Roof Rack dilemna

[BIGdaddy]

Does anyone have any experience with Front Runner roof racks?

I currently have a Safety Devices rack. I just picked up a roof top tent, and the tent doesn't fit between the rails on the rack. I could cut the rails and make it work. However, I don't want to destroy and really nice SD rack.

I know the tent would fit great on a Hannibal. It appears it would fit on a Front Runner, too.

Anybody have any suggestions? Should I keep and modify the rack I have or sell this one and get a Front Runner?

Thanks for suggestions!

oh and by the way, if it were me, I would sell the current rack in its current (i'm assuming) "complete" condition.

What gets fabbed often times isn't what you think it'll be, and then you have something that is not desireable to anyone but a metal recycler.

if you found the one that'll fit the tent, and having a RTT is a priority, I'd sell, save up/gather funds to make up any difference and buy the new one.

just me, though.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Really? How do YOU keep food cold for more than a couple days without a fridge? An ice chest? Yummy... Water filled bags of food!!

A 7-day cooler, and food in Tupperware. Not rocket science.

I am with Ben on this one. A fridge rocks.

I don't argue against that. I want to get one and will when I can. I'm just saying... it is a luxury because there are alternatives that are lighter and more compact. And it's the same with RTT's. They are a luxury compared to a ground tent. That's all.

LOL, I'd rather have a roof rack tipping me over on a trail than a large trailer PULLING me down a hill.

I never planned on running the Rubicon with it.

 

[Scott Brady]

Statement:

My point, yet again, is that you can't say that using roof racks, or even RTTs, is a bad choice.

Answer:

I'm not arguing with the physics of heavy weights on the roof - we all know that roof loads drastically reduce side slope capability and increase cornering roll, which could be too risky in some circumstances. Even without pushing limits, they make driving more uncomfortable. And then there is the overhead clearance problem, getting under low branches, bridges or vehicle restriction posts (we get a lot of that in Eurpoe to keep the pikeys out of decent places).

Thanks for saving me the time in replying.

By the way, you should know that criticising someone's bad typing is the sign of a weak argument

I would just recommend using spell check before making personal insults and using big words.

 

[stevenmd]

bigdaddy + Mrs. Bigdaddy + 3 wee bigdaddy-ets

=

roof rack.


roofracks are a great piece of equipment.

"I'd rather have a roofrack making me tippy than a trailer pulling me down the hill"

...haha, aint that the truth. Love that quote.

Happy new year, brothers.

Stevenmd + Suzimd + 5 chillins' = roof rack AND a trailer! There are some trails that it is just plain logistically impossible to bring the whole family on.

 

[Scott Brady]

If you have stuff on the roof, you either have the wrong car, too much stuff, or are not solving the space problems correctly.

Lets look at this in detail:

1. Buy the correct vehicle: A Defender 90 is probably not the correct vehicle for a family of four on a six month trip. Buy a bigger vehicle, like a 110, or a TLC 78, etc. If the D90 is all you have, and cannot afford to replace it, then understand it will be a compromise in safety and performance. If possible, use a trailer before a heavy roof load. Once the roof load exceeds about 120lbs. on a narrow-track vehicle, go with the trailer. Never use both a heavy roof load AND a trailer on technical terrain, and even on mild terrain, do not exceed GCVWR.

2. Think lightweight: Stay under GVWR. With some vehicles, just adding the trail accessories and passengers puts them over GVWR. Go with smaller, compact camping gear if you are driving a smaller vehicle. If it is two people in a Suzuki Samurai, you must pack like a backpacker. If two people can go around the world on a KLR650, it is certainly possible to reduce or eliminate a roof load in a Land Rover Discovery with two people.

3. Solve the Space Problems: Get the weight down low and forward if possible. Use frame-mounted tanks for water and fuel if possible. Remove the rear seats if possible (or necessary), which is a weight and space saver. I often see a family of four in an SUV, with the roof loaded to the gills, but nothing in the rear passenger footwells, their kids feet dangling over precious unused and ideally located space. Put the water down there, tools and other heavy items, then make sure they are properly lashed in place to protect the occupants. On my JKs, I am able to stow all tools and most of the heavy recovery items under the driver and passenger seats.

