Furthermore, one can argue that a harness and harness bar alone is even less safe in the, albeit rare, instance where the vehicles rolls compared to the OEM system.
There's the key idea that started my posting. It is a rare occurence. More frequent are the frontal and glancing impacts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Doubt
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.
That's like asking would you rather breathe or not. The answer to that is obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Doubt
Of course one makes compromises based on monetary considerations and other factors. I'm well aware of that. But rationalization based on the perception it "isn't likely" is not wise. The fact is the potential is there and the outcome at track speeds is invariably more severe than at legal street speeds.
I don't think the word rationalization is the correct term. It's the decison we make based on all the factors we know. Everyday we make decisons based on what's likely. As you've stated numerous times in your posts, nothing is absolutely safe, there are degrees of safety we all pick. Have you ever driven on an undivided highway? At night? The likehood of a head on is increased significantly under those conditions, yet we all choose to drive those roads anyway.
Some safety equipment is better than none. True. But a harness bar and harness may not be as safe as the OEM system depending on the crash and other safety equipment installed. I am simply saying they are not as safe as many seem to think they are. Again, depending on the situation and/or potential situation. Again, 155 mph is far less safe than 55-75 mph.
Safety is a relative thing. Nothing is 100% safe.
A HPDE event is potentially a much greater risk than the street since the speeds are much higher. The speeds can be nearly as fast as a T1 car, and sometimes even faster, yet the mandatory safety equipment is much less. Although not racing, the speed alone is a significant risk factor.
Crash analysis has shown the harness bar/harness combination to be less safe in the event of certain crash types. That is not opinion, it's fact. To argue otherwise is rationalization based on perception of risk.
The harness bar/harness combination was originally designed to hold the driver in a more optimal position so as to afford greater car control while autocrossing. Period. That was the original intent. It was not to prevent injury during a high speed track event, let alone a potential rollover, sans cage.
Some rationalize that because they afford greater car control they are therefore safer. And to a certain degree that is true. However, that was and is not their design intent.
Crash analysis has shown the harness bar/harness combination to be less safe in the event of certain crash types. That is not opinion, it's fact. To argue otherwise is rationalization based on perception of risk.
They are shown to be less safe than what, you don't say what they're less safe than? Nothing at all, 3 point belts, roll cage?
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?
Confused but Interested from Houston
what i'm suggesting is that having merely harnesses and a HANS device without a roll cage is not as effective, and potentially more harmful, especially for Z06 drivers.
here's why....hopefully the comment about civic and low power cars is to suggest that lower power cars are simply less likely to encounter the consequences than say a Z06.....the logic behind this is that they (civis and the likes) are simply slow........still doesn't make sense? ok...why do most drag strips, NHRA, etc. require cars going faster than 11.99 to have, at the least, a roll bar...and a full cage for 9.99 or better? obviously...they believe that a car that's capable of going faster carries more risk...and we're talking a straight line. what's the trap speed for 11.99...120? 9.99...145? 145 mph in a straight line from a dead stop...a quarter mile long....i would bet the Z06 can hit 145 mph on some of the bigger tracks in the US...laguna seca, button willows, thunder hill, road america, road atlanta, sebring, VIR. this isn't to say that every Z06 owner will go no nucking futs and push their cars 10/10ths.
certainly if you drove slow and conservatively, stock restraints should suffice, i mean, this is still a street vehicle that you'd have to drive home, right? if you feel the need to step up to harnesses and a HANS device and still drive conservatively as you would with stock restraints...sure, the likelihood of a rollover are still minimal and the restraint offered by the harnesses and HANS device will be that much better. but putting in harnesses and adding a HANS device so you can step it up to the next level.....i personally believe that that is not the right mentality, you're bargaining with yourself and making compromises you shouldn't make, ie...your well being backed by harnesses/HANS device vs time/money/convenience of putting in a proper roll cage.
I am still waiting for someone to show that and explain how a street car with 4/5/6 point harnesses and HANS device is less safe than the same car with only 3 point street belt.
Are we saying that when a cageless 3 point belt car rolls you get less injured than in the same cageless car, same wreck with 4/5/6 points and HANS?
