BeltedGirls.com

I to am following this thread. I agree that a front shield with out a lock looks great,Big area of shiny steel WONDERFUL.
However I worry what are the increased risks of spine damage for a wearer with a lock in the middle of her waist band.
A belt with a front lock. the wearer bends forwards and the shield/ waistband/ lock block tell the wearer when they have bent as far as comfortable.
A rear lock belt by design has a flat curve around the rear of the waistband following the body shape with a PROJECTION which is the mounting stud for the lock then the lock assembly itself. This is all neat and tidy till the following happens.
A slip where the wearer's feet[heels] slide forwards tipping the upper body backwards
EXAMPLES
Walking dow n a wet grass slope
Walking quickly and slipping on wet tiles/ or other man made surface
Winter, frosty morning ice or hard packed snow
All the above could cause a wearer to loose their balance
We have all at some time in our lives seen or FELT the result of falling backwards! when various parts of the body hit mother earth. If we were lucky our hands/Arms. elbows and backside have taken the damage !
On odd occasions people fall FLAT on their backs and if they had their hands full. The impact at Waistband level will be Concentrated by the fact that the lock will reach the ground first and PUSH against the middle of the belt right on top of the spine!
By comparrison falling forwards the body is better equipt to handle forward falls..................
I know this is a WHAT IF scenario, but bruised hands and wrists beats a damaged SPINE dare i say it : HANDS Down
Comments welcome

fitherin wrote:following the body shape with a PROJECTION which is the mounting stud for the lock then the lock assembly itself.

Off the top of my head, I came up with three methods for attaching a stud to a belt where there would be no internal protrusions to irritate or cause danger to the wearer of the belt.

1. The stud is drilled and tapped to match a flat-head screw with a 100° bevel. The belt, and possibly the bottom of the stud, would need to have the same 100° bevel. This is called countersinking. This would allow the stud to be installed and removed as desired.
2. The second method requires the stud to be inserted into a same-size hole in the belt, which is then welded on the inside. The weld is then ground flat, leaving the belt and stud as one rigid component.
3. The third method is to machine the stud so it has a flange, and that flange is then welded to the outside surface of the belt. A stud welder could be used.

The two alignment pins on my belt were attached by method "B". The block the abus padlock hasp goes through was welded to the surface of the belt from underneath, through an undersized slot that was machined into the belt first. The worker at the shop that made it for us closed that slot by TIG welding (I think) across the slot into the bottom of the block.

If there is ever to be a new belt in my future, which I imagine there will be, I would love for the lock to be on the back and to do that seems fairly easy. The only difference would be where the welding and machine work is done.

molly wrote: If there is ever to be a new belt in my future, which I imagine there will be, I would love for the lock to be on the back and to do that seems fairly easy. The only difference would be where the welding and machine work is done.

Lock at the back is IMO much the best way. Looks much neater plus it's far harder to the wearer to unlock even with the key. And if combined with the Medeco system................