Is club racing or tech really even ready for safer safety equipment?

[turboICE]

Some recent discussions and resulting research, has left me very concerned about whether or not club racing or tech are really prepared to set rules requiring "safer" safety equipment.

More than ever before the effectiveness of safety equipment is extremely reliant on proper installation and use. Some rules require equipment with no reference to installation - often when installation is crucial to effectiveness. How current are those signing off annually on our log books on the sensitivity of the installation to the effectiveness of the equipment that they check off as present? What kind of liability is there for the club when they require equipment but don't provide guidance on installation? "I met the rule and tech signed off that I met the safety requirements of the club and the required equipment increased the degree of my injury!"

For instance the GCR has set out for us that a seven point restraint harness is recommended. However, it then goes on to allow a lot of flexibility in the installation of the sub straps. Besides potentially eliminating any of the additional benefit the design is meant to offer, additional injury can occur from improper installation.

I came across the following describing the proper installation of a 6 point harness in order to gain the benefits from additional control of the lower pelvis during impact:


The 6-point anti-submarine belts should be such that as the straps continue off-from the thighs to the mounting locations, the straps should travel at a 30-degree angle in relationship to the upper thighs. The straps should have at least five inches of separation between them as they pass through the seat. The further the mounts go rearward the greater the separation that is needed, for instance if the 6-point mounts are through the seat back the minimum distance that they can be apart is ten inches. The 6-point mounts should be at least rearward of the driver’s spinal column. The 6- point webbing cannot come through the 5-point access window, but instead should come through its own individual windows. The orientation and the size of the window in the seat should be such that they will allow the belts to travel forward 30 degrees to the upper thighs without obstructions. Lastly be sure to adjust all straps as secure as possible (leaving no slack) before racing in any and all events. Bold emphasis added.[/b]

That is just one example. SFI 38.1 as well as other H&N restraint products have pretty inflexible installation requirements for their products to be effective. The safety equipment can no longer just be present and bolted to the cage or car frame to be safe.

Consider further the warning for the "state of the art" safety harness:

Please Note: the Schroth Double Belt can provide your driver with the state of the art in safety restraints. It can only do this if mounting geometry is Ideal. Modifications to a standard roll cage will probably be necessary, and failure to do these modifications correctly can result in serious driver injury. Please contact us for answers to any of your questions regarding the installation. We are happy to help assist you in achieving an ideal harness installation.[/b]

Some are going to say, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with them, well it is up to the competitor to ensure that the equipment is properly installed. However, that would a pretty convenient stance for the club to take after they make requirements and strong recommendations on which safety equipment to use removing that choice for the competitor and then dumping the choice for installation method on them.

Is the club really ready and prepared to recommend and require all this "safer" safety equipment without requiring and teching proper installation? Especially when each new piece of equipment increasingly has more complex and exotic installation requirements?

[titanium]

Club racing may not have set rules defining 6pt seat belt mounting, but SCCA Pro Racing has.
Here it is from the World Challange rulebook:

J.2.1: Standard Belt – Six point system for automobiles with an upright (to 30 degrees)
seating position. See figures 2-4. A six-point system consists of a two-inch or three-inch
lap belt, three-inch shoulder straps (two-inch allowed with HANS), or two-inch shoulder
straps with three-inch wide professional padding (padding NOT allowed with HANS),
and two approximately two-inch leg straps. The buckles for the lap and shoulder straps
must be of metal-to-metal quick-release type at the locking mechanism (i.e. cam-lock)
The dual leg straps have a single metal-to-metal connection to the locking mechanism
and a separate mounting point to the floor or roll cage for each leg of the anti-submarine
strap. Leg straps must pass through the sub-strap hole provided in the race seat
located immediately in front of the crotch. Both leg straps go through the sub-strap
hole. Locate the mounting points by following the plane of the shoulder belts as they
pass over the chest extending the plane to intersect the floor and then measure a 20
degree angle rearward. This is the center point. Measure 2-3 inches left and right of the
center to locate each mounting point for an eyebolt or direct bolt. If the legs are
wrapped, the center point is the center of the webbing for each strap. A seventh point
is not used in this configuration.

The empasis was added by the SCCA.

