PDA

View Full Version : Safety upgrades



drpreposterous
07-30-2011, 12:59 PM
Hey, everyone. Have been the beneficiary of your sage advice before, I hope you don't mind my going to the well yet again.

I've been mulling over safety upgrades while walking a tightrope familiar to you all--preserving at least a vintage look (if not reality) when I do upgrades on my '60 Lark.

I have the Turner disk brake conversion and dual MC, third brake light and radials. I've e-mailed lighting consultant Daniel Stern--http://www.danielsternlighting.com/--on what headlights would be best (many of you have referenced Cibie H-4s).

Now I'm looking at three-point belts or a four-point harness. Any thoughts on Wesco?
http://wescoperformance.stores.yahoo.net/seatbelts.html
I've heard four-points are better suited for seats with headrests. Speaking of that, how awful (and difficult) does it seem to fabricate/mount headrests? I have sharp GT Hawk seats inside but am mindful of the neck-snappin i'd get if someone hit me.

Classic mustangs can get retrofitted head-rests that are designed to mount on their factory buckets from a variety of sources, most notably this one by TMI (sold by NPD):
http://www.mustangupholstery.com/literature/resto_mod_sell_sheet.pdf

http://thumbnails21.********.com/14283/35a58e142825591.jpg (http://www.********.com/image/35a58e142825591)

Thanks for your input!

StudeRich
07-30-2011, 01:30 PM
The head rests were optional on all 1959 to 1966 Studebakers, pretty much like the Mustang seat, but with one support post. :)

Welcome
07-30-2011, 01:34 PM
Hey, everyone. Have been the beneficiary of your sage advice before, I hope you don't mind my going to the well yet again.

I've been mulling over safety upgrades while walking a tightrope familiar to you all--preserving at least a vintage look (if not reality) when I do upgrades on my '60 Lark.

I have the Turner disk brake conversion and dual MC, third brake light and radials. I've e-mailed lighting consultant Daniel Stern--http://www.danielsternlighting.com/--on what headlights would be best (many of you have referenced Cibie H-4s).

Now I'm looking at three-point belts or a four-point harness. Any thoughts on Wesco?
http://wescoperformance.stores.yahoo.net/seatbelts.html
I've heard four-points are better suited for seats with headrests. Speaking of that, how awful (and difficult) does it seem to fabricate/mount headrests? I have sharp GT Hawk seats inside but am mindful of the neck-snappin i'd get if someone hit me.

Classic mustangs can get retrofitted head-rests that are designed to mount on their factory buckets from a variety of sources, most notably this one by TMI (sold by NPD):
http://www.mustangupholstery.com/literature/resto_mod_sell_sheet.pdf

http://thumbnails21.********.com/14283/35a58e142825591.jpg (http://www.********.com/image/35a58e142825591)

Thanks for your input!

We've talked this subject to death many times before ...but ...personally, the ONLY safety related upgrade I'd consider doing would be the dual master cylinder retro. IMHO, everything else would be just giving oneself a "false sense of security.":eek:

Pat Dilling
07-31-2011, 12:41 PM
I installed bucket seats from a Chrysler Sebring convertible in my 53. The have integral 3 point seat belts and head rests. The only down side I can see is they definitely block the view from the back seat, but my back seat is not used very often, so I think it is a reasonable trade off.

JRoberts
07-31-2011, 12:59 PM
As the Cruiser gets closer to being back on the road, one of the things I wanted to do was to drive it, both around town, but also long distance. I am plenty aware of the safety short comings that will never be over come, but that does not mean I am going to overcome the short comings I can overcome. That said Turner Brakes, 3-point seat belts (front and rear) from Julianos Street Rods, radial tires will be a part of the car. This will not be a show car, so I don't have to worry about points for originality. When all is said and done the car will be much safer than it was in 1965.

1962larksedan
07-31-2011, 01:50 PM
For the record: apparently Studebaker Larks assembled overseas were fitted with things like 3 point front seatbelts, etc.

DEEPNHOCK
07-31-2011, 03:43 PM
Racing seats might help.
But look out for counterfeits..:rolleyes:
Jeff:cool:

http://thereifixedit.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/white-trash-repairs-i-hope-my-daughter-likes-her-gift.jpg

dnevin
07-31-2011, 03:45 PM
The head rests were optional on all 1959 to 1966 Studebakers, pretty much like the Mustang seat, but with one support post. :)

Are those obtainable? I'm going with 3-point belts because IMHO it is safer, but need the headrest. I'd love to do as much as possible using Studebaker parts. . .

Bob Andrews
07-31-2011, 04:59 PM
My thoughts are that for the amount most Studes REALLY get used, chances of a crash are extremely tiny. Also, the type of crash likely will probably be low speed/impact, further lessening the need for overkill.

IMO, in most cases brake upgrades aren't NEEDED; just assure the stock system is in proper repair. I have lap belts and consider them all I need. That said, safety upgrades never hurt if they give one peace of mind. Personally i just don't find them necessary.

For a few years I had a '60 Olds 88. One buddy looked at that steering wheel and said, "if you have a crash you'll be impaled on that!". My answer was "not me, I'll just make sure not to crash!". And did just that:)

I think my chances of continuing that plan are by far the most likely. And like life in general, I shall continue rolling those dice 'till I get Snake Eyes:)

JRoberts
08-01-2011, 02:21 PM
My belief is that nobody is immune from an accident, especially considering an accident doesn't have to be my fault. I hate gambling over what my chances of an accident are. Safety mods for me.

studegary
08-01-2011, 07:50 PM
By driving less and more carefully and restricting your driving to good weather and lighting conditions, you lessen your chances of being in an accident. With that said, it is ludicrous to believe that you can avoid any accident. That is why they are called accidents, not on-purposes. I have been in more than one accident where I was in my car while it was legally standing still and got hit by another car that was completely at fault.

Bob Andrews
08-01-2011, 08:10 PM
it is ludicrous to believe that you can avoid any accident. That is why they are called accidents, not on-purposes. I have been in more than one accident where I was in my car while it was legally standing still and got hit by another car that was completely at fault.

Agreed. I don't see where anyone's saying that.