Is it time to buy/build new seats?, New PCA DE seatbelt/restraint system rule???? Options

[John]

I have been reading this lately but I haven't really heard it through any official channels. I googled it and see that there are many sites that have something about it.

Sorry if this has been posted here before.

Dear PCA National Staff and Region Presidents,

The purpose of this email is to inform you of a change in the Driver’s Education National Standards regarding the use of safety harnesses which will become effective on Jan.1, 2008. The current “Equal Restraint” Standard states that both the student and instructor shall have the same restraint system.

The problem with this Standard is that it does not define the complete system, in terms of the type of seat to be used with a 5 or 6 point harness. The new “Harness” Standard (See below) is written to compliment the “Equal Restraint” Standard and will go into effect January 1, 2008, but a region may adopt the standard earlier.

The new standard states that if a harness system is installed, it must be used in conjunction with a seat with manufacturer supplied routing holes for the shoulder and anti-submarine belts. These routing holes insure that the belts will remain in place when needed. A one piece seat is recommended but not required for it may interfere with the operation of the OEM three piece belt required for street application.

Thank you for your help in implementing this new standard. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Pete Tremper

National DE Committee Chairman

[grantsfo]

I have been reading this lately but I haven't really heard it through any official channels. I googled it and see that there are many sites that have something about it.

Sorry if this has been posted here before.

Dear PCA National Staff and Region Presidents,

The purpose of this email is to inform you of a change in the Driver’s Education National Standards regarding the use of safety harnesses which will become effective on Jan.1, 2008. The current “Equal Restraint” Standard states that both the student and instructor shall have the same restraint system.

The problem with this Standard is that it does not define the complete system, in terms of the type of seat to be used with a 5 or 6 point harness. The new “Harness” Standard (See below) is written to compliment the “Equal Restraint” Standard and will go into effect January 1, 2008, but a region may adopt the standard earlier.

The new standard states that if a harness system is installed, it must be used in conjunction with a seat with manufacturer supplied routing holes for the shoulder and anti-submarine belts. These routing holes insure that the belts will remain in place when needed. A one piece seat is recommended but not required for it may interfere with the operation of the OEM three piece belt required for street application.

Thank you for your help in implementing this new standard. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Pete Tremper

National DE Committee Chairman

Lots of discussion at the 914 Club site and at GGR PCA site on this topic.

[DanT]

Read this sentence carefully, to me it says the seat must be manufactured with the correct holes....you can not add them yourself. Maybe I am interpreting this incorrectly...just reading the words.

This means that a seat is required to have the proper routing holes for the harness as supplied by the seat manufacturer for the shoulder, lap and anti-submarine straps.

[Crazyhippy]

Also says all of this is only needed if you wish to use the safety and security of new 5-point belts, but not needed if you stick w/ the 35 yo belts.

[DanT]

that is the part that really sticks in my gut....

as an instructor I may have to ride on the track at speed in a car with 35 yo 3 pt harnesses....no age limit on them...just on the 5 pts. stupid.. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[Eric_Shea]

Hancock Upholstery is my seat manufacturer... I'll make sure he puts the holes in there. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

[Eric_Shea]

Also says all of this is only needed if you wish to use the safety and security of new 5-point belts, but not needed if you stick w/ the 35 yo belts.

I read that to mean; they recommend you use a one piece seat but, you don't have to have a one piece seat if it interferes with the operation of the OEM three piece belt required for street application.

It frankly doesn't make sense:

a ) It has to be a set with manufacturer supplied routing holes for the shoulder and anti-submarine belts.
b ) A one piece seat is recommended but not required for it may interfere with the operation of the OEM three piece belt required for street application.

Are there any 2-piece seats out there with manufacturer supplied routing holes for the belts?

[Crazyhippy]

Lots of pep-boys specials...

[John]

It doesn't state who the manufacturer must be. It appears that the seat is open to any manufacturer (no matter how small).

I rarely visit the 914club.com site anymore.

I like one piece seats.

As I understand it, this rule addendum is the result of an event fatality in which the restraint system didn't function as intended.

As an instructor, I find the mandated ban on 5-point harnesses except on dedicated race seats to be unfortunate. This will simply mean that my students won't buy a decent set of belts. (My absolute first recommendation for improvement to a student's car.) I don't normally instruct in really old cars. It seems most students I get are in Boxters or 911's.


Oh well, it's another rule. It doesn't look like it comes into play until 1/1/08 unless your region adopts it early.

I never did understand the seat back brace (as it applies to a seat in a 914).

[DanT]

It doesn't state who the manufacturer must be. It appears that the seat is open to any manufacturer (no matter how small).


