The best overall Bull Bar. ? ?? ?

[TerryS]

I figure everyone who owns one product can support their decision to buy it so that's why I generally stay out of these debates. I have an ARB on the front of my 110 and have winched to the point of snapping a cable without distorting the bumber in any manner. I have never liked the side "wings" on the ARB bumper used on classics and Discos, since they simply act as a lever and can distort, as Sideview's pictures show, but that's pretty much true of all the bumber designs.
As coincidence would have it, I just came back from MA (just up the road) from a body shop trip to have work done on another of my rovers and there was a disco in with a RTE bumber on it. The guy was using his highlift (actually a JACKALL, which I hate) and was lifting from the corner of his front bumper. As I understood the body shop foreman, he had it up pretty high (off road, flat front tire) when the entire corner of the bumper let go, and in coming down took out the LF fender, headlight assembly, and hood.
From the Left frame rail out to the tip of the bumper, it was up on a 45 degree angle.

[XtremeMarine]

Originally Posted by Expedition Nutter

Here's what happened to his Disco:

RTE bumper was shoved into the hood, Warn winch ended up lodged in radiator.

I don't think it looked minor, but the crash didn't happen at high speeds either. I just don't see those 'blade' style RTE bumpers being as stout as an ARB.

Based on typing with no photograghic representation; My guess (.02), is that it was poor installation, and/or sub-standard mounting hardware.

[XtremeMarine]

Originally Posted by TerryS

I figure everyone who owns one product can support their decision to buy it so that's why I generally stay out of these debates. I have an ARB on the front of my 110 and have winched to the point of snapping a cable without distorting the bumber in any manner. I have never liked the side "wings" on the ARB bumper used on classics and Discos, since they simply act as a lever and can distort, as Chapman's pictures show, but that's pretty much true of all the bumber designs.
As coincidence would have it, I just came back from MA (just up the road) from a body shop trip to have work done on another of my rovers and there was a disco in with a RTE bumber on it. The guy was using his highlift (actually a JACKALL, which I hate) and was lifting from the corner of his front bumper. As I understood the body shop foreman, he had it up pretty high (off road, flat front tire) when the entire corner of the bumper let go, and in coming down took out the LF fender, headlight assembly, and hood.
From the Left frame rail out to the tip of the bumper, it was up on a 45 degree angle.

RTE bumpers don't come with hi-lift or jack-all receivers in them, so that entire scenario is based on an idiot of an owner who didn't understand his vehicle, or the modifications made to it. Also, considering he was off-road; it is impossible to know if he even had a proper off-road base for his jack, or proper jacking technique. Considering the damage explained on the vehicle, I can safely say not. Not even a spare tire under the frame to keep the vehicle from falling as far. So not really a safe, valid, or understandable point in the debate, imho.

[Expedition Nutter]

Originally Posted by XtremeMarine

Based on typing with no photograghic representation; My guess (.02), is that it was poor installation, and/or sub-standard mounting hardware.

These are the photos - Disco VS Ford Focus @ 30 mph.




With all the Rovertym bragging, I expected a bit better. The Disco was totalled.

[p76rangie]

Come the end of the day, a bull bar is not going to turn your vehicle into a tank. They will still bend and break. Some manufacturers just get a heavy bit of steel, others engineer their bars.

Mine is actually a TJM bar and it has taken many solid hits and has never suffered. But come the end of the day I do not want to bend the chassis and would want the bar to bend before the chassis. Also mine is an old vehicle built before crumple zones and other safety design features. If I was in a more modern vehicle I would not want to compromise these safety features. Yes, a bull bar may help you when you hit a smaller car, but you need all the safety features of a car if you hit something more solid.

[Expedition Nutter]

All I am trying to point out is how people really brag on the Rovertym, and it's not any better than anyone elses junk. That's my whole point of discussion here. They all will bend etc, given the right conditions.

[sideview]

P76, what safety features are you referring to?

[p76rangie]

Originally Posted by sideview

P76, what safety features are you referring to?

Vehicles these days are designed to crumple in a manner that absorbs major impacts leaving the main passenger cabin in as good as shape as possible. You also have air bags and belt tensioners that work off sensors in the front of the car. A poorly designed bull bar can significantly reduce these actions. That is why most car manufacturers work with ARB so that a bull bar can be designed taking into account the safety features of the car. The days of wacking on a big bit of steel on the front of the 4WD are well and truely gone.

[sideview]

Originally Posted by Expedition Nutter

These are the photos - Disco VS Ford Focus @ 30 mph.





With all the Rovertym bragging, I expected a bit better. The Disco was totalled.

