Safe To Remove?

[Guest BrainFluid]

From previous posts / searches the answer seems to be yes. BUT I was looking through haynes the other night and I'm sure it was saying that this belt was the rear seatbelt anchorage.

 

Was I reading wrong or not. Dont want to remove it if it is like, what with kids in the back esp.

[GLPoomobile 958]

From previous posts / searches the answer seems to be yes. BUT I was looking through haynes the other night and I'm sure it was saying that this belt was the rear seatbelt anchorage.

 

Was I reading wrong or not. Dont want to remove it if it is like, what with kids in the back esp.

 

Guess you didn't read many of those search results did you?

 

The whole seat belt anchorage bollocks has been discussed and dismissed more times than the whole moon landing debate

 

Rip it off, throw it away, forget about it

[skeggyrik 3]

I'm not putting mine back on.

If it gets to the stage where it's needed, i.e. the beam has detached from its mountings, before I notice, I deserve if to fall off!

 

Plus it's extra weight!

 

I might even chuck it on ebay titled "beam safety device/stiffener" it'll probably make £20! If people buy things like the "wooden spoon" oil stirring sticks you see on there, they'll buy anything!!

[GLPoomobile 958]

I'm not putting mine back on.

If it gets to the stage where it's needed, i.e. the beam has detached from its mountings, before I notice, I deserve if to fall off!

 

Plus it's extra weight!

 

I might even chuck it on ebay titled "beam safety device/stiffener" it'll probably make £20! If people buy things like the "wooden spoon" oil stirring sticks you see on there, they'll buy anything!!

 

 

Don't forget to add L@@K and RARE to your listing!

[Guest BrainFluid]

Guess you didn't read many of those search results did you?

 

Lol I've been around long enough to know what the search would have said. I.e its safe to leave off. (I did not put mine on because of this)

 

Just seeing it in Haynes labled as the 'seat belt anchorage' insted of 'belt to stop your beam flying off in worst case scenario' had me worried for a moment seen as I gots all my kids in the car for a change.

 

Thanks for your reassurance (and the humble pie) GL but when I have the time I will trawl through the subject and find a definitive answer just for piece of mind. Between my kids and my cars and my travelling I'm finding myself pushed for time.

[Brambles 0]

Lol I've been around long enough to know what the search would have said. I.e its safe to leave off. (I did not put mine on because of this)

 

Just seeing it in Haynes labled as the 'seat belt anchorage' insted of 'belt to stop your beam flying off in worst case scenario' had me worried for a moment seen as I gots all my kids in the car for a change.

 

Thanks for your reassurance (and the humble pie) GL but when I have the time I will trawl through the subject and find a definitive answer just for piece of mind. Between my kids and my cars and my travelling I'm finding myself pushed for time.

 

 

Yes I took Mine off originally (didnt like the horible lump of metal), but then also came up with the seat belt anchorage referrence.

 

And one other point. Which is that the exhaust passes right under the fuel tank at that point, with that bar above it and separated by a heat shield.

 

Well having also found out how hot it gets all along the floor pan above the exhaust with the heat shields remooved and no carpets etc on the inside. I thought it may be a good idea to have that bar in place with the heat shield and help insulate the tank from heat.

[GLPoomobile 958]

Yes I took Mine off originally (didnt like the horible lump of metal), but then also came up with the seat belt anchorage referrence.

 

And one other point. Which is that the exhaust passes right under the fuel tank at that point, with that bar above it and separated by a heat shield.

 

Well having also found out how hot it gets all along the floor pan above the exhaust with the heat shields remooved and no carpets etc on the inside. I thought it may be a good idea to have that bar in place with the heat shield and help insulate the tank from heat.

 

 

You can keep the heat shield in place and still remove the strap from the beam.

 

I actually had to remove my heat shield a little while after is broke away and was rattling around. Have done a fair few miles, including a 500 mile round trip to Devon this weekend and my petrol tank hasn't exploded.....yet

 

Touch wood it'll make it up to Edinburgh and back at the end of the month. But I really must get around to putting some shielding back there.

[Guest BrainFluid]

Here are my driving around the country over the past few days and only really just got in thoughts about the belt. I'm sure this has been said somewhere in the past on the forum, but I'll get them out anyway. They are centered on the 'saves your beam from coming off in worst case scenario' aspect.

 

First of all were talking standard parts road car 205...and...I dont think it is for the worst case scenario I think its there to stop it getting that far.

 

I.e If one of your bumper end mounts splits into two, how long would it take for the other mount to split as well? Would it be quicker with the belt on of off? Personaly, I think that you will have a longer period of 'bumper end rear beam mount has split' warning signs with the belt than without one. A better chance of not getting in the situation where the beam has no rear mounts for a period of time.

 

In my mind now and with standard parts I can see how having the belt is a degree safer than not having it. Mine will be going back on.

 

Also (could be total utter bulls*it) With the belt a 'mounting triangle in a square' is formed where there would only be a 'mounting square' without one, if you can figure out what I mean by that kind of like giving the beam a webbed footprint?

