When Stock isn't Really Safe

[Dave@Moon]

My long term restoration project is a 1970 Triumph TR6. I plan on redoing the car absolutly stock, changing only the interior color from black to a more appropriate (stock) tan. However, I have a dilemma. Presently, the car has no seat belts.<P>I plan on showing this car some, but touring and ralleying it as much as possible. One thing about the TR6, however, are the terrible seat belts that came with the car. They were among the first retractible locking type belts on th market and they simply weren't up to the job. The mechanism corroded rapidly insiide the retractor and they were largely useless within the first 1-2 years of the car. It's now somewhat rare to find origional belts in the car at all, and almost unheard of to find them in working order. Most people who used the belts found them lacking and eventually pitched them. The sets that are still around mainly survived out of neglect.<P>I have a set of replacement non-retracting aftermarket belts (new) I can use. These are the best pieces available in the U.S. for the car. There are reproduction origional type belts availble in Europe, but they are very difficult to obtain, expensive and technically illegal (they're not DOT approved and seemingly can't be approved because of the design). Origional belts have been showing up recently on eBay in fair to rough condition, selling for about $200.00 a set. Some of these postings say the belts still work, but for how long is open to question.<P>What is the reccommendation for a situation like this?

[John N. Packard]

Dave,<BR> Go with the aftermarket belts. As a safety feature you need something that will protect you. Install them neat and pretty and you should be okay.<P>jnp

[Jan Arnett]

I agree with the aftermarket. If they are done right and are the right color judges should not take off points. I believe AACA judgeing allows for safety equipment like fire extinquishers and seat belts. I am putting seat belts in my T, Star, and Moon and have put aftermarkets in my 64 Comet. Make sure the mounting points are solid as this is usually the weakest link.<BR>Jan

[ply33]

For judging it sounds like the rub is that seatbelts were, if not standard, certainly available from the factory. If I understand the general logic behind the judging standards that means that factory type belts would be what the judges are looking for.<P>If you are not into judging, put in the safest belts you can find that are reasonably appropriate. If you are into judged shows, then I don't know what you should do. Perhaps RonBarn or Howard S. could comment about this.

[Guest rcirilli]

Ron and Howard will probably comment but my understanding in judging is basically this. We don't take off for seat belts but some common sense should be used. If it is a popular car then a reproduction or something resembling the original will be available. If you can't find some in that catagory or if the car never had seat belts available find some that resembly would have been available in that era. I know that sentence really rambles but If it could have been used then used it.<p>[This message has been edited by rcirilli (edited 07-17-2000).]

[Dave@Moon]

I see the confusion is not mine alone. The TR6 was made from 1969-1976, all with (more or less) the same belts. Later versions are easier to find, they have the dreaded interlock switch incorporated and therefore were more likely to be yanked out and thrown in a corner. Otherwise there's no difference.<P>I'm certainly more into driving my car than I am having it judged. However, I seem to not have the option of passing judging on this point. I've seen several TR6's at AACA and other judged events with the old belts cleaned up and installed. I'd be very suprised if these sets were in working order, and even if they were I certainly wouldn't trust them for even occasional use.<P>The only reproduction belts that are available are only sold in Europe, where DOT certification and liability claims are not as troublesome for the manufacturer. Even at that, these would be a reproduction of a demonstrably inferior system. [As an aside, this is indicative of how serious the problem with these belts is. 95% of TR6 production came to the U.S., yet they won't sell us the reproduction belts!] <P>The aftermarket belts that you can get here attach to the stock mounts, but cinch rather than retract. They look nothing like the origional belts, but they seem to work. <P>There must be other situations that have arisen where stock equipment was found to be unsafe in later years (the installation of turn signals comes to mind). Is there some kind of rule of thumb or precedant for this kind of situation? <p>[This message has been edited by Dave@Moon (edited 07-18-2000).]

