Seat Back Brace Question

[kevin22]

I believe these are way under valued, I have always had one on every seat I drive. I believe the real benefit will be in a side impact to keep the seat straight. Also be careful not to mount to low where your heavier upper body could fold the seat around it in rear impact causing back damage. The first car I bought had welded in "home made" very low. I believe in a real hard rear impact, the aluminum seat would have folded around this thing and snapped me in two.

[Simon T.]

So I guess I need to drill through the seat to attach it.

Thanks for the posts!

[Greg Amy]

It's only a matter of time before one of these seat back braces is directly responsible for someone being crippled or killed.

FIA seats - you know, ones that are designed specifically for the purpose and tested to destruction? - don't use seat back braces. And there's a reason for that.

And we're worried about head and neck braces... <rolleyes>

[Simon T.]

Most FIA seats cost a lot more than a non FIA seat.

[JeffYoung]

Greg, as a tech inspector, let me ask you a few questions. Not looking for a formal opinon of course, just want to bounce some ideas off of you.

Seat in my car is an FIA seat (Sparco) with a bottom mount ONLY.

Been looking for another seat and settled on the Sparco PRO 2000, which is also FIA homologated and also bottom mount.

Now, as I read the above rule, the seat must meat the standard and be mounted the same way as set forth in the standard.

I've read the standards and they are not entirely clear on this. They seem to suggest only testing with seat brackets (which I don't want to use) but I don't believe that Sparco could have gotten the FIA sticker for the seat if the bottom mounts hadn't be tested as well.

Thoughts?

By the way, I fully agree with you on those spears in the back of seats. Composite seats aren't designed for that.

Simon, what I've read on FIA v. non-FIA is that FIA won't give approval to an alum seat like a Kirkey. The FIA thinking is that an aluminum seat is not as safe for a variety of reasons.

US thinking seems to be different; Nascar boys have been using versions of that seat, with many improvements, for years.

I've raced cars with Kirkeys and things feel fine, but after reading the standards and the testing required to get an FIA cert I would not feel comfortable owning a seat that was not so tested.

The idea that a back brace is a sufficient replacmeent for that esting is a bit spooky to me.

QUOTE=Greg Amy;317623]It's only a matter of time before one of these seat back braces is directly responsible for someone being crippled or killed.

FIA seats - you know, ones that are designed specifically for the purpose and tested to destruction? - don't use seat back braces. And there's a reason for that.

And we're worried about head and neck braces... <rolleyes>[/QUOTE]

[Z3_GoCar]

I beileve there was a SFR SM racer who broke some ribs on a seat back brace that was part of the cage that rested aginst the seat back. This would have been about 7-8 years ago.

[Simon T.]

Greg, as a tech inspector, let me ask you a few questions. Not looking for a formal opinon of course, just want to bounce some ideas off of you.

Seat in my car is an FIA seat (Sparco) with a bottom mount ONLY.

Been looking for another seat and settled on the Sparco PRO 2000, which is also FIA homologated and also bottom mount.

Now, as I read the above rule, the seat must meat the standard and be mounted the same way as set forth in the standard.

I've read the standards and they are not entirely clear on this. They seem to suggest only testing with seat brackets (which I don't want to use) but I don't believe that Sparco could have gotten the FIA sticker for the seat if the bottom mounts hadn't be tested as well.

Thoughts?

By the way, I fully agree with you on those spears in the back of seats. Composite seats aren't designed for that.

Simon, what I've read on FIA v. non-FIA is that FIA won't give approval to an alum seat like a Kirkey. The FIA thinking is that an aluminum seat is not as safe for a variety of reasons.

US thinking seems to be different; Nascar boys have been using versions of that seat, with many improvements, for years.

I've raced cars with Kirkeys and things feel fine, but after reading the standards and the testing required to get an FIA cert I would not feel comfortable owning a seat that was not so tested.

The idea that a back brace is a sufficient replacmeent for that esting is a bit spooky to me.

Well my seat isn't an aluminum it's either plastic or fiberglass it's a Sparco, not sure what model, but it's not FIA approved. At least there isn't an FIA patch on it.

[erlrich]

It's only a matter of time before one of these seat back braces is directly responsible for someone being crippled or killed.

FIA seats - you know, ones that are designed specifically for the purpose and tested to destruction? - don't use seat back braces. And there's a reason for that.