 

 

What do you think?

[Sandy 189]

309s don't have it.

[GLPoomobile 958]

Here are my driving around the country over the past few days and only really just got in thoughts about the belt. I'm sure this has been said somewhere in the past on the forum, but I'll get them out anyway. They are centered on the 'saves your beam from coming off in worst case scenario' aspect.

 

First of all were talking standard parts road car 205...and...I dont think it is for the worst case scenario I think its there to stop it getting that far.

 

I.e If one of your bumper end mounts splits into two, how long would it take for the other mount to split as well? Would it be quicker with the belt on of off? Personaly, I think that you will have a longer period of 'bumper end rear beam mount has split' warning signs with the belt than without one. A better chance of not getting in the situation where the beam has no rear mounts for a period of time.

 

In my mind now and with standard parts I can see how having the belt is a degree safer than not having it. Mine will be going back on.

 

Also (could be total utter bulls*it) With the belt a 'mounting triangle in a square' is formed where there would only be a 'mounting square' without one, if you can figure out what I mean by that kind of like giving the beam a webbed footprint?

What do you think?

 

On the one hand I'd be inclined to say that it must be there for a good reason, but on the othe hand 309s don't have 'em, and it is French designed Peugeot did have some strange logic going on it places.

 

Personally I still don't think it is needed even as a safety feature. For drivers who know nothing about their cars then maybe, but for us enthusiasts then no. What I mean by that, is that the beam is mounted in 4 places. What are the odds of a catastophic event happening which will result in the beam shearing off to an extent that you have an accident? More likely that a failure in these areas would start as corrosion, which would be picked in an MOT. If the corrosion started and accelerated between MOTs, and resulted in a failure at one mounting point, you would notice something was amiss with the handling and would investigate it.

 

I simply cannot imagining a significant failure occuring in this area that warrants the need for the strap.

 

If you have it on, no point removing it. But if you are removing the beam then no point putting the strap back either.

[Guest smokinslim]

Strap, what strap lol. Never had one, n wit my beam antics it'd jus get in the way. If my beam falls off i'll let you know

[Guest BrainFluid]

309s don't have it.

 

Indeed, this I know. They are different cars regardless of their similarities and doubtless will behave differently when tested. Maybe the wider track has an influance or the shell at mounts has less flex in it.

 

Maybe it takes a lot longer for all hell to break loose when driving around a 309 without any bumper end rear beam mounts.

 

Maybe in the same test all hell broke loose a lot quicker with the 205. So they added a belt.

 

 

 

What I mean by that, is that the beam is mounted in 4 places. What are the odds of a catastophic event happening which will result in the beam shearing off to an extent that you have an accident? More likely that a failure in these areas would start as corrosion, which would be picked in an MOT.

 

It may be mounted in 4 places BUT you dont need to shear bolts at the bumper! All you need to do is have the mounts glue give away. You have seen the condition of these standard mounts after 15 years havent you? Even new mounts would be more likely to come unstuck than what would be needed for bolts to shear. Should one of them come unstuck the next weakest mount is the OTHER that needs only come unstuck. Having the belt on will slow the process.

 

Of course should both mounts come unstuck then the next weakest points are the rear seat end straight though mount bolts that will start bending and fexing the shell. Again if it were to come to this then if the belt was there it will happen to a lesser degree. Lets hope the shell has not gone a bit rusty there since last we looked eh?

 

No MOT'er has lifted my boot carpet up and popped out the plastic covers to inspect my main mount condition and an mot is only 1 day that everyting checks out out off 365.

 

In short your right. It is very unlikley for ,all of a sudden, all your rear beam mounts to shear off leaving you soley reliant on the belt strap. But thats making an answer up to fit the question...

 

I feel that in reality there would be a slow process building up to that scenario and the belt is there to SLOW the process down if it started to happen.

 

I feel a bit bloody stupid for being lazy and leaving it off. And for not thinking about it before agreeing to jump off the cliff I was told to, as it were. I mean its an extra ridgidity point for a crutial part of the car...! A standard parts road car 205 must need one to satisfiy some degree of safety or they would not have spent money on doing it! They were probably glad that the 309 did not need one to satisfiy the test because of saved pennies.

 

 

Strap, what strap lol. Never had one, n wit my beam antics it'd jus get in the way.

 

Well your lucky in a way that you dont have the choice! (But I would'nt trust old mounts at the bumper end without a belt. I would go for new ones for sure)

 

 

 

EDIT: Many apologies for all the folk out their who are fuming about the fact this has been talked about before. Just trying to use my own brain rather than taking things I read for gospel truth.

Edited January 8, 2007 by BrainFluid

[Sandy 189]

I reckon it might be there to stop the fuel tank popping out the bottom in a rear end bump, the 309 has more boot and therefore probably crumples more before it gets nasty.

[Anthony 1,000]

It's only 3dr 205's that have it - 5dr models don't either.

 

I agree that if it's anything it's going to be a fuel tank retention strap in the event of a major smash - although that doesn't really explain why the 5dr models don't have it seeing as I'd imagine the shell would flex more if anything...

[Guest BrainFluid]

Just reading haynes properly and it points out that the belt and the seatbelt anchor are two seperate items. The belt has nothing to do with the seatbelts.

 

 

What you mention Anthony puts paid to my theory if 5 doors dont have the belt. Hmm. Unless they expect a 3 door to be driven harder. Dunno.

 

 

Still going to keep on using one though. Just because the reason isnt apparent that dont mean it should just be chucked away IMO.

[Brambles 0]

Just reading haynes properly and it points out that the belt and the seatbelt anchor are two seperate items. The belt has nothing to do with the seatbelts.

What you mention Anthony puts paid to my theory if 5 doors dont have the belt. Hmm. Unless they expect a 3 door to be driven harder. Dunno.

Still going to keep on using one though. Just because the reason isnt apparent that dont mean it should just be chucked away IMO.

 

Oh! Now you got me wanting to look it up as well.

 

Interesting about 309s and five doors not having it, I dint know that. I assumed it was a comon feature.

 

Thats some of my theories out of the window!

[GLPoomobile 958]

Brainfluid, I'm not being confrontational, but I don;t understand why you keep mentioning the bumper, and what is all this about glue?

 

The beam is attached to the rear subframe under the boot floor as far as I can remember. You don't need to lift the carpet and pop the plugs out to check for corrosion, a quick look under the car and a poke around the mounting points would show up any corrosion in the structure. And any significant corrosion within 30cm (IIRC) of a suspension mounting point is an MOT failure.

 

I also think it has more to do with the petrol tank (not jumping on the band wagon, this is something I have said in previous discussions on the subject), but you can still leave the tank retaining strap and heat shield bolted in place and do away with the beam strap which attaches to the tank strap.

 

I also discussed the theory that the strap is to stop the beam coming off the car in an accident and causing damage to following vehicles or whatever. Slightly strange logic, but who knows.

[Guest rick03054]

I dont think the strap would be much use if there was nothing elso holding the beam on, the whole thing would rotate and bounce around and the strap would come away without a second thought. I took the strap off without taking the bit that goes around the beam off so I could drop my tank, if I can wriggle it out it has no chance under more severe conditions IMO.

[Guest BrainFluid]

Brainfluid, I'm not being confrontational, but I don;t understand why you keep mentioning the bumper, and what is all this about glue?

 

Dinne fash mate, I'm not here for a fight

 

Its an effort to distingush the four mounts.

 

ie. The two mounts of the rear beam that are closest the bumper. And the two mounts closer to the rear seats.

 

 

What I mean by the glue is that the two mounts at the bumper end are not straight through bolts that go through the trailing arm and then the shell.

 

They are two seperate bolts. One goes through the trailing arms, one goes through the shell. Both these bolts have a square of material attached to them at their heads. THEN these two squares of material appear to be glued together. Obviously the mounts come already glued together, you dont do it yourself, I have seen old mounts you see and they rip apart at this glue seam very eaisily. Thats what led me to thinking.

 

Catch my drift? Maybe some one else could sum up what I'm saying in a sentance for me?

 

 

EDIT:

And any significant corrosion within 30cm (IIRC) of a suspension mounting point is an MOT failure.

 

Yes I know ...What I mean is that no MOT'er is going to look at the most crucial place for rust. Right around the ring where the mounting bolts go through. Not as far away as 30cm!

Edited January 9, 2007 by BrainFluid

[GLPoomobile 958]

Nae bother pal.

 

See what you mean about the rubber mounts being glued. Never seen knackered ones myself.

[Beastie 1]

Well, according to Wikipedia the total production of 205 cars up to end of 1996 was 5,153,169

 

I've no idea what proportion of 3 door cars made up those figures, but let's just assume for the sake of hypothesis that it was 50%

 

That would mean that Peugeot made 2,576,584 cars with these straps fitted.

 

Lets assume that they were able to manufacture, electroplate and fit a strap for £0.50

 

That would mean they spent over one and a quarter million quid on the things.

 

Whatever they were, someone thought they were important

[welshpug 1,622]

Nae bother pal.

 

See what you mean about the rubber mounts being glued. Never seen knackered ones myself.

 

 

 

 

[GLPoomobile 958]

 

 

 

 

Oh well. I have solid beam mounts so I'm Ok

[Anthony 1,000]

See what you mean about the rubber mounts being glued. Never seen knackered ones myself.

Most of them that haven't already been replaced are either split in two or badly perished in my experience

[Beastie 1]

Most of them that haven't already been replaced are either split in two or badly perished in my experience

 

 

It seem to be partly dependent upon where the car has lived: Out here in the sticks 205s used to be popular runarounds and the muddy farmyard environment ensures that the mountings perished and corroded in spectacular fashion. Vehicles which have been subjected to light use in cities sometimes still have original ones in serviceable order. It always seems good sense to renew them as a matter of course these days anyway!