Seat Belt Lifing

[MGDavid]

thanks Bruce, I have seen that before via the Roadbook.be website when going to Spa. However it's unfortunate that the final item on the maintenance section (details of work carried out) is not complied with even by the official agents, as the labels used are too small to include it. That's never stopped the Spa scrutes passing my car, whether with an agent or non-agent test label. I note that the FIA standard is only recommendations and states 'should', there's no 'must' and they are not mandatory. However I don't propose to argue the point in the Spa scrutineering bay just prior to first practice!

[midgetman]

"should" and "must" mean different things in English but of course the regs are translated from a foreign language where the nuances may not be understood. IIRC we came across the same thing in FISC.

[Paul D]

I think a lot of this lifing lark is simply arse-covering by the relevant parties involved. We live in a world now where everyone is scared of being sued over something or other, and this is just one way of minimising that risk.

Personally, I think it's a joke for the average club racer. I race on a tight budget, and it really galls me having to replace things that I know are still perfectly fine. I only do maybe four or five races a year (all I can afford, time and money-wise), so I've got out of date harnesses that have done maybe a couple of dozen races, at most. There'll be harnesses in other cars that do more than that in a season, plus testing and whatever else. Those harnesses will be in a worse state after a couple of years than mine will be after five - but I've got to to change mine? It's bonkers!

And yes, there is a simple solution: have them lifed on amount of use rather than age. How? Simple: attach a label that a scrutineer punches a hole in at each event - once the number of holes reaches the regulation, the item is considered no longer fit. Would take a scrutineer what? Five seconds to punch the label. Hardly an administrative nightmare is it?

I'd like to know if, prior to all this lifing being implemented years ago, was there ever a single recorded incident of a belt failing (or a seat, or helmet, come to that) due exclusively to old age. I'll wager not...

The MSA are always saying they want to get more people involved in motorsport - well it's never gonna happen unless they start making it easier and more affordable to do so!

[Lancsbreaker]

Originally Posted by Paul D

And yes, there is a simple solution: have them lifed on amount of use rather than age. How? Simple: attach a label that a scrutineer punches a hole in at each event - once the number of holes reaches the regulation, the item is considered no longer fit. Would take a scrutineer what? Five seconds to punch the label. Hardly an administrative nightmare is it?

I'd like to know if, prior to all this lifing being implemented years ago, was there ever a single recorded incident of a belt failing (or a seat, or helmet, come to that) due exclusively to old age. I'll wager not...

The MSA are always saying they want to get more people involved in motorsport - well it's never gonna happen unless they start making it easier and more affordable to do so!

I'm getting worried about you, Paul - this sounds far too sensible. Like you I'm tolerably certain there is no scientific basis behind these restrictions. Much more likely as you say, just some manufacturers saying "we can't guarantee the product after "x" years" - its not like they want to sell more product, is it?...........

[zefarelly]

I've just bought a new set of 6 point Sparco FiA belts, £180ish from DT . . . I'll get 6 years from them, thats £30 a year, I'm sure they'll be a bit frayed grubby and tired by the end of that life, thats not unreasonable

2 year life on a useless bottle of dust on the other hand . . .

[midgetman]

At the weekend a number of people were bemoaning that their "used six times" helmet was now illegal. I understand their POV but would point out that they couldn't have bought one for 10 years, and its hardly the fault of the MSA that they don't compete. I would liken it to the road fund licence, if you pay it for a year and then don't use your car you can't get an extension can you?

I suppose the answer is that if you don't think you're going to race often then buy a cheap one. Helmet will work out at fifteen quid a year, belts at thirty and seat at thirty. Less than the price of one dinner for two per year to ensure your protection should you hit something. If you want something nicer, then liken it to eating in a quality restaurant instead of the local pub.

Unfortunately rules have to be written for the lowest common denominator. For every perfectly stored helmet, there's any number of minging heaps that you'd not want to put your head into. Also technology moves on, and just because we drive the cars of yesteryear there's no need to rely on the protection of yesteryear, we lost a lot of drivers in those days!

[midgetman]

Just to cheer you all up....Germany, Austria and Australia all "life" belts at 10 years so I've been told today.

[Paul D]

Well, that sounds about right Max. We can always rely on British bullsh... err, sorry, bureaucracy to be more conservative (small 'c') than anywhere else, can't we?

Re your earlier point likening the lifing of components to car road tax - there is one big difference there that I can see: if I'm not going to use my car for a few months, I can tell DVLA and get the remainder refunded, and then tax the car again when I want to use it, thereby extending the 'life' of the tax, so to speak. But I can't do that with a harness, a seat or a helmet, can I?

Take an extreme (and hypothetical) case: let's say I'd just kitted myself out with all new (lifed) stuff, and then, something happens either before I get out on track, or during that first meeting with the new gear. For example, an illness, a sudden financial crisis, some kind of expensive, terminal problem with the car. Any one of these incidents could take a club racer out of action for a couple of years or more - and lo and behold, when you come back to it a few years later, you've got a load of brand new gear that's obsolete, even though it's never been used! Is that not bonkers?

Yes, I agree with you about the lowest common denominator, but there must be a better way.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Paul D

Any one of these incidents could take a club racer out of action for a couple of years or more

We had to get new seats and belts at the start of last year, then for various reasons we only did one event last year (in January!) - so we have effectively lost an entire years worth of usage on those now. Also our old seats and belts are still being used (not by us) and are deemed perfectly safe for that usage - surely they're either ok or they're not.

There are options that would allow better control of seats and belts (and some that were put forward by seat / belt manufacturers were apparently rejected). RFID tags or barcodes could be used - each time the seat or belt is presented for scrutineering it's scanned, after a set number of uses they can be deemed end of life. Also after a heavy impact that they could be scanned and issued an 'end of life' notice on the system to prevent them being used again.

Currently you can go out and crash every week for 4 years 11 months and the belts and seats will still be legal for that final month - or you can not take them out of the box for 5 years and they're junk the next day.

[Al Weyman]

No wonder we are all pulling out in droves.

[midgetman]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

We had to get new seats and belts at the start of last year, then for various reasons we only did one event last year (in January!) - so we have effectively lost an entire years worth of usage on those now. Also our old seats and belts are still being used (not by us) and are deemed perfectly safe for that usage - surely they're either ok or they're not.

There are options that would allow better control of seats and belts (and some that were put forward by seat / belt manufacturers were apparently rejected). RFID tags or barcodes could be used - each time the seat or belt is presented for scrutineering it's scanned, after a set number of uses they can be deemed end of life. Also after a heavy impact that they could be scanned and issued an 'end of life' notice on the system to prevent them being used again.

Currently you can go out and crash every week for 4 years 11 months and the belts and seats will still be legal for that final month - or you can not take them out of the box for 5 years and they're junk the next day.

The problem with that being how do you scan on track days or open tests? You can't even know if it's been in an accident. Or even how do you "life" something used on a road/race car? So they use the age thing, whether that's "right" or not it is realistically the only way of lifing anything.

Hopefully they'll do racing overalls soon :whistle:

PS I'm not defending the lifing thing, especially such a short period as 5 years.

[Paul D]

Max - very honest of you to admit you're not defending the whole lifing thing, considering your line of business! I suspect many in your business would try defending it to the hilt!

However, some of your comments in the last post I think rather highlight the argument against lifing. As you said, how can we know if the item (a harness, for the sake of argument) has been used in testing, on the road, involved in a crash, etc, etc? The fact is, we can't, which means that simply having some arbitrary date on which it expires is completely pointless and meaningless. To my mind, it makes no more sense than simply having a draw and picking dates out of a hat - the date you get dictating when your stuff expires!

I'd like to see a return to some common sense rules, where we each take some responsibility for our own actions. We don't have to go back too far into the dim and distant past to find a time when this is just how it was, and I honestly don't see why it can't be like that again. What was wrong with the time when a scrutineer took a look at your harness (for example), and if he was happy with its condition, then off you go, no worries? OK, so he doesn't know if it's been in a serious crash, but that same argument applies today, to a harness that's in date, so I don't see the difference.

We all know motorsport is dangerous, just as crossing a busy road is too. But when we cross a busy road, we use our experience and judgement to decide when it's safe. Why should we not be allowed to do the same when racing? I'm talking about us club racers here, not professional racing drivers - that's a different scenario altogether in my opinion. Sadly, though, and uniquely as far as I'm aware, we're expected to have kit that (more or less) meets all the same standards as the professionals. This is a hobby for most of us, FFS!

I suspect that a professional cricketer probably replaces his safety gear fairly regularly, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, he can afford to, so why not? And secondly, he may be facing a fast bowler capable of delivering a hard ball at 120 MPH or more, so you would want that extra peace of mind. But does the average amateur cricket player replace his (if he even has any) as regularly? I doubt it. And why not? Because he makes an informed decision based on the potential risk involved - and he's unlikely to be facing a ball at anything like the speed of the pro player.

Isn't club racing just the same? Generally speaking, we're not travelling at anything like the speeds of professional racers, and serious shunts are less frequent because, unlike the pros, we have to pay for our own cars, so we tend to take less risks than a pro would. That's not to say there aren't risks, of course, but just as with the amateur cricketer, I believe those risks are considerably less most of the time. It should be up to us, as individuals, to decide what level of risk - within reason - we find acceptable. I'm not advocating a return to the days of no cages, belts, overalls and helmets - but simply a more common sense approach from the regulators which acknowledges that we are amateurs competing for fun, pursuing a hobby!

[john ruston]

We don't have seat belts on our race cars!

[midgetman]

Paul in the bad old days of the Wild West, pre lifing, we used to sell quality equipment to people who replaced it at sensible intervals and there was enough of a profit so you were happy and I made a living. Since then advent of FIA this'n'that only valid for a few years there has been a charge to the bottom of the price scale where it is much more difficult to make a living. I'm not saying that cheap equipment is bad - it isn't, because it still passes a standard - but there's always going to be a difference between cheap and expensive.

Does that make me part of "rip off Britain"? I suppose it does except I felt I added value by adding the service element to match the product to the customer. Nowadays it's just the cheapest belt that sells because it has to be replaced in five years.

As a broad brush approach of course.

[Paul D]

So Max, it sounds like, contrary to what an outsider might expect, the lifing of stuff hasn't actually been good news for people like yourself? It sounds like - from your post above - that you've experienced an increase in sales, but a decrease in overall profit. Is that the case? I suppose it makes sense in a way. In the old days, you could probably sell a Willans or similar to a customer based on its superior quality: 'This is a bit more expensive mate, but it's a quality item that will outlast that cheap one there that's half the price.' Of course, now that's no longer relevant, as both the Willans and the cheap one are in the bin in five years.

And no, I don't think your line of thought makes you part of the rip-off element - if you sell a quality item at a higher price, then it's reasonable to expect a bigger margin on it. I guess as long as you remain competitive with others selling the same product, then that's fair enough. I have found, over the years, that it's not necessarily wise to simply go with the cheapest supplier. There are times when I will, but service levels do come into it as well.

But just thinking about this more - from what you've said, if other racewear suppliers have had the same experiences, then not only has lifing been bad news (financially) for competitors, it's also not exactly proved to be a bundle of joy for suppliers either? And it must also mean that the manufacturers of good quality (and therefore more expensive) stuff aren't exactly lapping it up either. So, it would seem that the only real winners are the manufacturers of cheap gear, because the attitude now is frequently 'Well, I'll probably be chucking this out when it's still in perfect condition, so sod it, I'll just get the cheapest one.'

Hmmm - not a glowing reflection on those that govern the sport is it? Their misguided efforts to improve safety have resulted in us racing around in gear provided by the lowest bidder, whereas before, a lot of us would have invested in higher quality stuff and expected to get more use out of it. Reminds me of a comment made by - I think one of the Apollo astronauts - who said to his colleagues, whilst sitting on the launch pad: "Gentlemen... we're about to be launched into space, in a machine built by the lowest bidder!"

