PDA

View Full Version : Mustang roof flattened -- Roll hoop failure?



JohnUlaszek
10-27-2009, 07:50 PM
Would be interested in a root cause analysis of the failure; from Jalopnik

[/URL]
[URL]http://jalopnik.com/5390929/gallery/gallery/10 (http://jalopnik.com/5390934/mustang-cover-boy-tries-to-corner-flips-over-tire-wall)


https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

Damn True
10-27-2009, 07:55 PM
Autopower bolt in 4-pt w/o a diagonal and with a removable harness bar.

JohnUlaszek
10-27-2009, 07:57 PM
Autopower bolt in 4-pt w/o a diagonal and with a removable harness bar.

Source?

Damn True
10-27-2009, 08:00 PM
The website of the jackass that built the POS car?

Also in this fanboi-rific writeup on said POS car.


http://50mustangsuperfords.automotiv...-fx/index.html
http://www.mustang50magazine.com/fea...number_12.html

....and this is in another thread.

https://www.pro-touring.com/forum/showpost.php?p=592132&postcount=143

JohnUlaszek
10-27-2009, 08:03 PM
Just saw where you posted in the other thread.

So the hoop punched through the floor?

Damn True
10-27-2009, 08:08 PM
Yup.

Like a fist through a wet paper sack.

For comparison.

On the left, the Maximum Motorsports install. Same application, and on the right, the Autopower installed:

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/10/mm_vs_ap-1.jpg

The Stickman
10-27-2009, 08:16 PM
Yikes how small is that mounting plate? And only 2 bolts?

JohnUlaszek
10-27-2009, 08:17 PM
What's the source of the photo on the right?

In compression, the one on the left looks like it will spread the load over a much larger area and maybe even more than a 6x6 plate, but given the amount of effort, why not just weld in?

That dude is damn lucky to be alive.

Damn True
10-27-2009, 08:20 PM
What's the source of the photo on the right?

The one on the left looks like it will spread the load over a much larger area and maybe even more than a 6x6 plate, but given the amount of effort, why not just weld in?

Autopowers website. Nice huh?

JohnUlaszek
10-27-2009, 08:27 PM
The following, as quoted from Autopower's site

"Our roll bars and cages meet or exceed the safety requirements for most competition sanctioning organizations."

http://www.autopowerindustries.com/rollbars.asp

Very interested in which sanctioning organizations and what requirements they meet or exceed.

Damn True
10-27-2009, 08:31 PM
There is a big caveat to that. You have to read the CCR's for each car in each class to determine if a bolt in is allowed. For some cars it is. Autopower makes a spec miata cage that is legal. Would I run it? No freakin way. But it is legal.

I can tell you that in no NASA or SCCA road racing class, anywhere would they allow a main hoop without a diagonal (as that "roll-bar" was configured) nor would they allow a removable harness bar.

69stang
10-28-2009, 08:47 AM
From their site:

Most applications are a true bolt-in and require NO WELDING.
....and provide NO protection

John Wright
10-28-2009, 09:34 AM
So the hoop punched through the floor?Wow...you can see it sticking through the floor in this pic...good grief, that didn't do anything for the driver.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif



edit: whoops, I duplicated the pic from the other thread....sorry

6'9"Witha69
10-28-2009, 09:49 AM
Source?
You linked only the gallery, the full story is here
http://jalopnik.com/5390934/mustang-cover-boy-tries-to-corner-flips-over-tire-wall?skyline=true&s=i

I particularly love the comments toward the end, where everything goes all MP Holy Grail. Good laughs!

stealth71
10-30-2009, 04:48 AM
I would never run a bolt in cage. The whole tiger cage thing seems to be for show not actually saftey.

Damn True
10-30-2009, 08:04 AM
I would never run a bolt in cage. The whole tiger cage thing seems to be for show not actually saftey.

