Iron Pig Off Road (IPOR) Skid Install - New Design (1 Viewer)

[IPOR]

Rich was kind enough later that day to show off the IPOR skid plate... (and roll cage!)

As you can see from the second pic Rich has and earlier version of the skid plate that used countersunk hardware at the trans mount. We got feedback from 80 owners here on ih8mud that using the countersink hardware (required drilling and tapping trans mount) was difficult to do in the driveway so we changed to slots that would accomodate the factory trans mount studs and received a very positive response to it. We added the protective ring later, and given the feedback received in this thread may add a similar mod to the crossmember bolts as well.

It's important to note that doing so would make it subject to the same interference problems as the other skid shown above, when mounting any one of the many aftermarket sliders that use these bolts as attachment points. Compatibility with multiple aftermarket sliders is no accident, we designed it that way.

Toyota saw fit to slot these holes in the factory crossmember to allow for minor production differences, and certainly after 10 years of fender benders and wheeling incidents using these slots ensures fewer fitting problems for the end consumer. Unfortunately countersinks cannot be used in the slotted holes. I'm a big fan of using countersunk hardware - I run it on my FZJ40, but it's a modified version of our 80 skid and involved custom frame mounts and significant added expense. I don't think countersinks are the answer for the crossmember bolts.

It may be difficult to see in the reduced size of the images here, but even under severe use like this the bolts on this skid are fine. While I recognize the need to moderate the risk of damage to the bolts, I disagree that this is a significant enough concern to make the IPOR 80 skid a bad choice. The IPOR 80 skid is still the best protection on the market for the 80 series Land Cruiser.

I am always interested in making our products better. When a solution becomes available that doesn't increase cost to the end user, doesn't make it more difficult to install and doesn't interfere with mounting other aftermarket equipment you can bet we'll incorporate it in the design!

 

[CycloSteve]

Lance, thanks for the heads-up on the free shipping...ordered!

Ouch to the above shots.

 

[80t0ylc]

....... We added the protective ring later, and given the feedback received in this thread may add a similar mod to the crossmember bolts as well.......

Good idea, IMHO

.....It's important to note that doing so would make it subject to the same interference problems as the other skid shown above, when mounting any one of the many aftermarket sliders that use these bolts as attachment points. Compatibility with multiple aftermarket sliders is no accident, we designed it that way.....

I see your point, but have not seen sliders that use these as a mounting point, although it looks like a logically good choice, except for the shape of the OEM crossmember, which is not flat like yours.

...... I don't think countersinks are the answer for the crossmember bolts......

Agreed! Much rather have flange bolts here.

.........While I recognize the need to moderate the risk of damage to the bolts, I disagree that this is a significant enough concern to make the IPOR 80 skid a bad choice.......

Disagree, emphatically! While these bolts are just your skidplate mounting bolts, let's not forget this is also a crossmember that supports the rear of the tranny and center diff. Any weakening or failure of this very important structure could have serious and disasterous consequences to the drive train.

....... The IPOR 80 skid is still the best protection on the market for the 80 series Land Cruiser.......

This could be true, with a slight mod to protect hardware, again IMHO.

....... I am always interested in making our products better. When a solution becomes available that doesn't increase cost to the end user, doesn't make it more difficult to install and doesn't interfere with mounting other aftermarket equipment you can bet we'll incorporate it in the design!

While I understand what IPOR is striving for here, Lance, I think the priorities are mixed up. IMHO, the integrity of the crossmember should be paramount followed by the protection that the skidplates provide second followed thirdly by compatibility. Leaving those crucial bolt heads exposed seriously jepordizes the basic crossmember strength, once again IMHO.

 

[CreeperSleeper]

Lance, if I wasn't such a cheap redneck with a welder I would have an IPOR skid on my 80! I do think (especially with the new bolt protection) that it is the best skid available through a vendor. I have seen it in person and in action and I am impressed.

That being said, I agree with Tom. When building my skid, I desided that loosing aprox. 1.5" of ground clearance was worth protecting the bolts. I think it's safe to say I wheel my 80 harder than most and I know that I will be on the skidplate, even if I was to build a flat bottom for my 80. Knowing this, my design was focused on protection first (knowing that I would be resting on my skid) and ground clearance second. Two different approaches to the same problem and I think we both acomplished the goal!

 

[bkfj40]

The IPOR skidplate is simplicity in action, but I agree on your concept for the hardware protection idea, luk4mud, - I mean we're talking skidplates here. They're gonna get hammered - no 2 ways about it. I'm sorry Lance, but those 8 exposed bolt heads would worry me. One of the reasons I chose another skidplate. As you can see in the pic, a little ground clearance was sacrificed, but IMHO the protection for all the hardware is superior.

a little ground clearance? come on, that tube is gonna get hung up on rocks like a fat kid eating a cupcake. We all like Toyotas for one reason, they are overbuilt....just like the skidplate connection system.

they are running 8 M10x1.5 grade 8.8 fasteners. 8.8 is the equivalent of ASTM A325M and then ASTM A325, which, according to my AISC manual has 21ksi allowable shear strength and 44 ksi allowable tensile strength. Using a bolt area of 0.12 in^2 ( 10mm bolt ), you end up with an allowable shear strength of 2.5k per bolt and an allowable tensile strength of 5.3k per bolt.


How much do you think that rear cross member supports? 500 pounds, say even 1000 pounds...ah hell, lets use 2,000 pounds

Using an interaction equation and 2,000 pounds total tension (that's probably 4 times what is on there) on the bolts, you end up with about 19.98 k (damn near 20,000 pounds! ) shear capacity.

If you think that you are going to shear all those bolts at once, you must have a worse spotter than anyone I've seen...or a worse driver. Granted, the bolts heads might get all bent up and you might not be able to wrap a socket around them....but I'd rather have a set of bolt heads down low than a big ol 2" piece of tube steel that I could've used for a driveshaft.

I wheeled an 80 back in 2003 thru 2005 or 6. I had the old style ARB sliders that were more of tank trap road graders than anything....I wish I would've had an IPOR skidplate on that baby....

There are quality vendors out there for the 80 series that all put a little different spin on stuff, no different than the minitruck market. Take a look at the skid plates that marlin and budbuilt make for the minitruck. Yeah, the truck is lighter, but your design is similar to what everyone is trying to avoid...loss of ground clearance.


anyone got a job number for this so I can bill someone for this ?

 

[80t0ylc]

a little ground clearance? come on, that tube is gonna get hung up on rocks like a fat kid eating a cupcake....

My, what a vivid picture! Is this an issue with you? Many things are at or below the bottom surface of the tube, so don't give me the ground clearance routine. Yes, it's not as smooth and large a surface as the IPOR. But so what? Are you going to tell me that those bolt heads aren't going to catch on rocks or objects sliding on skidplate?

....they are running 8 M10x1.5 grade 8.8 fasteners. 8.8 is the equivalent of ASTM A325M and then ASTM A325, which, according to my AISC manual has 21ksi allowable shear strength and 44 ksi allowable tensile strength. Using a bolt area of 0.12 in^2 ( 10mm bolt ), you end up with an allowable shear strength of 2.5k per bolt and an allowable tensile strength of 5.3k per bolt.
How much do you think that rear cross member supports? 500 pounds, say even 1000 pounds...ah hell, lets use 2,000 pounds
Using an interaction equation and 2,000 pounds total tension (that's probably 4 times what is on there) on the bolts, you end up with about 19.98 k (damn near 20,000 pounds! ) shear capacity.
If you think that you are going to shear all those bolts at once, you must have a worse spotter than anyone I've seen...or a worse driver. Granted, the bolts heads might get all bent up and you might not be able to wrap a socket around them....but I'd rather have a set of bolt heads down low than a big ol 2" piece of tube steel that I could've used for a driveshaft......

Yawn...all your figures still don't help how my "gut" feels. No one can predict how real world situations can all of a sudden spin out of control. You may be in your comfort zone with the present IPOR design, but don't try to convince me that protecting those bolt heads is a bad idea.

......I wheeled an 80 back in 2003 thru 2005 or 6. I had the old style ARB sliders that were more of tank trap road graders than anything....I wish I would've had an IPOR skidplate on that baby....
There are quality vendors out there for the 80 series that all put a little different spin on stuff, no different than the minitruck market. Take a look at the skid plates that marlin and budbuilt make for the minitruck. Yeah, the truck is lighter, but your design is similar to what everyone is trying to avoid...loss of ground clearance.....

I'm not even going to try and argue with you, 'cause I don't play in the rocks, unless I have to. I've been wheeling for 45 years and I try to stay out of trouble. The only reason I installed the skidplate was to protect my investment and be prepared for some brutal terrain. I'm building for expedition - not rock crawling.

......anyone got a job number for this so I can bill someone for this ?

Send me your bill - I'd love to tell you where to put it

 

[IPOR]

Okay guys, let's try to keep it civil here.

Tom, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said you're reacting to what your gut tells you. There's nothing wrong with that, sometimes our instincts are right on the mark. I think the point BK is trying to make is that with a more objective viewpoint you may find that the risk is overstated.

The simple fact is that we have had literally hundreds of these skids in use for years on some of the most hardcore 80's on the trail today without a single report of bolt failure. There are 8 bolts holding the crossmember on and you'd have to lose at least 4, all on the same side at the same time to compromise the crossmember. We have field tested this skid under severe circumstances (the example above is just one of many) with no such problems. What appears to you as a weak point has thus far proven through actual use to be a non-issue.

That doesn't mean I disagree with protecting the bolts wherever possible, but a statement like, "serious and disasterous consequences" implies that failure is likely when it is in fact NOT likely and grossly overstates the result.

You make a good point and I appreciate your input. Let's try to stick with constructive criticism and move on.

 

[IPOR]

Two different approaches to the same problem and I think we both acomplished the goal!

Right on Chad. I like your approach, in fact I built many just like it before settling on the current IPOR design. One of the requirements as I'm sure you have found in building these is repeatability. For this reason I like to keep the number of pieces in a single assembly to a minimum, and to leave as much as possible to the laser - it's accurate to .004".

There are certainly other ways to build a great skid for an 80, and there's no better place to acid test a design than here on Mud where people really use their 'cruisers. Hopefully this thread will lead us to further advances with both.

"redneck with a welder" he says...

 

[CreeperSleeper]

Right on Chad. I like your approach, in fact I built many just like it before settling on the current IPOR design. One of the requirements as I'm sure you have found in building these is repeatability. For this reason I like to keep the number of pieces in a single assembly to a minimum, and to leave as much as possible to the laser - it's accurate to .004".

There are certainly other ways to build a great skid for an 80, and there's no better place to acid test a design than here on Mud where people really use their 'cruisers. Hopefully this thread will lead us to further advances with both.

"redneck with a welder" he says...

I tell ya what... If I was mass producing these and had access to a lazer cutter, it would look a lot like yours!

 

[Ebag333]

"redneck with a welder" he says...

And the sad part? His skid plate is prettier than mine!

 

[CreeperSleeper]

And the sad part? His skid plate is prettier than mine!

Don't feel bad, Gabe... Your 80 is prettier than mine!

 

[FirstToy]

IPOR,
Nice improvements. How is the torsional rigidity compared to the stock crossmember? I imagine a square tube can withstand torsion better than a flat plate but that IPOR skid is so substantial, I don't imagine it flexing much.
It's a nice design and the bolts don't seem like a big deal.

Oh yeah and a good pic of that 80 stolen from Roams. Great job on Roams 4Runner SAS, really nice.

 

[80t0ylc]

Okay guys, let's try to keep it civil here..

Amen! As you implied - I should've just ignored his off subject jibes, just couldn't resist. ---Gut feeling again

.....Tom, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said you're reacting to what your gut tells you. There's nothing wrong with that, sometimes our instincts are right on the mark. I think the point BK is trying to make is that with a more objective viewpoint you may find that the risk is overstated.

