I never heard this before (might just be me), but it makes some sense. What do you guys think?
I never heard this before (might just be me), but it makes some sense. What do you guys think?
I never thought of the belts, but if you've ever been in a bad wreck in a race car, you'll know why it's not a good idea to have a cage in your street car.
The belt comment is not right. Your personal momentum will force your body into the top of the car no matter what the harness is- there's nobody strong enough to twist and bend their torso or head when slamming onto the ground upside down.
If the roll over is violent enough to crush the roof, you can't bend out of the way.
alfadriver wrote: The belt comment is not right. Your personal momentum will force your body into the top of the car no matter what the harness is- there's nobody strong enough to twist and bend their torso or head when slamming onto the ground upside down. If the roll over is violent enough to crush the roof, you can't bend out of the way.
I think its a decent broad generalization of the issue - a factory belt does not force you against the seat nor does it have a substrap to prevent you from sliding under the lap belt so you can be forced out of the way as a whole functional unit. Its not a person "choosing" to move... its being forced in whole or in part into the remaining available space. They provide some containment and deceleration control and then leave you able to flounder (for good or ill). The whole system depends on the car to crumple, the bags to deploy... the whole thing as a system. Someone spent a lot of time making sure that it was safe "enough" for a specific set of circumstances at particular speeds and whatever tampering people do is probably not helping.
5 & 6 pt shoulder harnesses have the expectation that the cage protection is adequate to maintain a capsule. The job of the harness is then to keep you fixed in it - safe from banging off all the pointy bits. So, we get neck braces to help our heads to decelerate at the same rate as our torso and we cinch ourselves to the seat with tow straps strong enough to tow a locomotive and hope the forces aren't greater than the weakest link when bad things happen.
Both approaches work - if their supporting assumptions are all in place. I think that people who mix the two often forget that they work together and end up less safe as a result.
I'm not saying that a 3 point harness does not work, but their contention is that in a roll over, the 3 point is better than the 4/5/6 point since you can move out of the way. You can't- nobody is that strong.
The 3 point harness is design for head on impact- which tends to be the worst- but for an roll over, you pretty much are left with the lap belt, since the shoulder part only holds (somewhat) one side. And I know there is a TON of engineering that goes into a safety system.
To pretend that you have enough strength to overcome a violent enough imapct to crush the roof is quite misleading. Nobody has that kind of strength. I personally hate that generalization how a 5/6 point harness is worse than a 3 point.
Not to say that there are not cars out there who have weak roofs, but for MOST people out there, they are still not strong enough to stay out of the way...
Eric
alfadriver wrote: ...A lot of good points...
I wasn't disagreeing - I actually should not have quoted you in the previous post, it was just what prodded my thinking and I hit the button while on your post.
I was more or less trying to say that both safety "systems" are effective but they are systems with specific dependencies and assumptions that are not really compatible with each other.
3 point belts are designed for passenger cars and a set of impact scenarios that suit that need at a particular range of speed. They are mostly about controlled deceleration.
A racing safety system is a catch-all for bad stuff at high speed and its all about containment and impact resistance.
Mixing the two or meddling with them without taking the whole of the system in to consideration is more than likely doing more harm than good.
I don't buy it - I am not leaving the track safety equipment at the track. I am MUCH safer in my track car while on the street, but it is because I didn't cut corners, like using a 5 pt harness with just a harness bar or a factory seat. What I do agree with is that the safety upgrades MUST be as a system: 5 or 6 pt harnesses WITH a FIXED racing seat AND at least a 4 pt roll bar/cage. You can't substitute a harness bar or use reclining seats or factory seats in the equation - it's do it all or leave it factory. Both safety systems are designed for specific scenarios - the track system being much more inclusive - and mixing/matching components from the two different designs is dangerous.
So what if someone were to bring the Schroth DOT-legal harnesses into the mix?
Specifically the Auto Control series with the inertia reels?
SVTF wrote: I don't buy it - I am not leaving the track safety equipment at the track. I am MUCH safer in my track car while on the street, but it is because I didn't cut corners, like using a 5 pt harness with just a harness bar or a factory seat.
I tend to agree. I don't find things near my head on my car (like say the 3-point harness top mount) to be "soft". I'm pretty damn sure that in a violent collsion that would hurl my head into a roll bar some 6-8" away it wouldn't matter if I hit a roll bar, or that top mount of my seat belt, or the "soft" plastic that is just covering metal in the A-B pillar/roof. Brain scramble will ensue either way. I tend to agree with the Idea that keeping me stationary is overall going be safer than allowing me to move arround and slam into things.
SVTF wrote: I don't buy it - I am not leaving the track safety equipment at the track. I am MUCH safer in my track car while on the street, but it is because I didn't cut corners, like using a 5 pt harness with just a harness bar or a factory seat. What I do agree with is that the safety upgrades MUST be as a system: 5 or 6 pt harnesses WITH a FIXED racing seat AND at least a 4 pt roll bar/cage. You can't substitute a harness bar or use reclining seats or factory seats in the equation - it's do it all or leave it factory. Both safety systems are designed for specific scenarios - the track system being much more inclusive - and mixing/matching components from the two different designs is dangerous.
As long as you wear your helmet ( a key component of the system in a race car) and install the window nets, etc when you go to the mall I agree - otherwise, you are just a soft pink meatbag between a pile of pipes. The systems that save you when you hit a tirewall at 60mph backwards are the same ones that will cave your unprotected skull in at 20 in a parking lot when a 7000lb Tahoe caves in your driver door.
alfadriver wrote: The belt comment is not right. Your personal momentum will force your body into the top of the car no matter what the harness is- there's nobody strong enough to twist and bend their torso or head when slamming onto the ground upside down. If the roll over is violent enough to crush the roof, you can't bend out of the way.
My thought is with a regular 3 point seatbelt/shoulder strap in a street car, if the car rolls over you'll probably hit the roof as it crushes but the shoulder strap will also allow your body to bend over to the side as the whole thing collapses...in a five point racing harness, since you're held rigidly in place the only thing that will bend is your neck. 
stuart in mn wrote: My thought is with a regular 3 point seatbelt/shoulder strap in a street car, if the car rolls over you'll probably hit the roof as it crushes but the shoulder strap will also allow your body to bend over to the side as the whole thing collapses...in a five point racing harness, since you're held rigidly in place the only thing that will bend is your neck.
Once your body hits the roof, it really doesn't matter if you are held rigidly or not. Your head will hit first. Neck breaks one way or the other.
Whether the force will move you to the passenger seat or not becomes quickly irrelevant. That's my point. W/O a cage, one is not safer than the other- assuming the crash is violent enough to crush the roof structure.
The article implies that people have enough strength to move out of the way in a manner that a 3 point harness will let out- that is totally false- nobody is that strong.
Or do you really think that reaching out with your right arm will actually hold that 100lb person sitting next to you in a head on collision?
Eric
most of the research I've done says that in many, if not most cases in a roll over with 3 pt harness your body will be thrown as much sideways as it will be thrown up (up and sideways most of the time) with 4/5/6 pt and no roll bar you'll be held firmly upright
if the forces are excessive enough your neck will break ... while the 3 pt will give you a small (maybe very small) chance of coming out of it with the neck intact .... best bet .. stay up right ...
alfadriver wrote: Or do you really think that reaching out with your right arm will actually hold that 100lb person sitting next to you in a head on collision? Eric
Just before the elevator hits the bottom of the shaft.... JUMP!
I wonder if we could approach this topic from a different angle: What (if any) competition focused cockpit changes can be made to a car that is sometimes driven on the street without compromising safety?
For example, I have fixed-back seats installed in my autocross car because they hold me tightly in place and save weight. I use the OEM three point belt system.
Assuming the integrity of the seat mounting system is good (and that is a separate topic), how much has this compromised the safety of the vehicle?
Will a well padded bolt-in roll bar do anything - better or worse? Can you use a competition harness in conjunction with this roll bar for track use and switch back to the three point restraint on the street?
I realize there are limitations, not all situations are equal and all of that. I also realize that some common sense needs to be applied - for example, a bolt-in roll bar means no more back seat...ever.
