Alright, so I have a club rally G2 golf, that now needs a fuel test port, a new First aid kit, re mounted belts, (To the cage, not the floor), and a new diagonal for the cage. Also a hazardous materials spill kit. What I love is getting a new rule book a month before Sno Drift and having to spend every free minute updating for the first event, PEnny cutting scissors? Space blanket? Wal mart here I come!
Need some help with new Rules
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Joined
·
3,258 Posts
Where did you read about belts being move from mounted on the floor to the cage?
Joined
·
14 Posts
I for one would like to know what brainless Idiot Thinks that mounting the belts to the Cage is safe or even a good Idea? Please step forward and sight your source for that kind of reasoning. Not One source I know of has even hinted that is cool. Even The FIA isn't that reckless. To many Chiefs and NO indians. Viva Le Revolution
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
I can't personally swear to the validity of this but the following was posted a week ago on the Michigan Rally group mailing list:
"For everyone?s information?
Just got a note from Doug Robinson confirming that Sno-Drift will be run under 2002 rules. He also clarified the cat checking procedure ? they?re be looking for a minimum 1 degree temp rise from inlet to outlet, and no kind of certification or specification. Hmm?.
My only remaining question is when the ?03 rules WILL go into effect ? before Sandhills? Before 100AW? ???
Chris Gilligan"
Kent Gardam
"For everyone?s information?
Just got a note from Doug Robinson confirming that Sno-Drift will be run under 2002 rules. He also clarified the cat checking procedure ? they?re be looking for a minimum 1 degree temp rise from inlet to outlet, and no kind of certification or specification. Hmm?.
My only remaining question is when the ?03 rules WILL go into effect ? before Sandhills? Before 100AW? ???
Chris Gilligan"
Kent Gardam
Joined
·
2,798 Posts
The change with regards to the seat belt mounting is a completely rewrite of Article 5.3.J. This change was in the October FastTrack, but not in the Rule Change "Concept" document.
I think the "roll cage mounting" option refers to the shoulder belt mounting.
When we replaced the passenger seat with a proper racing seat in the black GTX, it was fixed in position such that the inner OEM mounting point was not in the correct spot for the seat, so we fab'ed up a really beefy mount point. It sounds like that is now illegal.
I have asked Doug Robinson if this was part of the roll cage changes so cars with log books already are grandfathered in with regards to this as well.
alan
I think the "roll cage mounting" option refers to the shoulder belt mounting.
When we replaced the passenger seat with a proper racing seat in the black GTX, it was fixed in position such that the inner OEM mounting point was not in the correct spot for the seat, so we fab'ed up a really beefy mount point. It sounds like that is now illegal.
I have asked Doug Robinson if this was part of the roll cage changes so cars with log books already are grandfathered in with regards to this as well.
alan
The belt rule is in the new rulebook. It seems that the belts need to be mounted to the cage, or the OEM belt mounting points. The only part that can go through the floor is the anti submarine belt.
Anyone have confirmation on Sno-Drift using 2002 rules?
Anyone have confirmation on Sno-Drift using 2002 rules?
Joined
·
3,611 Posts
New rules need help
Still no 2000 or 2001 National ClubRally or Regional ClubRally champions listed in the appropriate places?! 1999 is the last year listed. Has the PRD New World Order/kiss manufacturer butt mentality forgotten ClubRally after pushing many of the competitors/members into it? Maybe its that they are too busy writing NWO rules such as the 2 minute dust window for leading cars, 5 event rule and 20 year rule. Let the manufactures write their own rulebook. Serve the Club members first.
Still no 2000 or 2001 National ClubRally or Regional ClubRally champions listed in the appropriate places?! 1999 is the last year listed. Has the PRD New World Order/kiss manufacturer butt mentality forgotten ClubRally after pushing many of the competitors/members into it? Maybe its that they are too busy writing NWO rules such as the 2 minute dust window for leading cars, 5 event rule and 20 year rule. Let the manufactures write their own rulebook. Serve the Club members first.
