Interior Ergonomics

[Sean Dezart]

Over here, seatbelts seem to have varied in their supply.

My 1st 240, a 1973 UK model had inertia reel belts (3 pt system). A firends 1973 240 here in France has the same, another firends 1973 240 has a non-inertia system but still 3 pt but the lap-belt 'clip' together system.

My US imported 1972 240 had the 3 pt inertia system with the belt 'reserve' in the floor (as per the 280Z?) !

Did each importer fit belts in order to pass their countrys' laws at the time ? ie, In France (for example) the law insisted upon inertia belts after the end of 1972 ?

In the US, lap belts were popular - when did Zs start being supplied (by whom) with the 3 pt system ?

(Theory seems even more difficult to prove - I just looked up an image of an early French 240 - straight gear lever - which has the 3 pt inertia system !).

[HS30-H]

Originally posted by v12horse

This is off topic, but is an item about interior ergonomics that I have been wondering about for quite some time, but never brought it up. My girlfriend is 5'2" and she doesn't have a problem as much with the seat moving forward enough, but it is the seatbelt that gets here. She is quite small, probably similiar to the build of an average Japanese women. When she puts the drivers seat all the way forward she has a really hard time turning her body around to look behind her because the seatbelt is straining her from moving. Are the seatbelts longer on other import Z's or on the home market Z's or is something just funny about my seatbelt?

Take care,

Ben

Hi Ben,

Did you know that the Japanese home-market cars had re-positionable seat mounting brackets on the floor? They were L-shaped pressings that extended the FRONT bolt-down position, and were spot-welded to the floor and the front seat-mounting crossmember.

These made it possible to unbolt the seat runners / sliders from the floor and to re-position them further forward ( nearer to the wheel and pedals ) if necessary.

Interestingly, I believe that most "Export" market cars did NOT have these - although they DID have the "extra" set of holes for the REAR mounting. Effectively, this meant that the two extra rear mounting bolt holes on the Export cars were redundant. This was probably down to cost-saving; having rear mounting crossmembers that were universal, but front mounting crossmembers that were different only for the home market. Despite the "Export" cars having the added labour of two extra but useless holes being drilled into them, it's very likely that this would be offset by the cost-saving and time-saving of keeping things as simple as possible.

I don't think the 3-piece Takata seatbelts on the Japanese home market cars were any longer than the "Export" versions - despite the fact that the seats could be moved something like 3 or 4cm further forward than on the "Export" versions. Maybe I should measure them for comparison?

However, I'd have to say that by modern standards the stock belts are not really ideal in the mount position for the shoulder strap; they seem VERY far away - leaving a very long shoulder strap necessary. I feel OK ( and relatively "safe" ) as long as I tighten the belts up to the point where they are noticeably restrictive ( ouch ) - but even then I bet they'd be much less effective than a modern belt system in a crash. I've had passengers who thought the belts in my car were most uncomfortable, but they were probably more used to modern inertial-reel systems.

Alan T.

[v12horse]

Hello Alan,

My car has the more modern inertia real system, for me it is fine, but when my girlfriend puts the seat all the way forward the shoulder belt restricts her. When I say it restricts her I mean she cannot not move around at all. She would be lucky if she could move her upper body forward a few centimeters(She is quite petiite too). I am almost positive that my seatbelt mechanism is in perfect running order, if that had anything to do with the strap running short.

I have nothing to compare to, but considering that the majority of the Americans driving these export Z's are going to be taller than 5'2" it would make sense economically to save on the material and not make a really long shoulder belt for the inertia wheel. On the other hand, many of the people in Japan would benifit from the longer shoulder strap because more people there are shorter. Maybe there was a longer shoulder strap for the inertia wheels there.

I am not an expert on this, and as I said I have nothing to compare to either. Did the home market cars even get inertia wheel seat belt mechanisms? If so what year and were the shoulder straps longer than the export straps? What year was the inertia wheel seat belt implemented on the export cars? I hope I am not overwhelming people with these questions, but just something that I have been thinking about. Thanks Alan for the information you provided. It is always a help.

Regards,

Ben

[240260280]

Edited December 15, 2016 by 240260280

[240260280]

On 2016-12-12 at 8:36 AM, 240260280 said:

 

hmm post gone?  Weird.

 

Oh well.

 

Nissan were designing Z for NA market:

 

[siteunseen]

Russian hackers!  That was a good informative post too.  Damn jackwads.

[HS30-H]

16 hours ago, 240260280 said:

Nissan were designing Z for NA market:

 

This means what, exactly?