[Mike Harte]

Paul, you do make some valid points. However, I think that you fall down on the proposition that drivers/entrants should be trusted to do the right thing at the right time.

It is my unfortunate experience in life that shows that many humans will do things for the sake of expediency, and often at great cost to themselves. This is why airline cabin staff walk the length of the cabin to ensure that all the passengers have put on their seat belt at the appropriate time, because they know that some passengers would otherwise just ignore the instruction.

Back in the sixties, I can recall marshals doing likewise just prior to taking to the track and on the grid before the start. This followed an horrific accident at Brands when a driver lost his life, and one of the factors was that he hadn't strapped in.

And freely admit that I am as guilty as the next person. During my first season, really running the car on a shoestring, I had borrowed somebody's helmet which had seen far better days, as I couldn't, or so I told myself, afford to buy a new one. When I turned up at Thruxton for the first time, the scrutineer "tested" my helmet (the first time that that had happended) and the helmet came apart. The scrute's words afterwards summed it all up, really; "I didn't think that that would have protected you in a crash", and of course he was quite right, and I was forced to buy a proper job. But if it had been left up to me in the first place, I would have happily carried on using the useless junk.

Furthermore, you cannot really compare amateur and professional drivers. There are some "club", i.e. amateur, drivers that also drive some very fast and exotic machinery. Why on earth should they be treated differently to the professionals - the risks are virtually the same, and so are the potential consequences.

[Paul D]

Yes Mike - I accept your arguments, and I know there's no simple answer, sadly it's not black and white. I also accept that there are people out there who, given the chance, will take the p*ss and go out on track in gear that's not up to the job - I probably did myself in my early days, when you're young you're convinced your indestructible aren't you?

BUT, and this is the thing - lifing doesn't prevent that. Yes, it can help to minimise it by ensuring stuff is replaced at some arbitrary date, but it doesn't stop the guy who's had a high 'g' frontal impact from using that harness again if it's still in date, because there's no way to tell. Ditto for seats, and even helmets, to some extent.

I had a pretty big shunt at Mallory a couple of years ago which put me in hospital. My helmet - a very expensive Simpson - got scuffed against the cage in the shunt, and as a result, a scrutineer removed the MSA approval sticker. Now... I could have prepped the helmet, buried the scuff under high build primer and repainted the helmet. I have the skills and the facilities to do that, and I can guarantee that when presented to a scrutineer for inspection, it would have been passed, because it still had years of 'life' left in it. I chose not to do that, because I knew it had taken quite a knock - and I went out and bought another very expensive Bell to replace it. But the point is, I could have, and it rather makes a mockery of this whole lifing thing in my eyes.

I guess all I'm really saying is: whatever happened to personal responsibility? It seems to me that the powers that be have deemed that we're no longer capable of using our own judgement and taking some responsibility for our own actions! And just to play Devil's advocate for a minute, I might say so what if some idiot decides to go out on track using dodgy gear, and comes a cropper as a result? Isn't that really a decision for the individual to make, in just the same way as some of us will buy a road car based on how safe it is, whereas others will just buy the car they want, and aren't really that bothered about how safe it may or may not be? The difference is, as a buyer of a road car, we have that choice - why has that same choice been removed from us as racers?

[Mike Harte]

Paul, it's quite simple really. You have to legislate for the, let's say for arguments' sake, the 1% who "know better" than everybody else.

You write now at whatever age you have attained, whilst I have reached the age of 68. Our views are in all likelyhood completely different to those that we held in our late teens and early twenties. I was invincible, and there is a strong possibility that you were as well. I did things then that I would never even consider doing now, and that applies to all facets of my life.

This was brought home to me a few years ago when I went skiing after a number of years' break. I was, maybe still am, a proficient skier, having learnt to ski before I was able to run properly, and having competed as a junior before doing some guiding. Anyway, on my return to the slopes, at the first slightly technical area I just froze; my brain told me that I couldn't possibly manage the next bit. Yet the youngsters were all wizzing past me without a care in the world, but because we tend to become more cautious as we pile on the years, it took all my determination to move forward.