Of course there are times when a roof load is unavoidable. If you do run a roof load, do so with caution, and make sure everything possible has been done to get the weight down (like noted above). Roof loads are easier managed with lower, wider vehicles. Land Rovers are neither. In the Camel Trophy, they flopped those trucks at alarming rates, it just never made the highlight reel (I have talked with the directors of the event over beer - oh the stories). There are also times when you are traveling on known routes on paved or easy roads and traveling at low/conservative speeds. In those cases, heavier roof load risks are more easily managed or mitigated. My strong opinion on roof loads is because I search out the most technical, unknown, abandoned, eroded, exposed, dune filled tracks I can find in developing countries. Do a few vehicle rollover recoveries in the Sahara and it will shape your opinions on roof loads. . .

This:

Or This:

Remember, anything on the roof is a compromise to safety and performance. Sometimes, that compromise is unavoidable, but you should do it with eyes wide open to the potential risk.

 

[Snagger]

I would just recommend using spell check before making personal insults and using big words.

Firstly, I wasn't the one who started making insults - you were by stating I and countless others had no idea what we are doing if we can't pack all our kit in the car - a comment that was as wronga s it was unhelpful.

Secondly, I have no idea how to use spell check on this notebook; computers aren't my thing and I have no interest in them. I make an effort to post clearly and accurately but sometimes make mistakes. If you can't read past them and look at the content without snide remarks, especially when the post is in in response to your incorrect rants, it doesn't show you in a good light. I find that people who hide behind nitpicking spelling mistakes or grammar problems on international forums are usually shallow people of weak argument and low intellect but hugely inflated self importance.

Edited to account for your above post (posted while I was typing - slowly). Yes, we understand what a high CoG can do. We're not idiots, even though you clearly believe everyone else on the forum to be such. You finally conceded, it's not always possible to get everything inside - well, that's far more commonly the case than you admit. I have a 109 with four seats for my family. The back end gets reasonably full, but I still had to put the bulky lightweight stuff on the roof. If you carry enough tools, spares, camping equipment, fuel, oil, water, clothing and food for a family of four or more, there is no way in hell that you will get it all inside a 109 or 110. I think you'd struggle on some trips to get everything for two adults in the back of a 90, too.

As for what happens with roof loads, that only happens if you have loaded it badly and then drive carelessly. If you have a high CoG but pick a good route, you should manage without upset. Conversely, it is still possible to roll a vehicle without a roof load, or even completely empty vehicle, if you drive like an ***. So, your photos do not prove roof loads a flaw in the driver's planning at all. Again, LR may argue the point with you, and I dare say their technical drivers know a damned sight more about it than you do.

 

[Scott Brady]

Firstly, I wasn't the one who started making insults - you were by stating I and countless others had no idea what we are doing if we can't pack all our kit in the car - a comment that was as wronga s it was unhelpful.

Making a generalized comment on roof loads cannot be construed as a personal insult. You took it as such, and responded with a direct personal insult. You continue to toss out personal insults. I have not.

nitpicking spelling mistakes or grammar problems on international forums

I rarely, if ever nitpick spelling mistakes (I make enough of my own). I just found your use of "biggotted fool" to have an overwhelming irony to it.

weak argument

I was not making an argument, but stating a fact. It is not a hypothesis or conjecture or an opinion- it is physics. Any weight placed on the roof is a compromise to safety and performance. That is a fact. There are things you can do to mitigate this, like adding weight below the COG of the vehicle, like water and fuel storage at the frame level, or air compressors and aux. batteries at the frame level. That would then allow you to add some weight higher on the body.

You are attempting to make an argument to the contrary, which is impossible to accomplish unless you start making trips in zero gravity

in response to your incorrect rants

You have managed to type 5,000 words and not make a single valid argument in contrast to this statement.

"Any roof load is a compromise to safety and performance"

How was anything I said incorrect. Please be specific. Quote my statement and then follow-up with specific details and supporting data as to why my argument is incorrect. I understand that people load up the top of their vehicles because of families, etc., but it is a compromise. The reason why I have focused on this issue is that people need to be aware of the compromise. Some are new to this activity and may be unaware of the compromise and are influenced by images of Discos with one occupant and 300lbs. of rack and gear on their roof.

On the trip I just did for TV, I put about 40lbs. of firewood on the roof of my JK. It was a compromise, but I did my best to push it far forward and keep the load to a minimum.

LR used heavy roof loads on the CT out of necessity, not because it is good practice.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

I often see a family of four in an SUV, with the roof loaded to the gills, but nothing in the rear passenger footwells, their kids feet dangling over precious unused and ideally located space. Put the water down there, tools and other heavy items, then make sure they are properly lashed in place to protect the occupants. On my JKs, I am able to stow all tools and most of the heavy recovery items under the driver and passenger seats.

That's an interesting idea. It's very much the case since my little ones are child seats. I'll definitely look at this. The trick will be how to attach some sort of storage cabinet... preferably without drilling the floor.

I'm also intending to make a small rack that will fit between the factory bars on the front of my 04. Move the lights forward more, and also be able to carry sleeping bags and a few light things up there. Less than 100lbs all-told.

 

[Scott Brady]

Anything on the roof? I hate to nit pick but this is the second time you have said this and I feel its a ridiculous statement. To make blanket statements without qualification is a total rookie move.

It is a fact. If you have another solution available, the roof load should be the last option. For some people it is their first option.

How have I not qualified the statement? I have just made a half-dozen posts with suggestions of how to limit roof loads. I have also stated repeatedly that some load is an acceptable compromise, one that depends on the track width and COG of the vehicle (and a half-dozen other variables). But it is a compromise.

My concern is that all too often, people just toss stuff on the roof because it is easy, not because they have exhausted options for reducing equipment volume and weight, redistributing that load as efficiently as possible, down as low as possible.

 

[007]

Anything on the roof? I hate to nit pick but this is the second time you have said this and I feel its a ridiculous statement. To make blanket statements without qualification is a total rookie move.

Here is the deal. Rooftop tent, as trendy as is these days, is comfortable and can be justified. Putting one the roof makes the car perform differently than without it. Understand what the draw backs of "differently" are. Move on.

You're right, he is a complete unqualified rookie. I wonder what makes him think he is even entitled to an opinion on such matters :drool:

Perhaps you and Snagger should abandon this site and start a new one called, "Roof rack dependent travel." Forum topics could include:

"Physics don't apply to MY roof rack"

"Race car drivers that overland travel - don't understand vehicle dynamics"

 

[Snagger]

I have just made a half-dozen posts with suggestions of how to limit roof loads. I have also stated repeatedly that some load is an acceptable compromise, one that depends on the track width and COG of the vehicle (and a half-dozen other variables). But it is a compromise.

My concern is that all too often, people just toss stuff on the roof because it is easy, not because they have exhausted options for reducing equipment volume and weight, redistributing that load as efficiently as possible, down as low as possible.

Now, there we agree. There is nothing wrong with using a roof rack, but it has to be used intelligently, ideally only for the light bulky stuff - you wouldn't put tools, fuel or water up there and have plastic tables, beddinga nd clothing inside, and you need to use as much as possible of the interior before using the rack. Overspill is unavoidable for many of us, though...

 

[I Leak Oil]

The only time I put my truck on it's side was when it had a rack on top. That same rack got whacked many times and even slid half way off after getting caught on a branch. Sold it and just became more creative in how I pack.
This is a short wheelbase series rover, in the northeast (tight, overgrown trails) and I don't usually go for more than a few days.
I know the rack didn't work out, a trailer would really be a burden, so the only options left for me is to pack better (only to a point) or get a larger vehicle. I've always wanted a 110....