>My only remaining question is when the ?03 rules WILL go
>into effect ? before Sandhills? Before 100AW? ???
Because of the short rules lead time for Sno*Drift, it has been run the last few years under the preceding year's rules.
Any other event run in 2003 would normally be run under the 2003 rules...if Sandhills, for example, feels that it's a problem, they could ask for a sanctioned exception - either to specific rules or to run under the 2002 rules.
The Rallies in the 100 Acre Wood will be 2003 rallies, but the ClubRally National Championship would typically be run under the 2002 rules with respect to things like car eligibility. Confused? Try stewarding such an event...
I hope this helps.
Bruce
>into effect ? before Sandhills? Before 100AW? ???
Because of the short rules lead time for Sno*Drift, it has been run the last few years under the preceding year's rules.
Any other event run in 2003 would normally be run under the 2003 rules...if Sandhills, for example, feels that it's a problem, they could ask for a sanctioned exception - either to specific rules or to run under the 2002 rules.
The Rallies in the 100 Acre Wood will be 2003 rallies, but the ClubRally National Championship would typically be run under the 2002 rules with respect to things like car eligibility. Confused? Try stewarding such an event...
I hope this helps.
Bruce
RE: New rules need some help
Dad found that one last night. Also, at least one person's lifetime points in the back are wrong by about 4 points.
Isn't it nutty that they want you to use the OEM mounting points for the belts, but not the OEM seats? Is there anyone who will be missing events in 2003 because they are trying to afford seats for their production-category cars?
Until we get seats for the other cars, it looks like it'll just be the Geo.
Dad found that one last night. Also, at least one person's lifetime points in the back are wrong by about 4 points.
Isn't it nutty that they want you to use the OEM mounting points for the belts, but not the OEM seats? Is there anyone who will be missing events in 2003 because they are trying to afford seats for their production-category cars?
Until we get seats for the other cars, it looks like it'll just be the Geo.
Actually we have always run under the current years rules -- 2001 = 2001, 2002=2002, but maybe 2003=2002 too...
Not sure if we have been officially notified of which rules we should enforce.
(Tried to e-mail Doug through SCCA web site on another topic and got bounced -- ofcourse the PRD does not respond to my e-mails, neither does the PRB so maybe I have been filtered --- I like making rash (but technically true) comments, it stirs things up}> )
Mike
Sno*Drift
Go-fer &
RallyMaster
Not sure if we have been officially notified of which rules we should enforce.
(Tried to e-mail Doug through SCCA web site on another topic and got bounced -- ofcourse the PRD does not respond to my e-mails, neither does the PRB so maybe I have been filtered --- I like making rash (but technically true) comments, it stirs things up}> )
Mike
Sno*Drift
Go-fer &
RallyMaster
>The belt rule is in the new rulebook. It seems that the
>belts need to be mounted to the cage, or the OEM belt
>mounting points. The only part that can go through the
>floor is the anti submarine belt.
Beautiful.
x(
On the E30 chassis BMW that we run, the outer seat belt mounted to OEM location is no problem. The inner (closest to the trans tunnel) mounts, however, attach to the factory seat and bracket. Which, of course, the SCCA powers-that-be are making me get rid of! Soooooo, there IS no OEM mount to attach to, the cage doesn't go anywhere near there, and a hole thru the floor is a no-no??? Sounds like this'll be fun!
By the way, I find it interesting that SCCA is requiring me to get rid of my OEM seat (in the Bimmer, it is way overbuilt!) yet not setting any requirements as to it's replacement! I'm tempted to mount a chopped-down barstool on each side, as it would fit the letter of the law as written!
I love arbitrary, knee-jerk-reaction rules which accomplish nothing more than costing us $$$ to install what may be a LESS-SAFE seat than we started with!
Grrrrrrrr,
Brian Flanagan
G2 #842 BMW 323is
>belts need to be mounted to the cage, or the OEM belt
>mounting points. The only part that can go through the
>floor is the anti submarine belt.
