Toymods Car Club Inc: Tech & Conversions => Cusco Safety21 Cage

Toymods Car Club
www.toymods.org.au

F.A.Q.

Home

Members

Toymods » Tech & Conversions » Cusco Safety21 Cage - Opinions Show: Today's Posts :: Show Polls Email to friend

Author

Topic

takai
Forums Junkie

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:

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.

[Report message to a moderator]

[Message index]

-=] Back to Top [=-

Current Time: Fri Nov 15 15:52:33 UTC 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.0066540241241455 seconds

.:: Contact :: Home ::.