But as someone who has been casually researching this for a little while, it seems like the prevailing wisdom is along the lines of the article linked in the first post - either install a full race car interior or leave it completely stock and don't change a thing. Is there any middle ground?
In reply to alfadriver:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't see anything in the article about holding your self up, or pushing yourself out of the way during an accident, which seems to be the crux of your argument.
The only line I see that could be construed as such is this one:
When the roof collapses, it’s okay, because a three-point belt allows your head and torso to move forward, away from the collapsing roof.
I don't take that to mean that you can push yourself out of the way, rather that a three point belt allows you to flop around the inside of your car more than a race harness. I think his meaning is that if the roof is caving in, there's a chance with a 3pt belt that it'll push you out of the way instead of snapping your neck. If you're locked to the seat, you neck becomes the weak point.
alfadriver wrote: Once your body hits the roof, it really doesn't matter if you are held rigidly or not. Your head will hit first. Neck breaks one way or the other.
I don't think anyone is talking about consciously moving out of the crush zone, but that the system with more freedom will allow you the opportunity to "squish" out of the way.
I'm going to drop you on your head. Heck - I might even do it at a few G's. Do you want me to do it with just your body weight, or do you want me to rigidly attach 2500# of steel to your ass first?
alfadriver wrote: Or do you really think that reaching out with your right arm will actually hold that 100lb person sitting next to you in a head on collision? Eric
Just a minute now, that's when you get to sneak a quick feel. Don't be taking that away.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:SVTF wrote: I don't buy it - I am not leaving the track safety equipment at the track. I am MUCH safer in my track car while on the street, but it is because I didn't cut corners, like using a 5 pt harness with just a harness bar or a factory seat. What I do agree with is that the safety upgrades MUST be as a system: 5 or 6 pt harnesses WITH a FIXED racing seat AND at least a 4 pt roll bar/cage. You can't substitute a harness bar or use reclining seats or factory seats in the equation - it's do it all or leave it factory. Both safety systems are designed for specific scenarios - the track system being much more inclusive - and mixing/matching components from the two different designs is dangerous.As long as you wear your helmet ( a key component of the system in a race car) and install the window nets, etc when you go to the mall I agree - otherwise, you are just a soft pink meatbag between a pile of pipes. The systems that save you when you hit a tirewall at 60mph backwards are the same ones that will cave your unprotected skull in at 20 in a parking lot when a 7000lb Tahoe caves in your driver door.
You, sir, are a poet.
poopshovel wrote:Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:You, sir, are a poet.SVTF wrote: I don't buy it - I am not leaving the track safety equipment at the track. I am MUCH safer in my track car while on the street, but it is because I didn't cut corners, like using a 5 pt harness with just a harness bar or a factory seat. What I do agree with is that the safety upgrades MUST be as a system: 5 or 6 pt harnesses WITH a FIXED racing seat AND at least a 4 pt roll bar/cage. You can't substitute a harness bar or use reclining seats or factory seats in the equation - it's do it all or leave it factory. Both safety systems are designed for specific scenarios - the track system being much more inclusive - and mixing/matching components from the two different designs is dangerous.As long as you wear your helmet ( a key component of the system in a race car) and install the window nets, etc when you go to the mall I agree - otherwise, you are just a soft pink meatbag between a pile of pipes. The systems that save you when you hit a tirewall at 60mph backwards are the same ones that will cave your unprotected skull in at 20 in a parking lot when a 7000lb Tahoe caves in your driver door.
I bet he didn't know it.
klipless wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't see anything in the article about holding your self up, or pushing yourself out of the way during an accident, which seems to be the crux of your argument. The only line I see that could be construed as such is this one:When the roof collapses, it’s okay, because a three-point belt allows your head and torso to move forward, away from the collapsing roof.I don't take that to mean that you can push yourself out of the way, rather that a three point belt allows you to flop around the inside of your car more than a race harness. I think his meaning is that if the roof is caving in, there's a chance with a 3pt belt that it'll push you out of the way instead of snapping your neck. If you're locked to the seat, you neck becomes the weak point.
