Harness mounting (was: Seatbelt...)

["Jeff Loh" <jeff.loh@fluordaniel.com>]

Ian sez:

>From: "Duff, Ian" <iduff@endeavour.charter.com>
>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 10:50:19 -0500

>They had some pretty interesting
>criteria, possibly more stringent than us sporty car types would
>specify, trying to address impacts from anywhere in the forward
>hemisphere of the aircraft (you don't generally get rear-ended in a
>plane), at potentially *much* higher velocities. If my memory serves
me
>correctly, they decided that height makes very little difference.
YMMV.

in responding to Al:

>----------
>From:  writah@juno.com[SMTP:writah@juno.com]
>Subject:       Seatbelt Harness

>(something like the rear-portion of the harness making no more than
an
>angle of around 20 degrees with the horizontal... i.e. don't bolt it

on
>the floor.)  The risk is supposedly a compression fracture of the 
spinal
>column if you're in an accident.
>
> Anybody know for sure?

Before anyone starts bolting harnesses all over the place, I'm gonna 
look up the 1996 SCCA CGRs tonight and report back with a definitive 
answer tomorrow. I'm certain it specifies a maximum angle, just need
to 
make sure what that is. Perhaps our cousins on the other side of the 
pond can check the FIA specs (apparently their whole rulebook is now
on 
the web).

IMHO aircraft requirements are completely different than auto-racing.

Chances are if you hit a mountain, you're likely to get smushed
anyway.

Stay tuned.

/J
80Q