67 Seat Belts

[Donald W.]

Need help in deciphering the date code label, reads as follows Hamill 22E76
Thanks for your help,
Don

[Donald W.]

Re: 67 Seat Belts

Correction on the Date Hamill 22E67

[Ken K.]

Re: 67 Seat Belts

"22E67" I believe it's the "22nd" week of 1967. The "E" is the style type code. (This would be around the beginning of June '67) When was your car built?
If someone can verify this, please do so..

[Gerard F.]

Re: 67 Seat Belts verified date code but

Ken,

I think you're right about the belt date code, 22 week of 67. But that's a little late in the production year, or Don's 67 has a very late assembly number.
My June 29, 67 (vin 22049) has a belt date code of 7E67.

I'm not quite sure if there is any relationship of the date code of the belts versus the car, except that one wouldn't have an assembly date earlier then the belt date unless they were service replacements. Maybe Don will post his vin or assembly date.

Maybe they had a pile of these belts on the assembly line, and just picked sets at random.

Jerry Fuccillo
#42179

[Donald W.]

67 Seat Belts

Early 67 Nov 2-66, must be service replacement belts.
Thanks, Ken and Gerald for your info
Don

[Gerard F.]

Here's some 67 seat belt trivia

Don,

The later replacement 67 seat belt buckles for lap belts (RCF-65, Robert C. Fisher, patented in 1965) had a little heavier pawl spring then the originals. This was in response to a problem known as "inertial unlatching" with the originals. (and probably a number of lawsuits)

You can test inertial unlatching by latching the belts, holding tension on the belt, and slapping the back of the buckle against a hard surface (like a piece of wood). The originals with a light spring will unlatch every time. The replacements with the heavier spring hold.

I have tested this on my original belts versus a set of 1976 replacements. I wound up using the replacement buckle top, insert, and spring in my original belts.

So, if you have a soft belly, don't worry about inertial unlatching. But if you have a hard six-pack down there, you might consider replacing the pawl spring.
Ha, Ha, Ha!

Jerry Fuccillo
#42179

[Donald W.]

Re: Here's some 67 seat belt trivia

Jerry,
This could be why i have later than vehicle production seat belts. This is some interesting information to know and appreciate you sharing it with me. Have a safe and Happy New Year,
Don

[Peter L.]

Re: Here's some 67 seat belt trivia

Jerry - Good piece of information on the original '67 seat belts. I'm assuming that the same applies to late '66 Corvette seat belts (and probably across the GM line for those cars equipped with the Deluxe seat belts) being the same basic design as the '67 belts. Do you have information as to when Hamill made the fix to the heavier pawl and is there a way to distinguish the two different pawls. Also, was there any "formal" notice or recall (heaven forbid) issued on this? Thanks, Pete

[Gerard F.]

Re: Here's some 67 seat belt trivia

Pete,

I don't know when the change was made in the pawl spring, and there was probably no notice or recall as there were probably a lot of lawsuits. The change was probably made in the 70's as a result of crash tests. In later lawsuits, GM maintained that the forces necessary to create inertial unlatching were never present in the real world. There is a neat article on seat belt history at
www.SeatBeltLaw.com.

I discovered the difference in the original vs replacement belts in referbing my original 67 belts. My stainless steel tops were in so bad a shape that I acquired a set of 1976 replacements (from another NCRS member) solely for the tops and inserts. Attached is a picture of my disassembled original buckle.

When I read the article at the above web site, I decided to do the inertial unlatching test from the article. Sure enough, the originals unlatched every time I slapped the back against a 2X4. The replacements held.

I noticed that the replacements required a little heavier push on the button to unlatch. In taking both apart I noticed a number of differences:

1. The pawl spring (lower center in photo) was heavier and the back rose higher in the assembly with no little ears.

2. The pawl plate (upper center in photo)had a slightly broader ridge where the tongue would engage the pawl plate.

3. The belt retainer (left lower) was a solid cast piece without the little strap which the belt goes through, on the replacements. On replacements, you can remove the belt from the buckle without unstitching the end of the belt. Not so on originals, you have to unstitch the trifold at the end to get it through the strap on the retainer.

Well, I guess I'm going on and on! Am I getting anal about this? Leave it to an engineer.

Happy New Year,

Jerry Fuccillo
#42179

[Gerard F.]

Also the label difference

Pete,

There was also one other difference between the original 67 seat belts and the 76 replacements which I noticed, and that was in the label. There was a recent thread on this subject which I don't think got resolved.

The label on my 7E67 belts states "THIS BELT MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS OF SAE J4c AND FEDERAL SPEC." The label on the 76 replacement states "THIS BELT CONFORMS TO SAE J4c AND FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS."

In reading that seat belt law article, it notes that the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were not formalized until legislation in 1966, whereas the Sae standards were prior. I would surmise that the label language change occurred either in late 67 or along with mandatory seat belts in 1968.

More seat belt trivia?

Jerry Fuccillo
#42179

[Peter L.]

Re: Also the label difference

Jerry - FYI, the label on my 35E66 C10 seat belts and 36E66 C20 shoulder harness belts both read as your 7E67 belts. Pete

[Terry M.]

seat belt trivia

Pete,
I looked through my collection of Chevrolet campaigns. Nothing on seat belts until 1969.

[Peter L.]

Re: seat belt trivia

Terry - Thanks for checking. Based on your comment, I'm expecting that the 1969 campaign materials refer to something "current" in the 1969 production time frame and aren't retroactive back to '66, '67, or '68? Pete

[Terry M.]

Re: seat belt trivia

Exactly so. Sorry to have been unclear.
The 1969 situation was that the male tongue could be inserted upside down into the female latch. When that was done, any strong tug on the belt would cause it to come unlatched. The solution required the replacement of both the male and female parts and their associated hardware. Both of the lap belts were replaced in the campaign.
I would have to go back and look at the dates -- I was only looking for items applicable to 1967 seat belts -- but it was early 1969 Corvette production which was involved in the campaign.