The best overall Bull Bar. ? ?? ?

[TerryS]

Tami (if you're Tami, and not Dan) Where do you find all these pictures of wrecked Discos? I haven't seen this many smashed Discos (with undeployed airbags) since prowling the salvage yards in Miami. Do you work for RTE?

[sideview]

Hey Terry, naw, I don't work for RTE lol, did a lot of learning before I got my bumper made. Most the pics are from forums & the Web.

[TerryS]

Well, then I'm impressed. Not many of the fairer sex so into the technicalities. Bone up on roller rockers for me. I'm more into the drivetrain building.

[p76rangie]

Originally Posted by ICUP

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

If you do a search you will find the various studies.
Do you have some vested interest in a Bull Bar manufacturer as you appear to have only joined this site to post in this thread.

Originally Posted by ICUP

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.

I thought the quotes I posted were self explanatory, but appears to have gone over your head. So I will try to put it is simpler terms.

For airbags to deploy properly, they have to have enough time to deploy and receive the correct signal to deploy. To achieve this the vehicle must fold up (crush) at a certain rate over a certain timeframe. To achieve this on many vehicles they require crush cans fitted to the front of the vehicle. Not having these crush charateristics will cause the airbag and belt tensioner systems not to work properly.

Australian Design Rules (ADRs) require the vehicle to crush at a certain rate and effect. It is illegal in Australia to fit anything to the vehicle that will affect this. Therefore, manufacturers, such as ARB, MUST conduct the relevant testing and design to PROVE that their bullbars will not affect the airbag deployment. To achieve this they have to build the bullbars with a certain amount of crushing, but they cannot achieve the requirements without properly designed crush cans.

Rigid bars like RTE have never, and will never, be airbag combatable.

Those that are against airbags, just remember that there are significant differences between how airbags deploy between car manufacturers and countries. For example, in Australia it has been compulsory for decades to wear seat belts. Therefore the manufacturers here rely on the seat belts and tensioners for minor accidents. Air bags only deploy on more major collisions. In the US where wearing seat belts have not been compulsory, or people tend not to wear them, the manufacturers tend to deploy airbags earlier.

[p76rangie]

A couple of more quotes that may interest people about airbags:

The U.S. situation
Airbags are mandatory in the USA because it was the one way to ensure that occupants who do not wear seatbelts have some form of protection in crashes. The US seatbelt wearing rate is only now approaching 70%, whereas Australia has been over 95% for many years.

To protect the unbelted, US airbags must fire earlier and with greater force than the systems seen in Australia. This means that small occupants and the elderly in the USA are disadvantaged and low speed crash cases are now emerging where the so called "aggressive" US airbags have caused fatal or serious injuries where these occupants have been sitting close to the airbag when it has deployed.

That is why the Australian Design Rule for crash protection requires the seatbelts to be fastened, allowing the vehicle manufacturers to design their airbag systems to be a supplement to the seatbelt and therefore "softer".

How does an airbag work?
An airbag system consists of the airbag module which contains an inflator, the airbag itself, and a trim cover. The proper firing of the airbag is controlled by crash sensors which supply electrical signals to a control unit which fires the inflator to inflate the airbag.

The driver-side airbag module is in the hub of the steering wheel. The passenger-side airbag module (if so equipped) is in the dashboard above the glovebox.

This is what happens when an airbag deploys in a crash:

In the 15 to 20 milliseconds after impact, the crash sensors and control unit determine the severity of the collision and decide whether to deploy the airbag.
At about 25 milliseconds, the airbag splits its covering pad in predetermined places and begins to inflate rapidly.
At about 45 milliseconds, the bag is fully inflated while the seatbelted occupant is still moving forward.
At around 60 milliseconds, the occupant contact the airbag which immediately begins to deflate via vent holes in the back.
Up to 100 milliseconds, the occupant continues to sink deeply into the airbag which cushions the head and chest while it is deflating.
In less than a blink of an eye, the crash has occurred, the airbag has deployed, done its job and now lies deflated in front of you.

The Australian situation
There are a number of reasons why fatalities to children and small adults should not happen in Australia.

