The results are in.
The great debate started in this thread: Smittybilt Element Ramps
Today, I set out with Nigel Caffiene and TheIceCreamPeople to hopefully settle the debate found in the thread. However, I'm afraid we may add to the debate/discussion. The bottom line is, both products performed very similarly. The results are inconclusive yet should settle some of the more basic areas of argument: traction, flexibility, durability, and use as bridging ladders when double stacked.
Notice: The original version of the MAXTRAX devices were used.
Traction Testing:
Mud- In my Montero, I found a muddy rut which allowed me to get slightly high centered on the rear axle. Stuck. We then simply placed the traction devices in front of the tires. Neither the MT or the SB-E caught traction. We were specifically testing the "knobs" at the end of each ramp. Upon further testing, we dug a small amount of mud out from in front of the tires using the devices as shovels. The devices were then placed further under the tires, assuming they would allow for more traction. Simply not the case with either brand. In order to utilize the devices, one must DIG with a SHOVEL to place the ramps at least a few inches under the tire.
Sand- The sand results were very similar to mud.Using both my Montero and Nigel's Jeep, we found a small sandy strip to get stuck in two wheel drive. We maintained our two wheel drive testing, to see if the devices allowed self extraction. Both vehicles were purposefully bogged down with the rear axles resting on the sand. The devices were then used as shovels to dig out from in front of the tires, however we could not extract ourselves. After being unable to successfully extract either vehicle in two wheel drive, we then put the vehicles in 4wheel drive (again, with traction devices only in front of rear tires) the trucks were able to pull themselves out successfully. But as mentioned in the "mud" section, the devices must be placed well under the tires in order to work properly. The bottom line is, both brands allowed for extraction once vehicle was placed in four wheel drive allowing for enough traction to pull the vehicle out of the stuck situation.
Bridging- The way we tested the devices allowed for more conclusive results. In the previous discussion, flexibility and durability was a point of debate. Firstly, both devices flexed under the weight of the vehicles, neither showing signs of breaking or wear after repeated uses (all three vehicles over multiple runs). Both brands returned back to their factory state after maximum flexing. However, the MT devices showed slightly more rigidity than the SB-E.
OTHER NOTES-
-It is worth saying (see photo) that the SB-E showed signs of less physical traction with the ground (slipping).
-On both brands, the "knobs" on the end of the ramps were ripped off, more so on the SB-E. This was due to excessive spinning of the tires.
-The edges around whole, but particularly the handles, SB-E devices were very sharp. MT devices were rounded and ergonomical.
Results: I will go out on the brittle branch (limb) and say that you honestly can not go wrong with either brand for the use of sand or mud extraction. I would not rely on the these devices as a sole means of vehicle extraction, but a compliment to your other equally important recovery items. With these traction devices, I strongly recommend pairing them with a shovel. A High-Lift style jack is also highly recommended. For bridging duties, dedicated bridging ladders would be more appropriate. With every item comes the pros and cons of trying to weigh and balance the duties of their implied design. When a piece of equipment is designed to be utilized in such a broad spectrum, there will be trade offs. Both the MAXTRAX and the Smittybilt Element are designed as aids of traction in loose substrates and perform adequately for that intended purpose.
Disclaimer: I purchased neither brand, as these were owned by the attendees of the test. As the tester of these products, I tested as equally as possible as conditions allowed and had no previous expectations of either product. In saying this, I hold no brand loyalties. Both products should be used as intended by the manufacturer, risk of damage or injury may occur if used improperly. Purchase and use at your own risk.
Photo showing the slippage of the SB-E.
After multiple runs at our bridging test location.
The great debate started in this thread: Smittybilt Element Ramps
Today, I set out with Nigel Caffiene and TheIceCreamPeople to hopefully settle the debate found in the thread. However, I'm afraid we may add to the debate/discussion. The bottom line is, both products performed very similarly. The results are inconclusive yet should settle some of the more basic areas of argument: traction, flexibility, durability, and use as bridging ladders when double stacked.
Notice: The original version of the MAXTRAX devices were used.
Traction Testing:
Mud- In my Montero, I found a muddy rut which allowed me to get slightly high centered on the rear axle. Stuck. We then simply placed the traction devices in front of the tires. Neither the MT or the SB-E caught traction. We were specifically testing the "knobs" at the end of each ramp. Upon further testing, we dug a small amount of mud out from in front of the tires using the devices as shovels. The devices were then placed further under the tires, assuming they would allow for more traction. Simply not the case with either brand. In order to utilize the devices, one must DIG with a SHOVEL to place the ramps at least a few inches under the tire.
Sand- The sand results were very similar to mud.Using both my Montero and Nigel's Jeep, we found a small sandy strip to get stuck in two wheel drive. We maintained our two wheel drive testing, to see if the devices allowed self extraction. Both vehicles were purposefully bogged down with the rear axles resting on the sand. The devices were then used as shovels to dig out from in front of the tires, however we could not extract ourselves. After being unable to successfully extract either vehicle in two wheel drive, we then put the vehicles in 4wheel drive (again, with traction devices only in front of rear tires) the trucks were able to pull themselves out successfully. But as mentioned in the "mud" section, the devices must be placed well under the tires in order to work properly. The bottom line is, both brands allowed for extraction once vehicle was placed in four wheel drive allowing for enough traction to pull the vehicle out of the stuck situation.
Bridging- The way we tested the devices allowed for more conclusive results. In the previous discussion, flexibility and durability was a point of debate. Firstly, both devices flexed under the weight of the vehicles, neither showing signs of breaking or wear after repeated uses (all three vehicles over multiple runs). Both brands returned back to their factory state after maximum flexing. However, the MT devices showed slightly more rigidity than the SB-E.
OTHER NOTES-
-It is worth saying (see photo) that the SB-E showed signs of less physical traction with the ground (slipping).
-On both brands, the "knobs" on the end of the ramps were ripped off, more so on the SB-E. This was due to excessive spinning of the tires.
-The edges around whole, but particularly the handles, SB-E devices were very sharp. MT devices were rounded and ergonomical.
Results: I will go out on the brittle branch (limb) and say that you honestly can not go wrong with either brand for the use of sand or mud extraction. I would not rely on the these devices as a sole means of vehicle extraction, but a compliment to your other equally important recovery items. With these traction devices, I strongly recommend pairing them with a shovel. A High-Lift style jack is also highly recommended. For bridging duties, dedicated bridging ladders would be more appropriate. With every item comes the pros and cons of trying to weigh and balance the duties of their implied design. When a piece of equipment is designed to be utilized in such a broad spectrum, there will be trade offs. Both the MAXTRAX and the Smittybilt Element are designed as aids of traction in loose substrates and perform adequately for that intended purpose.
Disclaimer: I purchased neither brand, as these were owned by the attendees of the test. As the tester of these products, I tested as equally as possible as conditions allowed and had no previous expectations of either product. In saying this, I hold no brand loyalties. Both products should be used as intended by the manufacturer, risk of damage or injury may occur if used improperly. Purchase and use at your own risk.
Photo showing the slippage of the SB-E.
After multiple runs at our bridging test location.
Last edited:
