Harnesses

[Guest Hammy360]

Thanks again lads I'll see how I get on.

[richyb66]

trust me, you don't, and they pass as they are.

 

Is that "they don't" as in the examiner won't ask for documentation to support the seat strength? How can you be so sure, if I was examining a car with belts fitted as Hammy showed in his original post, I'd want to know that the seat frame isn't going to collapse.

 

I have the same seats in my 2B and I moved my upper seat belt mounts so that the belts don't put any load into the seat when they're pulled tight because I think the seat frames aren't strong enough to take a lateral belt load without deformation. If GBS design the seats to withstand the belt loads then they should provided documentation to support this with every seat they supply or post the information here so people can be confident that the seats are ok.

 

If the point of the original topic is just to pass IVA then we all know there will be different outcomes depending on who examines the car and I think it's misleading to suggest that seats and belts fitted to this condition will pass as they are (if that is what you're suggesting from you brief reply). Unless there is definitive documentation that can be produced at the IVA that can counter comments from the examiner that seat might not be strong enough to take the belt loads, then you have to consider that this a possible IVA fail point (depending on examiner).

 

Personally I'd rather not leave this point to chance and risk a scrape though on IVA. This isn't some minor sharp edge on a wheelarch, this is a seatbelt we're talking about. I'd rather have a condition that passes IVA and is also going to be safe and functional in the event that something unfortunate happens. I still say that the seats aren't strong enough to support the seatbelt loads and I base the observation on my 20+ years automotive design experience (including seat belt mounting design, belt installations and witnessing seat belt pull tests and crash tests).

 

If Hammy's belt installation can be proved to be a 100% pass ever time condition then I'm sure he'd be keen to take that information with him to his IVA. I'm quite happy for people to defend GBS's work in terms of it's IVA worthiness but for the benefit of current or potential owners it would be better if critical safety issues like this can be substantiated with documentary evidence.

[knights_templar]

take your point richyb66, and you would think they would need the evidence.

 

taken a quick look at seating and seatbelt sections of the manual, and can find no requirement, although there are details about strength etc.

 

think it comes down to the strong points position relative to the user of the belt. as the two top mounts could be effectively used with any seat, I believe that this is the deciding factor not the seat itself. A post above mentioned taking the seat belts around the rest, that would mean the belt would not fit the occupant correctly and will fail.

 

they allow three point seat belts for road use, so the seat bending as the load is transfered to the mounts is probably of little consequence, as it will be far better than a three point in an accident of that severity.

 

If forum members had experienced issues related to this at test, I'm sure it would appeared on this post before now.

 

Regards

[Snapperpaul]

I've been to 3 ( or is it 4) SVA & IVA's some have pulled the seat belts to see if they pull on the seat, the examiner likes a free run I.e. does not put an undue force on the seat.

With most we have put the belts round the seat and have never had a problem, some we have put through the seat and whilst the belt did pull on the seat it was not as acute an angle as shown in the photo in this thread.

My view was that you could present as is but going round the seat would present less of an angle and less stress.

As said in my previous post, and it's your choice in the end, you can easily remove your belts and attach either through or round the seat, if neither of these solutions are accepted by the examiner then a. He is being a bit harsh and b. You can modify and re-present.

In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, going round is the safer option.

However I caveat the statement with, if the seatbelts are not positioned over your shoulders when you sit in the car then go through the seat.

[Guest Hammy360]

Many options and opinions here and I'm glad of them all so thanks guys. Maybe I'll post another photo as I checked them today and actually both suggested methods seem fine when wearing them in the car.

[knights_templar]

IVA manual, section 31, required standard No 10, notes

 

Note 11: The effective belt anchorage is the actual anchorage point to the vehicle unless a change of direction of the belt to the wearer is produced by

a fixed intermediate device, for example, a belt guide fitted to the upper part of a seat back.

 

Note 12: Where a seat incorporates a belt guide that creates the “effective belt anchorage” consideration must be given to the strength of the seat back

in relation to the loading to which it may be subject, (this being dependent on the position of the actual anchorage). The requirements Section 19 RS 3

should be applied to the effective anchorage location

 

so if you have seat guides, it depends where the chassis mounts are.

 

anyway, if it is a problem or not will depend on how many zero's have failed with this set up, won't it?

[Snapperpaul]

This is a build up in Forum knowledge at the end of the day.

If another pass is achieved then the probability is that with this configuration of seatbelt mound and seat all will be ok at iva, if a fail then future builders will become aware of the issue and modify for a pass.

This in effect what we have done over the years.

If we are all aware of a problem the collective wisdom becomes sage advise.

And as always ( and I thank Knights Templar for the IVA quote) it does come down to interpretation both of the builder and the examiner.

The tests I have been at gave us the time and opportunity to fix fail points, most were minor a bit of trim added, some more difficult, speedo failure over 50mph, self centering, brake bias.

[Guest qwerty_100]

Hammy I have seen these used a few times and have been accepted at various testing station. Hope this helps Kev

Pajero bracket covers and attached these using cable ties.

 

[knights_templar]

This is a build up in Forum knowledge at the end of the day.

 

fully agree, just get a little anxious regarding some of the advice I see on here.

 

I don't know everything and would hope I would be challenged if others knew my advise is suspect.

 

it is all opinion at the end of the day, but the number of Zero,s out there would indicate the evidence is that there isn't a problem. except for sharp edges and the seat adjusting issue, and possibly the choice of the seat belt colour

 

regards

[Guest Hammy360]

I'll be sure to let you all know how I get on

[richyb66]

fully agree, just get a little anxious regarding some of the advice I see on here.

 

I don't know everything and would hope I would be challenged if others knew my advise is suspect.

 

it is all opinion at the end of the day, but the number of Zero,s out there would indicate the evidence is that there isn't a problem. except for sharp edges and the seat adjusting issue, and possibly the choice of the seat belt colour

 

regards

 

At least we all seem to agree that this is a good build up in forum knowledge, my concern lies with the distinction between something that passes IVA and something that is compliant with IVA standards and therefore a safer and more suitable condition in service. The standards seem pretty clear on the issue of belts that are changed in direction by slots in the seat - the seat becomes the effective anchorage and consideration should be given to the seat back strength. This shouldn't be open to interpretation, the wording is clear enough which is why I'm suprised that examiners aren't applying the standard correctly and asking for evidence of the seat strength.

 

This was the point I was originally making and the advice I gave was based on this. If the only concern is whether the seat and belt configuration shown will pass IVA then the concensus seems to be that it will do which shows that the examiners are, on the whole, either ignoring this particular part of the standard or are applying their own interpretation to some fairly unambiguous wording.

 

Going back to my original response, the suggestions I made there and bearing in mind the distinction between an IVA pass and IVA standard compliance, I'd be interested to hear GBSC's view on the Zero harness routing when used with their own seats, would they agree that although the condition does seem to pass IVA, it doesn't actually comply with the standard (assuming that there's no documented evidence to demonstrated the strength of the seat back). Additionally, if there is an opportunity to improve the harness installation to achieve a condition that is more in line with IVA standards, is this something that they would consider doing or do they intend to keep the current condition (an IVA Pass but possibly not compliant to the standard)?

 

Finally, Hammy - good luck with the IVA. The best advice anyone gave me about IVA is that the things you worry the most about beforehand aren't the things that you generally fail on.

[knights_templar]

I'd be interested to hear GBSC's view on the Zero harness routing when used with their own seats, would they agree that although the condition does seem to pass IVA, it doesn't actually comply with the standard

 

GBS make the chassis with mounts that will will accept the customers choice of seats. they also supply an economic set of seats, the combination of which passes the IVA.

 

would indicate they are quite happy with the design. wouldn't it?

[richyb66]

Thanks for that. At least GBS's position is clearer now, they are happy with a condition that passes the IVA test and don't plan on making any changes.

 

Also, it take it from your response that you have some connection with GBS?

 

[Guest Hammy360]

Guys, I'm gonna drop out of this thread now as it seems to be turning into a ibit of a pi**ing competition.

Just wanted to see if the trimming was ok.

[knights_templar]

Thanks for that. At least GBS's position is clearer now, they are happy with a condition that passes the IVA test and don't plan on making any changes.

 

don't know if it's official GBS position, just seems logical to me. "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

 

Also, it take it from your response that you have some connection with GBS?

 

only in so far as building their car. can not speak for GBS, just my own thoughts on any subject, influenced by a few years as a motor techy and a little knowledge of the ministry.

 

Have always had an annoying habit of playing devils advocate, and this little discussion has passed some time if nothing else . been a wet day here.

 

Hammy is probably right,

 

Guys, I'm gonna drop out of this thread now as it seems to be turning into a ibit of a pi**ing competition.

Just wanted to see if the trimming was ok.

 

think his question was answered by the forth post, at least we haven't got to "my dads bigger than your dad" as happened in a five page topic last week.