Oh well, it's another rule. It doesn't look like it comes into play until 1/1/08 unless your region adopts it early.

I never did understand the seat back brace (as it applies to a seat in a 914).

John,
I wouldn't try to parse the words too much...I don't think they are going to consider you or your upholsterey shop as a manufacturer....and it all depends on who is doing the Teching....some might pass it some might not....
I would think that the zones/regions will be pretty careful with this considering the background of this issue. just my take on things as a past competition director for our PCA region.

[mudfoot76]

may have to ride on the track at speed in a car with 35 yo 3 pt harnesses....no age limit on them...just on the 5 pts. stupid.. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

I never understood this either. Last fall I was at a DE, and my friend came out to watch, driving his 1962 356. Between sessions, we were just sitting around in the paddock when the head instructor asked why the 356 wasn't going out onto the track. While it is mechanically sound, it also only has the original lap belt, and one would have thought that would be illegal for DE. Apparently not, as the instructor said that as long as it is the original equipment, it passes tech. I just don't see how that would be considered safe. Sure, a 356 isn't going to be travelling at the same speeds as a GT3 or 993TT, but wouldn't it make sense to encourage everyone coming out to the track to have the best equipment? Do I need to cut the seat cuishons on my Corbeaus for the sub-belt or re-install factory 3pt bets without risking failing the tech inspection?

[jhadler]

It doesn't state who the manufacturer must be. It appears that the seat is open to any manufacturer (no matter how small).

So it would appear. But maybe it's limited FIA certified seats. Don't know.

As an instructor, I find the mandated ban on 5-point harnesses except on dedicated race seats to be unfortunate. This will simply mean that my students won't buy a decent set of belts. (My absolute first recommendation for improvement to a student's car.) I don't normally instruct in really old cars. It seems most students I get are in Boxters or 911's.

I agree. SCCA (and BWMCCA) are stratingto move in the other direction. We're (SCCA Time Trials) are considering allowing upper body restraint harnesses (4, 5, 6 and 7 pt) on any car provided they are properly mounted. Meaning proper angle of attack on the shoulders, hip location, anchoring points etc.

Personally, I feel any harness is better than none in MOST situations. Now, if you have a converible (not a targa), without a roll bar, then I would argue STRONGLY against any kind of harness. Having seen the A-pillar on many a convertible folded down to the window sill after a roll over.

I never did understand the seat back brace (as it applies to a seat in a 914).

If you run your seat all the way back, pressed up against the fire wall, then I agree with you. Otherwise...

The belt/harnesses are there to hold you into the car, the seat is there to keep tension on the belt/harneeses. If the seat fails, the only thing keeping it from becoming a projectile (with you as a passenger) is the harness and/or belt. If there is no brace behind the seat, then your harnesses/belt are no longer in tension and your body is free to move around and get all broken up and stuff. Even if there is only 4 inches of space behind your seat, that's 4 inches of slack in the harness in the event of failure...

-Josh2

[orcadigital]

I am still on the fence on this. I understand the idea (having seen the routing of 5 point belts on stock seat), but I have heard many different viewpoints on 5pt+ belts on cars without rollbars/cages, convertibles and otherwise. I have Kirkey's on both sides, so this wont have a huge effect on me, but i know many DE folks that run 5 pts on both sides, with 1 race seat and 1 stock seat (passenger side).

For what its worth, i have never had a tech inspector in a DE check my belts for dating. I club race, so i make sure myself, but you never know.

What i dont understand is our local regions Challenge Series rules made 5pt harnesses a car improvement, that bumps you to a higher class. I have seen people with 5 pt belts, run with the stock 3's in the timed runs, just so they dont bounce a class. Makes no sense to me.

[John]

If you run your seat all the way back, pressed up against the fire wall, then I agree with you. Otherwise...

The belt/harnesses are there to hold you into the car, the seat is there to keep tension on the belt/harneeses. If the seat fails, the only thing keeping it from becoming a projectile (with you as a passenger) is the harness and/or belt. If there is no brace behind the seat, then your harnesses/belt are no longer in tension and your body is free to move around and get all broken up and stuff. Even if there is only 4 inches of space behind your seat, that's 4 inches of slack in the harness in the event of failure...

I agree with your theory.

Have you ever witnessed a one piece seat fail? I can see 2-part seats having a higher potential for failure.

Regardless, a rule is a rule.

[jhadler]

I agree with your theory.

Have you ever witnessed a one piece seat fail? I can see 2-part seats having a higher potential for failure.

Regardless, a rule is a rule.

Just playing devil's advocate... If the seat mount fails, it's free to move. The seat is not likley to press the rail down, but it can tip back away from the mount.