Small Adults
The US airbags fire with much greater force and are designed to stay inflated longer in order to prevent the unbelted occupant from going through the windscreen.

In Australia, airbags are designed as supplementary restraint systems to the lap shoulder seatbelt. As a result, the airbags fire later and inflate with less force and have larger vents which make the airbag "softer".

In 1995 the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) commissioned a study with the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) to investigate crashes involving airbag-equipped cars. The study was aimed at not only examining the benefits of airbags but also to alert FORS of any inherent problems with airbag deployments in the real world.

Currently, MUARC has investigated over one hundred cases of airbag deployment and there has not been any case of either adults or children being injured let alone killed because of the airbag deploying.

Children
In the 1970s, Australia led the world in child restraints by mandating their use and adopting an attachment system that incorporates an upper tether strap. Australian child restraints attach to the car via the adult belt at the bottom and to dedicated anchorage points on the vehicle by the upper tether strap. Canada followed our lead in the late 1980s.

In contrast, the USA and Europe only rely on the adult belt which allows the child restraint to move around during a crash thus reducing its effectiveness. Not having an upper tether strap also allows the restraint to be used in the front passenger seat.

This has recently become a concern in the USA particularly with rearward facing child restraints which are literally resting on the passenger airbag. In a crash, the US airbag inflates at over 300 km/h causing serious or fatal head injuries to the child in the restraint. The same thing happens to children who are unrestrained or incorrectly restrained in the front seat in close proximity to the airbag. These are the two scenarios currently being reported in the US by media.

There have been no reports of similar problems in Australia.
In Australia, the need for an upper tether strap precludes child restraints from being used in the front seat. In addition, some State laws prohibit children of certain ages from riding in the front seat. The only time children are at risk is if they are unbelted in the front seat, which is illegal.

On vehicles fitted with passenger airbags, most vehicle manufacturers are voluntarily putting warning labels alerting to the dangers of having children close to the airbag in an accident. FORS has negotiated with industry to mandate the labelling requirements in the Australian Design Rules.

Following representations from FORS, the latest Australian Standard for child restraints will also have labelling requirements on the child restraint itself to warn of these dangers.

The US problem with airbags should not happen in Australia because:
Airbags fitted to Australia cars inflate with less force than in the U S .
Australian child restraints are designed for use in the rear seats .
There have not been reports of similar problems in Australia.
Cars and child restraints have warning labels advising of the dangers .
Nevertheless, it is important to understand that the airbag is not a substitute for a seatbelt. Unrestrained children are at far greater risk of death or injury than children wearing a suitable seatbelt.

Small drivers, particularly women, are advised to sit as far as is comfortable from the steering wheel. This distance should be at least 30cm (or about 1 foot).

[Expedition Nutter]

Originally Posted by sideview

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.

And have we talked about recovery points?

First, it's not my vehicle, it is a friends vehicle and I didn't see it after the crash, so I cannot answer WHY the bumper got bent backwards, I just know it did it from impact, and 30 mph against a FORD FOCUS should not have done that much damage if the bumper was that good (solid), considering how easily modern cars crumple up like aluminum pepsi cans. Why did they total the truck? I never asked. Another thing - different insurance companies will go to different lengths to satisfy customers. One company might offer to repair it, while another totals it. At 30 mph, RTE/ARB bumper or not, anyone would walk away. My point - 30 mph should not have trashed this Disco with an RTE bumper, ARB bumper etc.

[Expedition Nutter]

Here's a good "After the Crash" story from a Toyota Land Cruiser owner who had an ARB bull bar on his Cruiser when he hit a Mercury Marquis....

MAF ARB Winch Mount Bull Bars

[Roverhound]

Originally Posted by TerryS

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.

See, here's the kicker. The story is bull shit. Either the body shop had no idea what bumper was on there or they were outright lying.
I love the, "I heard from somebodies brother's friend..." shit.

[sideview]

Originally Posted by TerryS

Well, then I'm impressed. Not many of the fairer sex so into the technicalities. Bone up on roller rockers for me. I'm more into the drivetrain building.

