D
DiscoD
Guest
When was the last time you saw a Series with a stock bumper on the Rubicon?
Overland Journal: Discovery I, 5-speed
- Thread starter Scott Brady
- Start date
Antichrist
Expedition Leader
You're going to have to explain what that has to do with what I said, since I never mentioned the Rubicon, or any other recreational 4WD trail.
D
DiscoD
Guest
It means your Series truck bumper theory has jack**** to do with what has been talked about. You may as well have posted a picture of a horse-and-buggy.
Then again, here is Dan Rao at Crozet, VA a few years ago.
As you can see, Dan got himself into a pinch. That pinch resulted in Dan kissing his bumper on a tree, bending the bumper into the wing, and the wing digging into the tire.
Then again, here is Dan Rao at Crozet, VA a few years ago.
As you can see, Dan got himself into a pinch. That pinch resulted in Dan kissing his bumper on a tree, bending the bumper into the wing, and the wing digging into the tire.
Antichrist
Expedition Leader
How does people having traveled millions of overland miles with a stock bumper have nothing to do with choosing a bumper suitable for overlanding?
craig
Supporting Sponsor, Overland Certified OC0018
Read up the thread a bit. Scott mentioned that any vehicle he would take on an overland trip should also be able to run the Rubicon.
BIGdaddy
Expedition Leader
your kung **** is strong.
Scott Brady
Founder
In reality, there are two types of overlanders. Ones that do it purely for the adventure travel, and rarely leave routes suitable for local traffic and services. You can do that in a Mercedes saloon car, and many have. They are not interested in challenging their vehicle, only in the sights, sounds, cultures and environments accessible to local transportation.
Then, there are those of us interested in all the above, but also the remote archaeological sites, remote/historical routes, the highest mountain passes, the most disparate points on a map, the jungles and the deserts. For us, you must have the most reliable and capable of vehicles and the most thorough of preparation.
It is certainly possible to hypothesis scenarios where the RTE will have the advantage in some far away land - reality dictates it is irrelevant. They are both good bumpers, and I prefer the more stock, understated appearance of the ARB. If I was planning to use this Disco on 3.5+ technical trails, on a regular basis, the RTE would have been a better choice.
Then, there are those of us interested in all the above, but also the remote archaeological sites, remote/historical routes, the highest mountain passes, the most disparate points on a map, the jungles and the deserts. For us, you must have the most reliable and capable of vehicles and the most thorough of preparation.
It is certainly possible to hypothesis scenarios where the RTE will have the advantage in some far away land - reality dictates it is irrelevant. They are both good bumpers, and I prefer the more stock, understated appearance of the ARB. If I was planning to use this Disco on 3.5+ technical trails, on a regular basis, the RTE would have been a better choice.
Last edited:
Lets take a look at the difference in ARB bumpers.
Here are three that have been talked about in this thread
This is the D1 ARB bumper. This is the one that is known to have a weak blade and suffers from bending. There are a number of short commings if you look at the bumper. First and formost look at the blade. The top and bottom of the blade are parralel. In comparison to the other two that form a much more triangulated shape being much wider top to bottom at the "A" frame structure. As we all know triangles form a much stronger structure then rectangles.
Also look right under the dixon bates recovery point on this bumper you will see a reduction in width of the bottom flange that prevents the bottom flange from bracing to the center section of the ""A frame section of the bumper. This prevents the bottom flange from doing its job as a brace to prevent the blade from twisting. The last factor is look at the draw depth of the bumper. this is the depth from front to back. This depth is where alot of strength comes from in formed metal parts. the deeper the draw depth the stronger the overall structure will be.
This is the DII bumper and what I would say is a superior design to the D1 bumper. If you look at this bumper in comparison to the D1 bumper above you will see that the draw depth is much deeper. this will compromise approach angles a small amount but the strength it gains would be well worth that trade off because of the failures the D1 style has suffered. Also look at the shape of the blade. The blade has a very large height top to bottom at the "A" frame tapering to the end. This forms the triangle and gains the strength I was talking about above. This bumper also has two holes cut for the side marker and fog lights. These holes if just cut would weaken the blade area but ARB has gone ahead and rolled or flanged these holes and this forming technique creates dramatic increases in strength compared a flat piece of material. This will add strenth and resitance to twisting. Lastly the bottom flange goes all the way into the center "A" frame structure allowing the bottom flange to do its job as a brace.
This is the Cruiser ARB bumper and these are very sturdy units in deed. Once again we have the height at the "A" frame structure and the taper to the outside of the blade. This forms a huge triangle. The draw depth front to back is very deep once again making for great strength and if you look on the front edge there is another formed ridge running along the area where the front plate and the bottom flange meet . This formed crease makes another formed triangulated area that seperates the front plate of the blade from the bottom flange. The bottom flange runs all the way in to the "A" frame structure once again bracing against the blade twisting.
So in conclusion if you looke close you can see that all ARB bumpers are not the same or created equal. The reason ARB has a percieved weakness IMHO in the land rover community is because the D1 bumpers got twisted pretty bad and the early DII bumpers had issues with rotating. ARB has since redesinged the mounting system to prevent the rotating issue. I have not seen a recent D1 bumper so I cant really comment on them but I would have to think if they are still selling the same one pictured here it is a inferior product compared to what they offer for other applications
Thom
Here are three that have been talked about in this thread
This is the D1 ARB bumper. This is the one that is known to have a weak blade and suffers from bending. There are a number of short commings if you look at the bumper. First and formost look at the blade. The top and bottom of the blade are parralel. In comparison to the other two that form a much more triangulated shape being much wider top to bottom at the "A" frame structure. As we all know triangles form a much stronger structure then rectangles.
Also look right under the dixon bates recovery point on this bumper you will see a reduction in width of the bottom flange that prevents the bottom flange from bracing to the center section of the ""A frame section of the bumper. This prevents the bottom flange from doing its job as a brace to prevent the blade from twisting. The last factor is look at the draw depth of the bumper. this is the depth from front to back. This depth is where alot of strength comes from in formed metal parts. the deeper the draw depth the stronger the overall structure will be.
This is the DII bumper and what I would say is a superior design to the D1 bumper. If you look at this bumper in comparison to the D1 bumper above you will see that the draw depth is much deeper. this will compromise approach angles a small amount but the strength it gains would be well worth that trade off because of the failures the D1 style has suffered. Also look at the shape of the blade. The blade has a very large height top to bottom at the "A" frame tapering to the end. This forms the triangle and gains the strength I was talking about above. This bumper also has two holes cut for the side marker and fog lights. These holes if just cut would weaken the blade area but ARB has gone ahead and rolled or flanged these holes and this forming technique creates dramatic increases in strength compared a flat piece of material. This will add strenth and resitance to twisting. Lastly the bottom flange goes all the way into the center "A" frame structure allowing the bottom flange to do its job as a brace.
This is the Cruiser ARB bumper and these are very sturdy units in deed. Once again we have the height at the "A" frame structure and the taper to the outside of the blade. This forms a huge triangle. The draw depth front to back is very deep once again making for great strength and if you look on the front edge there is another formed ridge running along the area where the front plate and the bottom flange meet . This formed crease makes another formed triangulated area that seperates the front plate of the blade from the bottom flange. The bottom flange runs all the way in to the "A" frame structure once again bracing against the blade twisting.
So in conclusion if you looke close you can see that all ARB bumpers are not the same or created equal. The reason ARB has a percieved weakness IMHO in the land rover community is because the D1 bumpers got twisted pretty bad and the early DII bumpers had issues with rotating. ARB has since redesinged the mounting system to prevent the rotating issue. I have not seen a recent D1 bumper so I cant really comment on them but I would have to think if they are still selling the same one pictured here it is a inferior product compared to what they offer for other applications
Thom
Attachments
Antichrist
Expedition Leader
True, but that's Scott. While this thread is specifically about Scott's Disco, I'll warrant that other people read the thread to get ideas. My comment was directed more at them.
I have an idea that the classic 1955 overland trip would fit in to that catagory, as would many of Barbara Toy's travels.
I'm not, in any way, implying you are wrong in your choice, or anyone is wrong in their choice of an RTE bumper. Just saying that the likelyhood of an overland trip being negatively impacted by a failure of either one is very remote.
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
And then there are those who fall somewhere in the middle. They are interested in getting out of the tourist areas, and into the backroads a little bit to experience rural cultures or tamed wilderness area. But the key point there is *roads*, not trails. They require a reliable 4wd truck, possibly a winch for extraction (or maybe not), A/T tires, maybe a mild lift, etc. Things that will help them out should they be hit by a rain storm turning the road to mush, small logs across the road, washouts, etc. etc. etc.
They may be interested in seeing the same things as you, but try to avoid trouble, instead of trying to find it.
D
DiscoD
Guest
Your theory is flawed, Rob. Prime example is me in the GWNF. I live here. I hunt here. I hike here. I MTN bike here. I grew up here. I've driven these routes over 500 times. You drop me in the middle of my backyard and I can tell you the way home. I know this land like the back of my hand. I can tell you every land mark, rock, fishing hole, camping spot, or wet weather spring in the area.
I don't have to go looking for trouble. I know where the trouble areas are at.
But even as well as I know the land, and as well as I know my own truck, I've still gotten myself into trouble. On a road I've driven 500-times before in everything from a Ranger 2wd pick-up to an F-250 dump truck, to a Nissan 4x4, to a Rover; I got myself in trouble not long ago. It's an easy trail. Nothing hard about it at all. It could damn near be called a fire road. But as I was trekking up a very small hill, my driver side wheel was climbing over a slick root from a tree. I was going less than 1mph. The wheel slipped, gained traction, and snapped an axle.
So it does not matter where you're going or what you're trying to avoid. **** can happen anywhere at anytime. It's just the price you pay when you're running inferior equipment. I don't care if it's an axle/cv, a bumper, winch, or light bulbs. Cheap ****, or poor quality ****, is not worth it in these circumstances.
I don't have to go looking for trouble. I know where the trouble areas are at.
But even as well as I know the land, and as well as I know my own truck, I've still gotten myself into trouble. On a road I've driven 500-times before in everything from a Ranger 2wd pick-up to an F-250 dump truck, to a Nissan 4x4, to a Rover; I got myself in trouble not long ago. It's an easy trail. Nothing hard about it at all. It could damn near be called a fire road. But as I was trekking up a very small hill, my driver side wheel was climbing over a slick root from a tree. I was going less than 1mph. The wheel slipped, gained traction, and snapped an axle.
So it does not matter where you're going or what you're trying to avoid. **** can happen anywhere at anytime. It's just the price you pay when you're running inferior equipment. I don't care if it's an axle/cv, a bumper, winch, or light bulbs. Cheap ****, or poor quality ****, is not worth it in these circumstances.
Scott Brady
Founder
Based on a quick audit of the bumpers here at our office, there are clearly differences.
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
Dan, that's weak. You broke an axle? In Virginia? How did you survive?
Try this, near Brownrigg Ontario, North Driftwood River Nature Preserve. Google it.
Only way out:
Sometimes **** happens, and you have to deal with it. You can't prevent all possible negative outcomes, no matter how much you try.
Try this, near Brownrigg Ontario, North Driftwood River Nature Preserve. Google it.
Only way out:
Sometimes **** happens, and you have to deal with it. You can't prevent all possible negative outcomes, no matter how much you try.