Too big of a generalization. It can be done, and done well and in all reality the Autopower Spec-Miata cage that I mentioned earlier is probably fine. There are certainly tons of them in use and I am unaware of one being a real problem in a wreck. They are tough for bigger drivers to get in/out of though. I still wouldn't run one in a car I owned or crewed for. Especially since a REAL cage isn't THAT much more expensive and can be built much better. This particular configuration though is a FAIL on multiple counts:


Bolt in attach points above ~20ga sheetmetal with no structure below
No diagonal on the main hoop
Removable harness bar

Really poor judgment on the part of the builder. I think Autopower sells that roll-bar as a drag race item.

All that said, it is just as easy to build a really bad weld in cage.

JohnUlaszek
10-31-2009, 06:05 AM
Too big of a generalization. It can be done, and done well

Agreed, the Tiger Cage product is in a completely different category.

Twentyover
10-31-2009, 07:00 AM
From their site:

....and provide NO protection


Hardly fair or reasonable assertion. I could say the same thing about any brake or suspension supplier. PROPER installation requires an understanding of function of the part. A good supplier will provide intructions that assume the installer in ignorant of how a part functions, or what is required for propoer function. Supplier cannot be liable for improper installation.

Don't know what the instruction set consts of for this bar, do not know the guy followed instruction.

In this case, the bar didn't fail, the mount did. Without a more detailed inspection o the failure, and understanding circumstance, I believe it's risky to start throwing blame around.

69stang
10-31-2009, 08:07 AM
Hardly fair or reasonable assertion. I could say the same thing about any brake or suspension supplier. PROPER installation requires an understanding of function of the part. A good supplier will provide intructions that assume the installer in ignorant of how a part functions, or what is required for propoer function. Supplier cannot be liable for improper installation.

Don't know what the instruction set consts of for this bar, do not know the guy followed instruction.

In this case, the bar didn't fail, the mount did. Without a more detailed inspection o the failure, and understanding circumstance, I believe it's risky to start throwing blame around.

Some people got no sense of humor. That said I still think its poor product design. The hoop mounting, whether the foot plate is too small or whatever, was insufficient. If they're not marketing it as a "show bar", and they're not, It should be designed robust enough for competition applications. I know that don't always happen. Things get changed to cut costs, make it an easier install, etc, by management. Been there done that. Granted, it appears to be more of a case of improper installation and use but the manufacturer still bears some responsibility according to claims on their site.

Damn True
10-31-2009, 09:48 AM
Agreed, the Tiger Cage product is in a completely different category.

Let's temper that enthusiasm. They've not said if it has passed any sort of tech with NASA, SCCA or NHRA. I've asked a number of times.

classiccardude69
10-31-2009, 10:04 AM
I just looked at this article in 5.0 magazine at walmart just last week. Just goes to show that not all magazine cars are as bad ass as they appear.... or their drivers for that matter. Really makes me want a bolt in cage! :naughty:

Twentyover
10-31-2009, 11:04 AM
Some people got no sense of humor. That said I still think its poor product design. The hoop mounting, whether the foot plate is too small or whatever, was insufficient. If they're not marketing it as a "show bar", and they're not, It should be designed robust enough for competition applications. I know that don't always happen. Things get changed to cut costs, make it an easier install, etc, by management. Been there done that. Granted, it appears to be more of a case of improper installation and use but the manufacturer still bears some responsibility according to claims on their site.


The weld in roll cage kit in the race car came without any weld in mounts. Was the manufacturer remiss? No, with the converstaion I had with the manufacturer, he had a reasonable expectation that I would size the feet to conform to SCCA GCR's. I'm making the assumption the GCR's have adequate foot size to prevent the bar piercing the foot and floor. This is an assumption I'm making, based on a fair number of overturned cars over the years. If I were to punch through my (solid) floor and the foot, is the manufacturer responsible? Am I? Is SCCA? Or would it be a fluke caused by circumstances of the accident?

I went to Autopower's web site and they had no installation instructions posted. The 4 points w/o diagonal (as identified by True in post 2) are identified as street bars. The race roll bars do have diagonals, but am unaware of mounting differences.

I guess my question is who let this through tech- was there a tech?