Beautiful.
x(
On the E30 chassis BMW that we run, the outer seat belt mounted to OEM location is no problem. The inner (closest to the trans tunnel) mounts, however, attach to the factory seat and bracket. Which, of course, the SCCA powers-that-be are making me get rid of! Soooooo, there IS no OEM mount to attach to, the cage doesn't go anywhere near there, and a hole thru the floor is a no-no??? Sounds like this'll be fun!
By the way, I find it interesting that SCCA is requiring me to get rid of my OEM seat (in the Bimmer, it is way overbuilt!) yet not setting any requirements as to it's replacement! I'm tempted to mount a chopped-down barstool on each side, as it would fit the letter of the law as written!
I love arbitrary, knee-jerk-reaction rules which accomplish nothing more than costing us $$$ to install what may be a LESS-SAFE seat than we started with!
Grrrrrrrr,
Brian Flanagan
G2 #842 BMW 323is
I find it hard to believe that the stock mounting points for the lap belt (which put the fasteners fully in shear) result in a stronger mounting than harness-manufacturer-supplied hardware pulling through (albeit not straight through) 4 x 6 alloy plate welded to the underside of the floors, next to the tunnel (midline) and sill structure (laterally).
From a safety standpoint, it seems to me that there should instead be a focus on not allowing the typical long shoulder belt installations frequently seen even in professionally built cars; shoulder belts should be attached directly behind the seat, as parallel to the top of the shoulders as possible. This minimizes the length of belt to stretch as well as the downward force vector (on the spine) created when the belt is pulled tight in an impact. Less stretch means less likelyhood of needing plastic surgery to fix facial damage (assuming the impact is survivable).
My guess is that this is one of those rules that's going to have to be selectively enforced depending upon the specifics of the car, since it looks like safe installation with stock points won't be possible in some situations. Otherwise it strikes me that a liability is created. (Or, maybe that's why the rule has been changed to stock mounting points?)
From a safety standpoint, it seems to me that there should instead be a focus on not allowing the typical long shoulder belt installations frequently seen even in professionally built cars; shoulder belts should be attached directly behind the seat, as parallel to the top of the shoulders as possible. This minimizes the length of belt to stretch as well as the downward force vector (on the spine) created when the belt is pulled tight in an impact. Less stretch means less likelyhood of needing plastic surgery to fix facial damage (assuming the impact is survivable).
My guess is that this is one of those rules that's going to have to be selectively enforced depending upon the specifics of the car, since it looks like safe installation with stock points won't be possible in some situations. Otherwise it strikes me that a liability is created. (Or, maybe that's why the rule has been changed to stock mounting points?)
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
RE: Need some help with SCARY ASSERTIONS of FACT
HOKAY I think we can all agree the the new rules were were written
a) Without any member input
b) without any thought
c) without any understanding
d) if based on anything other than a whim, or acid-reflux, it might possibly have been from a groundless assertion of the sort which follows immediately below.
>
>From a safety standpoint, it seems to me that there should
>instead be a focus on not allowing the typical long shoulder
>belt installations frequently seen even in professionally
>built cars; shoulder belts should be attached directly
>behind the seat, as parallel to the top of the shoulders as
>possible. This minimizes the length of belt to stretch as
>well as the downward force vector (on the spine) created
>when the belt is pulled tight in an impact. Less stretch
>means less likelyhood of needing plastic surgery to fix
>facial damage (assuming the impact is survivable).
Well where is the data for this annoyingingly alarmist, and I posit groundless assertion?
What is the stretch of the webbing expressed in inches or cm relative to load and decelleration?
Er, um,.....(politely as I can) HA![b/]
Nobody expected a concrete question!!! THAT IS OUR SECRET! THAT and....
