There's been some discussion about harnesses and such on another email list i'm on and i've warned the group of the dangers of running harnesses w/o any sort of rollover protection....

However is there any sort of data or tests that have been done to validate this claim? I fully support rollover protection in tandem with a harness, however just looking for a little further information as well.

Thanks,

Ryan

 

What, common sense isn't good enough? Car rolls over, lands on roof, roof starts to cave in, driver strapped to seat with 5-point harness, highest point in car (since there's no rollbar/cage) is his/her head ...

 

Not everyone on this forum is a road racer, so lets clarify this. You are talking about using a harness on the street or track (high speed) correct? I keep seeing all these posts about harnesses being a no-no, yet the majority of autocrossers do use them... without rollover protection.

For the record, I do NOT recommend a harness belt for street use or high speed driving event use. But, for autocross, they are fine, if properly installed.

Just my thoughts.





[Modified by Brett@SoloRacer.com, 7:32 AM 6/28/2002]

 

Your buddy at the other list totally ignores the amount of stretch that a harness will allow in a high speed collision. A harness mounted to the rear seat mounts will stretch a TON and you will probably still hit the steering wheel. that is why race cars have harnesses mounted behind the driver on the main hoop cross (with the exception of WRC cars, and I have no idea why they do the things they do).

this guy is obviously a dumbass.

 

Do you want to be strapped into any of these cars with no way to duck? And remember, this is not at racetrack speeds just on the street.







Is that enough evidence?

 

Just so everyone knows, it wasn't squashed QUITE that flat. SP EV cut the "c" pillars to extract the driver and instructor, so the roof is a little lower that it was squashed to.

Joel


[Modified by guy smiley, 5:47 PM 6/28/2002]


[Modified by guy smiley, 5:49 PM 6/28/2002]

 

Might as well just get a full cage if you're going to "track" the car! eh!

 

theres some pice around of a mustang out in cali that went over and flattend the roof. driver and instructor walked away because the seats broke and they ended up laying flat (instructor) and under the dash(driver)

 

http://www.soloracer.com/harnessfaq.html

no data, but it seems as if this retailer is propagating the idea as well. i think it makes sense, but id like to see some technical document stating so before everyone makes it a fact.

 

Just an FYI...while I personally don't recommend harness belts for street use, in Germany, you can get Schroth harness belts on your BMW as an OE Factory Option.

 

Brett, ah, didnt notice that was your site until now.

George, um, ok. im not "debating" anything.

btw, heres what maybe RJ is referring to as the con arguement
http://integra.vtec.net/geeser/belts.html (scroll down to "concerns about safety" at the bottom) i am NOT endorsing anything, feel free to rip it apart at your discretion.



[Modified by Tyson, 5:21 PM 6/28/2002]

 

Well I'm in the Harness with out roll bar group but I will ask to see what percentage of roll accidents that happen on the street result in the driver or passenger being killed while wearing the OEM seat belts and the percentage of those that lived in one form or another. I can't believe that in EVERY roll over accident that happens on the street the driver in an OEM seat belt lived. I still don't see how anyone can TUCK while a car is in a violent rollever nor do I see how the passive restraint system in OEM seat belts could also allow a driver or passenger to just tuck quickly into a ball to avoid the roof crushing them. Anyone ever try to learch forward quickly in their OEM seat belt recently?? Mine always let me move about 3-5" and then lock into place NOT allowing me to move forward anymore. IF my car had rolled over that extra 5" move foward wouldn't allow me to avoid the roof or front windscreen from engulfing my entire upper torso.

I personally think this is a senesless debate to be be rehashed over and over. If your on the track you need the 5 point and roll bar protection point blank, but on the street having a roll bar with a 3, 4 or 5 point harness isn't required. And while your at it why not require all convertable cars to have roll bars as standard equipment due to the same roll over argument. They after all have nothing to keep the car from crushing their heads like ketchup packets.


Sans roll bar protection and if I die I guess I should have not been speeding, drving to endanger and not having a roll bar.

 

The driver and instructor in the green M3 pictured above were able to somehow "tuck." Both walked away (after the EV crew pried them out).

 

Good luck with that.

John -- who remembers a similar discussion he had with this 242 fellow some time ago, and thought he'd "get it" by now.

 

Not if its a Schroth Rallye 3,4,etc...they are DOT approved. Again, I don't recommend them for the street, but they are street legal unlike most harness belts.

 

nope I didn't "Get IT" by now. You'll have to do a lot more to prove your point that anyone will live a roll over with a OEM belt or harness. Anyone can make up a story so give some government DOT facts and test data. Sorry the less then 1% chance of being in a roll over is less of a concern then keeping my face off my steering wheel or in my seat in the event of a T-bone, head on or rear end collision which statically I have more then a 1000% chance of being in my life time then a roll over. And I've already been in a front end hit (RIP 86 Scooby GL AWD Turbo) I'm betting that the other two will happen before I ever roll over. Cheers Eh!!

and so the debate rages on.....................................