[Guest]

Dave: I own a 1972 TR-6 since new. It has the retractable belts, and, they work great, fortunately.<P>As to actually employeeing them, I have always been apprehensive. I use them every time I drive to a show, but, have little faith in them. Why? I do not know, but, just a gut feel.<P>Wish I could help, but, I know they are not listed in any catalogue I have.<P>Did you try British Racing Green, New Castle, Delaware? I stopped by one day, and, they have quite a few of TR-6's on their lot for parts cars.<P>Stay in touch. In my travels, I will be on the lookout. My passion is the TR-6, and, will be more than pleased to help out.<P>------------------<BR>

[ronbarn]

I'll see if I'm up to the challenge posted earlier. First, I have to make an assumption that Dave@Moon is correct regarding the inadequacy of the original seatbelts. If he is wrong than the whole thread is moot. So I'll assume he's right.<P>While there are certainly some outstanding exceptions, it is generally conceded that attempting to be highly competitive on the showfield with a driver is not reasonable. So you have to make up your mind - driver or shower. For show - use the originals. For drive - use the more safe replacements.<P>And if you insist on trying both with the same vehicle, get a set of each type of belts and install the original for show and the more safe option for drive. Some people do this with tires, i.e. radial for driving and proper tires for showing.

[Guest]

Although it might seem logical to attack AACA at this point for being unreasonable about it's judging standards ("I can't safely drive my competitive car to an AACA national meet!"), I would still like to register my vote for maintaining the high judging standards AACA has for national meets--the underlying idea being to "preserve" or at least "show it like it *really* was" w/regard to automotive history. It's obviously not something everyone can or would even want to do (a 100% authentic restoration), but thankfully there are some who do, and that's what makes AACA national meets experiences *positively unmatched.*<P>My two cents.<P>Steve Mierz<BR>Stony Creek, CT<p>[This message has been edited by Steve Mierz (edited 07-19-2000).]

[Guest]

Putting in non-original seatbelts can, at most, cost you 4 points? (right Ronb?) Not really enough point loose to affect a car's ability to judge well. <P>Small price (if any) to pay for safety.<P>Peter<P>------------------<BR>Peter Gariepy<BR>peterg@aaca.org<BR> <A HREF="http://www.aaca.org" TARGET=_blank>www.aaca.org</A> <p>[This message has been edited by peterg (edited 07-19-2000).]

[John N. Packard]

Peter,<BR> You are right on target! Saving such a small point loss is not worth the safety risk of a questionable belt.<P>jnp

[Dave@Moon]

Peter, John....Thanks! I was under the impression that non-standard belts would be a much higher deduction. If I remember correctly when I judged a Vintage Triumph Register National in 1991 it was higher.<P>PJ, ditch the old ones and install a set of Roadster Factory belts. Even if those old retractors feel like they're still working, you don't want to be the guinnea pig when they're brought to the test.

[ronbarn]

You guys catch on fast. We judges are not really ogres - we're just really trying to do what's right to preserve automotive history. We accept the fact that given EPA restrictions on certain processes, and requirements for safety some restorations may deviate from what we would prefer. So there are some minor deductions and in some cases this may prevent the owner from getting a desired award, but for the most part our system works well to preserve the history and still permit the owner to enjoy the vehicle.

[Guest]

I can see now that I'm in the minority here when it comes to support of AACA's judging system. I haven't, however, changed my opinion. It is my hope that AACA national meet judging doesn't become diluted. Considerations about attracting more and younger members, however, as have been discussed here in other threads, I suppose, may be influencing these trends.<P>Respectfully,<P>Steve Mierz<BR>Stony Creek, CT

[Guest]

Steve,<P>Not sure I understand your response... from what I can read above, seems we have pretty good support of the AACA Judging system.... just questions on some details.<P>Did I miss something?<P>Peter<BR>(AACA Senior Judge)<P>

[Guest]

My response, Peter, was based upon what I *perceived* to be advice not to strive to make one's vehicle 100% authentic and correct, that it was ok to change certain things from how they were when new.<P>Make no mistake, I am a big fan of driving my car, and having it be as safe as possble for that use. <P>I have always looked to the top national AACA award winning cars, however, to be as close to 100% authentic and correct as possible. This is probably not a practical (or even completely safe, judging by the comments in this thread) thing for most people to do, but I question whether AACA national judges should be giving their blessings to less-than-authentic restoration efforts.<P>I again am only respectfully giving my *opinion*, and I am not an AACA judge.<P>Steve Mierz<BR>Stony Creek, CT

