Recovery Points (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter jamgolf
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
turbo8
Supporting Vendor
When securing to a flat bed, the manual states to use tie down locations near the lower link mounts.
turbo8
Supporting Vendor
Toyota says they are tow hooks, not tie downs.
CharlieS
GOLD Star
I've got a set that will be available in a bit. I'm going to install a set of Trail Tailor ones I bought from another mud member (once I figure out an oven for the powder coating setup I bought). They're from a Tundra. Drop me a private message if you are interested.
gaijin
GOLD Star
I have a set of these on the way:
Link: Soft shackle friendly recovery points
Planning to use them with these:
Link: Soft shackle friendly recovery points
Planning to use them with these:
RobW0
GOLD Star
I saw those on the KAON site. Pricey but look really good. They were out of stock when I saw them. I don't need them or can't use them now with my new front bumper.I have a set of these on the way:
View attachment 2608985
Link: Soft shackle friendly recovery points
Planning to use them with these:
View attachment 2608989
View attachment 2608990
No because the weak link is not the loop. It’s the thin frame that will experience elastic deformation before the hook itself.
RET2
SILVER Star
Well that pretty much sums it up doesn't it?
bloc
SILVER Star
I still don't see why the tundra hooks are seen as an improvement. The stock tie-down hook acts as a large plate to reinforce and make the base plate of the stock tow hook even stronger, helping to resist deformation.
That would still be a failure, correct?
CharlieS
GOLD Star
I suspect that some other system component like shackles will be the "weak link" and fail before any of these hooks suffer catastrophic failure.
@bloc the Tundra ones are a ton beefier, much heavier with larger diameter bar forming the loop. They seem a lot more stout.
I think some of the ideas people have been putting out there is that the bolts are the weak link, and that even if the hook is more stout, that is bad because it moves the point of failure to the frame?
I guess we won't know until we see some data. Anybody here have access to one of those test rigs to test for failure? I'd donate a few factory hooks (land cruiser and tundra) for the experiment. I wonder if @TRAIL TAILOR would consider selling one cheap for testing, or in exchange for the data? A test or two wouldn't be conclusive, or even statistically valid, but it would give us some data points to discuss.
Oh, and for the OP: trail tailor makes a beefier rear tow point - Rear Tow Points 200 Series - https://www.trail-tailor.com/store/p115/Rear_Tow_Points_-_200_Series_GX470_4R.html
In a pinch, you can use the hitch pin as a recovery point. Like @Madtiger I use a hitch mounted shackle adapter (or whatever they are properly called). You can get steel ones that are inexpensive and functional. I moved to a Factor 55 HitchLink 2.0 because of the weight, and I trust their gear. If you are near Vermont and can drop by, I have a steel one that I'd give you for free.
@bloc the Tundra ones are a ton beefier, much heavier with larger diameter bar forming the loop. They seem a lot more stout.
I think some of the ideas people have been putting out there is that the bolts are the weak link, and that even if the hook is more stout, that is bad because it moves the point of failure to the frame?
I guess we won't know until we see some data. Anybody here have access to one of those test rigs to test for failure? I'd donate a few factory hooks (land cruiser and tundra) for the experiment. I wonder if @TRAIL TAILOR would consider selling one cheap for testing, or in exchange for the data? A test or two wouldn't be conclusive, or even statistically valid, but it would give us some data points to discuss.
Oh, and for the OP: trail tailor makes a beefier rear tow point - Rear Tow Points 200 Series - https://www.trail-tailor.com/store/p115/Rear_Tow_Points_-_200_Series_GX470_4R.html
In a pinch, you can use the hitch pin as a recovery point. Like @Madtiger I use a hitch mounted shackle adapter (or whatever they are properly called). You can get steel ones that are inexpensive and functional. I moved to a Factor 55 HitchLink 2.0 because of the weight, and I trust their gear. If you are near Vermont and can drop by, I have a steel one that I'd give you for free.
Last edited:
Those are awesome. Do you know if that price is for one or for a set? Looks like shipping to the US is a killer.I have a set of these on the way:
View attachment 2608985
Link: Soft shackle friendly recovery points
Planning to use them with these:
View attachment 2608989
View attachment 2608990
Agreed. My point is the tundra hooks dont strengthen anything.
bloc
SILVER Star
Ah, understood.
I’m pretty sure the bar/loop isn’t the weak link on stock or tundra applications. Like @04UZJ100 I’d expect the base plate to give. Then I think this would take the welded portion out of alignment, causing that to tear. I actually think that is why they are designed the way they are, with the weld right where it is, because that would tend to put the weld in tension starting at the loop end of the plate. But, I’m no expert and this is a guess.
Either way, if you really look at both hooks, and are willing to accept it probably won’t be the actual bar that fails (either the base plate or the weld), to me the stock setup appears stronger for the reason I mentioned above. The relatively thick plate steel of the tie down hook gives significant reinforcement to what I think is the weakest part of the hook.
And I believe toyota designed it this way, as a system, with specific strengths and failure modes in mind, specifically because it is intended to be the recovery point on their off-road halo vehicle.
Great idea to test them. If I still had access to a full fab shop I could build a rig and do a crude calculation based on hydraulic pressure. Sadly that isn’t an option anymore.
gaijin
GOLD Star
Zjohnsonua
SILVER Star
Folks. Slow down a little.
You are not going to hurt the 200's frame in a recovery. We can get into the details if someone desires so, but that's definitely an in-the-weeds discussion.
As for the bolts, you can pull the truck out from even a heavily stuck situation (with lots of margin) with just one of those bolts so long as it is tight.
Rated recovery gear is 100% the way to go. Don't be afraid of metal shackles (I have steel and soft shackles - right tool, right job, right time), but don't use shackles that are too small for the task.
Toyota has marketing and engineering teams. Marketing wrote some of that referenced material, engineering contributes to the manuals. Don't use that rear tie down to pull with - that bend won't like being pulled on. The receiver hitch is the way to go, and there are lots of good, reasonably priced solutions to use back there.
Mud's Recovery section is a deep well of recovery gear knowledge...go poke around in there.
You are not going to hurt the 200's frame in a recovery. We can get into the details if someone desires so, but that's definitely an in-the-weeds discussion.
As for the bolts, you can pull the truck out from even a heavily stuck situation (with lots of margin) with just one of those bolts so long as it is tight.
Rated recovery gear is 100% the way to go. Don't be afraid of metal shackles (I have steel and soft shackles - right tool, right job, right time), but don't use shackles that are too small for the task.
Toyota has marketing and engineering teams. Marketing wrote some of that referenced material, engineering contributes to the manuals. Don't use that rear tie down to pull with - that bend won't like being pulled on. The receiver hitch is the way to go, and there are lots of good, reasonably priced solutions to use back there.
Mud's Recovery section is a deep well of recovery gear knowledge...go poke around in there.
I like getting in the weeds - especially when it’s about design and engineering.
Zjohnsonua
SILVER Star
I'm in engineering, so I have to actively avoid the weeds...I like it in there a little too much for general forum conversation.
bloc
SILVER Star
Some of us wheel in places that a solid hunk of metal hanging off the front of the frame is a very good way to damage the frame or the internal hardware for those bolts. I'm pretty sure I've seen reports of damaged frames from just this condition. Possibly from @Taco2Cruiser with the sheer number of rigs he's worked on.
Rated recovery gear may be 100% the way to go in some locations, but in others there are different factors to consider.
This is not a given.
Several years back on these forums, a mechanical engineer gave us a breakdown as to why he understood the stock recovery points to be stronger. Physical size and beef don't always mean stronger depending on how the force pathways manifest.
Stock for me as I do believe the LC part to be stronger and the low profile nature of it has clearance advantages. Yet not so strong as it wouldn't be the first point of failure before the frame, which aftermarket parts ignore because they don't consider the impacts to the "system" or have Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) as OEMs do. It's also interesting because as we understand more, many times, it's the LC parts that are generally superior to the Tundra. Which shouldn't be a surprise in the grand scheme of things.
Let me see if I can find that post.
Found it:
First time poster and waiting for the 2016 LC release so I can jump back into a cruiser again. I certainly do not want to diminish the contributions bjowett makes towards providing options and input to members, but it is my opinion the LC bracket is stronger than the Tundra bracket in the load cases most likely to fail (sheer and pullout).
If you look at the combined thickness of the material under the bolts, it seems to be over twice as thick. Sheer stress is the force applied divided by the cross sectional area of the combined material perpendicular to the direction of the force. The sheer stress on the LC bracket will be less than half of the Tundra bracket and therefore twice as strong.
Compare that to the tensile stress of the large U member. Similar equations apply where the tensile stress is the force divided by the total area of the material. The LC bracket has a little over half the area as the Tundra bracket (.71" diameter versus 1" diameter). The Tundra bracket is strong in tension.
I won't bore you with the other reasons why the LC bracket is better (LC has shorter legs on the member that looks looks like a bowl, LC has a L section attached to the bowl with weld and fasteners as opposed to welding a U section to it). As a former aeronautical stress engineer though, I would prefer the LC bracket especially if it was powder coated red.
Last edited:
