Outer Limits 4x4 Board

Has anyone read this months 4WD Craption bull bar test?

Is it a credible test or is it the same as their previous tests on fridges/UHFs etc that don't actually test anything but merely advertise for the manufacturers?

I haven't bought the mag in ages because it's mostly advertising and was wondering if the bull bar test makes it worth buying again.

CHeers.

What makes you think that their tests are just advertising? Perhaps it's the big names that have been pulling the goods? You can't say it's just their advertising companies that they're giving credit to - just about EVERY company that makes accessories advertises for them!

ARB, TJM etc put thousands of dollars into research, development and testing for a reason. The companies that donate an item for testing do it with the confidence that they can shine in the tests because of that R+D they've invested in.

Yeah, the mag has a LOT of ads, and personally, I don't remember the last time I bought one, let alone read one, but from my experience with the mag, they do test items and say it as it is. Take everything with a grain of salt, but if you don't believe it at all, don't bother buying it. You could put thousands of dollars testing equipment to do it yourself after all......

Yeah I scanned through it at the brother in law's place. If I'm not mistaken, the steel five poster come out on top, followed by the TJM alloy bar (I think?) They did some pretty extreme tests. Banged up the front end of a brand new De-lux in one of them.

The five posters (steel AND alloy) got the gong for strongest, but they got let down by craptacular approach angles. The TJM got it overall, but there was a whole paragraph about how close it was with the ARB one....

Personally I didn't like the article.
They gave lots of pictures showing you how pretty the bar looked on the vehicle, but almost no pictures of the bars after the impact tests.
They measured the suspension droop on that vehicle, but couldn't be bothered actually weighing them so readers could tell how suitable they were for OUR vehicles.
Basically no mention of revovery points.
No mention of them obscuring headlights, though this was really only an obvious issue with the 5-posters.

There was a lot of waffle at the end about how we are the winners because all the bars were so good, even though about half the bars failed the impact test. I say they failed because they didn't protect the vehicle - 4WDA wouldn't risk using the "F" word...

i do a lot of work for parkside towbars http://www.parksidetowbars.com.au" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - haven't seen this article, but sounds like not all brands were tested?

In their words - "We got 13 of the best bullbars from seven different manufacturers" - not sure how they chose them, or if that was just the manufacturers that wanted to play.

Bars tested were:
- TJM Deluxe
- TJM T15 alloy
- TJM T15 fleet
- Ironman Commercial
- ARB DEluxe
- ARB Commercial
- Opposite Lock Premium
- Opposite Lock XroX (tube-type bar)
- ECB Big Tube
- Smart Bar (that plastic thing)
- Tuff alloy (5-post)
- Tuff steel (5-post)
- Factory Toyota steel

they can only test those bars that manufacturers are willing to give them to test. If a manufacturrer doesn't want to participate then they don't test them.

just like thier diff lock comparison (who would have thought you only have to get the backlash right for an auto locker to function correctly ).....very flawed in technical execution.


one thing you do NOT do is simulate and impact with kangaroo using a steel drum. in no way does this simulate the deflection a kangaroo would suffer during and impact with a bullbar. a better test would have been using a 'punching bag' filled with sand as it would simulate the body of a kangaroo much better. also, the drum was used on all occasions. to truley have an accurate test a new drum should have been used for every strike.

once again it shows how 4wd craption likes people to think what they are doing is %100. in most cases they seek no profession advice from the industry to conduct thier tests. there were many other points which i will not go into, but once again it shows why i (and many others) have not bothered to purchase the magazine in years.



petersons and 4-wheeler from the states for me thanks.

I like that they do the tests, and I'm not cynical enough to believe that they actually falsify results, but I agree with joeblow's assessment that their testing methods are often "flawed", and the results they present are typically very limited. I believe the technical capability amongst the staff is inadequate for the testing they do - I can't imagine anybody with strong technical capabilities would be happy with the way they conduct or report their tests. But at least they do try...

For a newby to 4wding, the magazines seem like a wealth of information. As you learn more, you start to recognise errors in the stuff you now know, and start to wonder about the accuracy of what else they're publishing - so you lose faith, and interest.

But they have their target market, and they're happy with the business model they have - so good luck to them. They haven't seen any of my money for years, and I believe they've now lost my father's money too.

the only thing that got to be about this test was lack of information. I'm about to buy an ARB Deluxe for my Colorado when Aunty Julia gives me my tax back. In the test it says that this bar requires suspension mods. What mods? a simple torsion bar tweak? or something more.. In this case more info would have been nice. If theres a bar thats going to require some serious mods people are more hesitant to purchase.

For the record I know it's just a torsion bar tweak, but thats not the point.

So if your bump stop is still in the same spot, will the tyre will hit the bullbar on up travel? I'd stay away from that bar or if you have your heart set on it find out more info. That doesn't sound right. I know of body lifts to clear a larger capacity long range tank, but not a suspension mod to fit a bullbar.

That was one of my gripes about the test.
They said you needed a suspension upgrade on that model hilux because the front dropped more than 10mm when the bar was fitted. I think that bar dropped it 13mm from memory.
Since they didn't say how much the bar actually weighed, how can you tell what effect it will have on a Colorado? For all I know the front end of a Colorado may be a bit stiffer than a Lux and not need an upgrade. On the other hand, a Colorado may be a bit more supple in the front and need a suspension tweak for many of the other bars as well.
Really, I can't see how that testing method was relevant to anyone who doesn't own a new hilux.

Right off the bat I'll say I do have some connection with the mag... I have submitted articles previously in a freelance manner, but no, I'm not on the payroll.

But a couple of points:
- i dont recall any other mag or forum for that matter ever doing a bull bar impact test over 14 different bars. So therefore arent they offering a comparison not dont before?
- seems just too easy to criticise the test doesnt it. A bag of sand you say? How heavy? Simulating what size/weight/height roo? Where exactly should it hit? Centre, to the side, the top loop? Would it definitely be better than a drum? Would it split open and have to be repaired each time, therefore changing its consistency between tests? Maybe a drum doesnt resemble a roo (or a cow, or an emu etc etc) but I would think it would offer the least level of deformation to enable the test to be repeated in the same manner each time.
- suspension ajustment/mods? I see plenty of 4wd's with alloy and steel bars with standard suspension. Why should the mag tell you how much to lift it by (if at all)? Thats your call isnt it? They tell you how much it sags by, use that info as you will, seems simple enough to me.

If you are considering an 'off the shelf' bar, I think the article gives you some good info to base your purchase on- price, strength, and comparative weight against the competition (ie how much it sagged by), as well as fit, finish and appearance.

Who else has offered anything like this?

That info would have come from ARB who recomend upgrading your suspension when fitting any of their bars to the new model HiLux. When I worked at ARB as a fitter, we had heaps of people come back saying their vehicle handled like crap with the new bar fitted. It's not a height issue, but the coil-over front end is too soft to handle the additional weight of a steel bar.

I know of a very large Paper Bark Tree they could have used instead of the drum. Deformed my OE steel bar nicely.

I like the magazine, but mostly get it now days for the DVD so rarely read any articles on tests and what not and if your anything like me you take several opinions and facts on products before buying...

However I have only just recently seen TJM advertise in the magazine, maybe they had small sections before but now there is multiple pages with TJM and also the DVD appears to be sponsored by TJM.

Take the results with a grain of salt... Atleast there is something for newbies to see different designs, deals, manufacturers.

GUtripper wrote:Right off the bat I'll say I do have some connection with the mag... I have submitted articles previously in a freelance manner, but no, I'm not on the payroll.

But a couple of points:
- i dont recall any other mag or forum for that matter ever doing a bull bar impact test over 14 different bars. So therefore arent they offering a comparison not dont before?
- seems just too easy to criticise the test doesnt it. A bag of sand you say? How heavy? Simulating what size/weight/height roo? Where exactly should it hit? Centre, to the side, the top loop? Would it definitely be better than a drum? Would it split open and have to be repaired each time, therefore changing its consistency between tests? Maybe a drum doesnt resemble a roo (or a cow, or an emu etc etc) but I would think it would offer the least level of deformation to enable the test to be repeated in the same manner each time.

GUtripper wrote:Would it definitely be better than a drum?

short answer.....yes.

GUtripper wrote:A bag of sand you say?

no not a 'bag'........a punching bag. thier construction is great for those sorts of tests.

GUtripper wrote:How heavy?

ummmm.....i think simulating the weight of a roo will do.

GUtripper wrote:Would it split open and have to be repaired each time?

no it won't.

GUtripper wrote:Maybe a drum doesnt resemble a roo (or a cow, or an emu etc etc) but I would think it would offer the least level of deformation to enable the test to be repeated in the same manner each time.

thats right.....a drum does not simulate a roo in any way. thats why the article should have been called 'hitting a solid object test' rather than going on about simulating hitting a roo.

you would find that if using something more consistant to that of a real roo there would have been a lot less damage to all of the bars. i have hit plenty of roos in my area with steel bars and my results are much differnt. BUT, i have hit solid objects such as trees with results similar to those of the test.


you say its easy to criticise the artice.....well yes.......and its also easy to get testing procedures very wrong so in this case it warrants criticism.



they really have to work on getting thier stuff right and not just putting anything in the mag to ensure sales.

what were teh comments on the xrox?

why would you believe what they write in a comparison when they lie through their teeth about drowning the troopy on frasier island

hitting a roo on the hop or standing makes a big difference to damage.a suspended punching bag would make for some real world damage result. i have been lucky with mine hitting 8 roos and a colarado in 4 years without any damage.

Possibly the budget for fully correct tests is not available and at any rate maybe the general reading population doesn't care for that finer detail to warrant the cost, which could put the cost of the mag up long term.

Even if the test wasn't a true reflection of a roo hit isn't the basis of the article to compare how different bars fare compared to each other. If they are all tested the same way wouldn't this have succeeded. If the drum is in fact an over indication of a roo strike could we not take comfort in the bars ability to actually handle a roo strike, bit like over testing.

Was the article a general indication of the different strengths of various bars coupled with some general downsides eg the approach angles. was teh article supposed to be an in depth buyers guide. The mention of the extra suspension requirements for a particular bar on the test mule again would be a standardised way of comparing each model bar simply. Surely the issue of which bar would be better on dozens of different makes and models is far outside the scope of a test along these lines. The mention that one bar needs mods should be enough to make all buyers aware that this is something they shold check when buying a bar to suit their vehicle and their requirements. The weight and suspension issues that may be relevent for say a Colorado could be totally irrelevent for say a 100 series live axle cruiser so how big should the article be to cover all these situations. If it were that big would people bother to read the whole thing and would some of the newbies really care or understand.

I'm not here to blindly support the mag, I too have seen many issues with their information one way or another but I skimmed the article and took it for what it was - a general guide to the strength of various bars available on the market at present which could steer me in a certain direction to find out more model specific information for my requirements. Certainly if clearance was one of my prime concerns I certainly know not to bother with the 5 poster company and if weight was an issue and I still liked the ARB bar I know to ask more about it and compare to others.

i got the mag to have a read. interested that the XROX faired well, only damage was the centre tube. Guess they didn't hit the wings in the test as I assumed they'd be the weakest link

Would of been nice to see what BBArs meet the requirements of the Australian standard and current ADR's.

Bazzle

Agree with ADR requirements etc. I think there's more to bull bar design than how much deformation it receives when hitting a kangaroo. For example, how well does it go in a head on collision or hitting a tree at speed? The strongest bull bat is not necessarily the best. The whole set up needs to absorb the impact so the passengers don't get mashed and also let the air bags work properly. Most of those bull bar manufacturers would not have the resources to do full car crash testing, so it would be difficult to verify how they perform in a bad accident. I believe ARB have done some at Monash University (not 100% sure though) and suspect that they and the car manufacturers themselves would probably have the safest & best overall engineered products. To be fair on the magazine though, you can't expect them to be able test everything.

BJMorgo wrote: To be fair on the magazine though, you can't expect them to be able test everything.

true, they are not expected to test everything. that would be impractical. but what they do have to do if claiming they are the 'know all' 4x4 magazine is get thier testing practises in line with that of manufacturers and industry standards and not some back yard type mob with a camera.

joeblow wrote:

BJMorgo wrote: To be fair on the magazine though, you can't expect them to be able test everything.

true, they are not expected to test everything. that would be impractical. but what they do have to do if claiming they are the 'know all' 4x4 magazine is get thier testing practises in line with that of manufacturers and industry standards and not some back yard type mob with a camera.

Then again they don't proport to be Popular Mechanics or Engineering Action rather an enthusiasts magazine put out by enthusiasts.