What actually bent on this bumper? Did the mounts give way? Did the bolts shear? Did the frame bend upwards? In other words, what gave out to allow the bumper to rotate back? And, why did they total the truck? A bent frame alone would not total an 03 or 04. In fact, a local shop here is repairing a
2003 that suffered a tweaked frame, two blown air-bags, hood, fender, and grill damage - with a stock bumper to boot.

Either way, what's more valuable? Your buddy's truck, or him/her walking away from the scene? At 30MPH, the overall damage would have been quite a bit more.

Rover VS 120lb deer at 40mph


Rover VS Saturn at 30MPH



And have we talked about recovery points?

[ICUP]

P76,
The way I understand it, the frame too has crumple zones. In every SUV I've ever seen, thus far, the crumple zones are designed to fold parallel with the frame, not latterly. Meaning, the frame is made to crumple up and down, not side-to-side. So, how is it that a bumper, such as the RTE, can hamper this? The only reasonable understanding I can think of is, it would allow the frame to crumple with a lighter hit because the HD bumper is more rigid.

But I mean really, do the ARB crush can really make any difference? The only benefit I can see from the ARB "crush can" style bumper is a weaker mounting design. Is that really what we want??? For those people wanting to keep the SRS capability, sure, it's fine. But if you're going to use your truck with a winch, you want the non-crush can version. It's stronger. In fact, the people who buy the crush-can style bumper to use off-road commonly weld the crush cans solid over time.

But, what makes a bumper "SRS compliant"? The label? Have you ever witnessed the crash tests? Have pictures? Documentation? Do you have any proof at all that ARB will be "SRS compliant" besides the label on the box?

As for the air-bags deploying, I don't see how a bumper could hamper this, either. The air-bags work off of an inertia switch. That means the air-bags go off when a certain force becomes present - not when the bumper or frame crumples. So, again, with a bumper such as the RTE, the air-bag would deploy sooner than normal.

In either case, how does this hamper the safety of the vehicle or the passengers?

[p76rangie]

Air Bags, Bull Bars and Crumple Zones

ADR 69 specifies the level of protection that must be afforded the occupants of a passenger vehicle during a 48km/h full frontal impact into a solid immovable barrier.
To achieve the levels of protection required by ADR 69, vehicle manufacturers have employed progressive crumple zones and SRS, or Supplemental Restraint Systems.

Most people will be familiar with video footage of motor vehicles as they plunge in slow motion into the crash test barrier. In more recent years these videos have shown crash test dummies pitching forward at the moment of impact, only to be saved by the inflation of the airbag.

Absorption of the impact by the crumple zones reduces the forces acting upon the vehicle occupant and as a consequence will hopefully reduce the level of injuries suffered by them.

The manufacturers of modern frontal protection devices have had to consider the effect that the fitting of their bar will have on effectiveness of these in built safety features.

Essential to the progressive crumple zone of any vehicle is the original fit bumper bar and crush cans. In order to maintain the original crumple characteristics of the vehicle, the mounting of the FPB must be able to offer similar properties. A poorly designed or incorrectly mounted bull bar could not offer the same deceleration profile, seriously compromising the safety of the vehicle occupants.

The testing required to make an 'Airbag compatible bull bar' has produced some interesting findings about accidents.

It has been found that the installation of a properly designed FPB will have much less effect on the airbag triggering than variations in vehicle weight caused by the number of passengers, load, fuel and tow weight.

Air bag triggering occurs when the rate of deceleration of the vehicle exceeds a triggering threshold. This triggering threshold may vary by as much as 30% between vehicles of the same model depending upon vehicle age and assembly variations.

A properly designed and mounted FPB has been found to have much less effect on the deceleration rate, or 'crash pulse' than the variations caused by variations in either vehicle weight or age and assembly.

It stands to reason that an FPB that has little or no effect on air bag triggering will also not compromise the level of passenger protection afforded by the SRS. In fact, in a 48 km/h barrier test, it will take about 45 milliseconds for a passenger with the seat adjusted to the position furthest from the steering wheel to reach the seating position of a passenger that has the seat adjusted to the position closest to the steering wheel.

As variations in passenger seating position, or even passenger size and weight, are not part of the calculations to determine airbag triggering, it is also reasonable to assume that the minor variations in the crash pulse will not compromise occupant protection.

As stated earlier, one of the principle reasons for the popularity of the FPB in Australia is the high incidence of animal strikes, particularly those involving kangaroos. Research by vehicle manufacturers has determined that motor vehicle accidents involving animal strikes rarely exceed the deceleration rate required to trigger the airbag.

If this is the case the FPB is fulfilling its function of minimising damage to the front of the vehicle while maintaining vehicle mobility without compromising the safety of the vehicle occupants.