 

[Crookthumb]

Scott, now you say that roof loads should be the last option, yet you brag about the fact that you were the first to complete the Rubicon Trail in a production camper.

Would you say that this is an unstable or risky vehicle and that it should be avoided? Because I am pretty sure that the COG for the Earthroamer XV-JP is above that of your Overland JK. I would say that it probably has more weight above the stock roofline of a JK than by adding a RTT or average roof rack with a moderate load.

Now if you are in a competition, yes you want to take advantage of reducing weight and lowering the COG of your vehicle. If you are experiencing nature and the surroundings and going at a leisurely pace and know how your vehicle handles and its capabilities then why not take advantage of roof rack or if your needs desire a RTT?

Anyone can post a picture of a rolled vehicle.

I am sure that this vehicle has a lower COG than your Overland JK, yet it has managed to rollover.

Just by lifting a vehicle or putting larger tires on raises the COG, should we not do these as well? Maybe we should all drive Subarus or AWD sedans or wagons. That will lower our COG. Many things we add will compromise the safety of our vehicle, but we do them for what we deem as an added benefit and learn how to handle our vehicle safely. Know the limits of your vehicle and enjoy the great outdoors.

 

[Scott Brady]

Would you say that this is an unstable or risky vehicle and that it should be avoided?

Don't always assume that height is associated with instability and high COG.

In the case of the EarthRoamer Jeep, it was designed to have the same COG as a JK Unlimited with the same lift and without a roof load. This was accomplished with lightweight camper materials and by placing heavy items very low on the vehicle. For example, there is 200lbs. of batteries and skid plates at the frame level and the water is stored at the level of the footwells.

 

[GregH]

It is a fact. If you have another solution available, the roof load should be the last option. For some people it is their first option.

How have I not qualified the statement? I have just made a half-dozen posts with suggestions of how to limit roof loads. I have also stated repeatedly that some load is an acceptable compromise, one that depends on the track width and COG of the vehicle (and a half-dozen other variables). But it is a compromise.

My concern is that all too often, people just toss stuff on the roof because it is easy, not because they have exhausted options for reducing equipment volume and weight, redistributing that load as efficiently as possible, down as low as possible.

Many modification's one does to a vehicle is a compromise of the handling and safety of that vehicle. Even one's CHOICE of vehicle is a compromise.

Your choice of a D1 over an RRC (all things being equal) shows you are willing to trade a bit more load space over having a lower COG.

Lifting and taller tires also raise COG and increase the probability of rollovers and negatively affect onroad handling safety.

A heavy bumper and winch also negatively affect vehicular polar moment of inertia and thus safety and handling.

Thus, having a brain and USING it are prerequisites and knowing the limits of your vehicle and realizing the changes in COG that having and using a roof rack bring to the picture.

I've been driving offroad for 30+ years on many trails including the Rubicon and Dusi Ershim in different vehicles and I've only had a roof rack for the last 5. I'm very glad I have it.

I've also been known to head into Mexico with 80 liters of fuel (~120 lbs) and 40 liters of water (~80 lbs) and spare tire on my roof. I fully understand the change in vehicle dynamics and realize the risks and still choose the compromise of having it on my roof. Why would I do such an unsafe thing?

I've had this much fuel and water mounted inside my vehicle and would certainly do so if headed into hilly terrain on unstable surfaces like sand, talus, loose dirt etc. I also realize I can pull all that crap off if I unexpectedly find the trail ahead necessitates doing so.

You can't easily do that with an RTT. You are pretty committed to alot of weight and space being on your roof no matter what. I can't imagine I would ever want an RTT for that reason alone. Safety from wild animals? Even if I was traveling through Black Mamba territory I think I would sleep INSIDE my truck rather than on my roof.

If I was heading into the Sahara with Tom Sheppard I would reconsider having my roof rack or at least what I have mounted on it.

However, I think what Rob is getting at is that it appears your comments, while true, overstate the situation.

It's kind of like saying that using a HI-lift is extremely dangerous and should be avoided.

OK, but I still carry one because I know how and when to use it. It requires using one's brain.