Author Topic: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?  (Read 16482 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jimmy six

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2577
  • Age: 75
  • Location: SoCal
Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
« Reply #75 on: March 18, 2018, 03:39:13 PM »
I took a set of out of date Diest arm restraints which were like new. I choose another brand for the last few years because I liked the loose or nylon style at the latch point of the belts.(G-Force)  They were inspected by them and up dated. They also had aluminum anchor points on the belt which were replaced by the current steel ones.

Once the Diest style are length set they would be impossible to adjust or take off in a vehicle ready to leave the line or under competition keeping the "jack offs know it alls" from removing/loosening them.

I like the idea of them being on the gloves because having them low on the forearm is not the strongest part of the bone. (Words of Stand 21) but I will wear them where told as everything in my car is a short reach.
First GMC 6 powered Fuel roadster over 200, with 2 red hats. Pit crew for Patrick Tone's Super Stock #49 Camaro

Offline deep in debt motorsports

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
  • Location: Manteca Ca
Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
« Reply #76 on: March 29, 2018, 01:59:03 PM »
Bump for any new info??Elmo is around the corner :?
#327 C/GR

Offline NathanStewart

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
  • Age: 38
  • Location: So Cal
Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
« Reply #77 on: March 29, 2018, 04:19:23 PM »
I sent two emails and made a follow up phone call.  I'm waiting for a reply.  For the time being the Deist 60019 looks to be the way to go.
El Mirage 200 MPH Club Member

Offline deep in debt motorsports

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
  • Location: Manteca Ca
Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
« Reply #78 on: March 29, 2018, 04:41:03 PM »
Thanks :cheers:
I went and pulled the trigger,wont ship until 4/10 best case(JEGS).Dont want to miss out on my first Elmo for a rule change
« Last Edit: March 29, 2018, 04:49:37 PM by deep in debt motorsports »
#327 C/GR

Offline jdincau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
  • Age: 78
  • Location: Palmdale, Cal.
Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
« Reply #79 on: April 06, 2018, 04:49:22 PM »
Tony and I just made the trip down the hill to DJ. They added the required hardware at no cost. No sewing needed, just unthreading the adjuster adding the three bar and re threading. Here is what they look like now.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2018, 04:53:03 PM by jdincau »
Unless it's crazy, ambitious and delusional, it's not worth our time!

Offline revolutionary

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
  • Location: Windermere, FL
Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
« Reply #80 on: April 07, 2018, 04:42:05 PM »
Tony and I just made the trip down the hill to DJ. They added the required hardware at no cost. No sewing needed, just unthreading the adjuster adding the three bar and re threading. Here is what they look like now.

Is DJ over in Glendale?
Breaking Wind #9614
  ECTA Record AA/BGALT 214.8
  SCTA Bonneville PB AA/BGALT 237.4
Breaking Wind "Spirit of Effluvium" #451
  SCTA Bonneville Record SC/BF100 48.931

Offline jdincau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
  • Age: 78
  • Location: Palmdale, Cal.
Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
« Reply #81 on: April 07, 2018, 06:13:48 PM »
yes
Unless it's crazy, ambitious and delusional, it's not worth our time!

Buamotorsport

  • Guest
Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
« Reply #82 on: April 07, 2018, 11:14:26 PM »
I now have 2 sets...one from Simpson and 1 from D J.... it will be interesting to hear what tech says.

Offline NathanStewart

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
  • Age: 38
  • Location: So Cal
Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
« Reply #83 on: April 12, 2018, 10:14:48 AM »
Okay, I've got some clarification to share.  This should be the same info that will be distributed to SCTA clubs and members.  There are two main points of concern.  First is that welded D rings have been shown to mechanically fail when used as a tether adjustment either in the cuff that goes around the arm or the length adjuster to the driver's belts.  Second is that welded D rings are made of round steel wire and the round profile lacks "bite" to keep the tether from slipping out.  Because of these two reasons, welded D rings are only acceptable as an attachment point if there are two rings being used. 

Non-welded D rings (stamped) are made out of sheet presumably and have a square edge profile thus they "bite" into the tether much better and do not slip and also do not mechanically fail since they're made from one piece.  It seems the DJ restraint that keeps getting pictured is okay to use as is BUT it's not a bad idea to have it updated to add in the 3 bar adjuster to lock down the tail of the tether.

