Limb restraint and lateral head bar fun.

[Jonny Hotnuts]

It has been very difficult getting in and out of my car due to the lateral head bar. I have it pinned and is removable but to release the driver needs to reach behind the helmet to unlatch.


I was mapping out a 'swing gate' that would open separately from the door and have the lateral head bar attached.....but....

Why couldnt I make the 'swing gate' attached TO the door so the door and gate would open with one action? My door already uses 2-5/8" pins that secure the door shut to the roll cage.

Basically I am talking about this attached to the inside of the door, that would also serve to open the door. The OEM hinges would act as the pivots but have heavy cables that secured the frame/expanded metal to the cage (and made in such a way if the door came off in the event of a crash the shown provisions would remain in the car.




This setup would allow MUCH easier driver egress, (in AND out), eliminate multiple motions to open the door and provide auto retracting lateral head restraints.


Will this pass tech?

~JH

[Captthundarr]

Jonny, I may be wrong but I think the lateral restraint and "net" must be inside the roll cage parimeter. attaching to the door would mean that in the event of a mishap where the door could be RIPPED from the car you would have no protection. Seems to me anyway.

[Jonny Hotnuts]

I considered the same thing Mr. Thunder. The cables in the front and the large sliding locking bolts (*I could even use a positive lock) would be made to retain the assembly even if the vehicle lost the door.

I did not read anything that stated the 'net' had to be on the inside of the cage, only that it had to prevent limbs from exiting the vehicle in the event of a roll. I could have any level of stand offs to assure this proposed structure was within the plane of the cage.


~JH

[Captthundarr]

Interesting idea. Curious to se what the powers that be have to say / offer in the way of acceptable changes.

[Milwaukee Midget]

I considered the same thing Mr. Thunder. The cables in the front and the large sliding locking bolts (*I could even use a positive lock) would be made to retain the assembly even if the vehicle lost the door.

I did not read anything that stated the 'net' had to be on the inside of the cage, only that it had to prevent limbs from exiting the vehicle in the event of a roll. I could have any level of stand offs to assure this proposed structure was within the plane of the cage.


~JH

Rule 3.D.3

I COMPLETELY understand your dilemma regarding small production based egress issues.  Have you thought about an "L" shaped restraint with two collars that would slide up on a vertical bar attached to the cage?  You could spring load it and use a pin with a tether to hold it in place.  Pull the tether and it would pop up out of the way.

I constructed a spring loaded dead bolt hinge that attaches to the seat out of 1x2 steel.

[Captthundarr]

Glad you repied Chris as I was going to try to get the info on your setup to Mr. Nutz. It is a slick arrangement and keeps your hand in the motion of bail out.

[NathanStewart]

I did not read anything that stated the 'net' had to be on the inside of the cage, only that it had to prevent limbs from exiting the vehicle in the event of a roll.
~JH

Page 31/32 of the 2012 rule book.  I don't have my 2013 book in front of me.

It has been very difficult getting in and out of my car due to the lateral head bar. I have it pinned and is removable but to release the driver needs to reach behind the helmet to unlatch.
~JH

Why not improve your release setup so you don't have to reach behind your head? 

My $.02... you're not facing favorable chances of getting through tech with a restraint system that's anchored to your door.

[Frankie7799]

I thought there was a wine glass in the original pic 

[Jonny Hotnuts]

This one Frankie! LOL I was just playing around with the glass.

Why not improve your release setup so you don't have to reach behind your head?

My $.02... you're not facing favorable chances of getting through tech with a restraint system that's anchored to your door.

Getting out current:

1. Release seatbelt
2. remove steering wheel
3. remove lateral head restraint bar
4. Un-latch net
5. Open door

and MUST be done in this order.


Getting out after:

1. Release seatbelt
2. Remove steering wheel
3. Open door.

(and done in any order)


Yes I can make the current lateral bar easier to remove but it still will be in a complicated chain of events. Speaking from personal experience of someone who has tried to get out of a smoke filled car in a hurry, the ORDER that things need to happen can become the burden. Clearly eliminating multiple steps and any necessary order is my goal.  

Page 31/32 of the 2012 rule book.  I don't have my 2013 book in front of me.

I have read over the rule multiple times, I am not seeing anything other then it needs to prevent limbs from exiting the cage and must be affective with the door closed.


BTW:>

I have consulted a higher power regarding this concept. Will let everyone know what the verdict is.  

~JH

[Dynoroom]

JH, glad you went through the proper channels to get the results to your question.

To help you or others (maybe) further...
Page 33 of the 2013 SCTA rule book the second paragraph is what Nathan and your tech inspectors will be looking at.
That being said I understand your issue, but I'm not so sure solution will fly.

BTW, car #135 has a swing away cage but it's not connected to the door. I'll see if I can find a picture and post it.

This one Frankie! LOL I was just playing around with the glass.

Why not improve your release setup so you don't have to reach behind your head?

My $.02... you're not facing favorable chances of getting through tech with a restraint system that's anchored to your door.

Getting out current:

1. Release seatbelt
2. remove steering wheel
3. remove lateral head restraint bar
4. Un-latch net
5. Open door

and MUST be done in this order.


Getting out after:

1. Release seatbelt
2. Remove steering wheel
3. Open door.

(and done in any order)


Yes I can make the current lateral bar easier to remove but it still will be in a complicated chain of events. Speaking from personal experience of someone who has tried to get out of a smoke filled car in a hurry, the ORDER that things need to happen can become the burden. Clearly eliminating multiple steps and any necessary order is my goal.  

Page 31/32 of the 2012 rule book.  I don't have my 2013 book in front of me.

I have read over the rule multiple times, I am not seeing anything other then it needs to prevent limbs from exiting the cage and must be affective with the door closed.


BTW:>

I have consulted a higher power regarding this concept. Will let everyone know what the verdict is.  

~JH

[NathanStewart]

BTW, car #135 has a swing away cage but it's not connected to the door.

A few vehicles have "jail doors".  That's not the issue.  The issue in my unofficial eyes is the proposed attachment to the door.  Guess we'll see what the official response is.

[Stan Back]

I can't make heads nor tails nor other parts of the illustration . . . but it seems to me if the door were to go away (as I saw up close and personal on a CC), it would "open up" the protection ().

[Bob Drury]

  I am not sure if this is a help or not, but MacDonald and Pitts have a swing out door bar assembly which includes a cage that fits into a male/female slot at the top of the door.... you open the door and swing out the entire door/cage assembly.
  It is hard to describe without pictures and I know that they had to fight to have it allowed, but it finally passed tech and is pretty neat and plenty herky.    Bob

[Jonny Hotnuts]

 Based off this example except opening the 'gate' opens the door as well.


~JH

[Bob Drury]

  Just to clarify, the pictures in the previous post ARE NOT the MacDonald and Pitts car buy may be the "ultra fast" Carter Family Flyer.               Bob