Originally Posted by
frink84
Frankly, it doesn't make more sense now. I'm more confused. People are asking so many questions because it very much goes against the grain. I for one, have discussed this cage build with a few race car buddies to make sure I'm not crazy, as I'm certainly no expert. They all agree there is a lot wrong going on there. This isn't an attack on you by any means, it is making sure you have the right assumptions and expectations. Sure, they look at it from more of a racer's perspective, but the feedback is valid. A few key takeaways. Again, none of this is an attack, just feedback:
"Normally what we've done in the past on cars and truck where the frame doesn't reach the outside of the body is, we build outriggers, usually 2x3 or 2x4 box steel at a 45 or more angle, gusset the **** out of the contact point of the frame"
"The more contact points the cage has with the frame or integral points of the chassis, the less gusseting it needs."
"I'm used to seeing 8 or more contact points to the frame, not 4"
"The connectors on the side of the frame, they are at an extreme angle and will shear off the frame in a second when it rolls."
"I hate those quick disconnects because if that chassis twists, even in the slightest, you will never get them back together."
You admit that the cage is too thin to pass any tech, that it will shear off in a collision, that it is routed to stay away from an un-helmeted driver/passenger. Then at the same time, you claim the cage is there to protect you in case of collision.
I believe its much more likely you'll smack your head/body on the cage in any significant street collision (you move a LOT more than you think when not in a 5/6-point harness. There is a high chance that the cab will shear off the beak points, which introduces a greater risk of one of those now pointy ends causing more harm than if they had not been there in the first place.