The attached pic is a good example of what's not acceptable.  The adjustment around the wrist is a slip tether through welded D rings and even though you can't really see it, I believe the adjustment for the belts attachment is also a slip tether through welded D rings.  Double no go. 
El Mirage 200 MPH Club Member

Offline jacksoni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1188
  • Age: 75
  • Location: Annapolis, Maryland
Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
« Reply #84 on: April 12, 2018, 11:49:13 AM »
Thanks Nathan. My Stroud suit has sewn in reinforcements at wrist with double D rings adjuster at the suit with a separate strap to the seatbelt. If I understand your comment correctly, if I use the two D rings as the attachment of the strap that goes to the seat belt and a 3 bar for the adjuster part that this would pass. Do you think (as an inspector) that if we print out your comments and bring to inspection that we will be OK?
Jack Iliff
 G/BGS-250.235 1987
 G/GC- 176.245  2018
 G/GMS-182.144 2019

Offline NathanStewart

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
  • Age: 38
  • Location: So Cal
Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
« Reply #85 on: April 12, 2018, 03:05:26 PM »
These pics should show what it is you're describing.  These were shown to me as an example of an acceptable use of D rings as an attachment point only with 3 bar hardware added in.

Nothing I say on here has any official standing whatsoever so no, I wouldn't bother doing that.  I believe the info I'm providing now is supposed to be distributed out through official channels at some point.  I'm just trying to give you guys early notice is all.
El Mirage 200 MPH Club Member

Offline jacksoni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1188
  • Age: 75
  • Location: Annapolis, Maryland
Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
« Reply #86 on: April 12, 2018, 05:25:50 PM »
Got it. thanks very much Nathan.
Jack Iliff
 G/BGS-250.235 1987
 G/GC- 176.245  2018
 G/GMS-182.144 2019

Offline SteveM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1431
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Festus, MO USA
Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
« Reply #87 on: August 23, 2018, 09:00:22 AM »
I've read through, read through again, and still not 100% sure about this rule and which arm restraints meet the requirements.

Are the Deist 60019 restraints the only "new" arm restraints which meet the updated rule book requirements?

With Speed Week now in the books, I'm hoping that maybe there is some new information / feedback available.

Steve.
1/2 of the Rampage Brothers

Offline Tman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3637
  • Location: Black Hills, South Dakota
Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
« Reply #88 on: August 28, 2018, 05:31:21 PM »
I've read through, read through again, and still not 100% sure about this rule and which arm restraints meet the requirements.

Are the Deist 60019 restraints the only "new" arm restraints which meet the updated rule book requirements?

With Speed Week now in the books, I'm hoping that maybe there is some new information / feedback available.

Steve.

I think our new ones were RCI? they had a sewn loop for the lap belt and an adjustable end for the small part of the wrist, easier to use than our older style

Offline jacksoni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1188
  • Age: 75
  • Location: Annapolis, Maryland
Re: Simpson Arm restaint ... Does it meet the new rule?
« Reply #89 on: August 28, 2018, 06:04:23 PM »
I still don't have the 'right' restraints yet.  I have the same DJ restraints that Brian just bought and I confirmed that they do not meet the requirements of the new rule.  The bottom line is that the restraint CAN NOT have any kind of sliding "quick" adjustment.  It needs to be a locking 3 bar design that does not allow for quick slip adjustment.  I think the problem with this type of restraint is that if it can slip tight that it can also potentially slip loose.  By having a non-quick adjustment type restraint, you eliminate the chance of slippage which obviously makes the restraint more effective. 

Attached is the photo I was shown of an example of a restraint with 3 bar hardware.  See how it has a 3 bar adjuster just like your seat belts with the tail tucked back through so that only one bar is showing?  This is what you MUST have.  Anything else will not pass.




Thanks Nathan and I believe Mike also posted the correct ones on page one of this thread....





Sumner


This year the guy who looked at my car/suit barely glanced at the arm restraints ( my observation, he may have look closer than I perceived) . I have a Stroud suit with sewn in restraints. The two D rings that were the "adjusters" were now the attachment point of the strap to the suit. I got a 3 bar stainless thingie as the photo above shows from West Marine for about $3. Massaged it a bit so the strap would double feed ( see Nathan Stewart's response to my question above) to lock the strap. It does the trick, cheap, and legal.
Jack Iliff
 G/BGS-250.235 1987
 G/GC- 176.245  2018
 G/GMS-182.144 2019