Does the bar meet the minimum foot requirements? (from SCCA GCR- Appendix H for post 2004



18.4.4. Mounting Plates:

The thickness of mounting plates bolted to the structure of the car shall not be less than the thickness of the roll hoop or brace that they attach and shall be backed-up with a plate of equal dimensions on the opposite side of the panel, with the plates through-bolted together. A minimum of three (3) bolts per mounting plate is required for bolted mounting plates. hardware (bolts) shall be Grade 5 or better with 5/16” diameter minimum.) SCCA no longer permits 4 point roll hoops in newly logbooked cars.)

Would the outcome of the collision with the wall have been different without a hoop? (agreed- a lame argument)

Ultimately, a hoop manufacturer cannot be held responsible to determine individual fitness for use- that responsibility falls on the driver first (is this thing safe? If the unthinkable happens, what is my probbaility of survival?) and secondarily tech.

A long time ago I let the pump jockey at the track fill the little green race car. He neglected to secure the cap on the cell, and I lost it (the cap) somewhere near the exit of T2 at Buttonwillow. I came in at the end of the lap and went to the paddock. I was carping about the fuel guy, and an old racer really changed my outlook on stuff like this. Told me I was responsible to make sure the car was safe for me and other drivers out there. If I wasn't willing to take responsibility for the condition of my car, he didn't want me out there. Thought about it and eventually agreed with him.

Damn True
10-31-2009, 11:41 AM
Hardly fair or reasonable assertion. I could say the same thing about any brake or suspension supplier. PROPER installation requires an understanding of function of the part. A good supplier will provide intructions that assume the installer in ignorant of how a part functions, or what is required for propoer function. Supplier cannot be liable for improper installation.

Don't know what the instruction set consts of for this bar, do not know the guy followed instruction.

In this case, the bar didn't fail, the mount did. Without a more detailed inspection o the failure, and understanding circumstance, I believe it's risky to start throwing blame around.

The idiot builder failed by installing a decorative "roll-bar" into his "race car". With no diagonal and postage stamp sized bolt on pads mounted (according to instructions, I posted the photo from Autopowers website) atop 20ga....that thing was destined to fail. The wreck occured at an HPDE with a passenger on board. Tech-minimal.

The "hoop" is nigh on useless. Autopower really ought not sell the thing. The builder though bears 100% of the liability for installing (correctly) a POS, useless coat rack and passing it off as a "cage". Luckilly it was the owners son who was driving and not an actual client.

paul67
10-31-2009, 12:32 PM
but as previous post how did it get past tech is it not supposed to be sticked to show it meets santioned race body requirement ?

Twentyover
10-31-2009, 05:47 PM
Another perspective- this time from the evil CC.....

http://corner-carvers.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14049

GrabberGT
11-01-2009, 07:54 AM
Anyone notice that they are using one of these cages on the Horsepower TV build of the Mustang Track car? Its the bolt in cage. Having read thru these forums for the last week and then seeing this show, I must say that the cage looks like its just an accident waiting to happen. I know nothing about roll bars and would love to get your take on the install of this structure.

Twentyover
11-01-2009, 08:52 AM
From my perspective, the best way to start getting educated on cages and hoops is to read SCCA Sporting Regulations Section 9.4 and appendices G and H. This gives minimum requirements for what should result in a safe cage (assuming a helmeted driver in a 5 point (or 6 point) harness). There is alot of discussion on what constitues a safe cage (or even if there is such a thing as a safe cage and restraint system) for an unhelmeted driver in a street car on another, less novice friendly website (I've been there for almost a year, and only posted twice.....)

Everyone is responsible to asses probability of accident and risk they are willing to accept (and in a perfectly moral world, permit passengers to make similiar decisions based on informed consent) with the presence or absence of exposed protective structures.

What I can say with certainty is that bolt in roll hoops have been used successfully for years. What I cannot say with certainty is that the hoop in question was well designed, installed correctly, or fit for use as a roll hoop.

Post 6 shows a MM bolt in hoop mount vs the Autopower hoop mount. It should be obvious that the MM captures a significantly greater structure for a bolt in hoop.