As an example, take that prat who drove onto the circuit at Brands in the middle of the VW race. Although he may still have done the same, I think that it is unlikely that he would have done it if he was 10 or more years older.

However, I agree with you wholeheartedly that arbitrary lifing is somewhat unfair. But, you have to legislate for that 1%, and you have to draw a line at some point. It would probably be horrendously expensive to create a "metering" system to calculate how many times they had been used, or how many miles they had travelled, or if they had been involved in an accident. So, apart from lifing, I can't think of any other reasonable way to decide when they should be considered at the end of their time.

I would also hope that the scrutineers examine the conditions of the belts, etc, apart from just checking the use by date!

[356sc]

I agree with the personal responsibility comments, and in an ideal world all competitors would demonstrate a similar level of responsibility.

However this is not always the case, walking the pit lane at the Birkett shows a variety of preparation levels, with some race cars looking ready for a scrap yard rather than ready to race.!

To an extent I am playing devils advocate here, but if your pride and joy got destroyed as a result of another competitors lack of responsibility, be it seat failing, steering wheel coming off as it was held on by self tapping screws into raw plugs (which I have seen!) you would rightly be p#}%^d off!

Is it not the case that some of what the MSA is having to regulate on is due to some, and I accept this is the minority, not taking responsibility and the possible consequences to other responsible competitors/spectators

[Paul D]

Originally Posted by 356sc

To an extent I am playing devils advocate here, but if your pride and joy got destroyed as a result of another competitors lack of responsibility, be it seat failing, steering wheel coming off as it was held on by self tapping screws into raw plugs (which I have seen!) you would rightly be p#}%^d off!

That's a good point Will, and I totally agree with you - and yes, in those circumstances, I would be p*ssed off! However, this raises another issue for me on the whole lifing thing and personal responsibility: if we look at the items that are lifed, they are, generally those items related to personal protection - seat, harness, helmet. I would say that if any of these are going to fail, it's going to be in a shunt 99.9% of the time - I very much doubt they're going to fail during the normal course of racing, or put another way, if they're in a bad enough state that they could fail during normal racing, it should be picked up by a scrutineer. So, if you accept that, then you must accept that the only person at risk from those items is the driver who chooses to use them. So if said driver is going to crash and take someone innocent out with him, the crash was already happening anyway, and the question over the item failing because it's old/worn or has hidden damage only becomes relevant to said driver if it fails in the impending crash. He is the only loser in this scenario if the item fails and he is killed/injured as a result of the item failing.

Now - and this why it's all bonkers in my opinion - let's look at some items that aren't lifed, aren't even casually checked at scrutineering, and most certainly could fail during normal racing and cause another innocent party to be taken out. For example, I could fit the cheapest, nastiest, Chinese brake pads to my car that are going to melt and leave me without brakes by lap two. Similarly, cheap brake fluid could do the same. I could use the cheapest ball joints or rod ends that I can find, which could also easily fail during the normal course of a race. Any of these - and a thousand more I could mention - could easily fail during normal racing and are far more likely to cause an innocent party to be taken out along with me. And yet, these things aren't lifed - they're not even checked at scrutineering. So, it raises the question - why? Could it be that as amateur racing drivers, we're expected to take personal responsibility for such things? Hmmm, maybe that's it! And if so, then why are seats, harnesses and helmets any different, bearing in mind my comments above?

Oh sh*t! What have I done? Hope the powers that be don't read this - next thing you know, 'lifing' will be introduced for ball joints, steering racks and brakes - and it'll all be my fault!


......You write now at whatever age you have attained, whilst I have reached the age of 68. Our views are in all likelyhood completely different to those that we held in our late teens and early twenties. I was invincible, and there is a strong possibility that you were as well. I did things then that I would never even consider doing now, and that applies to all facets of my life......

