991 Harness Bar
 

Ladies and Gents,

Given the rumors that there will be no more harness bars available for U.S. based 991 cars and while I could be wrong in believing it, we have decided to offer a harness bar for these 991 and 981 cars. Ultimately it will be produced by RSS in Southern California for mass production/powder coat and distribution. We are however having them made locally and powdercoated locally for shipment in mid-January 2014. Photos can be seen here.

http://teambgb.com/for_sale_retail_parts.asp#Stage1


Thanks.

John


http://teambgb.com/media/for_sale/99...0Photo%202.jpg

Does it come with proper seats :corn:

Looks beautifully designed and made!

This appears to have been designed for 991’s with rear seats. Will there be a different version for GT3’s or is this it?

Looks pretty cool as you can still access the rear of the car for storage, whereas on the Porsche one you seem to lose that functionality no?

John, very nice! As we discussed earlier today, I want one!

Ken

This thing was designed for all our customers that can't fit their gear, their tires, their luggage etc when they go to the track for the weekend. There are no intended revisions for the GT3 UNLESS you want it bolted to the unibody. It's different from all others because you don't need an unnecessary X-design since it's just a harness bar. It's different because it's designed to be practical and useful not showy and useless.

This statement from the BGB website is interesting:
Any evidence to support this? Obviously, many disagree and consider a properly designed and installed roll bar to provide added protection (but less than a full cage) in the event of a roll.

It's clearly a harness bar and being sold as such. The lower attachment point appears to use the stock seatbelt point and there is no diagonal bracing. Good practice from BGB to not market it as a roll bar or partial cage, because most would mistake it for one.

I agree, but BGB appears to be further arguing that adding cross-bracing wouldn't provide meaningful protection in the event of a roll. In other words, there no such thing as a 'roll bar', you either have a roll cage or just a harness bar/truss. Many think otherwise.

It's certainly a tricky item to talk about much less 'sell'. I have a feeling that adding more lateral stiffness (diagonal bracing) would have implied it is a roll bar when the attachment points are very likely not up to challenge.

Personally, I'd be terrified of someone thinking they can still use the back seat with this item and put their kid next to DOM tubing.

So zip-tying a booster seat to this contraption would not be safe? :icon107:

IMHO for a roll bar to mean something it needs to be bolted to a floor plate that is welded in, attached to the side sills and gusseted. Other wise like my tequipment bar it just supports the harness.

Peter

Folks,

A few items to add in response to a few thoughts raised:

1. We would never assume anyone would put any child or passenger back there and only ever considered it would be a consenting adult riding to the corner-store during a DE weekend.
2. The reasons for not having an elaborate x-style union were (in order of importance to what we believe were the consumer's wishes): A.) increased rearview spectrum B.) usage of the rear seat areas as storage
3. The entire intention of the x-union is to anchor everything behind the main hoop to a central point, but look at these pieces by themselves. 90% of these "hoops" on the market bolt to the factory seatbelt holes. Ours is no different. adding an elaborate X-design to something bolted with 4 bolts does not reduce chassis flex or increase rigidity, so why block your vision and destroy your cargo room putting one in there?

I think that you guys misunderstood me though or misunderstood what is written on the web site; we aren't saying x-braces make "hoops" less rigid. We are just saying that aren't necessary when they aren't anchoring a main hoop that is welded to the unibody.

My source of frustration is with all of these 4-point bars, hoops, whatever, and the false level of security people have when they think something that does not go forward of the driver will protect in a roll over. I think that all of us agree that if it's going to really really protect us, it needs to A.) provide roll over protection forward of the driver in the event of an A-pillar collapse B.) be anchored to the car with something more than just half a dozen bolts and nuts. In my short 10 years, I have seen some pretty crazy roll overs but on 2 or 3 occasions, when the car has landed on its roof, it has come to rest inverted on some sort of tire wall, k-rail, jersey barrier, whatever, with the a-pillars collapsed.

Maybe no one agrees with me and we are all entitled to our own opinion but if I am installing something that I think will protect me in an end over end rollover, the fact that it's sitting 6" behind me makes me think that my eggs and my groceries in the back are safe, but i'm still exposed.

Sorry...I had to re-quote that one.

It was a joke... just in case someone does not get it. Having an un-helmeted head within an inch of a metal pipe is like juggling with chainsaws.