Re: NHRA amended rollbar / cage rule
 

A lot of us have gone faster than that without a roll cage, a roll bar, racing harness, seatbelt...or even a car, for that matter. Just a millimeter or so of dead cow. ;)

Re: NHRA amended rollbar / cage rule
 

In the lower class Stockers you can run a 50 year old set of seat belts, but you can not run a set of aftermarket seat belts that are outdated by one day.Go figure.

Re: NHRA amended rollbar / cage rule
 

Lyn, you can here in Div.1. A couple of us asked if we could use an out-of-date lap belt instead of a "50 year old set of seat belts" and we were told we could.

Re: NHRA amended rollbar / cage rule
 

I had a conversation earlier this year with our div tech director at the Seattle div race, he said that you can run out of date seat belts in any application where a roll bar//cage is not required. In this particular case, the racer had installed a roll bar in a lower classed stocker that did not require the bar. In that case, he does not need to comply with the harness date issue. As I said this came directly from our div tech director.

Jim Caughlin
SS 6019

Re: NHRA amended rollbar / cage rule
 

I'm sure nobody here is going to agree with me but, a car with anti-lock brakes, 12" wide tires, massive sway bars and 10 air bags is actually safer than a 1960's muscle car. I'm sorry guys. There is a reason why I don't let my granddaughters drive old cars.

Re: NHRA amended rollbar / cage rule
 

They are MUCH safer, and it's a lot more than just big tires and big sway bars. The vehicle structures themselves are much better designed:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtxd27jlZ_g

Re: NHRA amended rollbar / cage rule
 

And made out of recycled tooth paste tubes !

Re: NHRA amended rollbar / cage rule
 

Google the recent Challenger wreck in Dade County Florida, then tell me how safe the new cars are. Up to say 50 mph, ok, but over that, no difference. Just depends on what you hit.

Re: NHRA amended rollbar / cage rule
 

Certainly 50 years of development has contributed to safer modern cars, but that crash test with the 59 Chevy was about as lopsided as it could possibly be, in favor of the newer car. The 58 thru 64 full sized Chevrolets used the "wasp waist" X frame design, which has no frame rails along the outer body, only sheet metal from the rocker panels inward, to the transmission tunnel. So virtually no structure from the firewall to the rear axle on the sides. Then add 50 years of service, possibly in salt belt regions, who is to say how solid that poor 59 Chevy under the paint.
By comparison, my 59 Ford 2 door sedan has a steel boxed frame that runs along both rocker panels from firewall to rear leaf spring mounts, with 5 crossmembers connecting the left and right sides together. I am pretty sure it would not have folded up nearly as badly as the Chevy did.
Certainly the steel dashboard, 4 foot long steering shaft, lack of in door gaurd beams and many other things would make my 59 a less than pleasant place to be in a collision, than a modern car. Funny thing is, I coud sit on the fenders of my 59 without any body damage, yet my 2010 Ranger has dents in the hood from a few pine cones falling on it!