I'll get on it ha!

[sideview]

So does your Rangie have airbags P76? The article you pasted must be at least 10 years dated ...need to catch up on US laws and stats.

All this concern for safety now, are you forgetting that Land Rovers are, by nature, tanks on the road? My primary purpose for getting a 'bull bar' was for off-road protection, not kangaroo road kill.

Side note - Of course, while nothing is death proof, I do feel a sense of safety on the road in my truck... it's pretty rock solid in the cabin, with about a gazillion air bags, crush zones, blah-di-blah, as well as a nice safety feature which turns off the passenger air bag automagically if a certain weight isn't achieved in the seat. Even without a bull bar, it stands up to things like the unexpected freeway deer kill wonderfully. The RTE does not hinder the safety of my precious cargo on the tarmac, if anything it protects us even more...and off-road it is superior IMHO.

[p76rangie]

Originally Posted by sideview

So does your Rangie have airbags P76? The article you pasted must be at least 10 years dated ...need to catch up on US laws and stats.

All this concern for safety now, are you forgetting that Land Rovers are, by nature, tanks on the road? My primary purpose for getting a 'bull bar' was for off-road protection, not kangaroo road kill.

Side note - Of course, while nothing is death proof, I do feel a sense of safety on the road in my truck... it's pretty

You are obviously one that thinks that just because they drive something big that they are safe. It is usually the opposite unless you hit something smaller than you. Up to a few years ago the top selling vehicle in the states was a F100. It is bigger than you.

People are usually killed in head on accidents or hitting something solid like a tree. In such circumstances give me airbags and belt tensioners over a bull bar any day.

You seem a little confused as to what makes you feel safe in your car. First off you mention all the airbags, etc, then you mention your RTE bull bar that has a negative impact on such things.

So if we really get down to it, what do you feel safer in, a Defender with a RTE bull bar and no airbags, etc, or a Disco with crumple zones, belt tensioners, airbags, and an ARB bar.

The thing is that you can get off road protection and still have a vehicle that maintains its safety features. For Example, the ARB bar.

I have not got my bar for Kangaroos. I have only ever hit one in my life (actually it wasn't me, my wife was driving at the time). It is for off road protection and it has hit most things you could off road. It also knocked down a 6 metre brick wall (the rear of my garage) accidently one time. It also has a Warn XP winch attached, which is used regularly to recover vehicles heavier than the Rangie.

Do I feel safe in the Rangie on the road? Hell no!!. I would feel much safer in a family size sedan.

[p76rangie]

Originally Posted by sideview

So does your Rangie have airbags P76? The article you pasted must be at least 10 years dated ...need to catch up on US laws and stats.

Not sure what you think is out of date. If it is the proportion of people wearing seat belts. Here are more recent stats:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810677.PDF
If it is about the difference in airbag deployment, what year is your vehicle? Why you have still a relatively high proportion of people not wearing seat belts, the airbag system has to stay similar. I love how much you guys get fined for not wearing a seat belt. It is obvious that your governments are not too serious about road safety. They seem more concerned about the air quaility they put out.

You might want to read this while you are feeling so safe in your Disco.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/au.../22SAFETY.html

[sideview]

LOL on the contrary, I feel safe in the LR3 because it is a safe vehicle, are you saying it is not? As I said, no vehicle is death proof - obviously, I'd say we are as protected well, as is sensible, all things considered...

[p76rangie]

Originally Posted by sideview

LOL on the contrary, I feel safe in the LR3 because it is a safe vehicle, are you saying it is not? As I said, no vehicle is death proof - obviously, I'd say we are as protected well, as is sensible, all things considered...

By your Government stats, you are 28.9% more likely to get killed driving a 4WD (light truck) than driving a passenger car.

42% of Light Truck fatal accidents do not involve another vehicle, so your bull bar ramming through a smaller car is not going to help you.

But then again I ride a motorcycle and in the States you are 27 times more likely to be killed on one.
FARS Encyclopedia: Trends - General

[sideview]

I'll take my chances ...you're just being silly now.

Back on topic...