Yes Mike - totally agree with that also. I'm 51, and I certainly wouldn't do some of the things I did 30 years ago! However, I'm probably still more of a risk-taker than most my age, and that includes other racers my age I guess. Not all of them necessarily, but some of them for sure. It's just the way we're wired isn't it? We are all individuals, and we all find different levels of risk acceptable - my 'acceptable risk' may be your unacceptable one - but I genuinely believe that it should be up to us, as individuals, to make those decisions - within reason. So if my seat, or harness, or helmet isn't outwardly damaged or so obviously old that it looks like it came from Noah's Ark, then it should be up to me to decide when I feel it's an unacceptable risk to continue using it. After all, as mentioned above, in probably more than 99.9% of possible scenarios, it's only me that's going to suffer if I misjudge it and it fails.

You might cite the remaining 0.1% where, perhaps, some innocent party gets caught up in my bad judgement. Well, OK, yes, granted - but let's face it, there are no guarantees in anything in life are there. We can't (and shouldn't attempt to, in my opinion) legislate against every possible scenario.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Paul D

You might cite the remaining 0.1% where, perhaps, some innocent party gets caught up in my bad judgement. Well, OK, yes, granted - but let's face it, there are no guarantees in anything in life are there. We can't (and shouldn't attempt to, in my opinion) legislate against every possible scenario.

Paul, I don't necessarily disagree with all your comments above, but unfortunately your last paragraph doesn't reflect the sad climate we live in now.

Today's world is dominated by the big insurers and overpaid laywers. We might not want to legislate for every eventuallity, but the insurers like to think that we have, and the lawyers will try to skin you alive (figuratively speaking) if you haven't. And woe betide you and your estate if your seat belt fails when it was 5 years and 1 day old, and you are involved in an accident and you go flying through the windscreen and, heaven forbid, injure or kill a marshall.

Don't forget that there those in Italy who still want to bring serious charges against Williams for the death of Senna. I am not sure about now, but at one time neither Frank Williams or Patrick Head could attend meetings in Italy for fear of being arrested. That's the crazy world we live in!

[midgetman]

And there we have it. As someone-who-should-know said to me recently: "The MSA is so **** scared of being sued that they are accepting any recommendation in the name of 'safety'."

Rabbits. Headlights.

Paul re your earlier comment. You're right. It reflects life as a whole: Lidl and Waitrose doing well, those in the middle suffering. But worse things happen at sea, I'm not complaining. I just don't want you all thinking I'm coining it in at your expense!

But yes, the Apollo story does come to mind.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by midgetman

And there we have it. As someone-who-should-know said to me recently: "The MSA is so **** scared of being sued that they are accepting any recommendation in the name of 'safety'."

Rabbits. Headlights.
.......

so instead of Leadership and authority we get timidity and CYA?

[midgetman]

You may very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[Paul D]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Paul, I don't necessarily disagree with all your comments above, but unfortunately your last paragraph doesn't reflect the sad climate we live in now.

Today's world is dominated by the big insurers and overpaid laywers. We might not want to legislate for every eventuallity, but the insurers like to think that we have, and the lawyers will try to skin you alive (figuratively speaking) if you haven't. And woe betide you and your estate if your seat belt fails when it was 5 years and 1 day old, and you are involved in an accident and you go flying through the windscreen and, heaven forbid, injure or kill a marshall.

Don't forget that there those in Italy who still want to bring serious charges against Williams for the death of Senna. I am not sure about now, but at one time neither Frank Williams or Patrick Head could attend meetings in Italy for fear of being arrested. That's the crazy world we live in!

Yes Mike - and likewise, I know you're right, and have even mentioned this fact in other threads: it's all done in the name of arse-covering because all the top nobs are sh*t scared of being sued, as Max said. The blame lies, without doubt, with the litigious society we're lumbered with nowadays. And for that, we can thank all the ambulance chasing lawyers along with the Government that allowed them to advertise in the first place.

Still doesn't make it right though, in my opinion, and it's one of those things that just p*sses me off - so I hope you can all excuse the venting of my spleen on here over it! And I still don't see how they differentiate between covering their arses when it comes to, say, a belt, but not a ball joint? The obvious answer, perhaps, is they can check a belt easily, but not a ball joint - but if that's the real reason, then that just makes it even barmier in my book! That's just like saying "OK, we can check that stuff easy enough, so we'll life that, and just turn a blind eye to the fact that the car could be about to fall apart mechanically."

You know what they call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start!