Re: Seat Belts

[AndyJ]

Gents, Preserving life is surely important, and minimizing the forces at
work by ripping big washers through the floor or ripping pinned or spot
welded items off the wheel arch should slow down the average crash test MG
dummy, BUT, the most important use of the 3 point seat belt is to keep my
tusch in one place on the seat while negotiating brisk, harsh right hand,
bumpy turns. When not wearing the 3 point seat belt, I have found myself
doing a pas de deux on the pedals as I try to re engage them with my feet
while bounding across the seat. Now, maybe you injuneers can tell me what
the coefficient of friction needs to be to keep my arse in place without the
belts. Just a humble banker's opinion. Hey, anybody ever thought of velcro
seat cushions and nappy clothing combinations? Would be hard to get out of
the car on solo drives, I suppose...nevermind.

Skip Burns wrote:

> Ken, Syd Saperstein's three-belt setup is surely better than mine. I
> installed Moss Racing Seat Belts (2 belt)on both seats, drilling through
> and fitting the attaching bolts to the underside of the floorboard
> using very wide washers to spread the load. As I recall, on one side,
> I had to drill through the metal frame under the floorboard. When
> driving alone, I keep the other seat belt cinched up tight, the idea
> being that if I have a roll-over, I can grab that belt and pull my-
> self down into the seat. I'm dreaming, of course. Let's face it,
> nothing we do to these cars (except for roll bars)is going to keep
> our heads on in a serious roll over. Safety Fast! Cheers, Skip
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/mg-tabc
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications

[Jackarch2@aol.com]

Looks like we have a real chat room going on the subject of T-series seat
belts/roll bars, whatever. Permit me to add my two cents worth.

In '51 I set up my TC for SCCA activity. Solved the seat belt problem then
as I note others have done since by securing an eyebolt thru the floor board
and thru the top horiz member of the channel frame (right side). Left
attachment point was an eyebolt thru the floor board backed up by a three in
dia 1/16th steel washer. Belt was surplus from a WW2 warbird.

To those of you who question the integrity of the left atthment point, listen
up. In its maiden race (Bridgehampton '51) the stupid car went into bales at
60 +/-. Result? Seat belt stayed anchored and the driver crawled out from
under and walked away. In the firearms racket this is called proof testing.

The "crawling out from under scenerio" brings up another issue - roll bars.
The car in the Bridgehampton caper was not equipped with a roll bar. Perhaps
fortuitessly the TC rotated clockwise so the intrepid driver (me) simply
folded into the left seat. With the car on its back I discovered why the TC
doors were shaped the way they are - this enables one to crawl out and escape
before the flames get to uncomfortable. Caution - this is best attempted by
those carrying not greater than 140 lbs on a small-boned frame.

Permit me a few more comments on the subject of roll bars for T-series
machinery. In '52 I spectated at an event at Put-in-Bay, Ohio. My TC was
not yet ablr to return to the fray. I stood not 50 feet from where a popular
Cleveland, Ohio driver but his TC (sans roll bar) into the bales at an
estimated 50-60 MPH. The car became airborne, rotated and impacted up side
down while still carrying forward motion. The driver was caught between the
seat back and the pavement. Those of us who rushed to right the car assumed
we would find a dead man at the wheel. No, he didn't walk away, but he
survived.

Two years ago John Short was racing his TC in Canada (again no roll bar). He
wound up up side down, under the TC. He discovered he had a few scrapes and
bruises but major damage (besides the car) and maybe his ego? was to his
nomex suite, which was split clear across the back.

We nearly forgot the first and perhaps the most famous roll over of a TC -
without roll bar. I'm referring to Denny Cornett's contretemps at The Glen
in '48. After being rescued from his up-side-down prison, Denny, uninjured
and forever feisty, ran the next race.

One last reference to t-series rollovers w-w/o roll bars. Think back about 5
years to the Pittsburgh, Pa. Grand Prix. A TD WITH roll bar went over a low
stone wall. The driver was caught between his roll bar and a tree - killing
him. Go figure.

Forgive me for rambling. You have provided me with a forum for articulating
thots that have been on my mind for a long, long time. If you managed to get
this far before hitting the delete button, thanks for your indulgence.