And we're worried about head and neck braces... <rolleyes>

I would never get into a car with one of those spears pointed at my back - that just scares the hell out of me. But I believe it is possible to design a brace that won't hurt you, and still accomplishes the purpose. The one in my car is made from a piece of 1-1/4" flat steel, bent into sort of a U shape (actually more like 5 sides of an octagon), with the ends mounted to tabs on the cross bar that are about the seat-width apart. I haven't tested it (don't really plan to), but the idea is that the brace will deform enough in an impact that it will both prevent injury (by allowing some movement) and help dissipate some of the energy of the impact. Needless to say it's a one-shot deal.

[JeffYoung]

That's a damn good idea actually.

I would never get into a car with one of those spears pointed at my back - that just scares the hell out of me. But I believe it is possible to design a brace that won't hurt you, and still accomplishes the purpose. The one in my car is made from a piece of 1-1/4" flat steel, bent into sort of a U shape (actually more like 5 sides of an octagon), with the ends mounted to tabs on the cross bar that are about the seat-width apart. I haven't tested it (don't really plan to), but the idea is that the brace will deform enough in an impact that it will both prevent injury (by allowing some movement) and help dissipate some of the energy of the impact. Needless to say it's a one-shot deal.

[Simon T.]

What exactly are these spear braces you all speak of?

I plan on making mine sort of wrap around the back of the seat snug like to give the back of the seat good support, there is already a mount welded to the cage, I'm using tubing that goes through that, bolted in, then the end of the tube with the wrap around metal welded to that, also adjustable at the mount on the main hoop if it needs to be adjusted. I've seen some with just a bar pushing against the seat are those what you all speak of?

[Greg Amy]

...I don't believe that Sparco could have gotten the FIA sticker for the seat if the bottom mounts hadn't be tested as well.

FIA publishes their list of approved seats, along with what type of mount with which they were certified. Here's the 8855-1999 list, for example:

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/D7050711553B12ADC12575F60035B089/$FILE/L12_Approved_seats.pdf

If yours is on that list (and it should be) and it says both "lateral" and "lower", you can use either.

Most FIA seats cost a lot more than a non FIA seat.

So does a lifetime of living in a wheelchair and blowing through a tube to move around.

What exactly are these spear braces you all speak of?

It's not just the fact that many poorly-designed braces become spears upon impact, it's also due to the fact that any properly-designed seat has "give" - both laterally and longitudinally - to absorb a lot of the shock. If you get hit and the seat don't give, guess where all the shock is going to...? Yep: you.

Seat back braces are nothing but a very bad Band-Aid to accommodate poorly-designed seats that have illustrated a tendency to fail. In fact, they first came to the fore when we were still using factory seats in Showroom Stock cars, where the adjustable seat backs were breaking.

Use whatever seat you want - the "standards" required by SCCA are laughable - but don't think that a seat back brace is anywhere NEAR sufficient to give you a level of safety comparable to a proper race seat. In fact, I suggest it probably worsens the situation.

GA

[JeffYoung]

Greg, THANK YOU. This is exactly what I was looking for.

The standard itself doesn't mention what type of testing was done to get the homologation. This does.

Much appreciated.

[Simon T.]

FIA publishes their list of approved seats, along with what type of mount with which they were certified. Here's the 8855-1999 list, for example:

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/D7050711553B12ADC12575F60035B089//L12_Approved_seats.pdf

If yours is on that list (and it should be) and it says both "lateral" and "lower", you can use either.


So does a lifetime of living in a wheelchair and blowing through a tube to move around.


It's not just the fact that many poorly-designed braces become spears upon impact, it's also due to the fact that any properly-designed seat has "give" - both laterally and longitudinally - to absorb a lot of the shock. If you get hit and the seat don't give, guess where all the shock is going to...? Yep: you.

Seat back braces are nothing but a very bad Band-Aid to accommodate poorly-designed seats that have illustrated a tendency to fail. In fact, they first came to the fore when we were still using factory seats in Showroom Stock cars, where the adjustable seat backs were breaking.

Use whatever seat you want - the "standards" required by SCCA are laughable - but don't think that a seat back brace is anywhere NEAR sufficient to give you a level of safety comparable to a proper race seat. In fact, I suggest it probably worsens the situation.

GA

Well for the time being I don't have much of an option. lol