[240260280]

Sorry, the post that gave Nissan sports car production numbers from 1952  aligned with market is deleted... probably by me accidentally as I have been travelling and jet lagged. The last addition to that post was a picture of Nissan testing a stop-gap hard top design for their SP/SPL-310 in August, 1966 when USA was starting to reshape automobile design safety regulations.

 

From Nissan sports car production numbers and destinations, it can be clearly shown that since 1960 Nissan was focusing on the US market and that it was their biggest sports car market and growing exponentially (~89% of all Nissan sports cars manufactured in the 60's went to the USA).  The new US safety regulations starting to rumble through the industry in 65/66 seems to have caused Nissan management to de-risk and move from the staple line of convertibles to a new coupe design to ensure  continued success in their primary sports car market. Thus this was a key factor for upper management to push the Z to the US market.

The fact that some parts were made asymmetrical and some not seems to have come down to cost cuts (like the cutting of a full grill below the front bumper, the cutting of rear disc brakes, and the cutting of two gas struts on the hatch..as stated by Mr. Matsuo).  The design of the transmission tunnel with consideration for a wide Y40 V8 engine and BW35 transmission for the US market also points to the Z being prepared for the US market from an early stage.

The answer to the thread's query: the location of the brake lever on the right gives more leg room and comfort for LHD cars for a market of bigger citizens and it complied with safety rules so it was not a critical part needing to be made asymmetrical. It falls inline with the steering column mounted controls, housing and ignition switch that are also not made for two markets.  The lack of interior asymmetry could be a management or design decision early in the project or maybe the interior design and production teams were a bit slow to meet the release deadline.

(I do like the clever design economy of the ambidextrous control arms...seems like that team had some time on their hands to economize design to one universal part yet maintain fit and function).

 

You may find this photo interesting as it shows the full size grill on a roll-over tested LHD Z along with twice pipe-like exhaust to the back. The front valence and corner buckets along with the lights seem to be moulded and the rocker panel has an unusual section,

I wonder what engine warranted that big exhaust so early in the program? GR-8 testing?

Edited December 17, 2016 by 240260280

[HS30-H]

Quote

From Nissan sports car production numbers and destinations, it can be clearly shown that since 1960 Nissan was focusing on the US market and that it was their biggest sports car market and growing exponentially (~89% of all Nissan sports cars manufactured in the 60's went to the USA).

Have you considered applying a similar by-the-numbers analysis to products from the likes of Triumph, Austin Healey, Jaguar, Porsche, ALFA Romeo, FIAT et al? I think you'll find that all of them - without exception - found the biggest market for their Sports/GT models was in North America, and the USA in particular. Would you say that their products were "designed for the USA" too? How about applying the same analysis to other Nissan products sold alongside the S30-series Z in the USA, such as the SP/SR Fairlady Roadsters, various small pickup trucks and 'economy' cars and - perhaps more specifically - the 510-series Bluebird? Were they too "designed for the USA"...?

Quote

The answer to the thread's query: the location of the brake lever on the right gives more leg room and comfort for LHD cars for a market of bigger citizens and it complied with safety rules so it was not a critical part needing to be made asymmetrical. It falls inline with the steering column mounted controls, housing and ignition switch that are also not made for two markets.  The lack of interior asymmetry could be a management or design decision early in the project or maybe the interior design and production teams were a bit slow to meet the release deadline.

You're kind of late to the party on this one (around 13 years or so...) but still...
Have you had a close look at many contemporary (late 60s/early 70s) Nissan products in comparison? What is your reaction to the fact that many Nissans of the same period - including those that had little to no intention to be exported outside Japan - share similar ergonomic features? 

Quote

It falls inline with the steering column mounted controls, housing and ignition switch that are also not made for two markets.

Can you clarify the above statement please? It does not seem to relate to what we can see when we compare LHD and RHD S30-series Zs.

Quote

You may find this photo interesting as it shows the full size grill on a roll-over tested LHD Z along with twice pipe-like exhaust to the back. The front valence and corner buckets along with the lights seem to be moulded and the rocker panel has an unusual section,

I wonder what engine warranted that big exhaust so early in the program? GR-8 testing?

Certainly not a GR8 (as that was specifically a Prince race engine ) but you may be thinking of the 'GR8-S', or S20. The answer is revealed in the post crash-test photos from that sequence, which some of us have.... ;-)
Rhetorical question: Would proof that Nissan tested the S20 engine in LHD S30-series Z layout (a nascent 'PLS30'?) prove or disprove your "made for the USA" line of thinking?  

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by HS30-H
formatting

[240260280]

"Triumph, Austin Healey, Jaguar, Porsche, ALFA Romeo, FIAT et al?" I think you'll find that all of them - without exception - found the biggest market for their Sports/GT models was in North America, and the USA in particular. Would you say that their products were "designed for the USA" too?"

