Crikeymike
Adventurer
IH8RDS said:
That looks like a pretty tight fit to me, considering the amount of protection you'll get from it.
ARB bumper question
- Thread starter idaxj97
- Start date
That looks like a pretty tight fit to me, considering the amount of protection you'll get from it.
cruiseroutfit
Supporting Sponsor: Cruiser Outfitters
FWIW you see an overview of all of ARB's front bumpers here:
http://www.arbusa.com/uploads/PDF/onlineManualsGuides/bullBarApplicationChart.pdf
http://www.arbusa.com/uploads/PDF/onlineManualsGuides/bullBarApplicationChart.pdf
RonL
Adventurer
All the "air-bag compliant" means is that it was crash tested and the air bag worked. Air bags will still work in the non-air bag version....Put a bumper on the front does nothing to stop the shock sensors from working in a impact.
It is a "cover their butt" by the company statement....
No matter what, any ARB will help in a impact. I have one on the wife's, it has done well with trees, wood post, dirt ditch and rocks.
It is a "cover their butt" by the company statement....
No matter what, any ARB will help in a impact. I have one on the wife's, it has done well with trees, wood post, dirt ditch and rocks.
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
It may be a CYA statement, but air-bag compliance to me implies that it does not change the function of the system compared to stock. The air-bags should still trigger no matter what you hang on the front, but a bull bar might make the air-bag trip significantly different. Like it might trigger at a lower or higher speed or change the timing to make it trigger earlier or later. Whether or not it's a selling point for you, probably worth asking ARB what exactly it means.RonL said:
cruiseroutfit
Supporting Sponsor: Cruiser Outfitters
DaveInDenver said:
Exactly!
A bumper can cause a change to the prescribed deceleration rate of the vehicle, possible causing it to decelerate to quick (rigid bumper) or too slow (very flimsy bumper).
expoxj
Adventurer
R_Lefebvre said:Survey SAYS! Mmm... not so much.
If you look at the injury report on this one test (offset front) The Jeep cherokee ends up exactly the same as a disco 2. Although the Xj's unibody gets pretty smashed up. This compared to the crashtest.com where they use a bunch of tests and rate the xj and disco II the exact same.
jeep http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=101
disco http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=122
Survey (and Top Gear where they wrecked a renault minivan versus a disco 2) says if you really want to be safe....drive a minivan...
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
expoxj said:
Yes, I noticed the Disco didn't fare much better. I wasn't claiming it did. Neither of the two vehicles are very good, they both have huge passenger space collapse.
I guess my point is that some people get worked up about minor safety issues, when there are much larger forces at play. ie: I have a full roll cage in my Focus, and I drive it on the street without a helmet. Many people think this is horribly unsafe. The way I see it, I padded the cage with proper energy absorbing foam, which is likely better than the factory stuff. And more importantly, even with the potential of bumping my noggin on the cage, I'm probably still safer than if I was driving any number of older vehicles which are vastly less safe anyway, yet nobody bats an eye about driving old vehicles. Some people freak out about driving caged cars without helmets, but then would happily jump in any mid 60's muscle car with exposed metal A pillars. Some argue that it's because the cage is so much closer to my head than the factory pillars. I ask, have you ever sat in a mid-90's Camaro and see how close your head is?
I do have an airbag compliant bumper, but it wasn't because I was really worried about the safety differences. It was because I liked the look and quality, as well protection it offered to the front of the vehicle from animal strikes compared to other minimalist bumpers, and finally, I never wanted to have an insurance company question it's safety. I can point to ARB's testing and say "there's no way this bumper had an effect on injuries."
That's a very important point. And if there was a single biggest reason why somebody should have a compliant bumper in North America, that's it.
I've seen the 5th Gear (not Top Gear) episode referenced above. 3 years ago when I first watched it and I was totally anti-SUV, I exclaimed "see, SUV's aren't safer than cars". When I watched it again after I'd bought my Disco... upon considering the situation... I find it pretty convenient that the data from the Disco dummy was missing. Was it really missing, or did it not support the point they were trying to make so the omitted it? It's obvious the Disco does collapse, and the crush structure on the Espace worked exactly as designed. But, did the impact actually impart high levels of force to the dummy? I dunno, but I'm not jumping to conclusions. Especially considering the collision looked an aweful lot like the IIHS test, which did NOT impart high G levels to the dummy.
Neither the Jeep or the Disco are the safest cars on the road. You may be trapped in them and/or suffer broken legs. But your torso and head should be OK. It's not as bad as driving any number of mid 90's econoboxes that have high G levels *everywhere*.
Last edited:
idaxj97
Adventurer
Ok ive been watching these answers and i guess i wasnt clear about what i was asking and for that im sorry, i dont care about how the xj did in a crash test the way i look at it if it wasnt safe then jeep wouldnt have had it in production as long as they did. what i was getting at is if i hit a damn tree is it gonna set off my airbags i know this sounds like a dumb question but if im gonna fork out the money for this bumper then i want to know how reliable its gonna be. so lets stop this rig did better than this rig in a crash test, if you wanna talk about it start a new thread sorry if it sounds mean i know once a thread start to degrade it only gets worse. but thank you guys for the information.
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
Bad assumption, but you can believe whatever you want.
To try to answer your question, if you hit a tree at low speed with a non-compliant bumper, your airbags will be more likely to go off than with a compliant bumper. Ditto parking lot bumps, etc. That much is agreed even from the anti-ARB-Fanboi-club.
Now, *how* much more likely is it? Nobody can say. Couple MPH? 10MPH? No clue. Give me a couple trucks and a couple bumpers, I'll conduct the testing and let you know.
expoxj
Adventurer
idaxj97 said:
First off Idaxj97 I apoligize for the highjack.
Second I'd have to agree and say you would have to ask ARB about their testing process.
Third R_Lefebvre I'm glad someone thinks like me and drives a caged car around on the street without a helmet. I mean not all of us like to look like the stig in the Mcdonalds drive through.:imagesCADZQMBJ:
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
expoxj said:
Just please tell me you have FIA padding on it.
The American style pipe insulation is junk.I always laugh when a Miata driver tells me my car is unsafe. Dude, you don't even have a roof.
idaxj97
Adventurer
expoxj said:First off Idaxj97 I apoligize for the highjack.
its no problem, dont get me wrong its good info to know just wrong place.
R_Lefebvre im sure your right about my assumption it could be and can very well be wrong im sorry, i was just venting i had just woke up and was in a bad mood at the time so again sorry for the way it came out.
Antichrist
Expedition Leader
At low speeds, yes, it might have an effect, noticable as far as occupant safety is concerned, I have my doubts.DaveInDenver said:
For higher speed impacts, there's a document on the net somewhere covering some very extensive testing, including the physics of deceleration and a lot of engineering aspects. The result after wading through it is that there's little difference relative to bumper.