Jack Archibald TC 5050

[CFritz7001@aol.com]

Jack,
Thanks for the food-for-thought anecdotes! Reminds me of an incident
back in about '54, when the new co-owners of a TD were exploring the limits
of adhesion, exceeded them, and snap-rolled the TD when it slid broadside off
the right side of the road, and its wheel rims dug into the soft shoulder.
The right side passenger, seeing what was about to happen, bailed out over
the side. The TD flipped over him without touching him, leaving only a
bruised ego, and a bad case of the shakes. The driver grabbed the left side
of the instrument panel, ducked his head, and held on for dear life; he was
uninjured. The car rolled completely over, coming to rest on its wheels,
having mildly crumpled all four wings, both running boards and the top of the
radiator shell, and pretzeling the windshield frame. They DROVE the car
home, and the last I heard were still debating whether they had survived
BECAUSE of NO seat-belts,and NO roll-bar, or IN SPITE OF the absense of those
items!
Regards,
Carl Fritz

[Peter Pleitner]

Hi Jack,
I enjoyed indulging in your wonderful recollections of fortunate TC drivers
surviving a tumble. Best bed time stories I've read in a while on this
list.
Thank you and Cheers, Peter


-----Original Message-----
From: Jackarch2@aol.com [mailto:Jackarch2@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 5:11 PM
To: Aristarcus@aol.com
Cc: mg-tabc@e-groups.com
Subject: [mg-tabc] Re: Seat Belts

Looks like we have a real chat room going on the subject of T-series seat
belts/roll bars, whatever. Permit me to add my two cents worth.

In '51 I set up my TC for SCCA activity. Solved the seat belt problem then
as I note others have done since by securing an eyebolt thru the floor board
and thru the top horiz member of the channel frame (right side). Left
attachment point was an eyebolt thru the floor board backed up by a three in
dia 1/16th steel washer. Belt was surplus from a WW2 warbird.

To those of you who question the integrity of the left atthment point,
listen
up. In its maiden race (Bridgehampton '51) the stupid car went into bales
at
60 +/-. Result? Seat belt stayed anchored and the driver crawled out from
under and walked away. In the firearms racket this is called proof testing.

The "crawling out from under scenerio" brings up another issue - roll bars.
The car in the Bridgehampton caper was not equipped with a roll bar.
Perhaps
fortuitessly the TC rotated clockwise so the intrepid driver (me) simply
folded into the left seat. With the car on its back I discovered why the TC
doors were shaped the way they are - this enables one to crawl out and
escape
before the flames get to uncomfortable. Caution - this is best attempted by
those carrying not greater than 140 lbs on a small-boned frame.

Permit me a few more comments on the subject of roll bars for T-series
machinery. In '52 I spectated at an event at Put-in-Bay, Ohio. My TC was
not yet ablr to return to the fray. I stood not 50 feet from where a
popular
Cleveland, Ohio driver but his TC (sans roll bar) into the bales at an
estimated 50-60 MPH. The car became airborne, rotated and impacted up side
down while still carrying forward motion. The driver was caught between the
seat back and the pavement. Those of us who rushed to right the car assumed
we would find a dead man at the wheel. No, he didn't walk away, but he
survived.

Two years ago John Short was racing his TC in Canada (again no roll bar).
He
wound up up side down, under the TC. He discovered he had a few scrapes and
bruises but major damage (besides the car) and maybe his ego? was to his
nomex suite, which was split clear across the back.

We nearly forgot the first and perhaps the most famous roll over of a TC -
without roll bar. I'm referring to Denny Cornett's contretemps at The Glen
in '48. After being rescued from his up-side-down prison, Denny, uninjured
and forever feisty, ran the next race.

One last reference to t-series rollovers w-w/o roll bars. Think back about
5
years to the Pittsburgh, Pa. Grand Prix. A TD WITH roll bar went over a low
stone wall. The driver was caught between his roll bar and a tree - killing
him. Go figure.

Forgive me for rambling. You have provided me with a forum for articulating
thots that have been on my mind for a long, long time. If you managed to
get
this far before hitting the delete button, thanks for your indulgence.

Jack Archibald TC 5050



















































































------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/mg-tabc
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications

[Nicola Parolin]

firstly I was only thinking to the seat belts, now, after all the messages
of the friends of the list, I'm very convinced to install them for the
"safety fast driving" ....in a very cosmetic way, with some "click-point"
just not to intac the originality of the car.
..the power of the list.
bye Nicola P.

Nicola Parolin
TC/8871
J/2224
B/ghn3L-5182
e-mail: nip_mrcs@monaco.mc

[PADDY WILLMER]

Ladies and Gentlemen I too have personal experience of high speed crashes whilst racing my TA/C. In 1970 I fitted a three point Britax belt, and a roll over bar. The belt was fitted across my lap to the left side of the propshaft tunnel with an HT Eye and reinforcing plate behind it. the right hand went onto the body mounting bracket on the chassis just behind the door, again with the H/T Eye etc. The back strap went to the top of the bracket holding the o/side rear telescopic shock absorber. One sunny day in July 1975 a steering ball joint broke in the middle of a 70mph corner. I and the car sailed helplessly into the grass banking in the outfield. The impact flipped the car onto its back, tore the n/s wheel off the axle plus its king pin, and the chassis Zed and shortened by a foot. I crawled out uninjured, apart from Seat belt bruises. the mountings did not move at all, but I put the chassis on one side, transferring everything onto a TA chassis, fitting a new Britax belt in exactly the same way. Later on I changed this to a Luke one, and in 1993 came through Copse Corner at Silverstone to find a low slung sports racer, a Tiga rear engined job, that had spun on the apex, but instead of brakiing it to a halt until safe to carry on , it rolled back into my path, so I could not avoid it. You should see Silverstones video! I hit it broadside, just behind the driver, at 80 mph, launched off its exhaust manifold at 45 degees, and stopped suddenly the other side. Again the belt held me rigid with no injury, apart from a deep bruise coming out in my right foot from standing on the brakes. The front of the chasis and car was a mess, but the belt mountings were undamaged, and the current belt is mounted the same way. Lastly, once upon a time in 1964 I drove this car into a ditch in thick fog, so it rolled onto its side, and my head popped through the near side front side screen. Just a few scratches and bruises from that one, but the speed was low, 20-30 mph. I drive my roadgoing TB beltless as I do not believe in belts without a roll bar. Paddy TA 0448 and TB 0594. Potton, Beds but on the move to Buxton, Derbyshire any day now!

[gmbubb gordonbubb@hotmail.com]

Just to add my twopennyworth:

Here in the UK when seat belts were about to be made compulsory in
new cars, there was much debate about the merits of staying in the
vehicle vs being thrown out. Here, statistically, it was said the
chances were better in the vehicle. There are always going to be
cases which prove/disprove the statistics. (Which, being produced by
the government, you may not believe anyway!)

In my big accident I was passenger in a water tanker in Libya when
we were bounced off the road and overturned. I wasn't wearing a seat
belt as there weren't any and believe that if I had been I would
have been killed, as the truck was flattened down to bonnet level.
The driver and I both ended up on the floor, alive, if somewhat
damaged.

As far as T types go, in the UK we have our annual MoT test. It is a
requirment for any vehicle that seat belts must be fitted
to "approved" mountings. There aren't any for the T as it was built
long before all this legislation, so any belts fitted must cause it
to fail the MoT as they are not on approved mountings. (The test
requires that anything fitted to a car that is a testable item,such
as belts, must pass the test even if was is not an original fitting).

Gordon
TC0878 without belts.

[Bill Putnam]

> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:38:28 -0600
> From: Bullwinkle
>Subject: Re: Seat belts etc
>
>Joe:
>
>
>Point 3 (over the shoulder), on the upper petrol tank mount
>through bolts.
>
> I think this higher mount, even it if may not be as stiff,
>as some may think is necessary, is better than the way Horst
>did it. He wanted to mount everything to the chassis (not
>necessary) so his shoulder belt went to the body/chassis
>bolt in the side screen compartment. Actually a semi rigid
>mount is probably better than a rigid one. I would be more
>concerned that the should strap goes downward to such an
>extent.
>
>By attaching to the petrol tank mount through bolts, even if
>the back board should give some, you have the straps accross
>the fuel tanks. All of these would give or allow "crush."
>Modern vehicles are made progressive in give: easy at first
>and then stiffer as the deformation increases.
>
>Also, that location may keep one from slipping side ways
>(toward the outside) out from under the shoulder belt.
>
>Blake

Our local club, VSCDA www.vscda.org, has had articles in their newsletter
explaining that it is important that the shoulder belt attachment
point should not be lower than the top of your shoulders, as what
can happen in a crash is that the shoulder belt will compress your
spine if it is attached below your shoulders, which is not a good
thing. Having a solid mount is also desirable, as the forces involved
in a crash can be substantial. I would be concerned that in any
head on type of collision a mount utilizing the fuel tank strap top
bolt could fail, though something is better than nothing in this
respect. Modern cars use crumple zones outside of the passenger
compartment to absorb energy, not weak mounts. Just beware of a
false sense of security if you use the fuel tank strap bolt as a
mount. If we have shoulder belts in our T type race cars they are
always mounted securely to the roll bar which is in turn mounted
securely to the frame, however in our group roll bars and shoulder
belts are not required, so many people use lap belts only. Lap belts
are better than nothing, IMHO, but a roll bar and shoulder harness
is almost without question going to increase the chances of surviving
a crash or reducing injuries from one. Just think of that 5 foot
long steel rod pointing straight at your chest known as a steering
column, not to mention all that pretty plate glass on those huge
instruments on the dash.

