I heard the collar was only good for people in cars that can do high G's - the neck starts to tire after a while and the collar provides some help. I initially thought that it had some safety benefit, but a few vendors told me otherwise.
__________________
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
That's what I've been considering, but I'm not shure I need to cut into the seat padding to make room for it.
A first hand account would be much appreciated.
I have Cobra Suzuka seats, Schroth 6pt harnesses, and full T-1 cage.
Yes, I've used one for over a year now.
When you purchase a R3, they furnish a rubber insert with a cutout for the stem of the device to fit in. This insert lays against the back of your seat and the device fits in it when you're seated. The R3's very comfortable, but like all H&N restraint systems, there is some limit to your left to right mobility (head swivel). After wearing one for a while it's no big deal.
I picked the R3 because I instruct for many different clubs and very few students have harnesses. The R3 offers some protection with just a 3 point belt. When I get into a student's car, I don't have the rubber seat insert, but it isn't uncomfortable and I don't even notice.
At my MID OH HPDE this wknd the instructors said that if you had car restraints you better have a Hans device. In other words, if you aren't wearing a Hans you are better off using your stock seat belts. Their argument was that by wearing 4-6pt belts you are placing a good part of the impact at your neck.
At my MID OH HPDE this wknd the instructors said that if you had car restraints you better have a Hans device. In other words, if you aren't wearing a Hans you are better off using your stock seat belts. Their argument was that by wearing 4-6pt belts you are placing a good part of the impact at your neck.
Anyone heard this before?
that's fine and dandy until you roll your car, at which point, harnesses...hans device....helmet....ain't gonna save your neck from 3000 lbs on an unsupported roof.
__________________
The day the Chevrolet Corvette overalls at the 24 Hours of Le Mans is the day I will buy a brand new Z06.
that's fine and dandy until you roll your car, at which point, harnesses...hans device....helmet....ain't gonna save your neck from 3000 lbs on an unsupported roof.
Let me ask you ibismojo, how many times have you seen a car roll over at a HPDE? How many times have you seen one go into a wall/catch fence/tree line/another car/etc.?
The likelihood of hitting something without turning over is far greater than turning over. In the case of a turnover, do you think you'd have the strength and time to slide one way or the other to avoid a collapsing top.
BTW, the B pillar in a Z06 is pretty strong. There was one picture of a crushed top, but other than that one, I've never seen any others.
The H&N restraint/harness systems are there to guard against the most likely event.
BTW, the B pillar in a Z06 is pretty strong. There was one picture of a crushed top, but other than that one, I've never seen any others.
Ever been to wreckedexotics.com?
Although the B pillars are "pretty strong", the A pillars are much less so.
How many photos of vettes with crushed roofs forward of the B pillars would you like me to post? I posted a video here a long time ago of a red ZO6 going off track and rolling during an HPDE event.
Although not common it can and has happened. Then again, taking a street car to the track is not nearly as common, relatively speaking, compared to the number that never see a track.
Sit in your car (vette or otherwise) and imagine everything forward of the B pillars being crushed. Of course it can happen on the street as well.
When it comes to safety, it is better to think in terms of 'worst case' rather than "most likely".
When it comes to safety, it is better to think in terms of 'worst case' rather than "most likely".
Using that lagic no one would ever go on track without a fully padded 8 point cage with Petty bars, and a fire suppression system and complete nomex 5 layer driver suit & nomex underwear.
I fail to see how a street car with 3 point restraints is ready for the "worst case."
BTW, regardless of the restraint system, if the top is completely crushed anyone in the car will have a problem.
As far as my safety is concerned, I'll choose to protect myself from the most likely incidents instead of doing nothing in fear of the "worst case."
if it's your choice to run around a track without a cage....then it's your choice. it still does not make it a good idea, especially in a corvette (not like a civic or any other low power vehicle)...let alone a Z06.
if it's your choice to run around a track without a cage....then it's your choice. it still does not make it a good idea, especially in a corvette (not like a civic or any other low power vehicle)...let alone a Z06.
Dear Abbey,
I am not sure I follow the logic.. should one assume a Civic is less likely to roll over or get crushed?
I also am not sure what the gist of the direction of the discussion is.
Is there a fear that a roll over while you are wearing a HANS device will result in neck injury or death - and that therefore one should not have a harness setup that holds you in place?
Using that lagic no one would ever go on track without a fully padded 8 point cage with Petty bars, and a fire suppression system and complete nomex 5 layer driver suit & nomex underwear.
I never said it was a good idea to go to a track without those items, or more. Is there such as thing as too much safety? Of course not. When we drive on the track we are taking a risk. When we drive on the street we are also taking a risk. Life is the ultimate risk.
Quote:
I fail to see how a street car with 3 point restraints is ready for the "worst case."
They aren't, nor did I ever claim they were. When referring to street cars, the level of safety is outweighed by the level of convenience, and frankly adoption, the public will tolerate.
I have engaged in this debate many times. When you take what was manufactured and sold as a production street car to the track you are participating in an activity said vehicle was neither designed nor sold for. You are assuming any and all risk associated with such activity. Other than the required rules and regulations set forth by the governing body involved, any further safety measures are incumbent upon you.
If you meet the minimum safety requirements for the activity and you feel they are sufficient, then so be it. However, there is almost always more that can be done with regards to safety than the minimum required.
