| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
May 2003
|
|
Cusco Safety21 Cage - Opinions
|
Tue, 14 September 2004 10:37
|
 |
I have reposted this quote from my own post in another thread because i have seen this debate come up three or four times while i have been interested in the AE86 here on Toymods.
This is my own conclusions from seeing 6 Safety21 cages, owning a CAMS manual, and speaking to some people far more experienced than i in cage building.
Admins: if this is seen as provocative then feel free to close it. I hope it wont turn into a fight, but merely a presentation of the facts.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
From Cusco Site
*40mm chrome molybdenum pipes used 33% percent lighter that a similar steel roll bar.
*Lightweight joints used Increased safety with competition roll bar layout.
*Mounted such to increase body rigidity.
Our bar layout is designed from extensive experience. Bar structures based on feedback from the track that looks good as it's effective. Designed from our extensive experience, the rigidity seen in the interior extensive piping is a feedback from our racing experience.
|
I have something to add regarding this.
The supposed safety21 cage is more like a "safe"ty 21 cage. It is nothing more than a cosmetic cage which will do nothing in the case of a roll over accident, which is what a cage is designed to protect the driver from. The 40mm Chromoly pipe is thinner than even the mild steel (read: stronger, less brittle, more impact absorbing) which CAMS require on their cages. The minimum thickness for a CAMS compliant cage is 44.45mm, and 2.5mm pipe wall (Schedule J, Section 4). The 40mm thickness is way under this. In addition im 99% sure that the June update stated that Chromoly cages must be at least 1.5 to 2 times the physical thickness/size as their mild steel equivalents in order to compensate for the lack of strength.
Secondly, the safety21 cage design only complies to 3 of the 22 CAMS ROPS specifications, and as such does not comply as a CAMS cage. Not only that, but the welds on a Safety21 cage are flimsy at best and the last one i saw had cracking in the rear stay and main hoop welds a mere 2 months after it was installed. In addition, the cage is a bolt in cage, with no reinforcement to the floor. In the case of a rollover accident, it is highly likely that the cage will tear through the sheet metal which makes up the floor of an AE86. All of the safety21 cages that i have inspected (around 5-6) have not even been mounted to the chassis rails, and rather straight to the sheet metal floor. This is a design flaw, not an install flaw, because the design is such that it can never be bolted to the chassis rails as this woudl impede the driver/navigator. However, it is possible on the main hoop and the rear hoop if not the front hoop. In the case of a rollover the cage is actually more likely to cause serious injury to the driver/passenger than protect from anything.
Thirdly, with the mounting design there is no lateral support except in the roof, therefore the lateral mounts (floor) are more likely to shear the bolts under a side impact rather than add anything to the structural rigidity of the car. In addition i would question their stability in heavy cornering, as there are no horizontal stays or supports lower than the roof. As far as structural rigidity the A-spec bar would be quite superior to the Cusco cage.
In addition the design with the pipework moulded around the front of the dash is merely adding stress points which the already brittle Chromoly does not need adding to. The hoop legs should be as straight as possible without major stress points, otherwise stress fractures are likely to develop.
Also the complete lack of diagonal crossbracing does not lead me to conclude that there is any significant torsional (N-S) rigidity in this cage at all. In addition this immediately disqualifies it from being a CAMS certified cage.
I hope this short expose gives you a small insight into why i absolutely do not trust the "safe"ty 21 cage, and certainly would not make my life depend on it. Sure if you want a cosmetic cage, which looks nice, and may add some minor rigidity go ahead and spend your $800 on it. But i wouldnt poke it with a barge pole.
I have nothing against Cusco, and infact i quite admire some of their products, and use them on my car. But having blind faith in a product because its blue (or any other manufacturer's colour) and comes with a shiny sticker (and lets face it, the metal stickers are nice and shiny) is foolish in my eyes. A product should stand on its own merits, not be supported by a shiny brandname.
|
|
|
|
Location:
Perth, WA
Registered:
February 2003
|
|
Re: Cusco Safety21 Cage - Opinions
|
Fri, 17 September 2004 09:11
|
|
Hey I'm gonna stick this back near the top of the list, cause I'm interested in someone replying to this
(Even though I'm not installing a CAMS cage in my own car.)
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: Cusco Safety21 Cage - Opinions
|
Fri, 17 September 2004 10:10
|
|
|
I think I replied in that thread - may as well have PVC pipe and zip ties! If anything it's just another item that you can hit your head on in an accident.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Cusco Safety21 Cage - Opinions
|
Fri, 17 September 2004 22:28
|
|
i think the above comments on the cosmetic cage has pretty much covered everything i have been saying - buy at your peril!!!!
T
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Cusco Safety21 Cage - Opinions
|
Sat, 18 September 2004 16:52
|
|
i agree. is more exxy due to the chromium content more than anything, but also the molybdenum and the lower volumes etc.
chromoly is higher in strength than mild steel by a fair margin.. what do you think they make sports sedan frames, sprint car frames, and light aircraft engine mounting structures from?
It is the diameter and thickness of a tube that will increase strength of a cage. the wall thickness of chromoly will not need to be as that of mild steel for it to be as strong, BUT, decreasing tube diameter also decreases the bending strength (for want of a better term) and stiffness/rigidity of the structure.
that said... the design of a cage is everything. a different material for the cage only requires changes to pipe wall thickness (and maybe pipe diameter).
BUT...
http://www.cusco.co.jp/english/e_rollbar.html
the safety21 cage is made from | Quote: |
SAFETY 21 roll bars and roll cages are made in steel using cold drawn seamless carbon steel.
|
the other cages are moly....
hmmmm
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
sydney.au
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: Cusco Safety21 Cage - Opinions
|
Sun, 19 September 2004 06:30
|
|
from what i hear they work well.
ive seen the videos from cusco, and they hold up
probably not CAMS compliant, but what is these days....
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Cusco Safety21 Cage - Opinions
|
Sun, 19 September 2004 10:14
|
|
| ae86drift wrote on Sun, 19 September 2004 14:30 |
probably not CAMS compliant, but what is these days....
|
something better?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
sydney.au
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: Cusco Safety21 Cage - Opinions
|
Sun, 19 September 2004 10:15
|
|
| justcallmefrank wrote on Sun, 19 September 2004 20:14 |
| ae86drift wrote on Sun, 19 September 2004 14:30 |
probably not CAMS compliant, but what is these days....
|
something better?
|
ahh, maybe. but more likely? something more expensive
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Cusco Safety21 Cage - Opinions
|
Sun, 19 September 2004 10:16
|
|
|
How much is your life worth? Surely it can't be that much more expensive, there are so many cars with CAMS compliant rollcages, that the price difference is just not worth it.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
sydney.au
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: Cusco Safety21 Cage - Opinions
|
Sun, 19 September 2004 11:20
|
|
but the safety 21 cage has survived many flips/crashes in manymany option/drifttengoku videos ive seen and also on the cusco vid!
it seem to work fine as far as i have seen.
but please prove me wrong! 
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Cusco Safety21 Cage - Opinions
|
Sun, 19 September 2004 11:46
|
|
I've seen people walk away from flips/crashes with no rollcage at all... but that's kind of missing the point isn't it?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
sydney.au
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: Cusco Safety21 Cage - Opinions
|
Sun, 19 September 2004 12:16
|
|
|
i think we are trying to prove the effictiveness (if any) of the 'safe'ty 21 cage in a roll over impact
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Cusco Safety21 Cage - Opinions
|
Sun, 19 September 2004 13:08
|
|
|
bags not being the test bunny, or vehicle donor....
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
sydney.au
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: Cusco Safety21 Cage - Opinions
|
Sun, 19 September 2004 13:46
|
|
| oldcorollas wrote on Sun, 19 September 2004 23:08 |
bags not being the test bunny, or vehicle donor....
|
seconded haha 
|
|
|
Location:
Eskilstuna, Sweden
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Cusco Safety21 Cage - Opinions
|
Mon, 20 September 2004 07:20
|
|
I think if your going to go to the trouble of getting a roll cage or half cage etc then you might as well get a cams compliant one.
They are not that hard to get done and there are plenty of options as far as design goes in Schedule J.
|
|
|
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: Cusco Safety21 Cage - Opinions
|
Tue, 21 September 2004 02:04
|
|
The best thing you can use a Safe'ty 21 cage for is as a template to make a CAMS compliant cage.
If you have a $5 head, buy a $5 helmet, or so the saying goes...
|
|
|
