HD Recovery points after ARB bumper (1 Viewer)

[EvanD]

Well s***. Learn something new every day I suppose.

I've been using the ARB bumper points for years now without issue. Granted, not often. Most of the recoveries I've had to do were for other people so I I'm usually using my winch or rear bumper for a strap.

Sigh, time to investigate yet another thing.

 

[MDJ]

The trail tailor points are well made. I wouldn't look elsewhere.

 

[MrMikeyG]

@Whiphub ; I just wrestled my ARB on this weekend. What MDJ said is correct. ARB ships a specific bolt for that that has a section of non-threaded "shoulder" to accept the spacer and oem recovery hook. All of the factory bolts have that nice "easy start" taper though, and the ARB supplied ones do not. I had to fight for mount hole alignment for each pair of bolts.

 

[RPMarheine]

Where is this idea that the holes on the ARB bumpers are only for some special hi lift attachment only come from? I have searched and searched and only find threads where people mention that’s the case. I found only one picture of a failed point that someone shared from another forum. I personally think the idea that ARB put something that looks exactly like a recovery point on their bumper but made it only for a hilift attachment is ... ridiculous.

 

[DancesWithMutts]

I had the OE recovery points on and was hitting them on everything, it was driving me nuts so I cut the bumper up and put in some beefy recovery points welded to the plates that bolt to the frame.

 

[Cruzerman]

Where is this idea that the holes on the ARB bumpers are only for some special hi lift attachment only come from? I have searched and searched and only find threads where people mention that’s the case. I found only one picture of a failed point that someone shared from another forum. I personally think the idea that ARB put something that looks exactly like a recovery point on their bumper but made it only for a hilift attachment is ... ridiculous.

Have you actually looked at them? They are just thin steel. And they do not look like recovery points either, at least to me. I would never use them for recovery. The ARB installation notes even say to reuse the factory tow hooks.

https://www.carid.com/images/arb/offroad-bumpers/pdf/3411050-installation-instruction.pdf

 

[RPMarheine]

They say to reinstall the factory tow hooks. Says nothing about use of them. I agree that the recovery points could be built thicker. (One of mine is bent from a rock strike) but as far as static line pulling I would have no concern. ARB says none of their bumpers have recovery points rated for snatch recoveries. If doing a double line pull with my winch I would be probably use both eyelets Because they are rather thin. In a careless snatch recovery I have serious doubts either the factory tie downs or the arb eyelets would be a safe point. “Just look at them” is a poor judge of thier actual strength. That seems to be the only proof anyone has that the eyelets on the arb bumpers, which are clearly designed to be recovery points, are not to be used for just that.

 

[Cruzerman]

I respect your opinion. They are just weaker than what I am used to in recovery points. Maybe for a static pull. Maybe. But for me, the majority of recoveries is a tow strap and a quick yank. I don't even like the way a clevis sits in them. But that's just me. I'm an over-engineering type guy. The entire ARB bumper is anything but over-engineered.

 

[DancesWithMutts]

I'm an over-engineering type guy. The entire ARB bumper is anything but over-engineered.

You say over-engineered, but I think what you mean is over-built. Things that are over-engineered tend to be needlessly complicated, difficult to manufacture, use exotic materials ect.
When you have proper engineers on the staff, you can determine the minimum thickness of material to get the job done. When you are just a bunch of fabricators with a cool idea, you use more material to give yourself a proper safety factor to make up for your lack of engineering/testing.

I'd argue that ARB does more engineering than any other bumper maker, perhaps with the exception of AEV. 95% of the bumpers on the market are made to look cool, and over-built to make up for the lack of engineering. ARB actually does crash testing to ensure proper operation of airbags and crumple zones.

With all that said, those "recovery points" are trash, I cut mine off and replaced them with proper steel.

 

[RPMarheine]

I agree the arb recovery points are underbuilt but I would not cut them off to start over. I do like the way the plate they are made out of passes through the bumper. I think they are well engineered but also built with weight and crash safety involved. I have been discussing this with a friend of mine who is a engineer that specializes in stress analysis and gear box design. We pretty much agree that the points are probably engineered to fail before the mounting brackets. Which is good ...and bad.
I’d like to see real evidence on how and where they fail but can’t find anything but hearsay and one old photo with no info or story.

 

[Cruzerman]

I do stand corrected. I did mean overbuilt. I am a fan of overbuilt. If the ARB had not come with the rig, I would not have bought it. Even my wife noted how thin / light the unit was. I'm used to products like the IPOR skid plate and the OPOR sliders. I've beat the living daylights out of those things and they have held up. Great examples of overbuilt. The ARB bumper definitely is not in the same build camp. That thing will fold and I've seen many examples of it doing so. That may be what it is engineered to do, but not what I'm looking for in a bumper.

That all being said, I do like the look and I can understand why people who value looks over utility chose these bumpers.