 

I spent several months at the Arizona Emergency Medicine Research Center working on several projects during my first two years of medical school. I may be able to come up with that number nationally if I can compile enough complete databases, but I can certainly come up with that number for Arizona over the last several years. I also spent several years working on a paramedic ambulance, so I have a good amount of first hand experience with this to back up any numbers I can generate for you from our database. The formula for surviving a violent rollover (3 or more times) is simple: young, male, drunk, thrown free of the car in the first two revolutions. Sad, isn't it? Otherwise, the rollover survival is amazingly HIGH. People are far more likely to be seriously injured in a t-bone type accident, or a head on collision (where net speeds can reach 150 mph or more). In these events, your injuries come from direct trauma to your body (t-bone) or rapid deceleration (head-on). At those speeds, rapid deceleration tears internal structural support of your dense organs, and you bleed from inside. No seatbelt in the world will stop that, which is why head-on accidents are highly targeted by the DOT. However, speeds that will not tear internal structures (naturally, this is age/health dependent) will easily be handled by the OEM seat belt. Believe it or not, people put some research into these, and everything they do or don't do is for a reason.
You are completely right on this point, but that's not the point. People often use the term "duck" during these discussions, and it's a misnomer. The proper term would be "collapse," or more likely "crush." I don't care if you do have the presence of mind to "duck." The forces imposed in the accident will screw your "plan" up anyway because nobody's torso muscles are that strong. However, as the roof comes down on your head (likely from the sides, at an angle from the b-pillars. Again, by design) it will force you toward the center of the car. While driving off of a bridge and landing flat on the roof will screw that system up, any "typical" rollover is a relatively survivable accident. I would personally rather roll my car than hit a wall with it, and that's based on actual research for those of you who don't like "experience." So the idea is not to duck, but to go limp and allow the OEM safety system to do it's job by directing you toward the middle of the car where room has been designed for you to fit. Ever notice how you can't wiggle in any direction but toward the center of the car when you're wearing your OEM belt? Coincidence?

Two things. First, the OEM belt is not designed the way you are testing it. If YOU impose the forces on the belt (ie. you lurch forward very quickly to test it, or you simply yank on it) the belt will take several inches for the centrifugal forces on the mechanism to catch and lock. However, if the CAR imposes the forces on the mechanism (ie, you hit a wall), that force reaches the solid belt mount first, and locks it, before the force is transmitted through your seat and your body begins to move. Saying that you can jump forward 5" before the belt locks is like saying you can bang your head on the air bag and it doesn't go off, so it must not work well enough.

Again, I'll try to put together the numbers everyone is asking for, but you have to be more clear on what you want. I don't have time to just "do a study." Also, I have no racetrack numbers, nor do we have any data on the type of restraint system used (we assume it's OEM if it's on the street), but we DO know if one was used or not.

I agree that this is a frustrating disucssion, but that doesn't mean it's trivial. It comes up because harnesses are cheap, and rollover protection messes up interiors. We don't argue about ABS because street cars have them, and track cars disable them.

[personal rant]I find the argument "It's my body and my car" infuriating. Mentality like that is the reason SoAZ's Trauma centers (and others around the country) are on the verge of financial collapse. People don't take responsability for their own safety because "it's there body, they can do what they want," but they damn sure don't refuse tax money to help put them back together.[/personal rant]


*edit* It's too bad my post is so long. Now nobody will read it and someone will say something stupid two posts down




[Modified by ITR#231, 11:09 AM 6/29/2002]

 

I read it..

great information. But remember those people who say "its my body" will never listen to common sense.

Your point is excellent. We should make those people sign waivers who claim its my body... and let them perform THEIR OWN surgury on themselves... cant? Too bad.

 

Dude, that was some good stuff and it should make a point that any moron could understand. But as you'd expect, people will get their priorities screwed up and do what's cool instead of what's smart. That's when the phrase "gene pool cleansing" comes to mind.

You made a good point on the fact that the 3-point OEM belt gives you an escape route. No harness will do that, hence the roll bar requirement to compensate.

Good post.

 

I read the whole thing.
Guess it will be time for a roll bar soon.

Thanks for the comments and info. Ed

 

They are required for track events in convertables.

 

Gene pool cleansing kicks ***. Please wear your 5-point harness w/o a roll cage/bar. Your spine is strong enough to withstand the impact of a collapsing roof!

 

The exact reason I havan't been to an HPDE or Driving school yet. I have the harnesses, but no bar. Can't afford the school and bar this year, so bar first, and schedule school next year...

I read the whole post.

 

Isnt a roll bar in a street car dangerous too. I thought I read somewhere that without head protection (helmet) you risk hitting your head on roll bar in collision. Padding on a bar will not help in an accident at speed. Rollbar, harness, helmet is what works. Leave anything out and you are increasing your risks when driving.

 

Because they roll all the time, and most of the time, the event is NOT over after a rollover.

Petter Solberg rolled TWICE at Cyprus and still finished the race in the top ten.
Colin McRae also rolled twice, and still brought the Ford Focus over the finish (but he blew the lead).

The crowd rolled Alistair McRae back onto his wheels from the car resting on THE DOOR, and continued in Greece.

The WRC rollcages are somewhat more "complete" than the main hoop cages. They are a full substructure within the car, and you might could possibly just attatch wheels to the cage itself and have quite a dunebuggy. Their substructure is regulated by the FIA, and seems to be dictated by extensive experience with rolls and driver safety.

Frankly, the rollover (multi-twist lateral flip in the air, landing on rooftop, and rolling about in the Argentinian roadside) in Argentina of Tommi Makkinen should have killed both him and the codriver, but the engineering of these cars made possible that he and the codriver walked away without even the slightest injury.

Shawn