(Oooops sorry, slipped into the Spanish Inquesitions Scene from Pythons Flying Circus..... sorry.. too silly )
I know stacks and stacks of people who have rammed into lots of poor innocent trees, big trees, many with shoulder belts in the rear seat lap mounting positions, NONE; ZERO. ZIP, NADA, NIENTO, NOLL; INGEN! have smacked the wheel or dash.
19 Aug 1985 at ORV Rallysprint, John Christiansen (HI JOHN!!! BUILD A CAR WEENIE!!!! COME ON BACK!!) had the joy of tapping something with his nose or teeth when the shoulder adjusters on his belts worked loose. I believe those belts secured immediately behind the seat.
DO NOT TAKE THIS PERSONAL AND BE OBSTINATE, but repeating things which while on some theorectival level might be true, but in reality the significance is nonexsistant in the face of the record, accomplishes only one thing: it gives guys who don't know anything worries and then they feel compelled to waste effort. Some of them write rules.
>
>My guess is that this is one of those rules that's going to
>have to be selectively enforced depending upon the specifics
>of the car, since it looks like
?)
Since it looks like that is the operative mode and the de facto methods which is currently in practice with SCCA.
I suggest anybody spectating at SlowDrift that they have a peek inside the Sub-a-rats and see how they are secured. Somehow I don't want to bet a nickle that Plo-Drive is going to redo their cages because somebody didn't have some Maalox handy so they wrote a rule instread.
HOW CAN THIS NONSENSE BE STOPPED?
(and how can this boldfaced font be stopped?)
John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168
Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
HOKAY I think we can all agree the the new rules were were written
a) Without any member input
b) without any thought
c) without any understanding
d) if based on anything other than a whim, or acid-reflux, it might possibly have been from a groundless assertion of the sort which follows immediately below.
>
>From a safety standpoint, it seems to me that there should
>instead be a focus on not allowing the typical long shoulder
>belt installations frequently seen even in professionally
>built cars; shoulder belts should be attached directly
>behind the seat, as parallel to the top of the shoulders as
>possible. This minimizes the length of belt to stretch as
>well as the downward force vector (on the spine) created
>when the belt is pulled tight in an impact. Less stretch
>means less likelyhood of needing plastic surgery to fix
>facial damage (assuming the impact is survivable).
Well where is the data for this annoyingingly alarmist, and I posit groundless assertion?
What is the stretch of the webbing expressed in inches or cm relative to load and decelleration?
Er, um,.....(politely as I can)
HA![b/]Nobody expected a concrete question!!! THAT IS OUR SECRET! THAT and....
(Oooops sorry, slipped into the Spanish Inquesitions Scene from Pythons Flying Circus..... sorry.. too silly )
I know stacks and stacks of people who have rammed into lots of poor innocent trees, big trees, many with shoulder belts in the rear seat lap mounting positions, NONE; ZERO. ZIP, NADA, NIENTO, NOLL; INGEN! have smacked the wheel or dash.
19 Aug 1985 at ORV Rallysprint, John Christiansen (HI JOHN!!! BUILD A CAR WEENIE!!!! COME ON BACK!!) had the joy of tapping something with his nose or teeth when the shoulder adjusters on his belts worked loose. I believe those belts secured immediately behind the seat.
DO NOT TAKE THIS PERSONAL AND BE OBSTINATE, but repeating things which while on some theorectival level might be true, but in reality the significance is nonexsistant in the face of the record, accomplishes only one thing: it gives guys who don't know anything worries and then they feel compelled to waste effort. Some of them write rules.
>
>My guess is that this is one of those rules that's going to
>have to be selectively enforced depending upon the specifics
>of the car, since it looks like
?)
Since it looks like that is the operative mode and the de facto methods which is currently in practice with SCCA.
I suggest anybody spectating at SlowDrift that they have a peek inside the Sub-a-rats and see how they are secured. Somehow I don't want to bet a nickle that Plo-Drive is going to redo their cages because somebody didn't have some Maalox handy so they wrote a rule instread.
