Mike, I'd be wary of fitting them in a Mk1 Mini. I was just pointing out that Klippan either didn't know or didn't care, doesn't mean it's a good idea.
A non-engineer would assume they are OK... but it's not the case.

_________________
DrMini- 1970 wasaMatic 1360, Mk1S crank, 86.6HP (ATW) =~125 @ crank, 45 Dellorto (38 chokes), RE282 sprint cam, 1.5 rockers, 11.0:1 C/R.

Mike, I was answering GT's comment - the doc hadn't posted at that time, thats why it looked like I was ignoring his advice. I will try to find some original belts and get my upholsterer to re-web them if necessary.

Cheers

Gig

_________________
67 Deluxe - Red and white
69 Deluxe - Sugercane Grey

You can still buy new static belts. I put a pair of Klippan ones in Barney (66-67 Deluxe body).

_________________
DrMini- 1970 wasaMatic 1360, Mk1S crank, 86.6HP (ATW) =~125 @ crank, 45 Dellorto (38 chokes), RE282 sprint cam, 1.5 rockers, 11.0:1 C/R.

I might be wrong but if the retractable inertia reel system locks off as it is suppesed to in an impact or with sudden movement the you have no pulley. If it was to work correctly I would think there would less movement than in a comfortably adjusted original belt. The "pulley" as you are calling is not the inertia reel but the mount on the "B" pillar. Therefore if your original belt has any slack in it at all it too is acting as a pulley effectively 2x the force of any impact.
This is just me thinking out aloud........?????
BigGig, if you go back to a thread titled "Seat Belts" back in early March there is some pictures of the Klippan belts I installed in "Morris"

Interested to know what you guys think of logic / non logic regarding the pulley.

_________________

Hmmm.. fuel for thought

The inertia reel was never suggest asbeing the pully. On an inertia reel seat belt the top piller mount is the flexible pulley point. On a fixed seat belt that piller mount is the end segment of a seat belt.

On the fixed seat belt the buckle mount is the flexible point and the mass moving forward in an accident tightens against the floor mounts. On the inertia reel in an accident the mass moving forward pulls against the flexible pulley point on the B piller.

My thoughts on the moments involved.

You are pulling down on the belt via that sliding top mount.
When the reel locks, the top mount still acts as a pulley block. You would have to somehow lock the belt both sides of that top mount to avoid this.

_________________
DrMini- 1970 wasaMatic 1360, Mk1S crank, 86.6HP (ATW) =~125 @ crank, 45 Dellorto (38 chokes), RE282 sprint cam, 1.5 rockers, 11.0:1 C/R.

Just a word of warning....all seat belts "extend" (stretch) in a sudden stop.

So if you have old fashioned ones....keep em on the firm side.

I have seen a full harness "extend" about 30-40cms

They are designed to do that...... to absorb energy and progressively retard a crash dummies forward progress.

_________________
"Show me the Mini!"

I looked into this for Reg (my GT).

It needs to be an authorised seat belt manufacturer. If it isn't, you risk personal injury and more importantly, it will void your insurance.

I have a mate who is a Trimmer in the aircraft industry. He is authorised to make / replace the seat belts in aircraft. Dont know if that authorisation would carry across into an automobile but you would have to think that it would. I can ask if you like. Let me know.

_________________

We wanted to fit rear seat belts into the Morris 1100. No one in Mudgee would sell them to us and they said we had to go to the only licenced seat belt fitter in Mudgee.

We went there and he was a big sleazy mechanic who bald facedly told us he couldn't fit them until the following week because he would be appearing in court to answer a sexual assault charge.

My wife became very uncomfortable about him so we never went back but the Morris has never had the rear seat belts fitted and we are no longer concerned as the there is rarely three people in the Morris as the kid is now in boarding school.

Its a pain though.

Hmm....the whole point about "top mount point not designed for reel belts" always seemed to make sense to me - never saw the need to question it.

However, having read the comments above I'm not so sure any more - as soon as the belt starts to 'unroll' quickly, the reel locks, and then (I now think) the force on the top mount point is diagonally down toward the mount but the handbrake, the same as if it were a static belt.

Now for the bit that may not makes sense, but I haven't had anough sleep this weekend and am just thinking out loud....

If the belt stretches, and/or the belt tightens on the reel, yes the belt will pay out through the top loop/mount and also the centre mount....but nothing in my understanding of physics (good in some areas, dodgy in others!) tells me that the force exerted on the top mount is any higher than it would be if a static belt was attached to that point instead....regardless of which point is fixed or a 'pulley', the overall work done in stopping your body moving forward will still be split between the three points. In fact my very tired opinion is that a reel belt may in fact do a better job of sharing the load between the three points....

Think of a 4WD snatch strap....you could do a dead pull all day and never move a stuck car (just burn out a clutch), but, the extra force exerted when the "snatch" "snatches" will often overcome the inertia.

_________________
"Show me the Mini!"

Arguments above are correct regarding the additional force exerted on the B pillar. Due to the friction of belt on upper mount and the angle at which the belt approaches and departs that mount the force (vector) would not quite be doubled.

Above also states never to mount the reeler to the companion box. This is good advice but late Rovers have this type of mount using a bracket inside the box and a bolt into the B pillar. People with these cars shouldn't get all stressed because someone said that the box will tear out.

BTW the boxes are held in place by a lot of spot welds. These are remarkably strong if all loaded up simulatneously but not if un-zipped one at a time. You'd probably find the box would not tear out during any surviveable collision.

M

But that's where it all starts to unravel.....if the force on the B pillar mount is doubled (or nearly or whatever) then where is that force transfered from? Does the sill mount see almost no force? Methinks not......

I'm not jumping either way, however I am keen to see the science behind some of these theories.

The sill mount sees the tensile force in the belt, the top mount (in theory) sees double that. A bit less as noted above.

_________________
DrMini- 1970 wasaMatic 1360, Mk1S crank, 86.6HP (ATW) =~125 @ crank, 45 Dellorto (38 chokes), RE282 sprint cam, 1.5 rockers, 11.0:1 C/R.