Pete. (l33t FS) said:If the cage was attached to the frame and not the body, that is positively horrifying.
I would think this is a better, stronger way to mount a cage. If it is not, please educate me as to why. I truly dont know.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:If the cage was attached to the frame and not the body, that is positively horrifying.
I would think this is a better, stronger way to mount a cage. If it is not, please educate me as to why. I truly dont know.
Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:If the cage was attached to the frame and not the body, that is positively horrifying.
I would think this is a better, stronger way to mount a cage. If it is not, please educate me as to why. I truly dont know.
On vehicles with fully separable ladder frames, there's the danger of the body coming away from the frame (now with cage attached) with you and your safety equipment in the way. Remember the goal of the cage is to protect the driver, not reinforce the frame or even make the car generally beefier.
Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:If the cage was attached to the frame and not the body, that is positively horrifying.
I would think this is a better, stronger way to mount a cage. If it is not, please educate me as to why. I truly dont know.
Im curious, too. I do remember reading to make sure seats and seat belts are both mounted to the same thing, so if everything is attached to the cage, I think it'd be okay. If the seat is mounted to the body, but the harness to the cage, that would be dicey.
Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:If the cage was attached to the frame and not the body, that is positively horrifying.
I would think this is a better, stronger way to mount a cage. If it is not, please educate me as to why. I truly dont know.
The body is the part of the vehicle that is getting hit, and unless the seat is attached to the frame, it is the part of the vehicle that the driver is attached to. Is the harness attached to the cage, the body, or both?
That there can be relative motion between the seat and cage, or seat and harness, is a recipe for disaster. Sure it would be okay in a light hit, but light hits are not why you have a cage.
Remember that Spec Miata that got clobbered in the first lap foofaraw? What would he look like if the cage and harness was attached to a ladder frame that shifted under the body that the seat was attached to? He would be paralyzed from spinal compression at best as the harness tried to form a straight line with his back in the way.
Racebrick said:I'm not mad at some dork on youtube for having fun. I am mad that insurance companies have so much control over the laws of this country, and our daily lives.
Laws are not in question here. Nothing illegal was done, just irresponsible.
Given that insurance companies are expected to pick up the tab after someone boils their skin off or finds themselves eating through a tube for the rest of their lives, they get to have some input. I have little love for the insurance industry, but it is amazing how much people's personal responsibility ends when they realize they can't afford to pay for their big life changing oopsie.
dculberson said:Tyler H said:For the record. I totally agree with you on the safety points. I admire 24 Hours of Lemons for their safety stance. If it's not good enough for Lemons, I'm not getting behind the wheel.
But then there's this:
YouTube: Blatant disregard for safety
Yeah, stay safe out there kids.
I would never in a million years get into one of those cars, but I was laughing my fool head off at almost that entire video. So much drama! So much destruction! That is good entertainment.
If you like that lookup banger racing from the U.K. or Netherlands. You won't be sorry. Kinda makes demolition derbies over here look like a Kindergarten game.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:If the cage was attached to the frame and not the body, that is positively horrifying.
I would think this is a better, stronger way to mount a cage. If it is not, please educate me as to why. I truly dont know.
The body is the part of the vehicle that is getting hit, and unless the seat is attached to the frame, it is the part of the vehicle that the driver is attached to. Is the harness attached to the cage, the body, or both?
That there can be relative motion between the seat and cage, or seat and harness, is a recipe for disaster. Sure it would be okay in a light hit, but light hits are not why you have a cage.
Remember that Spec Miata that got clobbered in the first lap foofaraw? What would he look like if the cage and harness was attached to a ladder frame that shifted under the body that the seat was attached to? He would be paralyzed from spinal compression at best as the harness tried to form a straight line with his back in the way.
Well put
I also like "everyone is a laissez faire capitalist until there is antifreeze in the gatorade"
Pete. (l33t FS) said:it is amazing how much people's personal responsibility ends when they realize they can't afford to pay for their big life changing oopsie.
Absolutely agree - "I demand the freedom to do this!" Bang, "I demand that you pay for my injuries!"
Our complaining about lawyers and insurance companies oddly only happens when we don't need something from either party.
tuna55 said:I also like "everyone is a laissez faire capitalist until there is antifreeze in the gatorade"
lol, saving this for later
My beef with this type of thing, and this guy in particular, is that the level of 'safety prep' was worse than no safety equipment at all. As has been pointed out, the backwards cage and side bars were dangerous and could easily have folded in and trapped/crushed the driver. Worse than no cage. The 'safety' (entrapment?) net screwed to the window preventing egress?
Someone pointed out that if this were in another country they'd be racing three wheelers with no cages. Yup they would, but a) it would be clear there was no safety equipment so the track and competition would have been regulated accordingly and b) that 'cage' would have been turned away as being more dangerous than no cage. People have been turned away from UK(sprints / hillclimbs) events for turning up with Seven type vehicles that have a simple roll bar, because an unbraced roll bar folding over is more dangerous than no bar at all.
