About these new shackle mounts....

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   BJ Turner (Wturner) Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 04:20 pm:    What are these two measurements??? Thanks BJ   JMcD Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:05 pm:    Why not? Am I missing something?   muskyman Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:27 pm:    look at the big 3 ton...thats only 6000 lbs figure in the safety margin and it still isnt strong enough for my tastes. looks like a small version of the 6 ton ones?   Ron Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 01:06 am:    If you break one I will buy you a new one. Ron   MTB Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 01:14 am:    Damn Ron that is not a CB attitude It maybe getting late for you   Richard Dekkard (Dekkard) Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 06:03 am:    I would be a bit uncomfortable pulling a 5000lb + rover with that using a 10,000lb plus capacity winch stuck in mud or at an incline. Makes a nice projectile.. Shouldnt your weakest component be something less dangerous? Or at least shouldnt your winch, recovery points, and line strength be double your vehicle weight? Taking in resistance multipliers like mud, rocks, and incline make a 3 ton recovery point not feel so good to me. just my thoughts.. flame away...   Kyle Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 08:57 am:    LOL , most of you dont have a winch strong enough to pull one of my boots off my feet , let alone break one of those reco points. I only mount the hardest pullers and I have no fear whatsoever about them. You could easily hang a Disco from one of them if what it was bolted to was strong enough. And I will kick in with Ron , if you can break one of them with your winch I will give ya a whole god damn bumper with two new ones attached. They are damn close to idiot proof. ofcourse if you dont use good sense when buying bolts for them or when mounting them , you might have an issue..... The rating on there is for CYA purposes.......... Kyle   M. K. Watson (Lrover94) Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 09:03 am:    cant sale that POS bumper so, you gonna give it away, huh kyle! mike w   BJ Turner (Wturner) Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 09:44 am:    WHAT ARE YALL TALKING ABOUT. Please answer my question that started this post. What is the distance (center to center) of the bolt holes????   John Lee Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 01:11 pm:    BJ, if you want people to help you out with your question you might try asking nicely. Nobody here owes you anything, but you ask in tone that bespeaks an attitude that people do in fact owe you an answer to your questions.   annoying anon Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 01:26 pm:    NO NO NO John. BJ wants the answer NOW!!!! HEHEHEHE   Moe (Moe) Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 01:35 pm:    BJ, I just took a ruler to the screen and it came up around 2.5" by 1.75". Now if you can work out the formula that will control for the pic size and perspective, you should be set   BJ Turner (Wturner) Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 02:13 pm:    Ah, see the trouble is that I DID ask nicely the first time! Then everyone went off on their own conversation, not even accnolidging my question. If you don't have an answer then let the post die out like all the others that don't get answers. And I did say please the second time. Sorry if I get a little irratated by the rambling that goes on some times   JSBriggs Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 02:21 pm:    Here you go, 2x3. Where to get them? R&P 4wd 503-557-8911 11889 S New Era Rd. Oregon City Or. 97045 -Jeff Briggs   p m Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 02:22 pm:    Moe, it's 1.875"x1" on mine and i can make it even smaller, so a 1/4" shackle won't flop around in it peter   RVR OVR (Tom) Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 02:28 pm:    Hoo doggy. More entertainment. Tom   Moe (Moe) Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 02:58 pm:    "and i can make it even smaller, so a 1/4" shackle won't flop around in it" LOL. In order to be really helpful, I should have specified the monitor and pixel size.   Erik Olson (Jon) Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 07:14 pm:    Is that thing aluminum-magnesium? I thought our rigs came in (GVWR) at six-thousand pounds. I think that point looks a bit on the small side for a Disco recovery. Perhaps you might stick it on one of those Suzukis everyone is so hot about. If you mount that thing for recovery from anything other than flat asphalt, please take the time to warn the folks you're trailing with. Good luck, kid. E   Rick Clarke (Tugcap) Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 07:34 pm:    Usually the safe working load (SWL)is what is displayed on shackles or rigging, not the maximum or failure load. The failure or max load is usually 3-5 times the safe working load. Probably 5x. Thats probly why Kyle and others are confident with them. Rick   John Lee Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 09:04 pm:    As Rick said, the working load limit (WLL) on various pieces of equipment is usually multiple times lower than the failure point and not the true indicator of strength. For example, good 3/4" bow shackles have a WLL of 4.75 tons but it takes over 30,000 lbs. to break one that is in good condition. Nominal rating loads are not always an indication of strength. A Hi-Lift jack has a nominal WLL of 4,600 lbs. but it is every bit as strong and possibly stronger than the Jack-All, which has a nominal WLL of 8,000 lbs. (at least for the first foot