This is a tricky bit of dynamic engineering you're proposing (if you
want it to function as a safety device, not just an rules
workaround). A belt can only carry load in tension, like a rope. If
it is attached at the seat bottom and routed up and over the seat
back, and then to your forwardly-thrown body, the seatback must
resist bending off at the mounts along with you! The modern seats
that do this are both rigid in that mode and also attached to a VERY
stiff crossmember mount (so the floor doesn't fold up, too). I doubt
if the older seats or mounts would provide sufficient stiffness to
make such a belt routing useful. Still, the biggest element in
making a restraint system work well is to manage (not prevent) the
rates of acceleration our watery bods experience during the rapid
stop of a crash. Modern cars (thin unibodies and all) are actually
designed to collapse in a controlled manner, dissipating much of the
crash energy into the metal of the car and reducing the suddenness of
coming to a halt (as measured at the seat, not the bumper!). Older
cars, especially rigid ones like our Imperials, have very stiff
structures that suffer much less damage in an impact, but therefore
leave their drivers with lots more relative speed when they hit the
wheel, dash, or seatbelt. Who knows, maybe the yielding of the
seatback could help make up for the missing structural collapse and
slow the face-dash collision. But I wouldn't count on it.
j 'drives 'em anyway' c
>hugh hemphill wrote:
>>
>> Michael Bowman wrote:
>>
>> > If adding belts to the inner roof panel might not work, then how about
>> > an install within the seat such as are done in later model Chrysler
>> > products? If memory serves me correctly, the seat back on the driver
>> > side is slightly higher on the drivers side. It might be an alternative
>> > if that is what it takes to satisfy the officials. And it might be less
>> > offensive than a belt hanging down from the roof, without causing TOO
>> > much damage out where it would be seen, just a thought? Michael
>>
>> And a good thought too. In '58 there were only front bench seats. As
>> Dimitrios pointed out they are not designed to withstand the enormous
>> pressures involved in keeping a human occupant stationary while it's 5000 lb
>> carrying device is coming to a dead stop within fractions of a second.
>>
>> This, however, could work nonetheless, and, depending on people's opinions,
>> it is something I am now considering for my car, as eating a steering wheel
>> is not a fun idea.
>>
>> What if the third anchor point was fixed onto the floor behind the seat and
>> was then run up the back and over the top? It may be helpful to fit a small
>> seat belt roller, or guide, onto the top of the seat, to avoid one's neck
>> being used for this purpose. If you did not fit a roller, however, you
>> could stow the belt out of sight for show purposes.
>>
>> Any thoughts, ladies and gentlemen?
>>
>> Hugh
>>
>> Hugh,
> My thoughts were to use the 3rd mount inside the seat frame under
>the upholstry out of sight. I would suppose there might have to be some
>beefing up of the frame to support the reel and belt. The later model
>Sebrings and Ram pickups for example have this to keep the area clear
>for rear passangers to get inside without getting hung up on the belts.
>The belt comes out from the top of the seat and over the shoulder to
>connect to the lower latch. The lap belt I think is also on the lower
>part of the frame, but don't quote me for certain on that, it might be
>on the lower sill of the b pillar. That would save having the mounting
>point for the upper belt on the floor where your passangers feet might
>need to go. Does this sound like a feasable plan? Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network