This real danger with this A hole is a) he made it less safe and b), this is the bigger one. There are now people out there new to the hobby/sport who now think that that level of prep IS SAFE an may mimic it thinking they are doing the right thing. They may spend time and money copying this then get turned away, or worse end up hurting themselves or others.
End of the safety discussion. From here it's comments on the possible political leanings that have nothing to do with the above.
People who are upset that this is turning into a link between safety and perceived views. You are right, these two things should not be linked, but in this case I feel it's a deliberate attempt for him to try and appeal to a certain demographic, and it appears to working for him.
Dropout is an unfair term, it implies lazy or not able to hack it. It shouldn't. People drop out of law school, or any other qualification for any number of reasons, rarely tied to base intelligence. Affordability, change of interests / intended career path, something better comes along (a profitable you tube channel) etc. So being a drop out has no impact on who he is or what he pedals.
Where he does cross the line is obviously 'dumbing' himself down to create an on screen persona. He obviously set out to appeal to a certain group, and its working with over 3mil subscribers and over a billion video views. In his case that is playing the proud dumb redneck. The people who resonate with, and embrace that 'lifestyle'can (not do, can) often tend to align with a certain political mindset, and in the few video's I"ve seen of his, he seems to lean heavily into that. So those saying we shouldn't bring political assumptions into a safety conversation you are correct. Unfortunately the host appears to be leaning into politics as part of his 'shtick' so they become intertwined.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) :
I can see the politics angle, but when you compare it to channels like Fasterproms or JH Diesel, Cleetus is downright apolitical, and seems to try to keep it that way.
In reply to eastsideTim :
I can't disagree. I've never watched any of those channels, but I have tried Cleetus a few times and while he may be apolitical compared to the people who mentioned, he does not come across as apolitical in isolation.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) :
He does go pretty hard on the "Freedom" and "Bald Eagles", but stays clear of the actual name calling and mudslinging, and I haven't heard him using coded language, either. It's one of the reasons I watch his channel over several others. I think he knows that people on all ends of the political spectrum watch him, and he doesn't want to lose the views/follows.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) :
I disagree with him being an example part of it.
It's the same arguement as we need to censor people, because other people are too dumb to realize his ideas are bad. If someone chooses a dumb hero and is too ignorant or lazy to realize his ideas are stupid, it's on them.
It's good this is out there. Look at this multiple page thread of people calling out the safety problems and educating people on a better way.
I don't have a problem with most of anything else except the part about his persona. People on everyside of the political spectrum play personas in entertainment, and linking him to a currently hated political group when he generally stays pretty apolitical is just an attempt to further demonize him, and has nothing to do with what's important here.
ProDarwin said:tuna55 said:I also like "everyone is a laissez faire capitalist until there is antifreeze in the gatorade"
lol, saving this for later
This is the same reason I like to make the point about the EPA and Cuyahoga River fires.
In reply to z31maniac :
Those are freedom flames
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
Wait, did I just log in to Facebook by accident? 
I would like to add that a lot of his viewership does seem to be pretty pro-safety. If you read a lot of the comments on videos there's a lot of "Hey, would hate to see something bad happen to you guys, you should do X" or "My best buddy got killed/hurt doing X, please be careful and do Y" and there's usually a ton of likes on those style comments, right down to recommendations to wear hearing protection. Even if there's never a direct acknowledgment in video, you often do see it implemented if you pay attention.
I dropped out of law school, and I've done lots of questionable things with cars and bikes. Nevertheless, I am not as successful as Cleetus. He's a marketing genius. Get over it.
At the risk of sending someone off the deep end like last time, I've never heard of this guy.
I don't care to know, either, so don't enlighten me.
Agree that dropping out of college shouldn't be a broad brush of losership. Gates, Musk, Jobs, come to mind.
I'm a grad school drop out. Oh the humanity.
In reply to Scotty Con Queso :
I'm a college drop out as well...........with a six figure income.
One of the dumbest things one can ever do is equate uneducated with stupid and or being a loser.
Tom1200 said:In reply to Scotty Con Queso :
I'm a college drop out as well...........with a six figure income.
One of the dumbest things one can ever do is equate uneducated with stupid and or being a loser.
The opposite is true as well. I know plenty of people with degrees that are dumb as rocks.
Looking to an entertainer on YouTube to be a safety role model is probably not the best strategy. No one wants to see anyone get hurt, and there is definitely some low hanging fruit to make things safer. But everyone involved can make that choice for themselves, and determine their own risk comfort level. And while some poor choices were certainly made, some of us are being a bit overly dramatic. If safety is the goal, one would have to dig pretty far through the videos on you tube before they got down to these videos.
I don't get the weird political angle. He's an entertainer. I don't recall seeing anything political. I'm sure his audience covers a wide spectrum, which is what any smart business person would prefer. It's an act, and very tongue and cheek. His viewers know that. It's not pandering, and believing so is a bit naive. Calling the American Flag, freedom, eagles- as symbols of extremism- is laughable and ironic. Because the very, very few people who believe that- despite what the echo chambers try to portray- are by definition extremists themselves.
You'll need to log in to post.