of lift). The Hi-Lift's conservative rating comes from its compliance with ANSI standards that require that an ANSI-compliant product have a nominal WLL 1.5 times smaller than its true WLL, which in turn is several times smaller than that product's breaking strength. Another factor to consider in nominal load ratings is product liability. As Kyle pointed out, manufacturers rate their products conservatively to minimize their product liability exposure. A three-ton hoisting hook is seriously strong, but it is rated for only three tons because it is rated for lifting loads and thus rated more conservatively than a hook that is rated only for pulling. There is much greater product liability exposure for products that are used to lift loads than merely pull loads because the consequences of a failure are greater with lifted loads. A three-ton hoisting hook is substantially larger and stronger than any hook that comes on any 4x4 winch, and yet the hoisting hook's nominal rating is up to half the nominal pull rating of some 4x4 winches like the RE12000. If it makes you feel any better, you can buy another shackle mounting bracket that doesn't have the "3 TON" engraved on it. If you do, just realize that you're basically getting a volume dial that is graduated to "11" instead of "10".   M. K. Watson (Lrover94) Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 09:05 pm:    what was the question?   Ron Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 09:53 pm:    "if you can break one of them with your winch I will give ya a whole god damn bumper with two new ones attached" Does this apply to me? I am always looking for a challenge. I am thinking about this as my next boat anchor (I mean winch) Ron   Ron Posted on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 09:57 pm:    "if you can break one of them with your winch I will give ya a whole god damn bumper with two new ones attached" Does this apply to me? I am always looking for a challenge. I am thinking about this as my next boat anchor (I mean winch) (damnit I miss the old board way of uploading images!) Ron   Erik Olson (Jon) Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 12:23 am:    I'm a certified high-rigger, and I'll tell you that in that field, you always work to a tolerance that is LOWER than the OSHA rated load / stress. It's good to know that the general accepted method of interpereting load-rated equipment in the recovery world is to assume that it'll hold up to 1.5 - 5x over the respective equipment rating - scary. Ever watch one of those documentaries on collapsed shopping centers or sports arenas? Those guys thought they were working "somewhere near the tolerance" too. A lot of the time, people make dangerous assumptions about limits, cantilever and stress-point / failure point, thinking that "it won't happen to them". It's not so funny when little Timmy and his mommy are under a few tons of twisted steel and concrete because someone assumed that "...those load-limits failure or max load is usually 3-5 times the safe working load." If that's the way people recover, I'd ask them to please not rig around me, that's all I'm saying. It's pretty **d-damn milk-coming-out-your-nose-funny until someone gets hurt or has a recovery point or bull bar in their head. Erik   Ron Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 12:32 am:    Ok Erik, tell me this what will fail first. 1. The Shackle mounting bracket 2. The 3/4" Shackle 3. 5/16ths or 3/8ths Wire rope 4. The four 1/2" bolts holding the SMB on 5. The bolts holding whatever you mounted the SMB on to the frame. 6. The frame At some point you want whatever it is you are using for recovery to fail. It is a heck of a lot better than tweaking your frame or ripping the front of your frame off. Ron   Erik Olson (Jon) Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 01:17 am:    Ummm... the frame? It all depends. I was in West Marine a week ago and saw a 5/8" galvanized cast shackle. I have to assume you mean grade-eights and top-quality load-rated all around right? wire rope 5/16" 1/2" grade eight SMB bolts SMB wire rope 3/8" 3/4" shackle bumper / frame SMB mount point (properly mounted six point grade eights like ARB) the frame How'd I do? Would Timmy and his mommy live longer based on my rating of components or your assumptions? e   Erik Olson (Jon) Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 01:19 am:    Ron, That all assumes lateral continuous load with no shear, btw. e   Ron Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 02:13 am:    Yes the frame. What is the fail rating of a section of 14 gauge box steel ~3"x4" with two 1/2" holes in it? Timmy and his Mommy are not standing between a recovering truck and a stuck truck. 1. You or I cannot break the SMB. 2. If we we somehow got in a position where we could, you would be better off with it breaking. 3. IMHO you want the rope to break first. I would like to see where you come up with the idea that 3/8ths will break after the SMB. 4. You should always practice safe recovery techniques. If a failure occurs it there should be no possibility of anyone getting hurt. Ron PS it is suprisingly common to see a series truck where the front frame horns are ripped off. A bit of rust and a hard recovery and boom.   