You didnt mention the source of your instructions, but your list, the instructions that came with my belts and the SCCA's differ on the mounting location of the leg straps. My instructions said to install them in the same plane as the shoulder belts as they pass over the chest, with no mention of the hole in the seat.

I went with Pro Racing's version of installation instructions on the SPO car I'm building. I figure that if Club Racing does specify an installation rule, then it will probally be similar to Pro Racing rule.

Also, the .pdf on the World Challange website has a diagram of how to install the belts.

http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/06-prr-appendix.pdf

[turboICE]

The source is the following:

http://www.teamtechmotorsports.com/2005%20...t%20Catalog.pdf (http://www.teamtechmotorsports.com/2005%20Racer%20Discount%20Catalog.pdf)

Not sure how a dual or triple strap that is brought together in a single sub hole, rather than seperate holes would ever gain the benefit of increased lower pelvic control during an impact. Unless properly installed and utilized I am not sure how the recommendation in the GCR makes the club racer any safer.

[joeg]

Ed--Never underestimate the abilities of our club officials. The tech people know their jobs.

I am not sure whether drivers quite understand seven or six point belts, but I firmly believe the tech people and saftey folks do.

Six point systems have been around for quite some time and adding a seventh point--a sub-belt--is not rocket science.

Cheers.

[Daryl DeArman]

Politics and the clubs' need to manage risk will determine the direction of our safety rules.

Unfortunately many many racers won't do the proper research and will believe they are safe simply because of the equipment they purchase with very little attention paid to installation.

While there may be some tech inspectors (I've run across some very good ones) who are quite knowledgeable and continue to remain educated it has been my experience that many are not. I've seen some sloppy things pass through annual while other really minor things get dinged...just depends on what items tech is concentrating on that year. They can't catch everything...IMHO they aren't there to declare that your car is safe--they are only there to catch anything obvious and bring it to the entrants attention. In the process hopefully making the entrant and everyone sharing the track with them a little bit safer.

By the entrant signing off that they are ultimately responsible for their safety and car prep they are reducing club risk.

How can the club (any club) inspect a car once a year and then barring any major shunt declare it safe throughout the year with no idea of the maintenance and prep that has occured throughout the season? They can't, we do.





I am not sure whether drivers quite understand seven or six point belts, but I firmly believe the tech people and saftey folks do.

Six point systems have been around for quite some time and adding a seventh point--a sub-belt--is not rocket science.
[/b]

I once bought a car that had 4 consecutive SCCA annuals in its' book and 4 year old harnesses that were installed with the 5th and 6th points going FORWARD! The Halon bottle was also mounted with improper orientation.

[gsbaker]

Look on the bright side. At least auto racers don't have to deal with the dual belt systems installed in many military aircraft, one anchored to the structure and the other to the seat.

[M. Hurst]

Sanctioning bodies or clubs should not be providing references or guidance on the installation of safety equipment other than to require that the equipment be installed and used per the manufacturers requirements.

Sanctioning bodies should decide on what safety equipment to require, based insurance requirements, generally accepted practice for the industry, and economic and viability (safety versus cost versus speed reduction) factors.

It is unrealistic to assume that every tech man posses the knowledge of a safety engineer, but it is realistic to assume the tech man can inspect the vehicle and compare the installation to the documented requirements of the manufacturer.

It is a mistake for our rulebooks to micro manage the installation of safety equipment (thereby assuming the liability for that installation), because the rulebook may contradict the requirments of the manufacturer. It is also a mistake to assume the direct liability of having our own (SCCA, NASA, R-A) roll cage standards that are based completely on history and experience, and not design, testing, or certification by a 3rd party.

We (Rally-America) as well as NASA rallysport already require that entries with FIA or MSA (or other ASN)homologated roll cages must present the cage certificate when the car is teched, why not also have the entries retain the instructions for the seat belts, seats, H&N device, etc, so they can be used by the tech man for a basis of deciding whether or not the intallation is correct, instead of the rulebook?

[turboICE]

Joe - I wouldn't underestimate their abilities or the sincerity that they perform their functions and certainly the thread was not to question that. There are however realities in the limitations that volunteers can keep up with fast developing and different technologies. No doubt they dedicate much of their own personal time in staying on top of their speciality as best and reasonably as they can. It was a question if it is enough to really be ready for the new safety technologies - and the answer may be yes. Asking the question wasn't to imply no.

