mx5cartalk.com

Ok so I had a quick search and couldn't find what I was looking for so if there is post about this already which I assume there is, please link me!

If not, I'm buying a roll bar as next purchase and I really want to hear the pro's and cons of the BD bar and the Plus bar.

I'm really not sure which to fork out on, I see a ton of perks for both. I'll put this out there right now, I really don't care which one as I'm not interested in looks. I just want to know which one is safer and which I should be putting my money down on.
I was set on getting a Plus bar but after having a discussion with a friend today, I'm not sure anymore. He owns a Brown Davis and as such seems to think it's better and had a lot of reasons as to why etc.

I'm aware that the Steel BD is cams approved and that sells it instantly but the Plus seems far more well engineered with the box between the towers and the mounting position etc. Yet i can't see anywhere that states cams have approved it.

I'd be MOST gracious to hear replies! Thanks heaps.

I've heard the BD is CAMs approved but not road legal in Victoria, whereas the Plus is the opposite; road legal, but not CAMs (input or confirmation would be appreciated)

Yeah I knew that BD wasn't road legal due to the tower mounts but I really doubt you'd ever get done on that.

I've owned both and I'm no engineer but it's a no brainer that the MX-5 Plus bar is much beefier (welds, plate thickness, torque box etc) and the way the harness mounts to it is much sturdier.

The BD bar is a fair bit lighter though.

My track car has an MX-5 Plus bar in it; they sell a CAMS eligible single diagonal version now.

+1 what Saboteur said, I looked at both but settled for the Plus bar because I prefered where it was bolted to the car both at the seat belt towers and at the rear, there is also minimum alteration to the car itself to fit the bar. I also asked a lot of questions from both manufacturers before I made my decision, and feel that the Plus bar is stronger.
I also bought the twin hoop bar so there is no vision obstuctions at all, at it looks the goods.
Cheers
Dale

I based my decision on whichever one came up for sale, used, for a reasonable price first.

Did you get any info back from MX-5 Plus as to why their bar isn't cam's approved? CAN it be approved?

After comparing the MX5 Plus to the BD bar.
I'm more than happy with my choice of a MX5 Plus Single Hoop even if it cost a little more than the BD.
The only other one I would consider is the MX5 Plus double hoop.

Unless you intend to race your car (beyond sprints) the CAMS approval is not necessary.

Schedule J - Safety Cage Structure, regulation 1.1 and 9

nanotech wrote:Did you get any info back from MX-5 Plus as to why their bar isn't cam's approved? CAN it be approved?

From memory, when I asked them about their bar they said it was designed to meet FIA standard( I think it was that standard) as it was a better standard than Cams. But ring Danny from MX 5Pus and he can give you the correct standard, and tell you if they make a Cams bar.
good luck with you decision.
Cheers
Dale

I asked BD about this "street legality" issue and they said the concerns about the mounting on the seatbelt tower weakening the seatbelt is unjustified. The bar actually strengthens the mounting point for the seatbelt because in reinforces the anchor point. Questions over legality of these bars are only valid in terms of distance between head and hardpoints, which can be addressed with suitable padding. Applies equally to BD and Plus bars.

CAMS compliance is only required for track events if you have an unregistered car and need to have it logbooked. The BD rollbar is CAMS compliant but special attention needs to be paid to seat height in order to meet the 50mm head clearance requirement for logbooked open cars. Road registered cars don't have this requirement.

Guran commented .."valid in terms of distance between head and hardpoints, which can be addressed with suitable padding". I still find this an odd proposition in that padding is only going to mitigate injury. Anyone fancy being hit with a baseball bat wrapped in suitable padding?

Dead horse ... flogged.

Mr Morlock wrote:Guran commented .."valid in terms of distance between head and hardpoints, which can be addressed with suitable padding". I still find this an odd proposition in that padding is only going to mitigate injury. Anyone fancy being hit with a baseball bat wrapped in suitable padding?

Genuinely curious, not trying to be rude: what's the difference between that and hitting your head on a headrest?

Davex3 wrote:Ever tried headbutting a foam wraped rollbar? Still hurts.

Can't say that's ever occurred to me as a pastime. Dad's MGA is in the garage though; maybe I'll give it a go.

But seriously, thanks for the feedback. You say that the padding isn't as soft and doesn't have as much give, but in my mind it would have more padding and give than, say, a fixed-back Sparco-style seat... ?

Guran wrote:... attention needs to be paid to seat height in order to meet the 50mm head clearance requirement for logbooked open cars. Road registered cars don't have this requirement.

Hmmm... I agree, but unfortunately it seems as though Kerry has a different opinion on this. According to his logic it's safer to have no roll bar, than one where there is less than 50mm vertical clearance between top of helmet and top of roll bar.