M. K. Watson (Lrover94) Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 06:31 am:    i'd leave timmy and his freakin mom at home! imho mike w   Kyle Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 09:34 am:    Erik , the info I gave came from the manufacturer of the mounts. It wasnt a guess and I wouldnt say itif I was talking out of my ass. You aint breaking that god damn thing recovering a Disco with the winch options you have out there. Especially if you are a "Certified" whatever.... I say lets have one of the local rocket scientists run it down for us. I also have to agree with Ron , there are weaker links in this chain. You WILL rip the frame before the Clevis mount breaks. You WOULD break a 3/8 cable before the mount broke. So now I will post a link and a question. http://www.expeditionexchange.com/protorb/DSC00067.jpg In that pic are the weeld on D rings I used for a few years. I have had plenty of winches hooked to them that stalled and they never showed any signs of cracking or fatigue. Most utility companies usse that type of ring on their trucks and I have no doubt they are saftey concious. So now I ask , which is stronger in your mind ? I would estimate that the Bolt on points are around 5X stronger then that setup which never failed me. Thats my saftey margin......... Kyle   Erik Olson (Jon) Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 11:40 am:    Kyle, My original comments were focused specifically toward one item - the SMB - and the propensity for people to make, what in my mind are, unsafe assumptions about load-rating. That's all. Ron, We were talking about Series trucks? Oh, yes. Then I would definitely say that the whole frame would just dissentigrate before that heavy-duty SMB would. In fact, I bet that rear crossmember would go first - and then the front outriggers and then the entire bulkhead would just go to a powdery rust. I didn't know we were discussing Series trucks. I stand corrected - please disregard the whole list. e   John Lee Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 12:31 pm:    Erik, I'm really curious. Can you give us a run down of what recovery items are on your truck (e.g., winch, winch rope, recovery points, backing plates, bolt specifications, etc.) and what other appurtenances you use (e.g., tow straps or tow ropes, shackle types, lifting jack specs, chain specs, etc.)? I'm really curious to see this list.   Ron Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 03:25 pm:    No. I am talking about your disco. The frame will fail before the SMB (IMO) I referenced series trucks as more of an aside to your "the frame" comment. Your frame is not that strong in relative terms. Ron   Erik Olson (Jon) Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 03:52 pm:    I'm not too far along on my truck. Kids and life in general have kept me from making all the purchases on my list yet. But for a start I've got an ARB non-air mounted at the factory points with the supplied grade eights. I wish I'd held out for an RTE bumper or equivalent because of the approach angle. I have no winch yet, but keep a 3" tow strap, tree strap, 3/4 and 5/8" shackles and a couple of 10' and 20' 3/8 steel slings with compression fittings at both ends. I'm hoping to have a winch mounted by September, but I've been wanting the XD9000 and I may not save enough by then. John, you have my list - you know what I need. If you have an issue with anything I spec'd on the list, why not just let me know? e   John Lee Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 05:13 pm:    Erik, I asked because I was curious what other recovery equipment you used. You have taken the position that the SMB's are too weak for your use, which is fine. Some people go really armgeddon with their recovery equipment and I certainly can't fault them for that. But I was curious to know what other recovery tools you used if you thought the SMB's were weak. You have listed a good assortment of recovery equipment, but I can't help but think that if you used the SMB's, they would be far from the weak link in your recovery arsenal. For example, your ARB bumper is certainly weaker than the SMB's. If you were to mount two SMB's to the front of your ARB bumper, I agree with both Kyle and Ron that your frame or bumper would fail before the SMB's did. And if you're currently using the ARB as ARB designed it and using your 3/4" bow shackles in the standard ARB loops, that system is substantially weaker and more dangerous than using the SMB's to mount the shackles. Those loops on the front of the ARB are not that strong. I don't know what the WLL on those is as ARB won't release those numbers for liability reasons, but I believe those factory loops are substantially weaker than the SMB's even when the loops are in good condition. If you ever tweak those loops on some rocks (which is really common because the loops are on the lower leading edges of the bumper), they become even weaker and more dangerous to use. Your 3/8" chains are also weaker than the SMB's. Grade 70 3/8" chains have a WLL of 6,600 lbs. That is 600 lbs. heavier than the WLL on the SMB's, but I feel very confident in saying that the SMB's are much stronger than 3/8" Grade 70 chain. The two items in your recovery package that are seriously strong are your 3" straps and bow shackles. These are both very strong, and frankly I have no idea if they are stronger or weaker than the SMB's. Almost all 3" tow straps have a breaking strength of 30,000 lbs and a WLL of 10,000 lbs. or 7,500 lbs., depending on who's doing the rating and for what purposes the strap will be used. The breaking point of good 3/4" bow shackles is well over 30,000 lbs. Your desired Warn XD9000 has a nominal rating of 9,000 lbs. Still, it is a lot weaker than than the SMB's and will stall well before you break the SMB's. When you eventually get your winch, take a good look at the clevis hook that it comes with. I have a clevis hook from my Husky 10 that is larger than the clevis hooks that come with Warn XD9000's. It says "2 TONS" on it (that is probably the lifting rating). I also have a very large hoisting hook that is larger than any factory hook I have ever seen on any 4x4 winch, and it says "3 TONS" on it. Both of these items it would seem are really dangerous because of their low nominal WLL's. If you use a Hi-Lift jack to hand winch while you save up for your XD9000, the Hi-Lift jack has a nominal rating of only 4,600 lbs. The shear bolt on the Hi-Lift is rated for 7,000 lbs. That shear bolt will shear a lot sooner than the SMB's will fail. My point in all of this is to show you that your position that the SMB's are unsafe conflicts with your practice of already using equipment that is substantially weaker than the SMB's are. I'm not advocating everyone disregard the nominal WLL's on various items. That would be just plain stupid. Rather, I'm advocating the use of common sense in choosing recovery equipment. If someone wants to avoid the SMB's because he wants overkill in everything, I can hardly argue with that. However, it seems unreasonable to me for someone to avoid the SMB's because of their nominal load rating when he is already using other items that are obviously much weaker than the SMB's.   Ron Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 05:33 pm:    That 5/16th cable on a XD9000 will break before any of the other stuff. Ditto for the gay ARB loops. Ron   Erik Olson (Jon) Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 06:19 pm:    To be honest, I've been looking at an aftermarket point to install on the ARB. I've wanted to cut those ARB supplied loops off since the day I bought it. My original point was that the SMB shown at the top of the thread looked like it came in under the GVWR of most of our trucks and meant to infer that a higher-rated item (of like or different build) might be a better idea. I do have questions about the exertion of thousands of pounds of load off the perpendicular axis with respect to the particular SMB shown as well. That doesn't mean it will necessarily fail or that there aren't much weaker points somewhere in-line. Same thing goes for the stock loops you indicated on the ARB. "...our rigs came in (GVWR) at six-thousand pounds. I think that point looks a bit on the small side for a Disco..." That was my original post - I wasn't even making a dig at the product itself - just asking what it was made of because it appears to be aluminum-magnesium, and how people felt about the advertised rating for a Discovery. e   Erik Olson (Jon) Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 06:49 pm:    13K WLL / forged with 1/4" backing plate e   Erik Olson (Jon) Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 06:51 pm:    13K WLL / forged with 1/4" backing plate Any thoughts on this one? e   Erik Olson (Jon) Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 06:54 pm:    I am an idiot. My words, not yours. Once again...   Jeff Bieler (Mrbieler) Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 07:00 pm:    Erik, those loops on your ARB will come in handy if you want to use a hi-lift...   Erik Olson (Jon) Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 07:26 pm:    I know, but they hang so very low. I really wish I'd done better research on the ARB bumper before buying it. The approach angle embarrasses me. e   Ho Chung (Ho) Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 09:32 pm:    erik, have some confidence in yourself man! approach angle isn't anything to be embarrassed about. LOL and you really think your approach angle will really change if you shave off those pesky tabs?   Ron Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 11:35 pm:    Those look like the ones man a fre sells. I posted a link above. Ron   John Lee Posted on Sunday, April 07, 2002 - 12:29 am:    Erik, I think the brackets you posted pics of are the "11" version of the SMB's. Take a look at: http://www.expeditionexchange.com/smb/indexpics.htm and compare those to the pics you posted. Do you see any difference? Both brackets use the standard 2" x 3" bolt pattern and are secured with four 1/2" fasteners. Both brackets are steel. If anything, I see less meat on the ones you posted. The steel on the mounting flange on the SMB's is the same thickness as the flanges on the ones you posted, but there is more material around each bolt on the SMB's. So, based on appearance, I would say those brackets you posted pics of are actually weaker, not stronger. And I can't help but think that the 13,000 WLL on those brackets is a bit of a joke. The usual rule of thumb for equipment like this is that a WLL will be one-fourth or one-fifth of the actual breaking strength. I find it hard to believe that the failure point of those brackets you posted pics of is 50,000 lbs. or more. I just don't think four 1/2" fasteners can withstand that kind of load. This may be another Hi-Lift vs. Jack-All rating comparison where nominal load ratings differ greatly while the actual strength differences between the two items is minimal. If you think you're getting a safer SMB because of the 13,000 WLL on those brackets, by all means go for it. I still think though that all you're getting is a volume dial that goes to "11" instead of "10". Ron, those Man-A-Fre brackets you posted pics of don't do it for me. It's hard to tell for sure, but those brackets look as if they're made from two pieces welded together. I much prefer the one-piece design of the SMB's or the brackets that Erik posted pics of.   Kyle Posted on Sunday, April 07, 2002 - 10:53 am:    The black ones Erick arent built as nice. And John ? Overkill ? These damn things are over kill !!! lol You just dont know until you hold one in your hand.. Kyle   Mike Little Posted on Sunday, April 07, 2002 - 12:22 pm:    Just to add more fuel to the fire what about these lifting points from RUD http://www.thomasregister.com/olc/rudchain/wbgv.htm One of the members from our club has these mounted on a 109 and they seem to perform well. The only draw back I see is the large hole required in the bumper. Mike