"Pole" or "post" crashes are responsible for a high percentage of road fatalities . They are difficult for airbag sensors to detect because, as the impact is concentrated and therefore more intrusive, the deceleration threshold is often not exceeded. The vehicle occupant is exposed to considerable impact, without the benefit of the airbag. The FPB can assist in spreading the impact across the front of the vehicle thus providing the deceleration necessary to trigger the air bag if required.

Throughout this article the all important clause has been a "properly designed and mounted FPB". If you are fitting a FPB to a late model vehicle with SRS it is imperative that it be 'airbag compatible'. A poorly designed FPB will not necessarily prevent the air bag from deploying. In fact it is more likely to cause it to deploy prematurely, considerably increasing repair costs and defeating the purpose of the FPB.

Millions of dollars worth of ongoing research is being carried out by bull bar manufacturers to ensure that the modern FPB is able to compliment the safety features of modern vehicles. An indication of the success of this commitment is the knowledge that some locally designed and built FPB's are being marketed as genuine accessories by vehicle manufacturers.

[TerryS]

Originally Posted by XtremeMarine

RTE bumpers don't come with hi-lift or jack-all receivers in them, so that entire scenario is based on an idiot of an owner who didn't understand his vehicle, or the modifications made to it. Also, considering he was off-road; it is impossible to know if he even had a proper off-road base for his jack, or proper jacking technique. Considering the damage explained on the vehicle, I can safely say not. Not even a spare tire under the frame to keep the vehicle from falling as far. So not really a safe, valid, or understandable point in the debate, imho.

Not a bad point, except one would expect the bumper to support the static weight, and not shear nearly completely off. What if the vehicle had come down on a rock onto the same point the jack was positioned. That, being a dynamic load, the same weight as in the jack situation, would have done the same thing. What ground the jack was sitting on has little to do with the bumper construction failing. It was, however, sitting in the back of the car, along with a large, molded plastic foot plate.
Why don't they put jack points in them? ARB does, and it's the only front location a 110 can be jacked from.

[slangel]

Originally Posted by Expedition Nutter

All I am trying to point out is how people really brag on the Rovertym, and it's not any better than anyone elses junk. That's my whole point of discussion here. They all will bend etc, given the right conditions.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I have seriously smacked the crap out of my RTE on stuff that bent other bars in the same trip. As far as RTE being better than others I believe it is - PLUS the customer service you get from Steve is OUTSTANDING - I love his product, he is a great guy to deal with, and for those reasons I will going back to him for everything else on my rover.

[p76rangie]

A bit more on why crush cans and bull bar design are important:

With an air bag equipped vehicle it is essential that the vehicle's crush rate and, therefore, air bag triggering is not altered when a bull bar is fitted.

In a collaboration with Monash university & Autoliv Australia, ARB has invested heavily, and conducted extensive research and testing to determine various methods of mounting bull bars that truly offer vehicle protection without affecting the crush pulse.

To ensure compatibility we assess each vehicle's frontal crush characteristics, then replicate the crush rate into the design of the bull bar & its mounting system. By using this method we achieve maximum possible vehicle protection without affecting the crash pulse.

Some other manufacturers, of plastic & metal, have determined that by making their bull bars soft or weak enough they won't affect the air bag's triggering. Although we doubt the validity of this method, why would you even consider fitting a frontal protection device that offers little or even no protection at all?

ARB has conducted full frontal vehicle barrier crash tests with Autoliv Australia to verify both the air bag triggering & vehicle crumple rate will react as the original vehicle designer intended."

[ICUP]

P76,
All you're doing is copy and pasting from Australia four wheel drive parts and accessories for 4x4 trucks and 4WD equipment

I asked for proof. Where are these studies you claim that have been done?
Pictures? Charts? At what speed was the test done!?!?!?

The crush cans are only going to take some much impact. Actually, they will not take much at all as we can see in the picture posted earlier. So what happens when the crush cans are crushed? Does the ARB bumper then act just like a bumper such as the RTE? With that said, if you're really that worried about it, couldn't you just add a piece of crappy metal between the RTE and the frame for a "crush can"?

I'm no even sure what you're trying to prove here. Are you trying to say that the ARB is stronger than the RTE? Or just "more safe"? Which bumper, in your opinion, would you rather winch from? How about if you needed to be pulled out by your bumper - would you rather have the ARB or the RTE?

At the end of the day, this quote holds true "Crush cans seem to prevent excessive damage at low speeds, but at higher velocities inertia generated from directional motion and mass of said element is the ultimate demon and determining factor or level of damage in every situation I have witnessed" -unknown author

As for the Texas truck above, it was not totaled because of the bumper, it was totaled because the driver hit something stronger then the bumper of the trucks components. No bumper, stock, ARB, TJM, or Stinger would have saved that truck.