Dunno.

It's true, a rule is a rule.

-Josh2

[914forme]

The brace is there to keep the seat close to where it should be in a crash. Even then, if you have ever seen a hard crash, stuff moves around. It moves around a lot, I have seen chassis movements up to 3-4 inches and then everything snaps back into a sort of shape. You can tell by looking at contact points and paint or powder coat transfers to other things. Even with the seat against the wall, I think you still need it bolted there, a loose seat will move separate of its surroundings.

My only real problem with the rule is that the seat is bolted to the chassis, the cage is bolted to the chassis at a different point and the seat back is bolt to the cage. But that is the way it is with every production type car and you can't get around it unless you build a different style cage.

My only true hope is that nobody ever has to test the function of their seats, cages, and safety belts. There is not a pricetag on life, what you got is what you have, and to loose it over a lose seat or other item is wrong. Sure somethings are not worth the fit for the probability. but even in auto-x I have seen some pretty hard hits, cars totaled etc... Luckily I have never seen a death, and hope I never do. I have seen a lot more odd accidents at the track. Watched a 911 Targa go top first into a tree once, that was a sad day, luckily no deaths, but many scared people. This was a PCA DE.

If they need to step up on the safety equipment more power to them, but I feel it is an injustice that I take a penalty for having harnesses, and roll bars or a cage, and a guy can show up with a 356 with 60 year old belts and be allowed on the track. Or even a 914 with 30 year old belts.

One problem with harnesses is that they transfer more energy into the body, that has side effects like neck injuries, etc.... A 3 point belt allows the body to absorb energy a little differently, and reduces the risk of neck injuries. This is why the Schroth came up with it's ASM feature on some of its harnesses. And that simple roll of the torso keeps you from going under the lap belt.

I personally don't like the 30 year lap belt that has been exposed to continuous abuse to be allowed on the track. They need a tag in there about discretion of track safety personnel......

[jhadler]

If they need to step up on the safety equipment more power to them, but I feel it is an injustice that I take a penalty for having harnesses, and roll bars or a cage, and a guy can show up with a 356 with 60 year old belts and be allowed on the track. Or even a 914 with 30 year old belts.

I agree. Safety equipment should not impose a point penalty. Harnesses, while imparting -some- competitive advantage, should not be considered a competition modification. And the same, I feel, should apply to rollbars. A cage that ties the whole chassis together? Okay, give it points, but a standard roll bar? That should be free.

One problem with harnesses is that they transfer more energy into the body, that has side effects like neck injuries, etc.... A 3 point belt allows the body to absorb energy a little differently, and reduces the risk of neck injuries. This is why the Schroth came up with it's ASM feature on some of its harnesses. And that simple roll of the torso keeps you from going under the lap belt.

Not sure I agree 100% with that. Harnesses distribute the load over the whole body, and prevent excessive movement of the body durring an impact. Have you seen how much a body moves with 3 point belts? It's amazing, even in a low speed impact. The problem is that the belt only really contacts the body in a few places (points), so isolated parts of the body are immobilized while the rest of the body is free to flail around. This, among other things, is what contributes to some pretty nasty spinal injuries. A harness restrains the body from excessive motion, while at the same time distributing the load over a much larger area. This actually reduces the load on any one point of the body by a significant amount. Granted, with the body so restrained, there is a higher probabitlity of a specific basal injury (like what happened to Earnhardt), but that's what a HANS device is for. But in a 3 point, the injuries are gonna be all over.

Short response. IMHO, Any good harness (properly mounted and worn) is better than no harness at all. After witnessing a friend littlerally walk away from 90 mph collision in a road race, it would be a pretty tough sell to convince me that a 3 point belt is safer than a harness.

I personally don't like the 30 year lap belt that has been exposed to continuous abuse to be allowed on the track. They need a tag in there about discretion of track safety personnel......

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) 100%.

Some clubs are moving in the right direction (IMHO). BMWCCA I believe was talking about requiring harnesses for all entrants to their high speed (track) events. And SCCA TT is working on allowing (but not mandating) harnesses (provided they're properlly installed) on all closed cars in level 1 and level 2 events. In the past, harnesses weren't allowed without a GCR approved roll bar/cage. But that gets us back to the original question...

Is it better to have a 5 point belt on a factory seat than it is having a regular 3 point? I think if a provision is made to properly install the sub strap, then yes. Otherwise, might be better to go with the Schroth 4 point system.

I have identical harnesses for both seats, and both seats are SFI/FIA one-piece racing seats.

-Josh2

[914forme]

I agree. Safety equipment should not impose a point penalty. Harnesses, while imparting -some- competitive advantage, should not be considered a competition modification. And the same, I feel, should apply to rollbars. A cage that ties the whole chassis together? Okay, give it points, but a standard roll bar? That should be free.

