On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Andy Hollis wrote:
> The SEB answered this one again this year (it keeps coming up). In essence:
>
> 1) *If* the bar serves to stiffen the chassis, it isn't legal.
>
> 2) The manufacturer claims it stiffens the chassis.
>
> You gotta decide whether you believe the manufacturer or not.
>
I have a "harness bar" in my C4 corvette. Different design - mine is
a solid piece of stock, where the Hardbar one says it's a co-axial
type (telescoping?). Mine adds no discernible stiffness to what is
a pretty floppy chassis. If it's not noticiable on a C4 flexy-flier
I seriously doubt that there's any stiffness to be had on a C5,
especially a hard-top/FRC.
>From a "makes you go faster" perspective the harnesses to much for for you
(the driver) IMHO. And having a proper, safe way to mount them should
trump any perceived "chassis stiffening", again, IMHO.
Given the number of national level stock-class cars that run a harness
bar I think the chance of drawing paper is slim to none, especially on
a harness bar that only bolts into the upper belt mounts. On the other
hard, if you started pushing that envelope and went for one of the bar
designs that bolt in to more than two locations in a way that starts to
triangulate the chassis, you're going to get into problems. Keep in
mind that if you install something like this it needs to be there for some
reason other than potentially stiffening. Installing the bar but not the
harnesses would also put you into protest-bait territory.
Oh yeah, I'll also throw in the obligatory note about don't plan on
using a harness bar for harnesses used on non-Solo2 activities (i.e. track
days). Running upper-body restraints without a proper roll structure (bar or
cage) is a no-no.
-travis
|