New Harness Standard for DE events

[TREMPER]

February 5, 2007
Dear 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
Tremper9146@aol.com
(O)215.539.6379
(H)856.881.7049

Harness Standard
revised 1/22/07

Harness Systems:

If the participant chooses to install a 5/6 point driving harness (four point systems are not safe and therefore not allowed) several changes to the automobile must be made to create a safe occupant restraint system. Harnesses must include an antisubmarine strap and be mounted in an approved manner consistent with the manufacturer’s instructions. The Harness system must be used in conjunction with a seat which has the supplied routing holes for the shoulder and anti-submarine belts. All pieces of the restraint system must be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

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. The shoulder straps should be mounted at 90 degrees to the axis of your spine or at most 40 degrees down from horizontal. Because the addition of the harness system means that the occupants are fastened upright in the vehicle, a properly padded roll bar or roll cage is strongly encouraged to complete the SYSTEM. The use of one without the other may result in an unsafe environment and is not a COMPLETE SYSTEM. Due to UV degradation and wear the harness webbing must be replaced every five years.

[Geoffrey]

Hi Pete, I think this is a good update to the standards which address issues we see at tech. These include 5/6pt harnesses used with stock seats where the shoulder belts are run around the stock seat and therefore prone to slipping off the shoulders, and the use of seats without the proper sub harness routing hole.

Has there also been discussion about the harness bar (not roll bar or roll cage) and the relative safety of using it where it does not protect against rollover and perhaps can add to the risk of injury in that type of accident?

Also, I notice the comment about replacing harness webbing every 5 years. For those who still track with 3pt stock belts, can you add any insight as to what the discussions were for the age and relative safety of stock belts?

[kurt M]

Thank you Pete for the hard work and the welcome improvement to the existing rules and well done considering the conditions under which it was formed and will be deployed.

My own comments as a PCA member only. Interesting that there is no direct mention of seat mounting or the many modern head and neck systems that could now be used with the 5 or 6 point harness systems but the roll bar thing is brought up. Again, My own comments as a PCA member only, Yes, a harness without a roll bar is not a complete “system” but a harness and roll bar without a cage, HANS, fire suppression, nomex suit, kill switch, fuel cell, properly mounted full containment halo seat, window and right side net and the like is not a system ether. I think dual use cars are very hard to mandate improvements for as there are conflicting needs and forces at play. A roll bar in a car with a standard mount 2 part seat might not be an improvement on the street and very little so if any on the track if you look at the statistical chances. There are very few driver compartment rollover overhead intrusions in DE but there are many rear end and rear angle impacts. A roll bar is a great harness mount but just might be a determent in a rear impact unless the seat integrity is maintained and or it is part of the seat system. At least on track you will have a helmet to protect you head, a feature not afforded while street driving. If you think about it seat integrity is key in 99% of impact events. Spilling out of a broken seat is bad news and negates any harness system. Not so much a slippery but more as a muddy slope when dual use cars are involved.

Also the replace every 5 years is intresting as the rest of the rule is not stringent why is this area so stringent? A car that sits 24/7/365 in full SO CAL sun might need webbing in 2 years one that sits in a garage in New York might need a set every 20 years if that. Could that part be replaced with "in undamaged condition". Why are 25 year old stock belts OK but you have to shell out money every 5 years for what are likely undamaged after market bents? Sun damage can be seen. How about "Replace if there is ANY sun or other damage visable and after an impact event"?

What do other folks think of this new rule? What do you like about it? What do you think of street car systems with or without bars? how about the expected life of belts in DE cars?

EDIT read you reply regarding stock belts and that makes sense with regards to PCA DE.

[TREMPER]

Geoffery,
When one makes a change in the safety equipment supplied by the factory, one must think of the consequences. Obviously a roll cage or roll hoop will offer better protection in a roll over and also provide an excellent point of attachment. Most harness systems can strech up to 20% on impact..so the longer the point of attachment from the harness buckle, the more the belt will stretch.
The age and UV degredation of the OEM stock belt is not part of the new standard and; therefore, is not addressed.
Thanks for your comments,
Pete

[Veloce Raptor]

Pete, thanks for posting this. This clarification is appreciated!

[gbaker]

Originally Posted by Geoffrey

...For those who still track with 3pt stock belts, can you add any insight as to what the discussions were for the age and relative safety of stock belts?

That style of webbing is replaced every 13 years in military applications.