So flopping is safer? Might as well not even wear a seat belt if that's the case. I'm sure that's not what you mean. Or do you really want the roof collapsing to push you out of the way? It's not going to, until something breaks.
Dave, remember, the implication in the article is that the accident is severe enough to crush the roof (otherwise the 5/6 point harness is safe). For virtually all modern cars, even a Miata- that's a pretty hard hit. More than a few G's. It doesn't matter if you hit with just your body weight or more- kneck=broken.
The point is- if you get squished by the roof, and you can move, that's no better than getting squished by the roof and not being able to move. Crushed is crushed- the only difference being the final position of the torso.
Modern cars are great as they are very structurally sound for the passenger compartment- especially in front end collisions where you can probably take a head on collision and the floor pans will barely move backwards.
If the roof is strong enough to NOT collapse, I'd much rather not be able to move around.
Eric
I hear this debate a lot.
Just another data point or two. Having become a parent just over a year ago, I've encountered the wonderful world of child car seats. I find it interesting that childred are in a rigid seat with a static 5 point belt set up. I find it interesting that the safest position for an infant is rear facing, yet toddlers get changed to forward facing.
In general I think automakers make concessions in order to allow for adjustablility by the driver/passenger. If every commuter was strapped in with a static 5 point harness, how would they reach their Iphone, nav system, satellite radio.
I do subscribe to the theory that you don't necessarily want to knock your head against a piece of DOM in your roll cage. I really think that is only an issue with certain bars that run forward off of the B pillar(main hoop) at a 45 degee angle. I can see that being a brain scrambler. Heck most organization require the sfi foam on those bars and that is when you have a helmet on. Most every other bar is far enough away that the car would have to be pretty shreaded to become an issue. Though I think you could mitagate that risk with the newer race seats that have the head wings on them. I don't think I'd want a traditional 3 point belt in a properly caged car.
sachilles wrote: In general I think automakers make concessions in order to allow for adjustablility by the driver/passenger. If every commuter was strapped in with a static 5 point harness, how would they reach their Iphone, nav system, satellite radio.
If you rigidly mount your torso like you suggest then you need a way to keep a rapid deceleration from ripping your head off. When your whole body can flex and decel at the same time its fine - like a 3 point sytem that arrests your progress with magical exploding pillows and side curtains. If you imobilize everything except your bobble-head... it doesn't need to hit anything to kill you - it just needs enough acceleration to break the stem.
Also with regard to infant seats - look at the angle of inclination. They do not sit upright so there is much less force exerted on the underdeveloped neck. I am guessing the rear-facing advice assumes the greater impact force involved in frontal collisions vs rear-end jobs dictate better statistical outcomes for weak necked babies if the seat is between them and the impact rather than open space. Its rare that you get rear-ended with as much force as hitting a tree or in a head-on so it makes sense.
Also, toddlers get changed to forward facing because they grow and can no longer fit in a rear facing seat. My little girl out grew her rear facing seat early, there just wasn't room for her legs anymore. We kept her rear facing as long as possible.
In a front end hit, they are pushed into the seat back, not away from the seat like a forward facing seat.
Based on that. Wouldn't it be doubly dangerous for a race car driver to be strapped in with a 5 point and wearing a helmet that adds mass to the equation?(head and neck restraint being absent) I realize many sanctioning bodies have started to require H&N restraints, but not all do. Any reason why there couldn't be a consumer grade head and neck restraint that doesn't require a helmet? Just hasn't been invented yet. Is there any reason that helmets couldn't be a mandatory safety item in a street car like they are for motorcycles?
I understand the inclination for rear facing baby seats, what has me curious is why the average car can't have rear facing adult seats if only for the passengers? Surely, if it's safer for an infant it's safer for an adult.
I guess my point is, we don't make the cars/driving as safe as humanly possible. We like to think we do, but there are compromises with even the safest car out there. While we might do a great job mitigating the risks. There is no guarantee an occupant will survive a wreck. There are still many people in this country that don't believe in wearing seatbelts for one reason or another. As intentionally rediculous as my above points are, somebody once thought a seat belt was rediculous too, but they are now mainstream.
You'll need to log in to post.