HOW CAN THIS NONSENSE BE STOPPED?
(and how can this boldfaced font be stopped?)
John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168
Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
Joined
·
1,146 Posts
Belt Strech?
Why do so many think belt strech is bad? If Strech is so bad why are belts made of strechy fabric like nylon and dacron rather than Kevlar, PBO, Carbon, Spectra, Technora Black...
For some real numbers: Modulus of elasticity of Nylon and Polyester (dacron) is around 7500 N/mm[sup]2[/sup] The others I list are right around 60,000-80,000 N/mm[sup]2[/sup], Gee that is like 10 times less strechy. I could have a Specra sholder belt mounted to the rear bumper and still have less strech than a nylon belt mounted to a bar right behind my seat.
Could it be that strech absorbs some of the energy of impact and is realy a good thing?
DKB
Why do so many think belt strech is bad? If Strech is so bad why are belts made of strechy fabric like nylon and dacron rather than Kevlar, PBO, Carbon, Spectra, Technora Black...
For some real numbers: Modulus of elasticity of Nylon and Polyester (dacron) is around 7500 N/mm[sup]2[/sup] The others I list are right around 60,000-80,000 N/mm[sup]2[/sup], Gee that is like 10 times less strechy. I could have a Specra sholder belt mounted to the rear bumper and still have less strech than a nylon belt mounted to a bar right behind my seat.
Could it be that strech absorbs some of the energy of impact and is realy a good thing?
DKB
>From a safety standpoint, it seems to me that there should
>instead be a focus on not allowing the typical long shoulder
>belt installations frequently seen even in professionally
>built cars; shoulder belts should be attached directly
>behind the seat, as parallel to the top of the shoulders as
>possible. This minimizes the length of belt to stretch as
>well as the downward force vector (on the spine) created
>when the belt is pulled tight in an impact. Less stretch
>means less likelyhood of needing plastic surgery to fix
>facial damage (assuming the impact is survivable).
First let me admit that I know nothing. But the above statement is exactly the opposite of what my cage builder said (ie. a little stretch is good). This may well be a style issue more than anything else and it could be an issue of my cage builder doing 50 circle track/road cars for every rally car built. But from the little I know of rock clmbing and rappeling stretch is good. I doubted the belt would ever stretch enough to slam your face into the dash or steering wheel and that belt stretching will absorb mucho energy that would not need to be absorbed by lets say your collar bone breaking. But again I know nothing, so this is a opinion thinly veiled as a question.
>instead be a focus on not allowing the typical long shoulder
>belt installations frequently seen even in professionally
>built cars; shoulder belts should be attached directly
>behind the seat, as parallel to the top of the shoulders as
>possible. This minimizes the length of belt to stretch as
>well as the downward force vector (on the spine) created
>when the belt is pulled tight in an impact. Less stretch
>means less likelyhood of needing plastic surgery to fix
>facial damage (assuming the impact is survivable).
First let me admit that I know nothing. But the above statement is exactly the opposite of what my cage builder said (ie. a little stretch is good). This may well be a style issue more than anything else and it could be an issue of my cage builder doing 50 circle track/road cars for every rally car built. But from the little I know of rock clmbing and rappeling stretch is good. I doubted the belt would ever stretch enough to slam your face into the dash or steering wheel and that belt stretching will absorb mucho energy that would not need to be absorbed by lets say your collar bone breaking. But again I know nothing, so this is a opinion thinly veiled as a question.
back to the new rules.
Alright, from the SCCA performance rally tech bulletin from 9-27-02:
Bolt in cages are not allowed for 2003....and there are several guidlines for upgrading...
As far as weld in cages for cars logbooked prior to 12-31-02:
"Weld in cages must be upgraded prior to competition in 2004.
Material...shall remain constant through the entire cage"
Existing gussests regardless of type are acceptable. New gussets shall conform to the 2003 rules."
So I guess I don't have to do any welding just yet. Also, I haven't found any clarification to the new belt rules yet. I may just risk it before I go altering their mounts.