That doesn't mean I'm claiming the Autopower was inadequate, just that the MM is a more robust mount. I'm not in a position to judge the efficacy of the Autopower mount, as I am not familiar with the details of the design, or any specific installation; and I won't make proclaimations without what I consider to be adequate knowledge.

Answer your question? Not directly. If I were to install a bar (of any manufacture) I would look at the mounting area of the foot and the pan or profile to which the hoop was mounting, and reinforce or not based on best past practice (SCCA) or observed practice in other similiar installation from builders you respect. Make a decision based on understanding, not ignorance

NOT A TA
11-01-2009, 10:09 AM
I'm no structural engineer or safety expert but I've looked at all the pics and without any other real information think that there is a strong possibility that the driver and passenger may have escaped serious injury and may even owe their lives to the roll BAR.

The amount of energy absorbed by the twisting of the sheetmetal where the rear support bars attach as well the amount of energy required to punch the main hoop bars through the floor may have reduced the initial impact enough to prevent serious head injury or death. This would be similar to the way cars are designed with crumple zones.

Welding the feet to the floor in this installation would probably had little difference in the outcome since the force of impact would have been the same on the same contact patch of the floor plates. Larger floor plates on the main hoop to spread the impact to a larger area might have caused the rear bar supports to rip out first in turn allowing the main hoop to fold over over striking the passengers in the back of the head.

The reclining seats broke as they are supposed to, also absorbing some of the energy and preventing the occupants from being crushed.

The BAR itself did not fail, it simply punched straight through the floor. A diagnal brace would not have made any difference in this crash since it does not appear that the main hoop was compromised.

If the car was in a HPDE group, no rollover protection at all may have been required and therefore inspectors wouldn't even look at it. Having the bar that was in place was probably better than no bar at all? I go to HPDEs all the time and very few cars even have a roll BAR nevermind a cage. Many of those cars are capable of on track speeds around 150 MPH.

The driver and passenger walked away with very minor injuries considering the amount of energy a 3000 lb object traveling at speed has when combined with a verticle drop. (think of the impact if you drop a hundred lbs from waist height and multiply that by a lot!) They may in fact be lucky they didn't have a different combination of seat/harness/BAR or they might not have even survived, nevermind walk away with only minor injuries. Not everyone is going to install a full welded cage, racing seats, and 5-6 point harnesses just to go to an occasional track day. If the occupants of a stock street driven vehicle walked away with the same injuries from a similar crash the engineers in the safety department of that manufacturer would probably throw a party!

Although the car is heavily damaged, one fact remains, they walked away with only minor injuries.

NOT A TA
11-01-2009, 10:34 AM
I am familiar with the Autopower bolt in 4 point bars with removable harness bar. I installed one in my Porsche (it was a gift I debated on whether or not to use).

When I installed it I considered whether to modify the mounting pads to increase the surface area that would absorb the force of an impact as well as considering different hardware. The bar in my car bolts to the areas of the "tub" where you are supposed to jack the car. Enlarging the plate size would have moved the edges of the floor plate out into areas of weaker sheetmetal in the rear footwells. I decided that the engineers at Autopower probably figure this stuff out and hopefully they know what they are doing, so I left the floor plates stock and used the hardware provided by the company.

After installing the bar I carefully trimmed the carpet so the floor plates cannot be seen. I don't track the car however it would pass the HPDE requirement for a rollbar (only convertibles) at the NASA events I usually attend. Hopefully like any safety equipment I never have the need for it..

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/11/86PorscheWidebodyConv108-1.jpg

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/11/PorscheboltinRollBar001-1.jpg

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/11/PorscheboltinRollBar008-1.jpg

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/11/86PorscheWidebodyConv123-1.jpg

Damn True
11-01-2009, 11:23 AM
but as previous post how did it get past tech is it not supposed to be sticked to show it meets santioned race body requirement ?

It's an HPDE not a race. And it's a street car that is all dolled up to look like a race car.

JohnUlaszek
11-01-2009, 01:56 PM
Anyone have a photo of the hoop to vehicle interface on a bolt-in cage certified by a sanctioning body?

