Kaon recovery hooks (1 Viewer)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Threads
136
Messages
5,931
Location
Texas
Is anyone running the Kaon recovery hooks instead of the Warn version? Thinking about giving them a go but I wanted to make sure there wasn’t some complaint or reason why I don’t see them.
 
Is anyone running the Kaon recovery hooks instead of the Warn version? Thinking about giving them a go but I wanted to make sure there wasn’t some complaint or reason why I don’t see them.

Had Kaon been available years ago, I would have gone with theirs over the ARBs. ARBs are crazy strong, but without my own serious grinding on them to create a rounded inner edge, they’ll cut right through soft shackles. The Kaon comes with rounded edges both inner and outer…and tgey also have a larger hole…allowing standard shackles easier insertion/looping.

Both seem super pricy (remember Kaons show their price in Australian dollors, so not as bad as they appear), but I’d say go for the Kaons.
 
Had Kaon been available years ago, I would have gone with theirs over the ARBs. ARBs are crazy strong, but without my own serious grinding on them to create a rounded inner edge, they’ll cut right through soft shackles. The Kaon comes with rounded edges both inner and outer…and tgey also have a larger hole…allowing standard shackles easier insertion/looping.

Both seem super pricy (remember Kaons show their price in Australian dollors, so not as bad as they appear), but I’d say go for the Kaons.

The larger hole and grey color are really what drew me to them as I hate the idea of the red hooks on ours. I'll order some up here soon.
 
Same, they have some thought to their shape.
 
The Kaons were out of stock when I needed some recovery hooks so I went with the ZTactical ones. They're billet 6061 T6. They both met my requirement of not being red, and more importantly having a radiused edge. Worked fine with my F55 soft shackles.
IMG_6132.jpeg
 
I know the topic has been beaten to death but until I see a finite element analysis of the frame and recovery locations - bolting something stronger than the frame to it just seems counterintuitive to me.

I get that the recovery gear will likely fail first, but bolting a 1/2” solid piece of steel to something that’s not even 1/4” thick to some tack welded threaded connections does not make sense.

I have also yet to read a report of a failed stock recovery point.
 
Really haven't been any Frame type failures that I have seen... on any truck that I have seen.. I'm sure it has happened though.. but even the $500 XJ's seem to hold together.

But just today was another fatality when doing a "snatch" (i.e. dynamic recovery) using a tow ball...

if anything the failure point on these recovery tow points is the hardware but they are using G10.9 bolts (same or better than OEM).. and that would be really only in a Dynamic recovery situation where someone we bumper to bumper and floored it (possible to get over 75Klbs load..)
For a static recovery (winching or tow strap used correctly) I have no qualms with them..

I really like the fact that they are have the correct radius for soft shackles, AND More importantly state the WLL (working load limit) on them.. which means they have been at least tested to that limit under controlled conditions.

I use soft shackles from F55, safe extract, and a couple of others and Van Beest Green in hard shackles as the case demands. Pretty much has to state the WLL.
 
Those OEM ones are good for tie downs or level puling out of some stuck situation, but I wouldn't trust them on some 45 degree mountain hill.
I use some beefy metal d-rings when I need to attach to the ARB ones, but like mentioned above they have sharp edges if using a soft shackle.

There was an earlier thread on these

 
Touché.
 
Kaon make a fantastic product, smooth edges for soft shackles and come in a subtle Color
1659085515210.jpeg


1659085634837.jpeg
 
And still, no one is addressing the strength of the frame horn, the potential for damage of the frame if one of these contacts a solid object off-road, or the actual strength of the stock hook.

Where are the failures?

And, if the stock hook fails, will it’s construction mean one side of the loop stays connected reducing the number of flying chunks of metal?

Is the radius of the stock hook acceptable for soft shackles?
 
And still, no one is addressing the strength of the frame horn, the potential for damage of the frame if one of these contacts a solid object off-road, or the actual strength of the stock hook.

Where are the failures?

And, if the stock hook fails, will it’s construction mean one side of the loop stays connected reducing the number of flying chunks of metal?

Is the radius of the stock hook acceptable for soft shackles?
I was taught the radius needs to be 1.5x the rope diameter (by a I4WDTA instructor). I know that isn't an answer, but it gives the basis to find one.
 
