Discussion
No probs, but must enthuse over the short Punto ones, no buckle digging in the ribs, also its a one hander job to engage the buckle not having to steady the long loop of the original stalks with one hand while plugging in the spade part.. It feels like a whole different car, comfort and ease......... Fleabay for just £16 plus postage...
The seat belt assembly wouldn't have been supplied specifically for TVR so the bracket would have originally have been designed to be bolted to the 'B' post just above shoulder height in the normal way. So even in its original TVR fitting it was not working in the way in which the manufacturer designed it to.
Assuming the way the bracket is mounted vertically in to the rose joint, or modified bracket, is able to take the load (which it should be more than capable of), then the force is transferred back to the mounting point in exactly the same (horizontal) plane as TVR fitted it.
Assuming the way the bracket is mounted vertically in to the rose joint, or modified bracket, is able to take the load (which it should be more than capable of), then the force is transferred back to the mounting point in exactly the same (horizontal) plane as TVR fitted it.
Edited by v8s4me on Saturday 22 February 09:09
Peter, I take your comments re safety but I think you need to look at this overall. We are both engineers it seems. If you look at all the forces on the seat belt, seat belt mountings and seat mountings then the picture gets a good bit more complex. There are other weak points in the system. Consider for example how the seat mountings would be likely to deflect in the event of a head on collision, and what effect this would have on the direction of forces on the seat belt mountings. It seems to me, from an engineering point of view, that having the seat belt better aligned to the 'strong points' on the driver is a major advantage in itself. Furthermore the load restraining capability of the standard seat belt can be prejudiced both by the inertia reel failing to return properly because the belt does not run easily through the top mount or over the carpetted bulkhead, and by the number of times the belt gets caught in the door and locking mechanism. When I bought my car the drivers belt almost always failed to return or got caught and was significantly 'distressed' as a result.
According to Securon the plate through which the belt passes at the top mounting is more than strong enough, and provided we use (and have evidence to say we have used) appropriate quality bolts and spacer then (as an engineer who has been considered appropriately qualified to sign off designs on H&S grounds)I would be quite prepared to justify these design mods.
You will have noted above that I am afraid I would not be prepared to do so if carbon steel was used in view of the (albeit small)risks of fracture round the ball joint after repeated loading cycles.
According to Securon the plate through which the belt passes at the top mounting is more than strong enough, and provided we use (and have evidence to say we have used) appropriate quality bolts and spacer then (as an engineer who has been considered appropriately qualified to sign off designs on H&S grounds)I would be quite prepared to justify these design mods.
You will have noted above that I am afraid I would not be prepared to do so if carbon steel was used in view of the (albeit small)risks of fracture round the ball joint after repeated loading cycles.
Hi Richard,
Point taken with all that you say. I agree that the B post mounting on other cars does put some side load onto the bracket, but not not at. 90 degrees. In reality I think the proposed idea would not be the weak point in the event of an accident. What I am saying though is that the insurance company may not see things the same way if they find a modifies seat belt, not in accordance withe the original fitting. They'll find any excuse not to pay out and this could be quite a good one.
Point taken with all that you say. I agree that the B post mounting on other cars does put some side load onto the bracket, but not not at. 90 degrees. In reality I think the proposed idea would not be the weak point in the event of an accident. What I am saying though is that the insurance company may not see things the same way if they find a modifies seat belt, not in accordance withe the original fitting. They'll find any excuse not to pay out and this could be quite a good one.
pb450 said:
Hi Richard,
Point taken with all that you say. I agree that the B post mounting on other cars does put some side load onto the bracket, but not not at. 90 degrees. In reality I think the proposed idea would not be the weak point in the event of an accident. What I am saying though is that the insurance company may not see things the same way if they find a modifies seat belt, not in accordance withe the original fitting. They'll find any excuse not to pay out and this could be quite a good one.
Whilst I agree that insurers can be (and frequently are) awkward buggers, (1)what are the chances of them knowing that this is a non-factory approved mod? Obviously there will be assessors who are into TVR and maybe even some enlightened souls who read our forum but if the majority of S-series have the mod they may well just accept it as a fait accompli. But provided that you advise your insurer that this is in reality an improvement to the safety, they don't object generally. Not dissimilar in concept to brake system mods. IMHO-which has been known to be wrong?Point taken with all that you say. I agree that the B post mounting on other cars does put some side load onto the bracket, but not not at. 90 degrees. In reality I think the proposed idea would not be the weak point in the event of an accident. What I am saying though is that the insurance company may not see things the same way if they find a modifies seat belt, not in accordance withe the original fitting. They'll find any excuse not to pay out and this could be quite a good one.
As a non-engineer it seems to me the weak point will be the weld on the steel loop. The bolts should be capable of taking tons of strain. I can't do the maths but I'd imagine you'd have to accelerate, say 12st, at a considerable speed to a point where the force would sheer the bolts (maybe one of you guys could work it out?). I'd also guess that in these circumstances the whole mounting would be ripped out of the body before the bolts failed and the other injuries sustained in an accident at this speed would make the whole thing academic.
As someone else has mentioned, the revised mounting point means the inertia reel can actually retract as it was designed to do so making the belt much safer than the way TVR installed it.
Fair point about advising your insurance compamy though.
As someone else has mentioned, the revised mounting point means the inertia reel can actually retract as it was designed to do so making the belt much safer than the way TVR installed it.
Fair point about advising your insurance compamy though.
Hi All
One point on this, the original design was the seat belt was bolted directly to the top of the post bonded into the rear arch,
When the belt is put under tension from a crash or a sudden braking the load is pulling on the mount, when you add the rose joint it now tries to lift (load going backwards) it and so puts pressure the opposite way due to the offset of the belt runner.
My point is that the reinforcing plate was put in so as to allow for the forward motion of a crash or braking, If you ever remove the piece of steel it is not very thick, mine was as rusty as an old nail, having said that I don't think it would pull out or break even in a heavy collision .
Alan
One point on this, the original design was the seat belt was bolted directly to the top of the post bonded into the rear arch,
When the belt is put under tension from a crash or a sudden braking the load is pulling on the mount, when you add the rose joint it now tries to lift (load going backwards) it and so puts pressure the opposite way due to the offset of the belt runner.
My point is that the reinforcing plate was put in so as to allow for the forward motion of a crash or braking, If you ever remove the piece of steel it is not very thick, mine was as rusty as an old nail, having said that I don't think it would pull out or break even in a heavy collision .
Alan
Gassing Station | S Series | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff