Thread: Internal Cages

I've got the shell of a disco 1, all the lining etc removed, and I can see clearly how the seat belt retaining brackets for example are mounted/welded to the B pillar.

I also have an 82 RRC shell in similar stripped down condition, except for the C pillar. In the case of this year model the front seat belt restrains are all mounted on the seat base and none on the B pillar. It seems around 85(?) the RRC moved to Disco style B mounted belts.

However, I don't see much difference shape or materials wise, if any, between the A & B pillars in either vehicle.

Surprising how much difference a cargo barrier makes around the C pillar in the example quoted. I wonder how the Disco A & B pillars would have fared when you look at the state of those regions in the rolled RRC. The steel tub roof of the Disco may hold up better, but still on weak A & B pillars.

When I first got the old RRC I was not impressed by the thought that all belt anchorage for the front seats was on the seat base. I was contemplating (with engineering approval) of transferring the Disco seat belt mount brackets to the RRC which would then allow me to fit more comfortable Disco seats.

Now reading this thread, and knowing the fragile nature of the RRC roof, makes me humorously wonder if that is why the early RRC seat back frames were so solid and why in early models all the front seat belt anchors were on the seat. If you can keep you head below the top of the RRC seat back in a roll over then you'll be better off than a Disco driver in the same situation because their B pillar will have collapsed taking with it the seat belt and any ability to hold you in place and crush your seat, then you?

Of course my theory may not pan out if the above rolled RRC (or is that a RRRC) was an early 80's

Originally Posted by pop058

Tried to convince him to go the external cage path but was not interested

Adds about 2L/100km

Catches on everything offroad...

There's good reason to not have it...

Camel cars were internal until the roof then broke through and went external.

A few years back there was an ad in 4WD menstrual for a certain brand of cargo barrier (Milford???) with pics that showed why I would just fit one of them if I was concerned about rolling my POS.

DL

Originally Posted by 350RRC

A few years back there was an ad in 4WD menstrual for a certain brand of cargo barrier (Milford???) with pics that showed why I would just fit one of them if I was concerned about rolling my POS.

DL

I couldn't buy a decent cargo barrier, so I made a heavy-duty one that should (!) hold up the roof as well. Barriers are supposed to deform when your toolbox/spare engine etc. smashes into them, but for the small load space of a RRC I don't think that's so important. It's not as if the cargo will be flying the same distance as from the back to the front of a Troopie. So my barrier is stronger in order to double as some sort of support in a roll.

Originally Posted by Davo

I couldn't buy a decent cargo barrier, so I made a heavy-duty one that should (!) hold up the roof as well. Barriers are supposed to deform when your toolbox/spare engine etc. smashes into them, but for the small load space of a RRC I don't think that's so important. It's not as if the cargo will be flying the same distance as from the back to the front of a Troopie. So my barrier is stronger in order to double as some sort of support in a roll.

I'm sure yours is fine but although it doesn't matter I think you may have a wrong assumption... The distance the tools travel doesn't affect the impact force.

I could be wrong but I think they all have the velocity the vehicle was traveling at until they are stopped by a headrest irrespective of how long the trip down the vehicle was.

Happy to be corrected but I don't think we should think in terms of internal vehicle distance as a factor.

Come to think of it, you're probably right. Hopefully someone will pop up with the correct calculations for the rest of us.

ALL cargo barriers state explicitly that the loads carried in the rear MUST be placed against the barrier.

A heavy load rear of the barrier will make every attempt to tear it from its mountings under rapid deceleration and impact forces.

Originally Posted by Tombie

ALL cargo barriers state explicitly that the loads carried in the rear MUST be placed against the barrier.

A heavy load rear of the barrier will make every attempt to tear it from its mountings under rapid deceleration and impact forces.

Yeah you're correct... It sort of points to my assertion being wrong.

To be honest while I always load according to the 'against the front' principle, I don't understand how it's ok if it's against the barrier and not if it isn't.

It's all got the one velocity and hence the one force at impact.

Ah! Hang on.... I see it now....

If it's touching from the start of the crash it's bought to a stop over the whole period of the prang. But if it's free flying then all the energy impacts at one moment when it finally hits. So that means that I'm right.... It doesn't matter how far it traveled.. if it was loose it's bad news.