Granted the Tiger Cage is not certified, but the interfaces on it looks to offer substantially more surface area, and appear to tie in at structural areas.

Damn True
11-01-2009, 09:46 PM
I am familiar with the Autopower bolt in 4 point bars with removable harness bar. I installed one in my Porsche (it was a gift I debated on whether or not to use).

When I installed it I considered whether to modify the mounting pads to increase the surface area that would absorb the force of an impact as well as considering different hardware. The bar in my car bolts to the areas of the "tub" where you are supposed to jack the car. Enlarging the plate size would have moved the edges of the floor plate out into areas of weaker sheetmetal in the rear footwells. I decided that the engineers at Autopower probably figure this stuff out and hopefully they know what they are doing, so I left the floor plates stock and used the hardware provided by the company.

After installing the bar I carefully trimmed the carpet so the floor plates cannot be seen. I don't track the car however it would pass the HPDE requirement for a rollbar (only convertibles) at the NASA events I usually attend. Hopefully like any safety equipment I never have the need for it..








Regarding the hoop in your Porsche. Please compare that against a real cage in a real race car (look for triangles) or even a number of legal bolt in rollover protection systems and please continue to NOT track that car.

Now back to the blue crap-stang.

Autopower sold that POS bar in the mustang and built it with those postage stamp pads with the intent that those pads be placed on paper thin sheet metal with no real structure beneath. The bar has no diagonal. Thus no triangulation. Thus it is useless in a rollover. The point of a cage is to maintain a zone of safety for the driver. That cage did not provide that. It failed at the point of interface to the car. No way to tell if the hoop failed or not. But that is not really relevant in light of the fact that the hoop is no longer attached to the car. An important requirement.

Ultimately the fault is not on Autopower though. They don't explicitly say that bar is for track use...they don't say that it isn't either which in my opinion is a dirtbag move. The fault lays in the hands of the idiots that built the car.

"Look Better, Go Faster".........right into a body bag.

They put a ton of effort into a 600hp engine and a *****-ton of stickers then spec'd lawn chairs for seats and a coat rack for a cage. Reclining seats and that bar have no place on a track at all. Ever.

The fact that their lives were saved by the fact that the lawn chairs collapsed is not a plus. Don't confuse a fools luck with something "working".

There's no indication in the 5.0 article that they've sold any of those death traps. That's good. Because now that this off has exposed their crapwagon for what it is, a dyno queen with a sticker kit, it is my sincere hope that they not sell a single copy. I hope anyone even considering buying one of these cars from these morons changes their minds and looks toward people that know what they are doing like Maximum Motorsports, Griggs or Agent-47.

Damn True
11-01-2009, 09:50 PM
Another perspective- this time from the evil CC.....

http://corner-carvers.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14049


You'd be better served by reading this thread:

http://www.corner-carvers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20586&page=4

Begin at post 139 for analysis of this failure by people with the credibility to offer it by virtue of actually building and driving real race cars on real tracks.

Now what I find possibly more terrifying about this debacle than the bar and lawn chairs is the comment from the driver that "The throttle hung at WOT" Now that could be "post wreck driver excuse #27" or it could be an indication of something far worse. You see, that car has a fly by wire throttle. Those things are at least triple redundant. The only realistic means of it failing to WOT is if the code had been mucked with during the tune for the blower and nitrous. I don't understand fully how all that mess works well enough to even paraphrase it but those who do have opined on it in the thread on cc.com.

What's wrong with CC.com?

79-TA
11-02-2009, 12:09 AM
This has already been said, but that junk roll cage probably saved the driver's and passenger's lives despite punching through the floor. Bad can always be worse.

Damn True
11-02-2009, 12:21 AM
Again, don't confuse a fools luck for something working. They survived DESPITE the bar and seats, not because of them.


Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that without full SCCA, NASA, FIA legal stuff that one has no business at all on a track. What I am saying though is that people need to look VERY carefully at the gear they plan to use in that environment. Especially if it's being spec'd by someone not versed in building cars for use under those conditions. The people that built that mustang were the equivalent of west coast customs. They can "pimp a ride" but they clearly cannot build a race car.

