Pinned/hinged connections are not inherently weak. The constrain force in two directions (axial and shear) and allow a rotational moment in the direction of the hinge. Resolve each joint in the Cusco cage with a free body diagram and you'll find a pinned connection is appropriate to constrain the impact force through the structure, and allow thermal expansion/contraction in the allowed moment direction of the joint. Rigidity of the cage structure is provided by the bolted/welded flange connections of the base plates to the vehicles structure. These connections are constrain force in two directions and all moments.

If you doubt the strength of pinned connections, slow down next time you drive under a bridge and take a closer look at the joints and supports of the structural steel. You will find pins and rollers (rollers only resist shear) to be very abundant.

 

i was actually was looking to buy a 6pt Cusco cage, mostly for show

is there a Cusco cage that doesnt have a bar that goes right behind the seats?

 

I don't understand why you guys say roll cages are safe/safer... If anything, they're even more dangerous! A minor fender bender will send your head flying into a metal bar..

I would only use them with a helmet, seat, and harness. Other than that, it'll do more harm than good.

 

^agree

 

This is true for the full cage, not so much for a 4/5 point rollbar. The car comes from the factory with oem roll bars!

 

this topic has been beaten like a dead horse.

 

What's up s2kers! Dead horse here. I have a fetish for resurrecting threads. But, as for the last post choleaoum, the topic may have been beaten, but I don't think we really got anywhere!!! (Joker smile) The absolutely welds or nothing guys have presented no data that Cusco bars are more dangerous than stock. It would seem that in the instance of a roll over that the stock soft top bars could also be quite dangerous. What?!? Not that I have chosen to "BELIEVE" a side like most appear to have taken in this thread. Notice the thread starter asked a question then didn't say a damn thing after?!? I say, data or GTFO bitch. At least the bridge engineer had something to say. Yes I'm aware that it would most likely be civil engineering. Yes I'm aware that he or she may not be an engineer. My line of thinking is this: Is a Cusco 6 point cage, actually, factually data driven, more dangerous than stock? Does it require a helmet and/or harness to be safe? Simple question. Asshole answers (I'm sure) to proceed... BTW, Snobs are assholes. They are annoying. All of them, car snobs, wine snobs, beer snobs, hipsters, aka snobs of everything and on and on and on and on and on and on. Funny thing is even though I sound insanely angry, I'm more civil than most of the morons in this thread, that is, until I tire of the rude arrogance. Carry on.

 

Yes. The 6 & 7 point are less safe, the cage extending forward into the dash are a good place to knock your head.

The 4 & 5 point are fine for short people typically, as the bar is behind you, but the taller you are, the further your seat is back, you can flail around the Cusco bars are above and in front of the stock hoops...

​​​​​​

 

Thanks Deckoz! I really appreciate your civility, I was expecting a vitriolic response from a tall lanky s2000 geek with an internet muscle neck mentality, lol. BTW, I was in a bad mood at 8:05pm. You've restored my faith in humanity. Sorry to question, but is this fact or just your reasonable understanding? Does the driver flail around so much as to hit the door jams? The top of the door? The A Pillars? The soft top bars above and in front of the stock hoops? I wonder if a bar was made that was as close as possible to the soft top if it couldn't be on average safer than stock depending on driver height, weight, and maybe flexibility (My neck stretches when I bungee jump). How far do the stock seat belts allow the driver and passenger to move? I would think this data had already been tested and exists somewhere. Are there seat belt regulations on how far they can release before stopping??? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm thinking Honda and our supreme leaders, aka rulers, have this info. In summation, I just want to know, under oath, if your positions are opinion or fact.

 

​​​​​​I think the bigger question is, forgetting the fact this is a 6(7) point.


where does your head reside in relation to this bar(the 4/5point section)? Ie I have 6" between the back of my seat and the stock roll bar, I weigh 135lbs, I am far enough forward, head below the top of the seat, and light
​​​enough I wouldn't cause the seat to flex as much as a heavier individual. So could it work for me, but it's not a bar I am interested in due to cutting panels. Maybe it is best to think about where your head would be?

My preference is replacement. The point of a cage is to track it, which also means harnesses, increase roll bar height to meet the broom stick top down test. The Cusco roll bar tries to make keeping interior panels possible, but in order to do so you need to cut plastics, and hideously cut the center glove box for the harness bar which, again if you are tall you cannot slide back as far.

Just my opinion but if you want to retain interior, while adding slight increase in roll over protection height, not giving up seat space, and maintaining the same distance of the roll bar behind you, get a Mugen 5 point with cover, which gives a clean harness install too.




Otherwise if interior isn't a thing there is a gut and many roll bar options.

As far as if this is fact or opinion, go watch some youtube videos of flailing with 3 point belt systems , I Downhill longboard and 50mph, helmets are important. The force on the head during impact is substantial. I've seen people crash at high speed and be fine, vs falling at 5-10mph and having a TBI. We are talking about impacting a metal pole with the most important organ in your body. You can walk away from broken bones, can't walk off a TBI...

PS my whole post is supposed to be civil, some opinion, with emphasis on the last section because brains be important.