Put even more simply - are we to believe that 4/5/6 and HANS is dangerous without a roll cage?
More dangerous than the same car with only a 3 point?
what i'm suggesting is that having merely harnesses and a HANS device without a roll cage is not as effective, and potentially more harmful, especially for Z06 drivers.
here's why....hopefully the comment about civic and low power cars is to suggest that lower power cars are simply less likely to encounter the consequences than say a Z06.....the logic behind this is that they (civis and the likes) are simply slow........still doesn't make sense? ok...why do most drag strips, NHRA, etc. require cars going faster than 11.99 to have, at the least, a roll bar...and a full cage for 9.99 or better? obviously...they believe that a car that's capable of going faster carries more risk...and we're talking a straight line. what's the trap speed for 11.99...120? 9.99...145? 145 mph in a straight line from a dead stop...a quarter mile long....i would bet the Z06 can hit 145 mph on some of the bigger tracks in the US...laguna seca, button willows, thunder hill, road america, road atlanta, sebring, VIR. this isn't to say that every Z06 owner will go no nucking futs and push their cars 10/10ths.
certainly if you drove slow and conservatively, stock restraints should suffice, i mean, this is still a street vehicle that you'd have to drive home, right? if you feel the need to step up to harnesses and a HANS device and still drive conservatively as you would with stock restraints...sure, the likelihood of a rollover are still minimal and the restraint offered by the harnesses and HANS device will be that much better. but putting in harnesses and adding a HANS device so you can step it up to the next level.....i personally believe that that is not the right mentality, you're bargaining with yourself and making compromises you shouldn't make, ie...your well being backed by harnesses/HANS device vs time/money/convenience of putting in a proper roll cage.
I didn't install the harness bar and harnesses and wear the H&N restraint system to drive harder, but to keep me a little safer than I was without them.
No automatic fire suppression system is required either in the T1's.
I am still waiting for someone to show that and explain how a street car with 4/5/6 point harnesses and HANS device is less safe than the same car with only 3 point street belt.
should you be driving a street car that is only equipped with a 3 point restraint like it's meant to have harnesses?
Quote:
Are we saying that when a cageless 3 point belt car rolls you get less injured than in the same cageless car, same wreck with 4/5/6 points and HANS?
i say you're still screwed in either case, but if you're strapped in with a HANS device, you are DEFINITELY screwed, as opposed to most likely screwed with a 3 point.
Quote:
Put even more simply - are we to believe that 4/5/6 and HANS is dangerous without a roll cage?
I wouldn't use them without a roll cage, if I did need them, I believe i'm driving a little too hard for my own good. But that's just one opinion.
Are we saying that when a cageless 3 point belt car rolls you get less injured than in the same cageless car, same wreck with 4/5/6 points and HANS?
"We"? I don't have a mouse in my pocket and I'm not practicing my French.
The potential for certain injuries in a rollover using a harness bar/harness combination, without a cage, is greater than with the OEM system, yes. The OEM system is designed for the street and legal street speeds.
The harness bar/harness combination, by design, restricts movement and as I stated was intended to help maintain the optimal driving position for autocross use. In the event of a rollover, without a cage, the risk of injury is greater due to the fact movement is restricted. The roof can collapse from the B pillars forward and as a result injury can occur since the driver may be unable to consciously duck or be forced downward. Which assumes they can release the harnesses in time that is. Even then, they would be without the protection afforded by the belts themselves.
This is one of the reasons cages are mandated for racing and not harness bars. Not because cages look cooler. The OEM system is a carefully engineered system. The harness bar/harness combination is designed for the purpose for which I outlined, nothing more.
Todays cars are safer for their intended purpose (the street) than any cars in history. They are not designed for the track or track speeds. Those that are do not rely on a harness bar/harness combination. Again, something they were simply never designed for.
There is no argument here and further debate is pointless.
There is no argument here and further debate is pointless.
One last question before you hang up, would a harness attached to a properly supported and designed harness bar, in conjunction with a helmet and H&N restaint system, possibly prevent Basal skull fracture in a frontal impact?