A shop that DOES build race cars is far better equiped from the standpoint of knowledge and experience to evaluate the various compromises required in building a street car tha sees track duty.

JohnUlaszek
11-02-2009, 06:11 AM
This has already been said, but that junk roll cage probably saved the driver's and passenger's lives despite punching through the floor. Bad can always be worse.

Is there any evidence of this?

Given the roof was flattened I see nothing in the photos to support this conclusion.

FULMNTE
11-02-2009, 06:58 AM
The following, as quoted from Autopower's site

"Our roll bars and cages meet or exceed the safety requirements for most competition sanctioning organizations."

http://www.autopowerindustries.com/rollbars.asp

Very interested in which sanctioning organizations and what requirements they meet or exceed.

I would be suspicious of anyone who can't spell CAMARO correctly on their application list...:hammer:

NOT A TA
11-02-2009, 07:06 AM
Regarding the hoop in your Porsche. Please compare that against a real cage in a real race car (look for triangles) or even a number of legal bolt in rollover protection systems and please continue to NOT track that car.

True, It's obvious you have very strong opinions. Forums like this are a great place to express those opinions. I agree with you that the car that crashed should have had a real roll cage in it and probably other safety equipment as well if it's intended use is primarily track duties.

Please stop comparing an entry level roll bar with a removable harness bar to a cage and stop calling the bar in the car that crashed a cage or you're going to confuse the uninformed.

There's no reason to compare the bar in my Porsche to a full roll cage but for the sake of education for those who may be reading here's some pics of the cage in one of my other cars.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/11/The14Carinterior3551-1.jpg

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/11/The14Carinterior486-1.jpg

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/06/The14Carinterior453-1.jpg

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/06/The14Carinterior432-1.jpg

Damn True
11-02-2009, 08:39 AM
True, It's obvious you have very strong opinions. Forums like this are a great place to express those opinions. I agree with you that the car that crashed should have had a real roll cage in it and probably other safety equipment as well if it's intended use is primarily track duties.

Please stop comparing an entry level roll bar with a removable harness bar to a cage and stop calling the bar in the car that crashed a cage or you're going to confuse the uninformed.

There's no reason to compare the bar in my Porsche to a full roll cage but for the sake of education for those who may be reading here's some pics of the cage in one of my other cars.



I am well aware of your Poncho. It's a great build with very well thought out safety systems.

The point of my post regarding your Porsche and the mixed use of bar/cage was to illustrate the obfuscation (intentional or otherwise) in the use of those terms in the marketplace. That kind of thing exists all over this market in all manner of applications. In our world; DSE sells a 4pt bar not unlike yours (weld in however, a plus) that lacks a diagonal, features a removable harness bar and they call it a "cage". It isn't. I don't think they intend to mislead anyone, but they are misleading people into thinking that they are getting something that they aren't. It's certainly better than nothing, and a whole lot better than the Autopower unit in that Mustang, but I wouldn't let my wife take a track ride in a car so equipped.

I agree with you one the need to educate people on what the differences are. We have the same goal in that regard. I should have been more clear in the intent of my post.

Twentyover
11-02-2009, 11:28 AM
You'd be better served by reading this thread:

http://www.corner-carvers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20586&page=4

Begin at post 139 for analysis of this failure by people with the credibility to offer it by virtue of actually building and driving real race cars on real tracks.

..................

What's wrong with CC.com?

I did. Over the couse of the last several days I believe I've read 4 or 5 threads on this and other cage threads. The link I posted was attached to one of the threads I read there.

While I only raced in a vintage car for three years w/ VARA and HSR-West while I lived in SoCal, I guess that a vintage E/P car there doesn't constitute a real race car to you (sorry for picture size- i've never figured out how to resize). That car has a 1.5 x .095 DOM 6 point roll STRUCTURE (God knows I don't want to confuse or obfuscate) on weld in pads approximately 50-75 sq" each. And it's true I only drove the car on the infield road couse at PIR, the big track and The Streets at Willow Springs, the club track and the infield road course at Las Vegas, and Buttonwillow. Not like these were anything like REAL tracks like you drive on.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

Vintage rules when I bult the car (and I agree that HSR-West is lax on enformenet) does not permit cagework that adds substantially to the torsional rigidity of the car. I even had to talk fast get acceptance of the rear supports welded to the rear chassis legs rather than the reinforced sheet metal battery cover. Fortunately there were a couple tech guys there who get that I was using those points because they were a stronger base for the support leg.