[David 23]

Originally Posted by TREMPER

Geoffery,
When one makes a change in the safety equipment supplied by the factory, one must think of the consequences. Obviously a roll cage or roll hoop will offer better protection in a roll over and also provide an excellent point of attachment. Most harness systems can strech up to 20% on impact..so the longer the point of attachment from the harness buckle, the more the belt will stretch.
The age and UV degredation of the OEM stock belt is not part of the new standard and; therefore, is not addressed.
Thanks for your comments,
Pete

Mounting belts on a harness bar doesn't create a longer point of attachment than attaching to a roll over bar. I also wonder if the required periodic replacement of safety harnesses, without regard to specific condition, is the most reasonable policy. As pointed out, many cars are kept completely garaged, out of the sun, or belts are removed between events and stored safely indoors. In these cases, I suspect environmental deterioration of the belts would be virtually non existent.

[jsabatini]

Thanks for the advance warning. My only question is, where can I find a 2 piece seat that allows continued use of the 3 point system for daily driving and rear seat access, and that has the routing for the sub-belts?

[Bull]

Originally Posted by David 23

Mounting belts on a harness bar doesn't create a longer point of attachment than attaching to a roll over bar. I also wonder if the required periodic replacement of safety harnesses, without regard to specific condition, is the most reasonable policy. As pointed out, many cars are kept completely garaged, out of the sun, or belts are removed between events and stored safely indoors. In these cases, I suspect environmental deterioration of the belts would be virtually non existent.

I believe the issue is with harness "guide" bars, where the bar serves only to put the harnesses at the proper angle, with the harness traveling over the bar to the rear seat belt attachment points. That is a very long run in some cars. The guide bars are not designed to have the belts terminated on them.

Our Region has been operating under this new seat and harness rule since the beginning of the '06 season.

[RedlineMan]

Thanks Pete;

First off, too much "improvement" beyond what has been offered in this update would likely be impossible. Too much inertia against such more sweeping mandates. Getting all the seats at least equal in terms of belt routing is a good start. So too is it a good idea to limit "upgrades" in regulations to a very basic level because they tend to be based on incomplete, missunderstood, missinterpreted, or blatantly false "information." This "information" quite often is based on "prevailing wisdom."

To wit, the continuing myth of the car hitting the driver in a roll over. This is a pig that many still try to fly, and simply will not die. Sort of like Bill Clinton... but I digress. It is held onto dearly by some very smart people, much to my shagrin. It is a clearly proven FACT that in the vast majority of cases, occupants suffer roll over injury from hitting the car, not the car hitting them. In that instance, a proper harness and seat will only INCREASE the retention of the occupants, further protecting them from projecting out of the seat and hitting the car. The number of times that a car hits an occupant in a roll over is statistically insignificant, if even measureable.

As Kurt rightly mentions, there are consequences to adding hard objects to car interiors, and - in keeping with the previously mentioned FACT - sanctioning bodies stand to injure far more people by forcing them to tube their interiors than they do in letting them be. It's getting to the point where you have to either drive a bone stock car - which in my opinion endangers the advanced driver - or buy a full race car. This is not what we want, I don't believe.

More to come, I'm sure.

[Skip Wolfe]

Originally Posted by jsabatini

Thanks for the advance warning. My only question is, where can I find a 2 piece seat that allows continued use of the 3 point system for daily driving and rear seat access, and that has the routing for the sub-belts?

There are several options available. I had a set of Recaro SRD's (replaced by the Speed) in my dual purpose car that was set up for a 5-point belt but was still a reclining 2-piece seat and could be used with the stock 3-point seat belt. Here is a quick shot before I added the passenger SRD.




I share John's concerns that the DE rules are heading toward either bone stock or full race.

[RickBetterley]

+1 on the Recaro SRD seats. Comfy for fee and have the shoulder and sub (optional) holes.
Perhpas not quite as strong as a 1-piece seat but good never-the-less.

[Hacker-Pschorr]

So this is for PCA, correct? Does anyone know if other groups (like NASA) have or plan on adopting similar standards?

[Russ Murphy]

So the factory Gt-3 seats are out?

[Crazy Canuck]

Originally Posted by jsabatini

Thanks for the advance warning. My only question is, where can I find a 2 piece seat that allows continued use of the 3 point system for daily driving and rear seat access, and that has the routing for the sub-belts?

Recaro Speed 5.