Harnesses without a roll bar or better are a death sentence. Get your head out of your *** and think about SAFETY.

 

care to expound? not like my head is going to hit the harness bar thats almost a foot away from the back of the seats

 

My physics is a bit rusty, but I figure dropping a RX from 20 feet would make it traveling ar about 27 mph when it hit the ground. Not very fast at all. Now do 60 mph on a winding road and remember that velocity squares on most kinematics equations (at least that I've seen)...

Look, if you don't care that the risks expressed exist and you want to do it anyway, fine. I think the problem here is that you seem to refuse these risks exist; that we're morons for considering being harnessed upright in a rollover condition without extra protection is a bad idea.

Google the blue mustang that had the roof collapse and punch its rollbar through the floor when it end'o'd on track (I'd do it for you but would be a pain on my phone.) Im sure it was going faster than you might ever be, but the risk exists.

 

I'm not claiming this is correct, but I did a simple google search and found 4-5 research papers on rollover accidents, which seem to suggest that the roof hits the ground at ~8 mph in something like 95% of street rollovers. Also, apparently its extremely rare for the roof to hit the ground more than once. Although they do mention that the 20ft drop test might be flawed because typically the side of the car hits the ground first, which dislodges the windshield and comprises the roof support.

I'm not sure I would point to the mustang video you are referring to as anything other than how not to build a cage. If your cage punches through the floor, its was flawed and has suddenly become more deadly to you

 

The issue is if the roof collapses. Doesn't matter how or why, it's just coming down and you gotta deal with it. A harness holds you upright in the seat while the stock 3-point belt allows your body to move with the collapsing roof. Same motion as if you were trying to unlock the passenger door. You can do it in a stock seatbelt, not so much in a harness.

So any time you are harnessed, you should have a roll-bar. But then there's the danger of putting another metal bar near your head. It can turn a relatively minor impact into a major head injury. Padding helps, but it's made to work with helmets.

You can wear a helmet all the time, but that gets old after the second day. The first day is pretty fun though.

I looked into all this recently and plan on getting some locks for the stock 3-point belt for planned spirited driving/track days.

 

Look into CGLOCK.
cheap way of using stock belts.

 

Keep in mind that in the event of a roll over, using a 4 or 5 point harness without a cage could result in serious injury or death. 3- point harnesses are used because it allows your body to collapse when the weak roof caves in. I would think twice. Just my opinion.

Edit: just read the comments. Pretty much says what I said. Oh well. Here it is again. Lol

 

that is one of the sickest fc interiors ive ever seen. very nice....me likey lol

 

The roll cage failed, yes, but it punched through the floor because the ROOF failed.

 

Which would be exactly what the roll cage is supposed to handle. Instead it punched through the floor and the driver now had the roof and the cage coming down on him which is "twice" as deadly as just the roof.

I assume you've seen the video of Jeremy Foley rolling off of Pikes Peak last year. His cage was complete crap as well (for different reasons, he was damn lucky it didn't fail more than it did), but at least it didn't punch through the floor.

 

For a safe and DOT legal 4 point harness to be used without a cage check out the Schroth Rallye line or Takata Drift series (made by Schroth I am sure).

They are worn looser on the shoulders so you can duck a roof and have ASM section to work as a 3 point harness to stop you sliding under the lap belt.

They come as OE equipment in some high end vehicles.

From the roll over pictures I have seen the FC seems to have a very rigid roof structure and I have never seen one with collapsed A pillar or B pillar. The strong B pillar is likely due to the US rear seat side impact standards the vehicle met.

The FD on the other hand doesn't look to handle wrecks as well and especially roll overs; FDs also did not meet US rear passenger side impact standards. Some of this might also be due to crumple zone engineering, but not the weak roll over protection.

 

I have the NRG harness bar you're looking at in grey mounted in my car. It doesn't however mount to the hatch shock points, it mounts to the upper and lower stock seatbelt mounting locations.

I'm using the DOT legal Schroths with anti-submarine tech with my stock seatbelts removed.

I'll post pics as soon as I can.

 

anyone watch the top gear saab tribute episode? they said the cars, structurally speaking, didnt need a roll cage to go rallying and thats why no one could figure out why they were so heavy.\

why do you think the FC is dimentionaly smaller then a s13 but yet 2-300lbs heavier stock to stock?

 

From what I have seen it is usually heavier cars that have a real problem with the pillars collapsing on roll overs, bmws, Mercedes, mustangs can all be seen in pictures with zero greenhouse left after a roll over.