And still, no one is addressing the strength of the frame horn, the potential for damage of the frame if one of these contacts a solid object off-road, or the actual strength of the stock hook.

Where are the failures?

And, if the stock hook fails, will it’s construction mean one side of the loop stays connected reducing the number of flying chunks of metal?

Is the radius of the stock hook acceptable for soft shackles?
I remember talking to someone at Slee when my lift was getting put on years ago and asked about the hooks up front. I recall him “not Christo” saying that those are only tie down hooks for shipping and nothing more. I don’t see what the issue would be to add true hooks. Maybe shoot Slee a call since they know more about Cruisers then most of us.
 
I remember talking to someone at Slee when my lift was getting put on years ago and asked about the hooks up front. I recall him “not Christo” saying that those are only tie down hooks for shipping and nothing more. I don’t see what the issue would be to add true hooks. Maybe shoot Slee a call since they know more about Cruisers then most of us.

Except that the owner's manual explicitly states that the central vertical portion is for vehicle tie down, not the emergency towing hook that protrudes forward, and explicitly prohibits flat-bed trucks from using the rear emergency towing hook for tie-down.

LX570s come with one recovery hook and the other side absent.. but they still have the actual tie-down hook there for vehicle shipping.

It does say the towing hooks should only be used for short distances at low speeds on flat hard ground.. but from a liability perspective they can't say "yank the cruiser out using these" because people will interpret that as using a chain is ok, etc.

Ultimately they are designed to handle a certain amount of force, and I presume toyota is smart enough to have that force be lower than what will damage the frame.

Plus as I mentioned, they may be designed to fail in a way that keeps the parts of the hook attached to the vehicle so less large chunks of metal are flying through the air at speed. That part is speculation. But the way they are constructed suggests a failure mode that would allow this. One weld could fail and the other stay intact, with the bend straightening out letting the strap go but the hook stays on the vehicle.

The issue to "add true hooks" is they may be stronger than the welded inserts in the frame, may be stronger than the bolts that hold them on, and DO stick out past the frame with a solid object that can contact rocks and bend the end of the frame in a way that won't happen with the stock hooks.. which may be good enough for recovery. Except no one has actually analyzed the stock hooks to see what they can do.. they've only offered bigger-is-better products claiming to solve a problem that so far no one has really had.

Except..

I was taught the radius needs to be 1.5x the rope diameter (by a I4WDTA instructor). I know that isn't an answer, but it gives the basis to find one.

This. An actual reason the stock hooks may not be ideal.

Doesn't mean I don't want more info about how strong the stock hooks actually are.

And since this doesn't get talked about much.. take a look at the stock hook system. The tie-down portion is important to maintain the strength of it. That thick steel plate sandwiches the thinner steel plate base of the hook between it and the frame, dispersing load and making the whole system much stronger.
 
Except that the owner's manual explicitly states that the central vertical portion is for vehicle tie down, not the emergency towing hook that protrudes forward, and explicitly prohibits flat-bed trucks from using the rear emergency towing hook for tie-down.

LX570s come with one recovery hook and the other side absent.. but they still have the actual tie-down hook there for vehicle shipping.

It does say the towing hooks should only be used for short distances at low speeds on flat hard ground.. but from a liability perspective they can't say "yank the cruiser out using these" because people will interpret that as using a chain is ok, etc.

Ultimately they are designed to handle a certain amount of force, and I presume toyota is smart enough to have that force be lower than what will damage the frame.

Plus as I mentioned, they may be designed to fail in a way that keeps the parts of the hook attached to the vehicle so less large chunks of metal are flying through the air at speed. That part is speculation. But the way they are constructed suggests a failure mode that would allow this. One weld could fail and the other stay intact, with the bend straightening out letting the strap go but the hook stays on the vehicle.

The issue to "add true hooks" is they may be stronger than the welded inserts in the frame, may be stronger than the bolts that hold them on, and DO stick out past the frame with a solid object that can contact rocks and bend the end of the frame in a way that won't happen with the stock hooks.. which may be good enough for recovery. Except no one has actually analyzed the stock hooks to see what they can do.. they've only offered bigger-is-better products claiming to solve a problem that so far no one has really had.