The harness bar/harness combination, by design, restricts movement and as I stated was intended to help maintain the optimal driving position for autocross use. In the event of a rollover, without a cage, the risk of injury is greater due to the fact movement is restricted. The roof can collapse from the B pillars forward and as a result injury can occur since the driver may be unable to consciously duck or be forced downward. Which assumes they can release the harnesses in time that is. Even then, they would be without the protection afforded by the belts themselves.
This is the point I was hoping the discusison would get to.
I find it odd that the "ability to duck or move" out the way of a crushing roof in a roll over situation is even being discussed and suggested to be a saftey factor.
This makes no sense - I do not believe anyone in a roll over sitution only being held in by 3 point belt will be able to "duck or manouvre" out of harms way in time to make any difference... more likely they will slip, slide or crumple out the way.
If one was to maintain enough composure and control in such a situation, you might then assume that one could just as easily snap the 4/5/6 point system loose after the car comes to a rest as they could move their body in anticipation of a roll over.
I personally think (as in my own unscientific layman's opinion) is a false sense "security" that one can "duck" out of the way of crushed B-pillars.
And I am only talking about a street speed accident - not even race speeds.
C'mon, you already know the answer to that question. However, cars don't obey only the laws of physics you want them to. There are more potential crash scenarios than the one you outlined. Hence, the reason for cages and not merely harness bar/harness setups.
One last question before you hang up, would a harness attached to a properly supported and designed harness bar, in conjunction with a helmet and H&N restaint system, possibly prevent Basal skull fracture in a frontal impact?
can a harness attached to a properly supported and designed harness bar, in conjunction with a helmet and a HANS device possibly prevent head and neck in jury in a rollover? cause obviously you are hauling balls to come to the point of preventing a basal skull fracture.
can a harness attached to a properly supported and designed harness bar, in conjunction with a helmet and a HANS device possibly prevent head and neck in jury in a rollover?
I notice you conveniently avoiding answering my question.
In response to yours, yes, it can. You assume, incorrectly, that the roof always collapses in on the occupants. Yes, sometimes the B pillar does collapse, at which time, regardless of the restraint system, everyone in the cockpit is in big trouble, but at other times it doesn't collapse.
For some reason I think we may be arguing apples and oranges, here. You guys keep bringing up roll cages, which by their very nature indicate full on race cars, and I'm speaking of making street cars that are used in the track possibly survivable.
C'mon, you already know the answer to that question. However, cars don't obey only the laws of physics you want them to. There are more potential crash scenarios than the one you outlined. Hence, the reason for cages and not merely harness bar/harness setups.
I notice you conveniently avoided answering the question, too.
I know the dynamics of a crash are infinite, so it's impossible to plan for all of them, which is why planning for the most likely is what we do.
Even the T1 cars don't plan for all of them (sans fuel cell, auto fire suppression) but they plan for the ones that are most likely.
Granted, full race cars are the way to go and a cage is better than a harness bar. But preparing a street car as safely as we can for track days is the only alternative some of us have. No, I have no illusion that it as safe a full on race car, but it's as safe as I can make it.
It seems as though you are advocating no street cars on track because it’s impossible to make them 100% safe. (But for some reason you give the T1's a pass on the fuel cells & auto fire suppression???). I can't disagree with that position on street cars, that’s certainly laudable, but as we all know it's impossible to guard against every potentiality, so we prepare for those that we can.
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.
the comment about civic and low power cars is to suggest that lower power cars are simply less likely to encounter the consequences than say a Z06.....the logic behind this is that they (civis and the likes) are simply slow........still doesn't make sense? ok...why do most drag strips, NHRA, etc. require cars going faster than 11.99 to have, at the least, a roll bar...and a full cage for 9.99 or better? obviously...they believe that a car that's capable of going faster carries more risk...and we're talking a straight line. what's the trap speed for 11.99...120? 9.99...145? 145 mph in a straight line from a dead stop...a quarter mile long....i would bet the Z06 can hit 145 mph on some of the bigger tracks in the US...laguna seca, button willows, thunder hill, road america, road atlanta, sebring, VIR. this isn't to say that every Z06 owner will go no nucking futs and push their cars 10/10ths. 
Linear Mode