-----

My own feeling is that it should be the competitor's responsibility to make use of and properly install safety equipment appropriate to their competition. And minimum equipment required should be in the rules, but still fall on the competitors to ensure their own safety. Unfortunately, lawyers will argue otherwise in civil suits and juries will be convinced otherwise in their decisions. A jury of racers certianly wouldn't arrive at the same conclusions that a jury of the general population that doesn't believe participants in activities agree to take certain risks on themselves.

-----

M, I can agree with all the substance of what you are saying, it is very much in line with what I think would be a better safety rule basis from clubs. I do like the idea of bringing with you to tech the installation requirements from the manufacturer, which any tech I have ever met would be very capable of observing whether installation was within those requirements or not. But will they, I have never seen anyone in tech check harness angles with the driver belted into them but can see around the grid readily several poor installation examples. Also it does presume that installation instructions accompany the equipment. H&N and certain other equipment does come with installation recommendations, but I am having a hard time finding instructions from harness manufacturer's on proper installation of a 6 or 7 point, but strong indications are that it varies from a 5 point. My last few FIA seats and FIA harnesses came with no instructions from the manufacturer, except perhaps proper looping through the three bar link.

Of particular concern is when the rules do provide guidance that contradicts the manufacturer's, such as passing multiple substraps through a single narrow sub hole in the seat, which from what I can tell would eliminate the additional lower pelvic control of the intended design.

[M. Hurst]

G-force install guide:
http://www.gforce.com/pdf/harnessinstall.pdf

Schroth install guide:
http://www.schroth.com/installation-instru..._geometries.htm (http://www.schroth.com/installation-instructions/en/03_anchorage_locations_and_geometries.htm)

Simpson install guide:
http://www.simpsonraceproducts.com/safety/...estinfo_seating (http://www.simpsonraceproducts.com/safety/safety.aspx?page=restinfo_seating)

hans install gude:
http://hansdevice.com/app/site/media/sitem...zNp65In0?id=177 (http://hansdevice.com/app/site/media/sitemedia.nl;jsessionid=ac112b1f1f43207a63f7f7ba41 c19b6efe2d61205bb2.e3eTaxiNaN0Te3iNbhmMbhuRby1ynkn vrkLOlQzNp65In0?id=177)

[turboICE]

Thanks, my comments related to Sparco, Sabelt and G-force shortcomings. The G-force one doesn't really cover sub strap installation adequately IMO.

The schroth install guide is very good and I think I even understand how to install Profi F-model types now. (I think)

The simpson also is beneficial and points out what a lot of people miss "Two routing holes in the seat or a special seat mount may be required. Using the 5-Point hole detracts from the effectiveness of this system".

[Nigel Stu]

The simpson also is beneficial and points out what a lot of people miss "Two routing holes in the seat or a special seat mount may be required. Using the 5-Point hole detracts from the effectiveness of this system".
[/b]

The way I read the last part of this from Simpson, along with what Schroth has in their directions, is that you just must use caution when installing a 6 point.

If your seat that has the slot in the bottom for 5 point allows you to mount a 6 point with the mounts at the proper width without redirecting the webbing(that part is from Schroth), then you should be OK. For this you would just need a straight line (from a front view) between the latch or cam and the sub-harness mounting points, when you are buckled in.

If, when you mount the 6 points to the side, the webbing must bend around the 5-point hole, then you would be reducing the effectivness of the system and should do something a little different with the seat or mounting.

SO - there's my 2 cents, but I also have a question. What if your seat/harness falls into the second 'IF' and the harness must bend around the seat? is it acceptable to make new holes or make the current hole larger to provide the correct belt fit? Or would this take away from seat structure?

safe and happy racing
Ben

[ITC Racer]

IMHO- I make sure my safety gear is in the best condition and mounted properly- per the mfg recommendations and also meets the letter of the law (SCCA, etc). I do not rely on our Tech people to make sure my car is safe.

I run Simpson 6 pt belts and run both crotch straps through the one hole in my seat bottom and believe this is adequate. I will have to check to see if the belts contact the seat hole with my mounting location width- I do not think they do. If I were doing this over, would probably mount the crotch straps as far apart as possible without the webs rubbing on the hole in the seat.

I would not cut the seat apart to make the belts fit better since this could have other consequences...