[Guest]

Gotcha Steve,<P>Your comment: "I question whether AACA national judges should be giving their blessings to less-than-authentic restoration efforts."<P>I totally agree! The AACA should never bless anything but an authentic restoration... with one acception, safety.<P>To deduct major points for things like add-on seat belts, fire extinguishers, brake lights, etc. is sending the wrong message. Certainly judge a car on it's authenticity, but don't penalize it's owner for wanting to drive a safe vehicle... even if it compromises authenticity just a bit.<P>That's "my" not-so-humble opinion. <P>Peter<BR><p>[This message has been edited by peterg (edited 07-20-2000).]

[Guest]

Steve ~ I am a long time AACA judge and I thank you for your support of the AACA judging system! Here is something for you ALL to consider. When you do NOT deduct points for an incorrect, damaged or missing item you penalize the vehicle that was done correctly and completely. How? You are giving the lesser vehicle the same points as the better one and that dilutes the quality. If "almost right" is worth the same points as perfectly correct what is the incentive to do a perfect and authentic restoration. In time this "overlook that item concept" will destroy the integrity of the judging system. ~ Howard Scotland<BR>

[ronbarn]

I must have missed something. I don't recall anyone saying "overlook an item" except for some of the saftey items mentioned. Certainly not overlook an item because it's difficult to restore or the correct item is expensive and/or hard to find. The statements were not "overlook", but that some of these, by our judging sheets are relatively minor deductions. 100% authenticity is always our goal, but by making a point spread for ties we are in fact accepting, in some cases, less than perfection.

[Guest]

Ron ~ I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I was not inferring that anyone said "overlook that item", but rather there seems to be a growing tendency among some of the judges to overlook items because they just don't want to be too hard on the car. They want everybody to be happy at the end of the day and feel good. I, and MANY other judges, have heard judges give as a reason for not taking a deduction that the owner is old, or he really tries hard, or he did all the work himself or that he is doing the best he can. All very charitable, but it is not good judging. If anyone in a leadership position really wants to know what is going on out there on the field, try judging as a team member for a while. It is very enlightening to hear the opinions and feelings of the rank and file judges out in the trenches. Been there and am doing that.<P>Howard<BR>

[ronbarn]

Howard, you may very well be right there. I've spent most of the last few years judging in the two wheelers, and we have never tolerated that attitude, although I have heard it a few times, in those classes. Maybe I need to judge some cars, or god forbid, some classics again.<P>Minor deductions for minor infractions, all within the max deductions on the judging sheet is not the same a "overlook" - that was my point.

[Guest rcirilli]

It's late in this thread to be adding my two cents and maybe going somewhere different but I will anyway. I think we have gone through a minor transition over the past ten years. Safety equipment has alway been given minor latitude as long as it was consistant with the era. What I've seen changing from good judges is that ten years ago there seemed to be a tendency to favor the over restored vehicle. Today I think there is more balance in judging the vehicles as they really came from the factory. Sometimes a team captain or deputy may seem soft if they accept or encourage flat black along side brite and shiny when the manufacturer was just trying to stop rust long enough for it to get to the show room. I've only been judging about 20 years but overall I think it's been consistantly correct with variations. Does that sound political or what!

[Guest]

Ron ~ I think we are in agreement.<P>Bob ~ I do not dispute anything that you say and feel your points as stated are quite correct.<P>What I am refering to is the failure to deduct for things like phillips screws on 1920's cars, bad chips in paint, small cracks [but cracks nonetheless] in glass, embossed metal pedals worn smooth, bad instrument faces and things like that. The judges in some cases seem unwilling to take deductions for such flaws for fear the points will add up to be so many that a nice looking car fails to win a first. Many beautiful vehicles do not stand up to close inspection and that is just what the judges are there to do.

[Guest rcirilli]

I totally agree with you Howard, those items should be deducted and it is the responsibility of us as senior judges to set a good example and show guidence.