seat belts

[frank thomas]

hi

can some body confirm whether or not  we need to put seat belts  in our 1964 herald  project  don't want to risk a fine when it is completed

 

 

 

[DVD3500]

Why wouldn't you?

I have had multiple situations leaving my parking spot at 2 MPH and a kid whips around the corner on a bike and I slam on the brakes and everything not bolted down flies through the cockpit.... Seriously, even at 2 MPH you will kiss the steering wheel (well maybe you won't but your passengers will bite the dash...)

[Clive]

I believe 64 is OK, and teh legislation changed for 1965.

The Vitesse we are inheriting has no belts and is a 64. However, I will be fitting them as a priority.

[standardthread]

28 minutes ago, frank thomas said:

hi

can some body confirm whether or not  we need to put seat belts  in our 1964 herald  project  don't want to risk a fine when it is completed

 

 

 

If they were never fitted to the car (no mounting points behind the seats under the rear windows) you have derogation from wearing them or needing to fit them.

[Tim Hunt]

42 minutes ago, Clive said:

I believe 64 is OK, and teh legislation changed for 1965.

The Vitesse we are inheriting has no belts and is a 64. However, I will be fitting them as a priority.

Yes Frank, for the safety of you and your passengers I recommend you have seat belts fitted as a priority when the car is finished. I don't know where you are located but Quickfit (not to be confused with Kwikfit!) offer an excellent service installing seat belts in classics, even where no factory provision was made. They used to be in Stanmore but I note since moved to High Wycombe. info@quickfitsbs.com  tel 0208 206 0101

Tim 

Edited March 1, 2023 by Tim Hunt

[Tim Bancroft]

Hi Frank,

I have to echo what Tim H has said. Quickfits are a good company, I used them for the set in my GT6 and found the quality, service and price to be very good.

Make sure the Herald has strengthened mountings.

[Amy Wade]

Having worked for a recovery company in the 90s & seeing far too much claret spread throughout interiors of crashed cars I would strongly advise getting seat belts fitted.

[frank thomas]

thankyou for all your help

everyone

I will be putting them in

as it doesn't feel right not having them

[Pierre]

Good choice.

I have 2 big memories regarding seat belts.  The first was seeing the wounds on the neck of a good friend after he was the front seat passenger in a crash in 1964 that ended up with his head having gone through the screen while the rest of him was still inside the car.  It was amazing that he survived.  And one of the reasons why a while ago I had the windscreen  on my TR replaced with a laminated screen in place of the original still fitted.

The second memory is of the face of the salesman who in 1966, sold me my first car, a Herald.  He found it difficult to accept that I insisted on seat belts being fitted to both front seats and not just the driver's seat before I would finally take the car away.

 

[Tim Hunt]

Yes Pierre, your friend's neck injuries were typical for someone involved in an accident in which the deceleration after impact  projects an unrestrained  occupant forward with sufficient energy to break and penetrate a toughened windscreen. The injuries result when the neck comes down on the remains of the screen still supported by the lower windscreen rubber.  

I was surprised when, aided by polarising sun glasses, I noted that a large number of Triumphs at last year's Walton Hall Picnic were still fitted with, most likely OE toughened screens. All the drivers are potentially on borrowed time. A correctly restrained driver, even in a classic without an air bag, is unlikely to impact the  windscreen in a survivable accident. These considerations aside however, how inconvenient it would be to lose the weather protection when a toughened screen is broken by some outside agency leaving the car unusable until a laminated replacement screen can be fitted.

Tim   

[RobPearce]

34 minutes ago, Tim Hunt said:

how inconvenient it would be to lose the weather protection when a toughened screen is broken by some outside agency leaving the car unusable

Smashing a toughened screen leaves you with an open hole, which is uncomfortable but still driveable. The equivalent on a laminated one leaves a mass of crazed glass held in place by the lamination, resulting in no forward visibility and therefore an unusable car. Both cases result in the car being out of commission, but the toughened one lets you limp it home first, whereas the laminated forces the use of a recovery truck.

I'd also add that the only time I've had a toughened screen break was due to intentional vandalism. My Mondeo, on the other hand, has been through three windscreens in nine years, all caused by stones thrown up by oncoming lorries.

[Tim Hunt]

Rob, it would take a substantial external impact  from a large object on the driver's side of a laminated screen to rob one of enough vision safely to drive. A small stone, which  would craze a toughened screen would result in a tiny chip on a laminated one and unless this was within the area swept by the wipers would not even involve the screen having to be replaced. I would not want to drive a car with a broken toughened screen, even if it remained complete and in place. A bump in the road could result in the whole screen being deposited in the occupants' laps and one would thereafter forever be trying to remove the last pieces of broken glass from the demister ducts.

[RobPearce]

I think you seriously underestimate the robustness of toughened screens. As I said, I've NEVER had one fail other than by intentional vandalism, and all the stone chips I've picked up have been tiny. I've done a LOT more miles with toughened than my Mondeo has, on the same sorts of roads, and with the same oncoming lorries throwing stones up, but it's the Mondeo's laminated screens that have got cracked to the point of needing replacement.

Edited March 8, 2023 by RobPearce

[standardthread]

2 hours ago, Tim Hunt said:

These considerations aside however, how inconvenient it would be to lose the weather protection when a toughened screen is broken by some outside agency leaving the car unusable until a laminated replacement screen can be fitted.

Tim   

First, there is the problem of finding a new laminated screen for cars that were never fitted with them, not to mention the cost.

Second, I have had the misfortune to have a toughened screen crazed by a stone thrown up by a passing wagon. My solution to be able to continue my journey, put a glove on and punch a hole through it so that I could see the road, get home, and replace the screen.

[Tim Hunt]

1 hour ago, RobPearce said:

I think you seriously underestimate the robustness of toughened screens. As I said, I've NEVER had one fail other than by intentional vandalism, and all the stone chips I've picked up have been tiny. I've done a LOT more miles with toughened than my Mondeo has, on the same sorts of roads, and with the same oncoming lorries throwing stones up, but it's the Mondeo's laminated screens that have got cracked to the point of needing replacement.

I concede that toughened screens are very robust Rob, witness the fact that there are many factory fitted ones still going strong after 50 years or more. Indeed toughened glass is up to ten times stronger, for example in resistance to a bending stress, than laminated, which is simply two pieces of ordinary annealed float glass bonded with an optically homogeneous plastic interlayer My point is that if a toughened screen is impacted by a stone or other object with sufficient force to overcome the surface compressive forces set up in the toughening process then it will fracture into a myriad of small particles and will no longer function as a barrier to penetration from outside or, indeed to prevent a vehicle occupant being ejected through it.

[RobPearce]

1 hour ago, Tim Hunt said:

My point is that if a toughened screen is impacted by a stone or other object with sufficient force to overcome the surface compressive forces set up in the toughening process then it will fracture into a myriad of small particles

And my point is that if a laminated screen is subjected to that same extreme impact then it will shatter into a matrix of cracks and shards held together by the plastic. We're not talking "A small stone" or "A bump in the road", as you put it earlier. Neither of those are going to do anything to a toughened screen.

Yes, if you are unlucky enough to have some idiot throw a brick at you from a motorway bridge, then the laminated screen affords some very small extra protection (but you're actually more likely to be killed by the brick hitting your head directly, in a convertible).

I have nothing against laminated screens but I don't think there's any justifiable case for claiming that toughened ones are any sort of safety hazard, and certainly not that:

6 hours ago, Tim Hunt said:

All the drivers are potentially on borrowed time