NASA TT rules have changed this year to allow harnesses - free, and roll bars and cages - free, that even includes my new one with the petty bar. Only time the cage will add points is if it ties suspension pickup points or goes through the firewall.

Not sure I agree 100% with that. Harnesses distribute the load over the whole body, and prevent excessive movement of the body durring an impact. Have you seen how much a body moves with 3 point belts? It's amazing, even in a low speed impact. The problem is that the belt only really contacts the body in a few places (points), so isolated parts of the body are immobilized while the rest of the body is free to flail around. This, among other things, is what contributes to some pretty nasty spinal injuries. A harness restrains the body from excessive motion, while at the same time distributing the load over a much larger area. This actually reduces the load on any one point of the body by a significant amount. Granted, with the body so restrained, there is a higher probabitlity of a specific basal injury (like what happened to Earnhardt), but that's what a HANS device is for. But in a 3 point, the injuries are gonna be all over.

That is what I wanted to say but you did it much more eloqiently.

I have identical harnesses for both seats, and both seats are SFI/FIA one-piece racing seats.

-Josh2

Unfortunatly I do not, I have modified the stock seats to allow the sub straps to go through a hole, that is grommeted and down to the floor. The strap attachement points are re-enforced with 4x4 backer plates. My lap belts tie into the stock belt locations, and my sholder harnesses tie into the roll bar. Only issue I see is the sholder harnesses could slip off my sholders if everything did not move in concert. But Nasa rules instill a heavy points charge for having full race seats installed. I would take more points for two race seats than I would for modifng my limited slip. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) I am a firm believer in providing my passengars the same level of safety equipment as I do the driver. My belts are identical SFI certified units. My seats are unfortunatly modified stock.

I think I will create a proposal letter for NASA TT group and see if I can get the points system changed on the racing seats, that way we can be safe! A seat has a decent performnance advantage, but has a larger inpact on safety.Currently as the rules stand I would be bumped a class if I added the seats.

[John]

My lap belts tie into the stock belt locations, and my sholder harnesses tie into the roll bar. Only issue I see is the sholder harnesses could slip off my sholders if everything did not move in concert.

I believe that this is one of the main issues that is trying to be addressed by this rule addition.

[914forme]

I believe that this is one of the main issues that is trying to be addressed by this rule addition.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) But I think in a 914 it would be hard, if your seat is right against the point where the belts hookup. In my case the belts wrap around the roll cage and due to seating position my seat the back rests against the bar. I have plans on bolting it to the bar. That bar is below my sholder line that is where the .5" of travel comes into play. They are retained in that position by a fixture, and will not slip down hte bar or move off to the sides. But in a 914 I think the odds are pretty slim unless you have huge distances from the belt back to the anchor points that it should not be and issue if proper setup and procedures have been followed.

I can see an issue with a street 911, 944, or any of the 2+2 coupes if you tie the belts off to a seatbelt pickup point off the rear seats. If I had one of those cars I would do that myself. They are strong points in the chassis, and many harness systems exist to do this. I also believe the two piece seat used in these senerios would cause issues, I have never seen a 1 piece seat fail. Now in that senerio I would poney up for a Schroth AMS that was designed specificly for this setup. I still think the AMS feture would reduce spinal and neck injuries associated with harnesses. The simple roll of one sholder allows the engery path to be taken at a slightly longer peroid of time. It is milliseconds, but that and the slight controlled rotation means everything.They also add a cross web right before it gets to the seat to keep the two sholder belts togther.

My biggest concerns with this rule are:

Old stock lapbelts being allowed on the track. I have never seen a punched date tag on any of them. And to say they are better than SFI harness is wrong thinking. It is a loop hole that is there to keep stock cars on hte track. Well a lot of them stock vehicles have a higher performance envolope than my little 2.0L 914 does. Only reason they can is becuase it was an "engineered system" from the factory, insurance likes that. Once you have people installing their own safety devices it becomes a liabilty issue.

And no sanctioning body having consistant rules of safety devices. So in my senerio PCA would rather see my car out on the track with a 33 year old 3 point seat belt than my 2 year old SFI certified belts. Point being I should be able to goto an SCCA event, a NASA event, and a PCA event and not get hit for various class infraction for safety devices. To me PCA has now ruled a seat is part of the safety system. Other clubs have not.

I am playing Devils advocate with that, cause next year my engine program will bump me a class anyway, in NASA, and I will have the points to install the proper seats, that meet PCA guide lines.

BTW, what do you guys do with all your old harness hardware??????