First aid kits are to be upgraded, and the enviromental spill kits are to be carried. The SCCA says they will cost around $25. It better be more than a bag of "Oil-Dri'.
Alright, from the SCCA performance rally tech bulletin from 9-27-02:
Bolt in cages are not allowed for 2003....and there are several guidlines for upgrading...
As far as weld in cages for cars logbooked prior to 12-31-02:
"Weld in cages must be upgraded prior to competition in 2004.
Material...shall remain constant through the entire cage"
Existing gussests regardless of type are acceptable. New gussets shall conform to the 2003 rules."
So I guess I don't have to do any welding just yet. Also, I haven't found any clarification to the new belt rules yet. I may just risk it before I go altering their mounts.
First aid kits are to be upgraded, and the enviromental spill kits are to be carried. The SCCA says they will cost around $25. It better be more than a bag of "Oil-Dri'.
Seatbelts/shoulder belts
In regard to shoulder belt length, I have spent the extra $$ for the shoulder belts with a sewn in loop on one shoulder-the reason for this extra loop is to "give" in a hard front end shunt (such as hitting a tree head on)-the loop breaks the stitching and allows the body to move forward a few additonal inches, this reduces the sudden impact to the body that is known to cause the heart to tear loose and cause cardiac (spell) arrest-the latter which usally happens several hours preceeding the accident.
This would indicate to me that some belt stretch in head on type of an incident would be favorable in the shoulders.
In regard to shoulder belt length, I have spent the extra $$ for the shoulder belts with a sewn in loop on one shoulder-the reason for this extra loop is to "give" in a hard front end shunt (such as hitting a tree head on)-the loop breaks the stitching and allows the body to move forward a few additonal inches, this reduces the sudden impact to the body that is known to cause the heart to tear loose and cause cardiac (spell) arrest-the latter which usally happens several hours preceeding the accident.
This would indicate to me that some belt stretch in head on type of an incident would be favorable in the shoulders.
bolt in cages VS weld in
Under the new rules for bolt in cages it said something to the affect; tack weld near locating bolts-remove bolts-weld complete joint-reinstall bolts.
What is the point of both bolting and welding at the same location-Isn't either process doing the same thing? A properly torqued bolt is very secure (and provides clamping force) and generally more reliable then a weld or the joint next to it!
Under the new rules for bolt in cages it said something to the affect; tack weld near locating bolts-remove bolts-weld complete joint-reinstall bolts.
What is the point of both bolting and welding at the same location-Isn't either process doing the same thing? A properly torqued bolt is very secure (and provides clamping force) and generally more reliable then a weld or the joint next to it!
RE: Need some help with SCARY ASSERTIONS of FACT
First off, this is Lurch. I am at my parent's for the holidays and hence am logged on as my pop.
Secondly, I have been told by a belt manufacturer that a racing belt system can stretch X %. I don't remember the figure, but it was substantial. It is designed to stretch to, as we all know, slow the impact that is transmitted to your body. The same belt manufacturer advised me that mounting the belts more that a foot behind the seat was not advisable and the system was not designed for this amount of stretch. He said it was unsafe.
Thirdly, at Ojibwe Forests in 2001, Chris Whiteman's car (A2 Golf) went into an airborne roll that landed on the driver door/roof line intersection...on a stump.
The cage member (1.75" mild steel) and roof deformed inward toward the center of the car. The glass shattered and the upper window frame of the door was bent outward. Chris's helmet was between the door and the roof and the car/cage was bent around his head like a cartoon anvil on both sides. His helmet bears witness to the event with embedded wood and dirt and car paint on either side.
Our main question was...how the hell did he get there in the first place?! His belts did not slip in the adjusters, nor did they come unbuckled. His body was thrown forward and sideways 12-16 inches. His POS Sparco seat was broken (as a result of the belt stretch and his body moving so far forward). That, my friends, is unsafe belt stretch.
