Is there a reason why a rollcage whose bars attach to the shock towers are better than one whose bars connect to the car like this one: http://www.realtimerl.com/cars/cars02.htm

Alot of the cages I see on this site are heavily gusseted and connected to the shock tower with extra "cheater bars" coming off into the same point. Just wondering why a car like the realtime RSX would go with the basic simple design that they used and not go with something a little more extravagant in the back.

 

Well, on the 5th Gen Civic & the 3rd Gen Integra, the shock towers are an easy place to 'box'. They are a good place to keep from flexing as it is the upper mount of the shock even though the shock isn't a load carrying member. Ideally, you would also reinforce the upper suspension mount area. The upper arm of the rear suspension is just forward & below the shock tower. Unfortunately, IIRC, the area needed to be reinforced is on a verticle surface below the horizontal surface in the car. While you could plate that area, you might go over the 100 square inches.

The Realtime car pictured uses struts. The strut itself is a stressed/load carrying suspension piece. The plate looks like it reinforces the upper strut mount area. This would allow the cage to stiffen the structure & keep the car from flexing.

IMO, the two designs are doing, or trying to achieve, the same thing. There are difference because the car & suspension are different from car to car.

 

I thought rsx/dc5 chassis only used struts in the front. I'm confused. . .

 

Ok, after taking another look at the picture, I see where the shocks/struts are mounted in the rear. I don't know if dc5's have them mounted there stock, but I'm leaning towards not.

 

yes that is stock mounting location

so yeah that cage is mounted at the shock towers