Except..



This. An actual reason the stock hooks may not be ideal.

Doesn't mean I don't want more info about how strong the stock hooks actually are.

And since this doesn't get talked about much.. take a look at the stock hook system. The tie-down portion is important to maintain the strength of it. That thick steel plate sandwiches the thinner steel plate base of the hook between it and the frame, dispersing load and making the whole system much stronger.
I asked Toyota for more info on the recovery hooks:

As per the Owners Manual the front and rear tow hooks are used to hook the vehicle to tow truck or pulled for vehicle recovery, the hook is holding the GVWR (gross vehicle weight rating : weight of the vehicle plus weight of the cargo plus occupants and additional vehicle equipment) which should not exceed 7275.0 lbs.

Also early model LX570s did come with 2 front recovery hooks, mine has 2.
 
I asked Toyota for more info on the recovery hooks:

As per the Owners Manual the front and rear tow hooks are used to hook the vehicle to tow truck or pulled for vehicle recovery, the hook is holding the GVWR (gross vehicle weight rating : weight of the vehicle plus weight of the cargo plus occupants and additional vehicle equipment) which should not exceed 7275.0 lbs.

Also early model LX570s did come with 2 front recovery hooks, mine has 2.
It’s good to go to the source, at least on the surface. Thing is the answer will be what their attorneys will allow them to say, not how strong they actually are.

If I still had access to the fabrication equipment I’d build a rig to break one or two. But even that wouldn’t tell us what the frame can withstand.

My point with the missing hook was even with the vehicles that only came with one, the other part was still there for vehicle tie down.. which supports what toyota told you that the other portion is for towing use.
 
I know the topic has been beaten to death but until I see a finite element analysis of the frame and recovery locations - bolting something stronger than the frame to it just seems counterintuitive to me.

I get that the recovery gear will likely fail first, but bolting a 1/2” solid piece of steel to something that’s not even 1/4” thick to some tack welded threaded connections does not make sense.

I have also yet to read a report of a failed stock recovery point.
**Edited a bit as I didn’t realize I hit send earlier…

Just thinkin here… No claim of being right or anyone being weong. With that in mind… Can anyone point to a “too strong” recovery point incident on a *200 series* that ruined the fame?

…I can’t either. ;)

Seriously though... I get the theory suggested, and surely frame damage is possible. But after **massive hits directly to my recovery points** (and I mean massive) in my heavy (up to 8400lbs), hard-wheeled truck…over huge boulders….I’ve never suffered recover-point-induced frame damage.

As others have noted, a real danger is usually from various recovery elements failing and launching…shackles, cables, etc or lines being poorly directed into bumpers or pinched on the points or other protrusions on extreme side pulls…or stress to cables, points or shackles not always as strong at weird angles. In the case of soft shackles… -being literally cut under extreme pressure against square or pinched edges happens and not even at full pull.
Do I believe the OEM recovery points were too week? Probably not…but when I took mine off…it didn’t seem particularly suited for side pulls. ut I frankly have no idea. Toyota doesn’t really like to even address extreme scenarios—probably because their lawyers won’t let them…so who knows. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Might beefed up points be unnecessary? -I’m open to that possibility. Several people I have the utmost respect for have registered concern over several hears now, and they may well be right… ? But after many trails and many monster hits, I’m not gonna to lose any sleep over frame worries.
 
Last edited:
I wish I remember who did report frame damage.. but I don’t. Will need to do some digging.

Also the longer the recovery point, or more specifically the greater the distance between the mounting hardware and the attached shackle, the worse it is to side pull. When we pull in-line the load is applied more or less evenly to both bolts. If we pull at a 90, depending on the above mentioned distance, we may be putting a multiple of the pulling force on the front bolt.

Not that stock hooks are great for side pulls, but they at least have being short going for them.
 
Just thinkin here… No claim of being right or anyone being weong. With that in mind… Can anyone point to a “too strong” recovery point incident on a *200 series* that ruined the fame?

…I can’t either. ;)

I think we'd have to look to Australia for that. Lots of dudes down there pulling big(ish) trailers off road. I'm sure there's been some hairy recoveries down there.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom