Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I'm also interested in this. Had a quick look at Brown Davis and they show a full cage which is built into the car over the top of the rear seat, but certainly wouldn't allow for any passengers to sit there. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right spot? PaulosECR33 - Can you shed any more light on them?

Do you need it to be CAMS approved? If not your cheapest solution are the cusco jap cages they make ones that retain rear seats, otherwise yes you can make a proper ones that retains seats.

Cusco are not cams or roadworthy.

Brown davis will do a half cage that is cams and adr, so no trouble on or off the track, i reckon you would be really pushing it to be able to put people in the back with a cage there but they do build cages that let you keep the seat.

It would be possible, but it wouldn't be CAMS approved, even minimum CAMS spec requires a cross bar (in main hoop is most common) but either way it's going to restrict passengers.

uncomfortable passengers... why do you want a cage?

uncomfortable passengers... why do you want a cage?

Truth is I don't like the ''becauseracecar'' look of a cage that restrict the back seat. And I know local police won't like it too.

2) Both my sister and father.. heck even my young brother don't drive so it happens from times to times we take the skyline and need the space behind.

3) I might just go with the do-luck room bar if I can't fit any cage/bar down there. Actually, tbh, I wanted a cage so I could fit my harness safety. Instead of bolting them on the floor which I was told are not safe to do.

Edited by cobrAA

Hey guys, just curious if theres a model of cage that would allow me to still fit passenger in the back seat or its impossible ?? Or could it be done if done custom-made !?

Thanks.

This guy has "sort of" done it - could probably get one passenger in. Given you're in Canada though I'd have no idea where you'd get it made.

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/105872-my-skyline-gt-r-r32.html

It's ridiculous if you're thinking about buying a roll cage just to fit a harness.

There are countless places you can mount your shoulder straps without a roll cage.

Read the CAMS manual and make sure the straps are within the recommended range of angle and you will be fine.

IMG_9975_zps35c2ec8e.jpg

Rear seat is for homo's =P

Thats exactly what the back of mine used to look like cept for a fire stringuisher on the tunnel, i refitted the top half of the rear seats a while ago so at a glance it looks like the whole thing is there.

It's ridiculous if you're thinking about buying a roll cage just to fit a harness.

There are countless places you can mount your shoulder straps without a roll cage.

Read the CAMS manual and make sure the straps are within the recommended range of angle and you will be fine.

thank you. will look into it. i was told by a instructor here that i couldnt fit a harness without cage.

It would be possible, but it wouldn't be CAMS approved, even minimum CAMS spec requires a cross bar (in main hoop is most common) but either way it's going to restrict passengers.

for cams you can have a cross bar( diagonal) go from one of the rear legs to the other , it doesnt have to be on the main hoop

thank you. will look into it. i was told by a instructor here that i couldnt fit a harness without cage.

This is probably due to the angle of the harness straps after you mount them to somewhere like your rear seat anchors.

Check out page 4 in Schedule I of the CAMS regs: http://docs.cams.com.au/Manual/GeneralRequirements/GQ10-Schedule-I-2014-1.pdf

The other option is to look at getting a harness bar. These are removable so you can still fit passengers in the back when you're not at the track.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...