I think something here is being overlooked. We are looking at the car's damage and thinking it's bad to see a car THAT damaged, even though the driver escaped without injury. We should be looking at the car as a sacrificial anode in that the structure successfully absorbed the force of impact which allowed the driver to survive.

The X-brace and stock sheet metal deformed (I don't like using failed here as it really did it's job) during the impact. During impact the structural pieces deformation absorbed a significant amount of energy. That energy absorbed was not transferred to the driver.

Now if said driver had NASCAR bars on the passenger side the structure, in theory, would have deformed much less (that is the arguement here, right?). That means the load would be transferred elsewhere and ultimately to the driver. Not a good scenario either.

I want a structure that protects me from intrusion, but not at the expense of my bodies G-loading. The FIA has performed a lot of impact studies and requires impact test on as raced monocoques and shells as part of vehicle homologation. I should look into getting more information on this.

I'm actually a fan of impact absorbing structures and foam as used on FIA cars, Rolex Daytona Prototypes, and NASCAR COT. It is unfortunate that this safety technology has not trickled down to the club level yet, at least not here in the USA.

Unfortunately I don't know anyone besides Crawford Composites or DOW making such structures and foam, respectively.

Also, I spoke with the RaceTech folks last year at the PRI show about their seats with the integrated seat back bracing mounts (I think this is the Viper seat). They tested the seat to @ 45 G load where the FIA only requires something in the 20 G range. Customers have sustained upwards of 85 G impacts without significant driver injury. Something to think about.