 

[Box Rocket]

I agree the arb recovery points are underbuilt but I would not cut them off to start over. I do like the way the plate they are made out of passes through the bumper. I think they are well engineered but also built with weight and crash safety involved. I have been discussing this with a friend of mine who is a engineer that specializes in stress analysis and gear box design. We pretty much agree that the points are probably engineered to fail before the mounting brackets. Which is good ...and bad.
I’d like to see real evidence on how and where they fail but can’t find anything but hearsay and one old photo with no info or story.

Static line, straight pulls on the ARB bumper locations are probably ok in most cases. Anything that isn't a straight-line pull will bend the thin steel fairly easily. Quite a few cases of bent ones over the years. Anyone who has hit one on a rock will tell you how easily they bend. Fewer cases lately since it's pretty common practice to not use them for any sort of recovery. Some have reinforced the points on the bumper by adding additional steel plating. Personally, I think the factory tow loops are a safer recovery point than those on the ARB bumper. However, those should be used with caution as well.
As others have mentioned, the Trail Tailor recovery points are strong and secure. I think its careless to trust the ARB points and not add a more secure frame mounted recovery point like the Trail Tailor ones considering the inexpensive cost.

I have bumper points for shackles in addition to the Trail Tailor ones on my truck. Use proper hardware (OEM bolts) to attach to the frame and the TT ones are an excellent option.
IMG_2457 by Adam Tolman, on Flickr

 

[Box Rocket]

I do stand corrected. I did mean overbuilt. I am a fan of overbuilt. If the ARB had not come with the rig, I would not have bought it. Even my wife noted how thin / light the unit was. I'm used to products like the IPOR skid plate and the OPOR sliders. I've beat the living daylights out of those things and they have held up. Great examples of overbuilt. The ARB bumper definitely is not in the same build camp. That thing will fold and I've seen many examples of it doing so. That may be what it is engineered to do, but not what I'm looking for in a bumper.

That all being said, I do like the look and I can understand why people who value looks over utility chose these bumpers.

One thing to consider with the ARB bumper is that it's one of the few bumpers on the market that goes through crash testing. As with factory bumpers, they are designed to absorb and dissipate impact energy as a means to help protect occupants. This is one factor in the choice of material ( as well as the design) of the ARB bumper. An argument could be made that a heavy steel bumper that doesn't deform in a crash could be more dangerous because of the energy that would transfer through the frame and potentially to the cabin/passengers. ARB bumpers were never meant to be rockcrawling bumpers.
So I wouldn't say the ARB bumper is not in the same build camp as other bumpers. In fact, the construction of the ARB is probably superior to most, but its intended application is different.

 

[Cruzerman]

I mostly agree with what you are saying. However, it seems to me that these bumpers seem basically the same as the ones on the 60 series which was long before airbags and crumple zones. Seems like they were at one point referred to as "roo" bars for protecting the rig if you strike an animal. Again, pretty sure a deer would destroy this bumper. Again, interesting conversation (at least to me). Thanks.

 

[DancesWithMutts]

Again, pretty sure a deer would destroy this bumper. Again, interesting conversation (at least to me). Thanks.

You are correct that it's a Roo bar, That is what they were designed for in Australia, and as such, they can take a deer strike just fine. Adult Male Kangaroos can be well over 200lbs. I will gladly take the lightest Bumper that will mount a winch, protect my grill and lights from animal strikes, increase my approach angle, and let me scrub the front of my cruiser on rocks and trees.

 

[Box Rocket]

I mostly agree with what you are saying. However, it seems to me that these bumpers seem basically the same as the ones on the 60 series which was long before airbags and crumple zones. Seems like they were at one point referred to as "roo" bars for protecting the rig if you strike an animal. Again, pretty sure a deer would destroy this bumper. Again, interesting conversation (at least to me). Thanks.

Yep, primary use is for acceptable front end protection from brush etc and animal strikes along with a strong winch mount. I had a TJM bumper on an earlier truck that was made of the same material/thickness as the ARB and hit a deer one night. Killed the deer and didn't leave a mark on the bumper.

Again, they're not the best option for rockcrawling or heavy impacts but they are still good for what they are designed for. All that said, I spent a lot of time in the rocks and all kinds of trails in an 80 with an ARB bumper for 16+ years. It took some good abuse, but I sold it last year in favor of my current bumper.

IMG_0921 by Adam Tolman, on Flickr

 

[DancesWithMutts]

That's a pretty hefty chop on that ARB.

 

[Box Rocket]

That's a pretty hefty chop on that ARB.

Yep, didn't need all that crap on the bottom.

 

[gsdog2]

I ordered these in from Australia. The stock points are really just for tying down during transport.

 

[Box Rocket]

I ordered these in from Australia. The stock points are really just for tying down during transport. View attachment 1948378

I looked into those too but I heard several complaints about them getting hung up on obstacles. The Trail Tailor ones are basically the back half of those. I suppose those could possibly be turned backward for better clearance? Those are nice and strong, just bigger than they need to be.