Bull/Roo Bars unsafe?

[Wayneos]

Interesting video on the detrimental aspects of bull/roo bars here:

Given that the Grenny bullbar is a three piece design (at least here in Australia, as mentioned by Justin Hocevar in this vid -

) and not a single piece unit like an ARB for eg, I'm wondering if they crash tested the Grenny with the bull bars in-situ. Were they crash tested with bullbars at all? Is the three piece design a result of said crash testing?

Here is the link to the BHP test of bullbars: https://spaces.hightail.com/receive/EgT3jbKlzU

I haven't seen every Ineos video of the worldwide testing, but from those I've seen, none are sporting a bullbar, not even the ones tested in Australia or Africa.

Food for thought and over to all you beard strokers in the forum!

 

[Tazzieman]

 

[bigleonski]

Well I don’t want to be called a muppet so I’m canceling my bullbar I suppose.

A lot to cosider there.

I know that I’m doing exactly what he says the beardstrokers would do, but bear with me. Given that in the IG’s case, there is no replacement of the bumper or internal infrastructure, and the “bullbar” just consists of steel hoops sitting above the OEM structure protecting the radiator etc, I wonder how much of the effects of a traditional full replacement bullbar are mitigated?

 

[Disco Dave]

I am getting bull bar and side rails, so all good. The IG bar is not a front end replacement, like most aftermarket bars are.

 

[Tazzieman]

Everything about big 4wds is a compromise for the driver , the passengers , the pedestrians and the environment.
We live and die by our decisions.
But I agree; no place for bullbars in the city.

 

[DenisM]

Must admit I was sorely tempted to tick the bull bar box. However, the way I saw it: the 'bending' moment exerted on the bull bar by a decent thump from a 'roo or an emu, for instance, without additional bracing of the side protection rails, rendered the exercise a bit pointless. So no bull bar or rails for me.
While the BHP exercise "sort of" clarified it further... in reality I guess the structural deformation of a 10 yr old HiLux probably bears little if any resemblance to that of a 2023 Grenadier in similar circumstances....

EDIT: the TJM video on their bull bar engineering is nevertheless quite impressive. I had heard estimates of between $150K to $250k to develop a bull bar for a new model dualcab to achieve ADR compliance and a 5 star safety rating

 

[Steve.B]

The Ineos Grenadier has a extremely heavy duty hydro formed chassis "super strong", a Hilux such as Mr kadogan was talking about has a light duty conventionally pressed chassis, modern Roo Bars are crash compliant, they have crash cans in most cases, and some times bolted slip plates. The added bars on an already crash compliant bumper I am pretty sure will be fine.
Country to Toyotas very expensive advertising campaign on the Hilux both in commercials, and on top gear, it is very breakable, I have worked on enough of them as a panel beater when I was younger.
They don't make cars like they used to thank goodness, modern cars are many times stronger where they need to be.
On crash damaged old cars with say a badly deformed B pillar for example, we would put a block of wood on the base of the opposite pillar and use a porter power hydraulic ram to straighten it just using 1 or 2 fingers to pump maybe 200 or 300kg of pressure. But when auto makers started using high tensile hydro formed A and B pillars in modern vehicles the first time my work mates and myself tried to straighten a slightly deformed B pillar in a modern vehicle we stalled 2 x 20,000lb rams used together with no success.
Modern cars for that kind of work need to go to certified chassis straighteners where they are heated and re tempered or written off but they have probably already saved your life.
Roo Bars are useful for pin point impacts, or drivability home after an animal strike, less likely to have radiator, intercooler or oil cooler damage, and if you are in a remote area at the time, ( you are buying a Grenadier ) and happen to be travelling solo it may save your life.

 

[Steve.B]

Yes I am definitely getting a roo bar.

 

[Stu_Barnes]

And judging from the fact that you can get this on your G Wagon here in the USA I'm hoping that they sell them in this market too.

 

[stickshifter]

The first video in this thread - the BHP testing of vehicle crash safety - is an important one. Many modifications to vehicles can make a vehicle less safe, and its worth remembering how much engineering and testing goes into the factory-design of a vehicle. Many suspension lift-kits - by comparison - are hastily put together and are not subject to the same testing. Let's face it - anything put on the roof raises the center of gravity of a vehicle, thereby making it inherently less stable both on and off road. The same can be said for a lot of weight in front of the front axle. In my youth - not understanding much of anything - I put a heavy steel bumper and winch on the front of a 1988 Toyota 4-Runner and did not make any changes to the suspension to accommodate that extra weight. I am quite certain that the added weight contributed to an accident in which I totaled the car (but was fortunate to walk away without a scratch). There were unusual circumstances, for sure: I was driving late at night in nearly a foot of fresh snow, and this was before I ran dedicated snow tires in the winter. I crested a hill and started coming down around a corner, only to see a car in the middle of the road (teenagers out throwing spins in the snow), I had to go two wheels up on the embankment to avoid t-boning their car. After I got around them and back on the road, my car started fishtailing down the hill; there was a sheet of ice under the snow on this side of the hill. I ran off the road, took out a series of posts in a retaining fence, and then came to a halt when the vehicle got wrapped around a big steel post.

I've always believed that the added weight in front of the front axle contributed to my inability to regain control of the vehicle. This issue of adding weight in front of the front axle came up in an earliler thread on this forum (I don't remember the thread name), and I made the argument that added weight up front must be addressed in the suspension with heavier-rated springs/shocks (though I did not provide my personal anecdote for why it mattered to me so much). Vehicle manufacturers recognize this, and have multiple spring packages depending on vehicle specifications: gas engine vs diesel engine, steel bumper vs plastic bumpers, a front winch or not (available on some Jeep, Ram, and Ford vehicles).

I've also always believed that the steel bumper absorbed a huge amount of impact in my crash - perhaps saving my life. It was wrapped around the steel post like tissue paper, and visually, it just looked like it absorbed huge amounts of energy. So I was interested to see that the BHP tests showed greater intrusion into the cab (in particular the foot well) during a crash, when a vehicle has a heavy steel bumper.

One thing the video did not address was animal strikes, and these pose a different risk to driver and passengers than the crash-testing that was performed. There seem to be two distinct threats from an animal strike: (1) damage to the front end of the vehicle (radiator, or something else), making it undriveable; this could be a major problem if one is far from phone service or any other kind of help, and (2) after being struck by the bumper, the animal hits the windshield and this results in injury to the driver and/or front passenger (possibly resulting in loss of control of the vehicle). The BHP testing addressed the consequences of an impact to the bumper, and resulting intrusion into the cabin, but did not address the consequences of an animal strike: vehicle driveability or the secondary impact of the animal to the windshield.

It might be that the costs and benefits of a heavy steel bumper come down to specific circumstances: were appropriate adjustments to the suspension made? And perhaps - at what speed did the incident occur? I would guess that a steel bumper with a bull bar could provide 100% protection to a vehicle and its occupants in a relatively low-speed collision with an animal, whereas a stock vehicle would suffer some damage. But at high speed, maybe the steel bumper poses a threat to the vehicle occupants (as described in the video and associated pdf file).

In any case - maybe the key lesson is to be really thoughtful about any modifications to a vehicle.

 

[AnD3rew]

This (I hope) is one if the advantages of buying a bar that is OEM and designed and fitted by the manufacturer. It includes the original bumper and is designed to work with it and presumably then works with the airbag sensors and crumple zones etc. this yes probably means somewhat less roo impact protection but hopefully not a compromise on passenger protection. No roo bars really provide 100% damage free protection from a big roo hit, often it involves replacing the whole bar, often a tail or something will still hit the bonnet or a side panel. All I ask of it is that the radiator and key components continue to function till I get back to civilisation, if it can do that, it will be worth it.

 

[Solmanic]

I put an OEM bar on our G-Wagen which is very similar to the Ineos one in that it simply bolts to the factory front bumper. My rationale was not that the bar would somehow miraculously save everything in a major crash, but more that it would protect against radiator damage in a minor crash potentially immobilising the vehicle. To a lesser extent the bar also protects against headlight damage and then there is the inevitably expensive minor panel damage when off-roading. My theory was that if I spent about the same amount on a bar as my insurance excess (I usually choose a high excess) then I could avoid unnecessary claims for piddly-crap knocks & dings.

Within four hours of having the bar fitted to the G we hit a small wild pig on the way out to Cunnamulla! No damage.

For the Grenadier I am applying the same logic and having the factory bar fitted. There are a few additional reasons - Firstly the front bumper on the Grenadier makes it look a bit in-bred with this enormous chin sticking out. Also I have found from experience that if I don't get things like this fitted from day one, they tend to never get done, and the OEM bar is all that's available at the moment. Finally, I have a high degree of trust that the factory bumper is designed to work correctly in a crash so any OEM bar that mounts on to the factory bumper should not unduly affect its performance.

 

[Sam]

For the Grenadier I am applying the same logic and having the factory bar fitted. There are a few additional reasons - Firstly the front bumper on the Grenadier makes it look a bit in-bred with this enormous chin sticking out. Also I have found from experience that if I don't get things like this fitted from day one, they tend to never get done, and the OEM bar is all that's available at the moment. Finally, I have a high degree of trust that the factory bumper is designed to work correctly in a crash so any OEM bar that mounts on to the factory bumper should not unduly affect its performance.

Great thread, interesting reading.

I'm sitting on the fence, having initially chosen the roo bar option, then I took it off, figuring that most of my driving was in the city and my 10+ yrs of experience with the Defender was that i'd never hit anything (touch wood). Plus the aero drag/ weight, and the fact that I have no desire to fit roo bar jewellery - ariels, rod holders, humpty doo stickers, winches and the like. Just seemed like pointless ballast.

Then just recently a friend rolled/wrote-off his Defender avoiding a roo (not that a roo bar would've helped) and a WA rural trip seemed to be suggesting it was dumb not fit a bar, so i've put it back on the build again. Maybe also for vanity, since I think Ineos have done a clumsy, soviet-style job of the Grenadier front grille. It'll be face-lifted within 2 years.

So a whole range of factors to consider, out of which I reach similar conclusions to the above. First and foremost though - as a Design Engineer - I trust the OEM, and their superior knowledge/ access to information regarding the performance of the entire design - both with and without a roo bar.

 

[globalgregors]

The Ineos Grenadier has a extremely heavy duty hydro formed chassis "super strong", a Hilux such as Mr kadogan was talking about has a light duty conventionally pressed chassis, modern Roo Bars are crash compliant, they have crash cans in most cases, and some times bolted slip plates. The added bars on an already crash compliant bumper I am pretty sure will be fine.
Country to Toyotas very expensive advertising campaign on the Hilux both in commercials, and on top gear, it is very breakable, I have worked on enough of them as a panel beater when I was younger.
They don't make cars like they used to thank goodness, modern cars are many times stronger where they need to be.
On crash damaged old cars with say a badly deformed B pillar for example, we would put a block of wood on the base of the opposite pillar and use a porter power hydraulic ram to straighten it just using 1 or 2 fingers to pump maybe 200 or 300kg of pressure. But when auto makers started using high tensile hydro formed A and B pillars in modern vehicles the first time my work mates and myself tried to straighten a slightly deformed B pillar in a modern vehicle we stalled 2 x 20,000lb rams used together with no success.
Modern cars for that kind of work need to go to certified chassis straighteners where they are heated and re tempered or written off but they have probably already saved your life.
Roo Bars are useful for pin point impacts, or drivability home after an animal strike, less likely to have radiator, intercooler or oil cooler damage, and if you are in a remote area at the time, ( you are buying a Grenadier ) and happen to be travelling solo it may save your life.

Late last century I was a youngster in BHP Minerals HQ when we were making such modifications endemic.
At the time, as far as I recall, open pit mining predominated the portfolio and accordingly the three key risks were:

1) Light/Heavy vehicle separation incidents;
RO bars were assessed to increase side-impact resistance in particular, at a time when side impact protection was minimal in the prevailing body-on frame vehicles.

2) vehicle roll overs in the pit (eg driving off the bench);

Comments and recommendations
The fact that the operator was wearing his seat belt and the vehicle had a substantial roll bar saved his life.

3) animal strikes to light vehicles on access roads and in day-to-day use.

See industry reaction to the 2012 BHP policy change, which centre on the observation that ANCAP ratings did not test for physical safety provided in a collision with an animal, or assess the performance of the vehicle in ‘swerve to miss the animal’ incidents.

So that's not to say John is incorrect here in 2023, just that the decision to standardise bull bars and RO protection was made by engineers - and that the concerns they were addressing were not addressed by the testing campaign back in 2012... so definitely not clear cut.
I'm all for trusting the engineering, but let's at least start by framing and testing the correct scenarios.

Much has changed in passenger vehicle safety, accessory design, vehicle separation technologies etc etc.
But it's also very expensive to make these mods, and in a 2012 world of contract mining (which can shift the duty of care) perhaps there were other considerations in play.

 

[Tazzieman]

So that's not to say John is incorrect here in 2023

He just starts from a bias against bullbars (and perhaps 4wds) and then works backwards.
Robert Pepper could do a much better objective look at this issue.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

I don't doubt for a moment the validity of the BHP testing. Modern vehicles and their crush zones are massively safer than older designs, as this video from General motors shows quite convincingly. With that said, I think the requirements for a vehicle that is used for remote exploration differ from one used mostly in town. I for one am glad we had a roo bar on our Land Cruiser while driving around Australia and across Africa. I was a lot more worried about animal strikes than collisions with other vehicles.

 

[globalgregors]

He just starts from a bias against bullbars (and perhaps 4wds) and then works backwards.
Robert Pepper could do a much better objective look at this issue.

The other type of engineering to consider is 'social' engineering.
Australia's biggest industry has told a generation or two of workforce that the only safe 4WD is one with a bull bar fitted.
This never came with an explanation, it was just "no bull bar (and radio, beacon, battery isolator etc etc), no entry to the mine site - it's not safe".
So I'd hesitate to blame their prevalence (which does appear to exceed the need) on 'bogan culture', as John is wont to do.

His overarching principle - to never abandon the math - is one that I can get behind though, good on him for driving a debate.

I'm intending to "stroke my beard" on this one, because if at some point I want to run some narco-militia checkpoint (The A-Team style) I want to be able to do so without sacrificing the front end.

 

[AnD3rew]

I don’t think John is actually wrong on this, and he isn’t calling for a ban on bullbars, he is just saying here is some stuff you should know when you are deciding whether to put one on or not. If you followed every bit of advice he gave you would be driving either an Triton Ute or a Hyundai or Kia small-mid car with no accessories or modifications at all. Not even he expects you to actually follow all his advice, in pretty much all cases it’s hard to fault his logic and even harder to fault his engineering or physics, but it’s ultimately up to you to decide what you do with that knowledge. I have bought and still own several cars he absolutely says never to buy for a range of all logically sound reasons but I do it anyway knowing this stuff because people still buy things on gut and emotion rather than logic, and as long as you know that and are ok with it that’s fine. I can guarantee you that based in his criteria for picking a car which includes never buying from low volume or niche companies and he includes things like Skoda in that (I have 2 and I see them everywhere) he would recommend we all run a million miles from the Grenadier no matter how well built we think it is. But I am buying one anyway.

 

[Tazzieman]

Those of us that drive Series Land Rovers know that even in a low speed accident , we are badly maimed or dead.
We have developed the art of cautious , attentive driving to "next level" , to use a term "on trend".

 

[Sam]

Not mentioned yet, but a thought-provoking claim of the video (can't recall if evidence was offered) was the potential for a roo bar to introduce a delay to the activation of air bags, presumably by retarding/altering the designed-for transfer of energy during a collision. This claim, however, would assume that a "roo bar" is an exclusively aftermarket device fitted without the OEM's input and consent. So maybe not applicable in the IG case.

In fact this is really the critical bit of info for the purposes of the IG - that the roo bar does not replace the bumper. The Ineos roo bar offering really just amounts to additional front end/ headlight protection hoops, so it's a lot easier to become convinced about it's overall design/engineering integrity, vs the solutions available for other vehicles.

Overall though, some interesting - albeit generic - debate on the benefits/harm of roo bars in situations other than small animal strikes, with the evidence seemingly in favour of more harm than good... so maybe i'll be re-thinking my decision (again). Also noting that no one choses what they collide with.

A final thought: BHP data is useful, though a tiny sample size using outdated equipment, and suiting BHP's operating environment and aims. BHP used here to fill a vacuum, where no independent body exists.