I think if they were, they would have given Nissan some competition.  Nissan did design for the USA market and succeeded. The Z is the proof.

 

 

"What is your reaction to the fact that many Nissans of the same period - including those that had little to no intention to be exported outside Japan - share similar ergonomic features?  " 

I'd have to look at these and evaluate. I just looked at the Z.  As stated, the location of some controls are moot and have advantages and disadvantages for either side.

 

"Can you clarify the above statement please? "

The 510's ignition is on the door side on LHD cars. I find it awkward compared to the Z and compared to nearly all other NA cars that have the ignition switch inboard.  It would seem the ignition switch location on the Z is  a good change for the North American market and it can also maintain the same location for the RHD market (that seems to have been traditionally on the door side for prior RHD Nissan sports cars).  For a RHD Z the ignition on the door side makes it a bit tight to reach in pocket compared to inboard on LHD's. Of course there is also the fact that most people are right handed so key on the right is convenient.  For uncommon old-school racing starts, and simply turning off the car and setting the hand brake key on right in a RHD is more ergonomic.  For LHD automatics, turning key off and opening the door, leaving it in park is more ergonomic.  As stated above, there are pros and cons to all iterations.

 

"The answer is revealed in the post crash-test photos from that sequence, which some of us have"

So what engine is in that test car?

Edited December 17, 2016 by 240260280

[240260280]

"Rhetorical question: Would proof that Nissan tested the S20 engine in LHD S30-series Z layout (a nascent 'PLS30'?) prove or disprove your "made for the USA" line of thinking?"

 

My understanding is that Nissan considered this engine to be too complex to maintain and to train mechanics outside of the domestic market. The larger displacement L24 had similar performance with less weight and less parts. It was the better engine for mass production.

[26th-Z]

I'm glad to see you jump in on this very old thread, Alan.  I saw the previously mentioned deleted thread and found the "proof by numbers" to be just the opposite.  Nissan (Datsun in USA) had very little success with their sports car in the North American market.  So little success that I am surprised a successor to the SR311 was even considered.  But that all has to be put in context within the Datsun brand as a whole and the Nissan philosophy of marketing cars in North America.  Datsun was not just selling sports cars.  The marketing literature of the time discussed the whole Datsun line in terms of market placement and growth.  If you isolate and compare sales figures through the 1960’s to the British imports (just compare the numbers to MG alone) you will find how poor the Datsuns were.  Although I think it is a valid statement to say that Nissan as a Japanese corporation was trying (had a growth plan) to market world-wide and considered the North American market a prime consideration, I know too much about the design proceedings of the Maru Z to ever proclaim any exclusivity to target market.  Recently, with the writings of Hitoshi Uemura available, my thoughts about the subject are even more cemented.  I would rather propose that the Datsun 240 Z made a tremendous contribution, if not a driving force, to the “Japanese invasion” of the American car market in the 1970’s.  I think that would be a far more accurate statement about the significance of the car in North America.  And, the irony of course, is that Nissan had no idea what was about to happen when they introduced their new sports car!

I really can’t embrace a LHD / RHD interior ergonomics conversation without commenting that the S30 interior was, in fact, dimensioned for a larger framed human being than that typically found in Japan at the time.  Export marketing would have demanded that.  I don’t think it really matters which side the steering wands are oriented or where the e-brake lever is located.  I think if you follow that logic, you have to explain why the foot pedals were not reversed!  Or the shift pattern.  Or the radio control knobs!  How about just considering the engineering miracle that the car DOES reverse?  Pretty spectacular in my mind.

The car in the roll-over picture is First Stage Prototype Car No. 3.  Five chassis test cars and eleven first stage prototype cars were produced during development.

“In addition, the distance between the steering wheel and the door trim on the test vehicle was 62mm, and it turned out that this distance did not meet Swedish regulations [of] 80mm or more.”; Eumura, Hitoshi, “Datsun 240Z Engineering Development”, 2017.  No, the U.S. automotive design regulations did not solely affect the design of the S30.  Certainly the regulations had an influence, but the S30 was not exclusively designed for the North American market.

The S20 engine was not exported, apparently, for technical reasons but rather economic.  Nissan had encouraging but not enormous success with their sports car in the export market.  They had little reason to believe that the S20 would be required over the cost of production concerns.  Keep in mind that a 4-cylinder engine was considered during the design process.  What was eventually shipped to North America was, in fact, a stripped down version of what was available in the home market.  It seems obvious that Nissan made cost considerations a high priority as well as it seems obvious that Nissan had no idea how popular the car was destined to become.