I had WW2 era military aircraft belts in my TB when I started racing,
but the tech inspectors did not like them and I replaced these with
modern 3" wide racing belts with the same style quick release. The
fabric even on new belts will weaken over time, so your original
50 year old belts might look nice but could fail when you need them
the most.

Bill Putnam

[i.thomson@talk21.com]

"Just think of that 5 foot long steel rod pointing straight at your chest known as a steering column, not to mention all that pretty plate glass on those huge instruments on the dash."

Bill, how would you answer someone who felt that a seat belt, whatever the mounting arrangement, was just holding you captive in the perfect position for the column to skewer you?

Ian Thomson



--------------------
talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com

[i.thomson@talk21.com]

Bill, I hope you don't mind me replying to the whole list as I see this as a very valid debate about our cars. As I see it whatever personal conclusions one comes to in this debate what is done to increase our safety will inevitably be a compromise. If we cannot accept this we shoud not be driving them. There is the obvious compromise between safety and originality (if originality is important to the owner that is). We own/drive these cars for a number of reasons but one of them must surely have something to do with the nostalgia of former times. These were, of course, times in which safety was less important or acknowledged and any attempt to make our vehicles comply with the safety expectations of the modern world must detract from this. My question to you was, however, an attempt to get away from this contentious area and focus on the cars suitability or otherwise for seat belts themselves as a means of keeping us safe. As your reply illustrates even here compromise is necessary as we must balance the chances of a head on collision with almost any other type. I feel that seat belts are not a good idea in a head on collision due to the spearing effect of the column (though lap only belts, which here in UK we have not used for a very long time, are probably less of an issue and may be the best compromise here). If this, probably fatal, outcome is the important one to the individual then, I feel, they should not fit seat belts. Other types of accident are, of course, more common, but their outcome is also less likely to be fatal. Seat belts will help here. So, as I see it, it comes to a personal decision to balance the risk of greater harm in a more common type of accident against the real possibilty of death in a head on. Arguments about the statistical possibilities of degrees of harm surrounding whether one is held in the car or thrown out of it are simply a confusion. Of course someones personal experience is very important to them and must not be denigrated, but their past accident is not our future accident. We have, I feel, to accept that it is not possible to suit our cars to modern conditions, expectations or conditions; but, as I started this piece, this is not why we bought them in the first place. Our best chance of survival is therefor to avoid these conditions as much as possible. Use the by-roads, drive slower, and be much more aware of what is happening around us. Luckily this suits the enjoyment of our cars rather well.

Ian Thomson

-----------------------

> At Tuesday, 14 January 2003, you wrote:
>

"Just think of that 5 foot long steel rod pointing straight at your

>chest
>known as a steering column, not to mention all that pretty plate glass
>on those huge instruments on the dash."
>
>Bill, how would you answer someone who felt that a seat belt, whatever
>the mounting arrangement, was just holding you captive in the perfect
>position for the column to skewer you?
>
>Ian Thomson
>
>Ian,
>
>Probably if they're concerned about it to put in a roll bar and 5
>point harness. And hope that the steering column isn't shoved back
>a couple feet towards you in a crash. Certainly in a head on collision
>with another vehicle or hitting a fixed object straight on a lap
>belt will not stop a driver from being impaled on the steering column
>and dash, but in a side collision a lap belt will hold you in the
>car and possibly save you from flying out of the car and into something
>else that you don't want to run into.
>
>For me, a lap belt helps in that it keeps me in the car while cornering.
>Even 4/50 X 19's can produce enough cornering g's that I really
>wouldn't be able to drive properly without a lap belt. This is when
>we're on the race track as I don't push the car anywhere close to
>the limits when out on the street (at least now that I'm no longer
>a teenager, and am married with children). Also, with doors that
>have been known to open on their own with body flexing having a lap
>belt is helpful. I might not have my wife with me today if she hadn't
>been wearing a lap belt one time when the door popped open while
>cornering. She was pretty upset about the door opening and just
>the lap belt holding her into the car, but at least she didn't fall
>out of the car.
>
>Still, the concern about a lap belt holding you in position to be
>skewered by the steering column is a valid one.
>
>Bill

--------------------
talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com