But what do I know, I'm just a poseur in a wanna-be bangers and mash car (I guessing that would be the English equivalent of a ricer)

(((Just a note- Lon in the black Elva following, his head is above his roll bar. Wonder what would happen to him in the event of an overturn? Probable spinal fracture, I'm guessing death or paralysis. Poor rules enforcement- the car was teched w/o the driver. Noetheless, a choice HE is making.)))

What's wrong with CC? The same thing that's wrong with your response to my post. I'm still looking where I said the Autopower was fit for use. What I did say, if one cared to read it, was there was another perspective on an Autopower bar. The guys over there are willing to write the law in stone tablets on Mt. Sanai, and share it amongst themselves, but god help you if you don't agree with them. They have no problem chewing someone a new hole if they don't conform to their norm. That said, I do read their forum, and am a member. I just choose to rarely submit an opinion, not because I'm afraid of being banned, or flamed, but because I believe their a bunch of close minded sob's. They do, however, remain a reference i read. There is some good amongst the arrogannce.

I'll stick by my position. It is the DRIVERS responsibility to assure that components used in the car are fit for use. it's his life, it's his responsibility. I don't use some cheezy bar in the car I race(d) because I want to go home that night. If some moron chooses to do something else, i kind of believe it's their right. I do not espouse a nanny state, or even a nanny sanctioning body. If HPDE's are willing for a higher risk of injury by permitting car without minimal roll or seating structures, they and the drivers bear that responsibility. If they require a roll structure then they need to make sure it meets their minimum standards

Damn True
11-02-2009, 11:41 AM
Vintage rules when I bult the car (and I agree that HSR-West is lax on enformenet) does not permit cagework that adds substantially to the torsional rigidity of the car. I even had to talk fast get acceptance of the rear supports welded to the rear chassis legs rather than the reinforced sheet metal battery cover. Fortunately there were a couple tech guys there who get that I was using those points because thy were a stronger base for the support leg.


I'll stick by my position. It is the DRIVERS responsibility to assure that components used in the car are fit for use. it's his life, it's his responsibility. I don't use some cheezy bar in the car I race(d) because I want to go home that night. If some moron chooses to do something else, i kind of believe it's their right. I do not espouse a nanny state, or even a nanny sanctioning body. If HPDE's are willing for a higher risk of injury by permitting car without min9mal roll structures, they and the drivers bear that responsibility. If they require a roll structure then they need to make sure it meets their minimum standards

I'd say that HSR is "selective" in their enforcement. I share your opinion in that they sometimes tend to enforce toward "originality" rather than safety. Their priorities there are sometimes skewed. SCCA/NASA does the same thing with CMC/AS cars. They limit the total number of landing points and "ties". Their intent is to keep costs down and keep people from building a tube chassis car wrapped in an OE tub. But in practice it actually keeps people from building a safer cage. Doesn't make sense to me to prevent someone from putting something safer in the car. They do the something similar with with Spec Miata. You have to run the OE tank and cannot run a fuel cell. A cell would provide 0% performance advantage. In fact you could argue that it might be a detriment since it's location would put the MOI of the fuel further aft than the OE tank. But they don't allow it because they want to control costs in SM. But refuse to make that safety item an option. Huh?

I agree that ultimately it IS the driver's responsibility. Thankfully, the driver in this case was also the car builder and not a client misled by marketing and a spiffy magazine article.

nicks67camaro
11-02-2009, 12:31 PM
They were also mentioned here.

http://www.powerblocktv.com/site3/index.php/horsepower-episodes

Check out the installation. The "Cage" has more holes in it then attachment points!.