM
#98
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
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
07-15-03, 11:17 AM
#100
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
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.
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?
Nomex will not protect you from fire indefinitely. It merely buys you valuable time.
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.
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