Chris taught me and several others a few lessons the hard way. If you feel that these accounts are not sufficient proof that mounting belts at the rear towers is unsafe and you must disprove it with your own injuries, feel free to do so. Please consult your belt manufacturer if you are in doubt. Chris used to have pictures of this little aftermath posted on the net. If you would like to see them, he may oblige.
As an added note, I have not run a rally since this event without window nets (AND window up). The nets are attached to the cage at the top, not the door. My head is NOT taking a vacation from the car.
Safety, when it comes to racing, is a bit relative. Yes, we are doing something that could be considered dangerous. While there is no setup that will protect you in every possible crash, you have to take what equipment and design knowledge is available and stack the cards as much in your favor as you can. And BTW, "design knowledge" is NOT defined as "what the big budget guys are doing." I have gotten some good ideas from them and some "interesting" ideas that prompted more research, engineering, and subsequently a hardy "No, Thank You."
Lurch
First off, this is Lurch. I am at my parent's for the holidays and hence am logged on as my pop.
Secondly, I have been told by a belt manufacturer that a racing belt system can stretch X %. I don't remember the figure, but it was substantial. It is designed to stretch to, as we all know, slow the impact that is transmitted to your body. The same belt manufacturer advised me that mounting the belts more that a foot behind the seat was not advisable and the system was not designed for this amount of stretch. He said it was unsafe.
Thirdly, at Ojibwe Forests in 2001, Chris Whiteman's car (A2 Golf) went into an airborne roll that landed on the driver door/roof line intersection...on a stump.
The cage member (1.75" mild steel) and roof deformed inward toward the center of the car. The glass shattered and the upper window frame of the door was bent outward. Chris's helmet was between the door and the roof and the car/cage was bent around his head like a cartoon anvil on both sides. His helmet bears witness to the event with embedded wood and dirt and car paint on either side.
Our main question was...how the hell did he get there in the first place?! His belts did not slip in the adjusters, nor did they come unbuckled. His body was thrown forward and sideways 12-16 inches. His POS Sparco seat was broken (as a result of the belt stretch and his body moving so far forward). That, my friends, is unsafe belt stretch.
Chris taught me and several others a few lessons the hard way. If you feel that these accounts are not sufficient proof that mounting belts at the rear towers is unsafe and you must disprove it with your own injuries, feel free to do so. Please consult your belt manufacturer if you are in doubt. Chris used to have pictures of this little aftermath posted on the net. If you would like to see them, he may oblige.
As an added note, I have not run a rally since this event without window nets (AND window up). The nets are attached to the cage at the top, not the door. My head is NOT taking a vacation from the car.
Safety, when it comes to racing, is a bit relative. Yes, we are doing something that could be considered dangerous. While there is no setup that will protect you in every possible crash, you have to take what equipment and design knowledge is available and stack the cards as much in your favor as you can. And BTW, "design knowledge" is NOT defined as "what the big budget guys are doing." I have gotten some good ideas from them and some "interesting" ideas that prompted more research, engineering, and subsequently a hardy "No, Thank You."
Lurch
RE: Need some help with SCARY ASSERTIONS of FACT
OK, JV. Don't take it personal. You might not have recognized it, but my statement was one of my opinion. I do, however, appreciate that you generally hold my opinions in high enough regard to confuse them with factual Truth, but that isn't really necessary.
My belts are installed directly behind the seats. I have seen manufacturer's recommendations as well as read enough to be aware that belt stretch is an area of potential injury. My car is built with the belts short...to each their own, this is after all a sport where you're ultimately responsible for how you get home; in your car, in a Death Star, or in a box.
