[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Harness





On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Chris Taylor wrote:

>> Duh.
>
> > Well, you do the math. Which do you think is safer? The 5pt by far, followed
> >by the 4pt, then the 3pt Schroth (or equivallent) and then the 3pt stock.
>
> Well, I still think that any aftermarket harness, whether it be 3/4/5pt are
> all ABOUT the same safety-wise.  I've never been tossed-about in my Schroth
> 3pt in a way that would've been handled better by a 4 or 5pt.  They keep you
> in.  Period.
>
Well, maybe.  3 vs 4 point first - harnesses are designed for worst case
scenario, right?  Right.  Umm, if you have a 4 point, and one shoulder
strap breaks, you still have one.  WCS, of course, but that's what all
this stuff is for.  THis is why (among other reasons I am sure) the SCCA
does not allow 3 point or "Y" type harnesses in roadracing - if the rear
strap breaks somehow, you're potentially sunk.

4 vs 5 point - the 5th strap keeps you from submarining, which is
potentially very dangerous - I know it does not seem as though it could
happen, but in an accident, people have been known to slide out from under
the upper belts, damaging internal organs/generally ruining one's day
(aside from messing the car up).

Without a roll bar, any harness is potentially dangerous, as it keeps you
sitting upright, while the roof might be smushing your head.  Bad.

Not a flame, Chris - just something to think about - not all harnesses are
created equal.  I use a 3 point, no submarine strap, etc. for autocross -
I have it to hold me in, not for safety.


> >And last, why do you think harnesses are requried in every form of racing
> >(except for carting, due to the roll-over factor, but a whole different
> >situation entirely)? SAFETY, man, not just for laughs.
>
> Yes, they are MUCH safer than stock belts.  MUCH.  Especially in a race
> environment.

Right, but keep in mind there are big differences between what you have
and a roadrace legal harness.

>
> Just for the sake of conversation, though, rules can be bogus in any
> situation.  This is certainly off topic, but it's something that I noticed
> just a few days ago:  Snowboarders must have a leash on their board attached
> to their leg.  However, I have NEVER seen a snowboarder become disconnected
> from his board.  EVER.  Skiers are not required to have this leash, but
> everytime I go down a mountain, I pass by several skiers picking up their
> equipment.

SKis have brakes, which would be difficult to implement on a snowboard.
THe leash thing
is a bit odd - it is based on the early snowboard bindings, which were
nylon straps vs. todays plastic bindings.  With todays bindings, the
likelihood of a boot coming out of a binding is slim - chances are the
binding will come off the board, which is also unlikely.  Having both
bindings tear off a board is almost unheard of.  The reason ski leashes
went away is because people were getting hurt by skis flailing around
while attached to the skiers leg, and the incidents of other skiers
getting hurt by other fallen skiers equipment is rare.  It does happen,
but not often - at one time, flailing skis was a big concern.  Anyhow.

Mannix (used to ski patrol, worked in the ski industry for 11 years;)


>
> Tawlk amungst yourselves.
>
> Chris Taylor
> '87 Scirocco G60-to-be
> ------------------------------------------------
> "Son, don't you know the DODGE Stealth is NOT the
> one that's invisible to radar?"--a cop last year when
> I got pulled over in my stealth going 130+mph.
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send email to scirocco-l-request@privateI.com,
> with your request (subscribe, unsubscribe) in the BODY of the message.
>

--
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send email to scirocco-l-request@privateI.com,
with your request (subscribe, unsubscribe) in the BODY of the message.