Last time I checked, highway speed limits were much less than 150+ mph and hence the safety requirements are accordingly less as well. Again, it's a balance between potential risk, as well as convenience and adoption.
Try designing a nuclear powerplant for example, wherein every part is the minimum alllowed per code, law, rule or regulation. Do the same for an office building or private residence. Design an aircraft with the same thought in mind: wherein everything is the minimum required.
An absurd analogy, indeed. But using your logic that is what you are advocating.
All too often people rationalize their decisions based on what they feel is the "most likely" risk they face, but fail to take into account the potential risks involved. Although you can never be completely safe, generally speaking there is almost always more you can do to be safe'er.
Ask forum member Subdriver if he feels he or his car has too much safety equipment. Ask him if he would have felt as safe in a car meeting only those safety standards required by law for production street vehicles. Ask him if he feels the outcome would have been the same had it been so equipped, or equipped with even typical HPDE safety equipment after hitting the wall exiting turn 9 at Pacific Raceway Park.
The answer is obvious. One should ask themselves the same question: do I feel safe? If you answer yes, you're fooling yourself if all you have is a helmet in addition to the stock safety equipment or even a harness bar.
Safe'er? Certainly. But are you as safe as possible, considering the speeds and other potential hazards involved? The answer is an unequivocal no.
One of the posters indicated in his post, to which I first responded, that harnesses were more dangerous because in the event of a rollover there could be head injury due to being held upright. My response was that the likelihood of a rollover is far less than smacking something headon or a glancing frontal impact for which the harness are designed. This is where the decision to guard againt the most likely mishap originated.
Ask either of my friends who stuffed their cars (Z06 & '00 Vette) into walls/guardrails whether the harnesses helped them during the impacts. I know what their answers will be.
My point is that harnesses are another safety device that can prove useful, and according to your post, "there is almost always more that can be done with regards to safety than the minimum required." I've never stated that harnesses are the end all, be all. They are but a part of a safety system. Nothing will guard us from everything and because of that we're forced into putting what safety features we can afford and skip those we're willing to live without.
"When we drive on the track we are taking a risk."
Likewise, ask Subdriver if the full T1 spec padded cage, HANS device, helmet, window net, race seat, etc. afforded more protection than a harness bar and helmet, sans HANS device, would have.
I didn't claim a harness afforded no protection. I said it is safer, but not as safe as a dedicated track or racecar, and it isn't. Furthermore, it can be argued the OEM restraint system in combination with the SRS, i.e. airbag/s is just as safe (or even safer, depending on the crash) for HPDE events.
Frankly, taking a street car to the track is, generally speaking, relatively safe if one obeys the rules and regulations although it is not as safe as some seem to think it is. On can also argue the street is even less safe, and it often is. The point is, a production street car is not a racecar and one should not be under any illusion they are.
HPDE events are fun and very educational. They can make one a better driver. But they are not races nor do they pretend to be, although some people treat them as if they are. In those cases the more safety equipment installed, the better.
One can't possibly argue that a stock vehicle is as safe as a T1 equipped car for example when doing 150+ mph, or that even a harness bar, harness and helmet is as safe; safer, granted, but not as safe as it could be considering the speeds and potential crash scenarios at those speeds.
Furthermore, one can argue that a harness and harness bar alone is even less safe in the, albeit fairly uncommon, instance where the vehicle rolls compared to the OEM system.
Which would you rather be involved in, a crash with subsequent roll at 55 or at 155 mph? Again, the answer is obvious, but at even HPDE speeds I sure as Hell would prefer to have a roll cage than not.
At street speeds rollovers are often survivable. I know, as a former volunteer firefighter and rescue squad member, I've extricated a number of people from vehicles involved in rollover crashes as well as others (on the street).
Of course, one makes compromises based on monetary considerations and other factors. I'm well aware of that. Nevertheless, rationalization based on the perception it "isn't likely" is not wise. The fact is the potential is there and the outcome at typical track speeds is often invariably more severe than at legal street speeds.
Granted, a production street car capable of nearly 200 mph is cool as heck, but to do so either on the street or track, in stock form, is sheer idiocy. Doing the same in a NASCAR Cup car or F1 car is only slightly less so.
...afforded more protection than a harness bar and helmet, sans HANS device, would.
"
Why did you exclude the HANS device from the harness bar & helmet protection system in a non race car? Why would you assume a car with a harness bar only wouldn't have a race seat? Many non-race cars have those items.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Doubt
One can't possibly argue that a stock vehicle is as safe as a T1 equipped car when doing 150+ mph. Or that even a harness bar, harness and helmet is as safe. Safe'er, granted, but not as safe as it could be considering the speeds and potential crash scenarios at those speeds.
You're making an argument where none exists. I never said a harness bar was safer than a T1 equipped car. It would be foolish to think it was.
By the same token, one can't argue that a T1 equipped car is safer than a dedicated tube frame race car. T1's are as safe as they can make them for the series, but a fuel cell, a fire suppression system and no superflous carpet, dash material, and passenger seat would make them even safer. Here we are again at partially safe and not at absolutely safe.
So, it sounds like you and I agree that some safety equipment is better than no safety equipment, which is where my original response started.
AutoForums.com is the premier network of enthusiast-owned
enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
We operate more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share
experiences and opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