The simple fact is that we have had literally hundreds of these skids in use for years on some of the most hardcore 80's on the trail today without a single report of bolt failure. There are 8 bolts holding the crossmember on and you'd have to lose at least 4, all on the same side at the same time to compromise the crossmember. We have field tested this skid under severe circumstances (the example above is just one of many) with no such problems. What appears to you as a weak point has thus far proven through actual use to be a non-issue.

That doesn't mean I disagree with protecting the bolts wherever possible, but a statement like, "serious and disastrous consequences" implies that failure is likely when it is in fact NOT likely and grossly overstates the result.

You make a good point and I appreciate your input. Let's try to stick with constructive criticism and move on.

Lance, I really like the simplicity in the IPOR design. As you responded to Chad, (who BTW is the designer and fabricator of my skid) the benefits are not only appreciated by the owner, but by the manufacturer as well. And I can understand where you're coming from - a design change is an additional expense, which will have to be justified as well as absorbed, somehow. I used the extreme example of failure for a reason, not to overstate the possibility, but to suggest that the possibility would be serious and disastrous to the drive train. The point that it is NOT likely may be true, but with totally exposed bolt heads, it is still possible and people need to know that. Especially owners that are modifying their rigs to play in the rocks. I truly feel this is constructive criticism for safety's sake as well as the inconvenience of having your crossmember bolt heads damaged to the point of making it extremely difficult to extract them for maintenance purposes.

 

[ECruiser]

OK - time to chime in. I have been running an IPOR skidplate (as well as other armor) for about 5 years on my 80. I wheel pretty hard and have put the armor through its paces. I'm usually the only non trailed rig in the group and through the chiding of my "friends" try some pretty crazy lines. Through a combination of a lack of common sense and driving skills, I have mangled every tubular component under my truck (steering links, rear lower control arms, rear driveshaft) and have had to upgrade to 1/4" DOM for all components except the rear driveshaft which is schedule 80. I have beat the crap out of my IPOR skidplate. The powdercoat is gone and I have turtled the 6500lbs beast on the skidplate several times. It has always held up and never deformed. IMHO it is indestructible.

Now on to the bolts. Mine is an earlier version and was installed by the guys at IPOR. Thus, the hardware in the center portion is all countersunk as it was custom fit. I think the current flange protection is felt by most to be adequate and not an issue. The eight exposed bolt heads on the framerails seem to be causing grief. In my experience, this has not been a problem. I removed my skidplate two or three years ago to drop the trans pan. Removing these bolts was not a problem. The one bolt that did give me some grief was the one at the back that attaches to the support leg. It was pretty mangled and so I installed countersunk hardware on reinstall. BTW, the reinstall was a Biotch. As I had a custom fit skidplate with no slotted holes, it was difficult to line up. I even crossthreaded one of the bolts requiring drilling and tapping. The current design is more forgiving in this regard.

I just rolled under my truck to take a look. Man, that skidplate has really taken some abuse. The boltheads look fine. It has never let me down and I have turtled the 6500lbs beast on it several times. As for shear strength. those inglorious pictures earlier in this post are of my truck. That backward winch onto the skidplate was several tons of shear force. The bolts and skidplate held up without a whimper.

I can only speak from experince in using the product - It works without fail.

Incidentally, thanks to the guys at Bay to Blue Ridge Cruisers and IPOR for a very safe, efficient, and difficult three winch recovery of my vehicle. Drove it home 200 miles from that event without problem. Have pounded out the dents and fit some plexi. Ready to go wheeling. Oh, and Lance, I don't need side recovery points on my truck. The mounting arm of your sliders does just fine.

 

[rhyary]

So I took advantage of the free shipping and got one. It showed up on Sat and today I installed it.
All went well until I had to install the support arm.
The holes are about half a hole too short. (5mm?). Yes I know that the skid should move around but there was not play left to align the arm holes.

I don't feel like improvising, so I guess I'll give IPOR a call Monday and ask them for a solution.

I also would like to second about the hardware. It may be functional, but it is not precise.
The washers are big and installed off center as you tightening the bolts. Not to my liking. Looks cheesy.

So I am going to do what landtank did and source my own hardware. I don't get it. What is so difficult to get the right hardware into the kit?

In addition, the one bolt that holds the arm into the frame is 13mm. Give me a break, it must be the only 13mm in my car. Everything is either 12mm or 14mm.

The skid itself is a beauty so no gripes here.

 

[jonheld]

Jon - your skid is lower than everyone else. This is also intentional.

Hmmm...thought this might be the case. Thanks. LOL.

FWIW, I've only wheeled a few times with the belly plate and it does make a difference in clearance. Saved my bacon in New Hampshire for sure. I also worry about the bolt heads but so far it doesn't seem to be an issue. On the other hand I'm pretty used to replacing parts on my truck and a bolt head here or there means nothing to me. When they get tagged, swap them out. Pretty basic stuff. If someone was that concerned about snapping 4 bolts at a time, then spot weld it to the frame.

I saw the build thread on the other plate some time ago and that steel bar running down the center looked pretty bad to me. The point is to increase ground clearance over stock. That seemed counterproductive IMO, but thats what makes a good horse race.

My truck always seems to be the fat kid eating the cupcake.

 

[landtank]

In addition, the one bolt that holds the arm into the frame is 13mm. Give me a break, it must be the only 13mm in my car. Everything is either 12mm or 14mm.

I'm assuming you are talking head size and not bolt size. Head size has to do whether or not it is a JIS or DIN standard piece of hardware. M8 bolts with a 12mm head are a JIS bolt and pretty hard to get from my experience. The metric house that I get my hardware from, who has been in business forever, can only source a few sizes in the JIS standard.

 

[IPOR]

All went well until I had to install the support arm.
The holes are about half a hole too short. (5mm?). Yes I know that the skid should move around but there was not play left to align the arm holes.

Yes the skid should move around. While I'm confident the components fit when installed properly it's possible your truck has been in an accident or is otherwise irregular. I'm happy to provide a replacement leg with a slot as discussed on the phone with you.

Additionally, there is nothing at all wrong with the hardware kit provided but if you want something different I'm happy to provide it. (there may be additional cost involved - one of the reasons we use the hardware kit provided with your skid is to keep your cost down - JIS hardware and flange bolts simply cost more, and the hardware provided, while not to your liking is perfectly well suited to this application.)

Incidentally, the factory fasteners are not flange bolts, rather I think the correct term is SEMS. It's a washer installed on the shank of the bolt before rolling the threads thus creating a bolt with a captive washer.

As I mentioned earlier, this is the first I've heard anyone complain about the hardware so we haven't even had a chance to "upgrade" the kit (and cost). Until we do I'm happy to substitute hardware at buyer's request, just ask when you place the order.

 

[80t0ylc]

.............Additionally, there is nothing at all wrong with the hardware kit provided but if you want something different I'm happy to provide it. (there may be additional cost involved - one of the reasons we use the hardware kit provided with your skid is to keep your cost down - JIS hardware and flange bolts simply cost more, and the hardware provided, while not to your liking is perfectly well suited to this application.)

Incidentally, the factory fasteners are not flange bolts, rather I think the correct term is SEMS. It's a washer installed on the shank of the bolt before rolling the threads thus creating a bolt with a captive washer.

As I mentioned earlier, this is the first I've heard anyone complain about the hardware so we haven't even had a chance to "upgrade" the kit (and cost). Until we do I'm happy to substitute hardware at buyer's request, just ask when you place the order.

Is there any reason these original bolts should not be re-used on IPOR skids? I mean other than the obvious (stretched or physically damaged)? I just reused original hardware on my redneck skid - it was still in good shape. It seems to me that suggesting folks re-use their hardware would save some expense.

 

[rhyary]

The originals are too short for IPOR skid.

I wanted to clarify that I do understand that functionally the kit that was sent has been working fine.
Getting off the phone with Lance he is kind enough to try to putting together an OCD kit.

My visit to the hardware store revealed that an OCD kit may not be trivial to put together.