"Dean T. Lake" wrote:
>
> I know I've prattled on about this before, but I am prone to repeat
> myself:
<snip>
>
> Any roll bar that is effective at protecting the occupants AND does not
> present its own set of hazards in a collision is likely to neither fit
> under a soft top, nor be remotely attractive.
Great - you saved everyone my usual rant :-)
I haven't been able to put the top on my car for four years now since
installing the "sanctioned" rollbar (at least the mid-fold top should be
in good condition when I finally do have a use for it after hanging on
my shed wall all that time - hopefully not rotting). I am always peeved
that a fellow club member with the same rollbar (built by the same
person) can put his top up - but that is only because he is so SHORT
that his helmet/head sits much lower.
I will shortly be installing my composite-fibre bucket seat which should
sit me a good few inches lower and therefore I may be able to lower the
rollbar enough to put the top on - which may end up being a hard top for
racing.
But the functional rollbar doesn't look very attractive and would
probably look even worse chromed rather than flat black (far too much
metal involved, back-stays, diagonal cross-brace etc.).
A friend of mine sticks with the term melon-crusher for the rollbar in
most roadsters because if you throw your head back you will hit it on
the cross-brace or some other part of the bar. Mine is now about 80%
padded (with "sanctioned", fire-proof foam) to avoid much of that sort
of damage.
Properly, sturdily constructed and braced you can actually FEEL the
additional structural rigidity it gives the chassis - for better or for
worse in handling - and I think it may even add to the safety of the car
in a side-on collision (or if not, just having that structure around you
makes you feel safer :-)
--
Eric
'68MGB MkII
'85 Rover SD1 Vanden Plas
Adelaide, South Australia
|