For what it's worth, standard restraint and impact survival systems built into your production car are engineered to prevent life-threatening injury at 35 mph frontal impact, not more (arguably, in higher-end German sports sedans/coupes, the engineered safety margin is fairly high, one source quoting 40% excess capacity in Audis; but this is not typical of the average production car since it isn't legislated). In a 35 mph impact, that 2.5" single diagonal belt stetches enough that the face WILL hit the steering wheel when the driver is correctly positioned with hands at 9/3 or 10/2 position. Not my opinion...fact (I've tubed enough crash victims in my past to be aware of this, not to mention discussed this very issue with an automotove safety system engineer). The explosive in the steering wheel, to paraphrase Conrad Zumhagen (the engineer), doesn't save your life, it just keeps your face out of the steering wheel.
So, I look at those two 3" belts as giving me about 120% more restraint capability than the standard 2.5" diagonal belt. Of course, my closing speed on a frontal impact will probably be under 35 or 40 mph, but it could actually be lots more (even my ancient machine will see 85 or 90 from time to time). Decellerative forces increase by the square of the speed, so it's not to much of an intellectual leap to reflect that in a 70 mph impact, those two 3" belts are potentially going to stretch enough to put my face into the steering wheel; the less belt, the less stretch, the less likelyhood of impact. OK, so that's a matter of conjecture, but I don't care to do the destructive testing in the rally car necessary to really prove my point. Conrad does, with production systems, and gets paid for it.
Back to the original issue, I would like to know what the data is to show that stock mountings (again, with fasteners in full shear) is stronger or safer than well-considered custom mountings taylored to the car's shell and seat installation. JV's comments notwithstanding, the belt length just looks to me (this is my opinion, for those not comprehending that fact) is a bigger safety issue than the pre-2003 anchoring requirements.
Just out of curiosity, I think I will run these questions by my engineer acquaintance......
OK, JV. Don't take it personal. You might not have recognized it, but my statement was one of my opinion. I do, however, appreciate that you generally hold my opinions in high enough regard to confuse them with factual Truth, but that isn't really necessary.
My belts are installed directly behind the seats. I have seen manufacturer's recommendations as well as read enough to be aware that belt stretch is an area of potential injury. My car is built with the belts short...to each their own, this is after all a sport where you're ultimately responsible for how you get home; in your car, in a Death Star, or in a box.
For what it's worth, standard restraint and impact survival systems built into your production car are engineered to prevent life-threatening injury at 35 mph frontal impact, not more (arguably, in higher-end German sports sedans/coupes, the engineered safety margin is fairly high, one source quoting 40% excess capacity in Audis; but this is not typical of the average production car since it isn't legislated). In a 35 mph impact, that 2.5" single diagonal belt stetches enough that the face WILL hit the steering wheel when the driver is correctly positioned with hands at 9/3 or 10/2 position. Not my opinion...fact (I've tubed enough crash victims in my past to be aware of this, not to mention discussed this very issue with an automotove safety system engineer). The explosive in the steering wheel, to paraphrase Conrad Zumhagen (the engineer), doesn't save your life, it just keeps your face out of the steering wheel.
So, I look at those two 3" belts as giving me about 120% more restraint capability than the standard 2.5" diagonal belt. Of course, my closing speed on a frontal impact will probably be under 35 or 40 mph, but it could actually be lots more (even my ancient machine will see 85 or 90 from time to time). Decellerative forces increase by the square of the speed, so it's not to much of an intellectual leap to reflect that in a 70 mph impact, those two 3" belts are potentially going to stretch enough to put my face into the steering wheel; the less belt, the less stretch, the less likelyhood of impact. OK, so that's a matter of conjecture, but I don't care to do the destructive testing in the rally car necessary to really prove my point. Conrad does, with production systems, and gets paid for it.
Back to the original issue, I would like to know what the data is to show that stock mountings (again, with fasteners in full shear) is stronger or safer than well-considered custom mountings taylored to the car's shell and seat installation. JV's comments notwithstanding, the belt length just looks to me (this is my opinion, for those not comprehending that fact) is a bigger safety issue than the pre-2003 anchoring requirements.
Just out of curiosity, I think I will run these questions by my engineer acquaintance......
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Join the discussion
