Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rhino roof Rack and off road capacity being de-rated

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rhino roof Rack and off road capacity being de-rated

    This is a letter I have posted to Rhino Racks after watching the Tyler Thompson Video.
    I will update if I get a reply.


    [email protected]rhinorack.com.au


    Hello,

    I’m the owner of a Rhino platform fitted to a Mitsubishi Pajero using the Rhino backbone.
    I have watched the Tyler Thompson and Ronny Dahl video’s.
    These are concerning,
    Like these 2 people I was not aware of the on and off road rating for Rhino racks.
    However unlike these 2 people I’m also an Engineer.
    In the case of myself with an NX Pajero, the calculation for the off road rating seems to be highly conservative without science behind it.
    I purchased the backbone and the Rhino system for the Pajero as it used the original manufacture’s bolt holes with what appears to be the same size bolts thinking that if the system is using the same fixing method as the manufacture their would be no structural concerns.
    1. The Rhino back for the Pajero uses the original vehicle holes for mounting the backbone, using near identical nuts and bolts.
    2. The bolts that attach the Rhino platform to the Rhino back are more than sufficient to hold 10 times the dynamic load that would be applied in an off road situation.
    3. The weak point off road under dynamic loading is likely to be the roof itself that may suffer metal fatigue over time, however this fatigue would equally happen using the Rhino system or the original roof rails.
    4. A 6mm metric bolt can hold 5kn, There are 5 on each rail so that’s 2.5T of capacity per rail so 5 T of tensile force enough to lift the car up and 2.3Kn in shear so being 5 each side 1.25T of shear weight could be applied to each side.
    Given the above points 1,2,3 & 4 why is it that the system gets de-rated so much off road. When it is clear that the Rhino platform is strong enough and all the fixings used to connect the platform to the backbone to the car are multiple times within capacity limits.
    The calculation on the website also appear to be oversimplified with the Pajero roof rating being 100kg ontop of the roof rails, to install the Rhino back the roof rails are removed so shouldn’t the allowable load capacity be the manufactures load (100kg) + the weight of the removed roof rails (5kg) – weight of Rhino backbone (7.5kg) – weight of platform (25.3 Kg) = 72.2Kg.

    This payload (load capacity) of 72.2kg should be in all conditions as the connection from the backbone to the rack is over engineered by at least a factor of 10 under any condition and the connection from the Rhino backbone to the car is as per the manufactures design with bolt size and load area almost identical, why have Rhino choose to de-rate the capacity so much on the Pajero, it is not like the Hilux or Ranger where the Rhino backbone uses the unsound/ under engineered pop rivet system.

    I look forward to your reply.

    Regards,

    Shaun Skiba

  • #2
    Nice letter and all good questions Shaun.

    Is there anything in the Pajero's Owners Manual that dictates roof loadings off road vs on road?
    In the PB Challenger Owners Manual, the max roof load is specified as 80kg with no reduction for off road, but this is with the factory roof rails which are not very strong.
    A bolted through leg, backbone or track system will be much stronger that the factory rails and as you have calculated it will not be the through bolts that fail, the roof structure will only crack if the mounting points are loose and or there are preloads on the mounts because of misalignment. From an engineering view point, the most likely next point of failure is the 90 degree bends in the backbone/side rails where the mounting feet are. The bend radius is very tight and the laser cut edges of the steel have not been radiused sufficiently so there will be stress points formed during the bending process and this will be the area where a crack will develop.

    OJ.
    2011 PB Base White Auto, Smartbar, Cooper STMaxx LT235/85R-16,TPMS, HR TB, 3 x Bushskinz, front +40mm Dobinson , rear +50mm EHDVR Lovells, Dobinson MT struts and shockers, Peddars 5899 cone springs, Windcheater rack, GME UHF, Custom alloy drawer system inc. 30lt Engel & 2 x 30 AH LiFePo batteries + elec controls, Tailgate hi-lift/long struts, Phillips +100 LB & HB, Lightforce 20" single row driving beam LED lightbar, Scanguage II.
    MM4x4 Auto Mate, Serial No 1 .

    Comment


    • #3
      Normally I'm too lazy to get involved in an online discussion but, as an engineer, would you stack your professional indemnity insurance up against your assumptions and the number of variables that could be at play in loading 70kg on to the top of an off-road vehicle?

      Not saying your assumptions are wrong but I'm curious as to how you expect them to respond to the one question you have asked.

      This is about them managing significant risk through a significant safety margin.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Pixie_au View Post
        Normally I'm too lazy to get involved in an online discussion but, as an engineer, would you stack your professional indemnity insurance up against your assumptions and the number of variables that could be at play in loading 70kg on to the top of an off-road vehicle?

        Not saying your assumptions are wrong but I'm curious as to how you expect them to respond to the one question you have asked.

        This is about them managing significant risk through a significant safety margin.
        They might make him their marketing director, as he seems to have more of a clue then Rhino.

        You are right though, they are managing litigation.

        However on a product that cost them very little to be made where it is. Enjoy the profits created and appear to have little concern for customers who just want to use a roof rack in the real world without searching for the hidden detail differing to what was marketed.

        There is also reports of the middle mount on the ridgeback cracking the Pajero roof. Not something everyone is going to check I admit. However Rhino's response was they aware of it, and are not adjusting the production jig, rather just have another roof rack. The bloke who posted his cracked roof was still left with 3k of repairs.

        I have no idea how much manufacturing cost in China, but if I can purchase a set of reading glasses with a case, plus packaging and freight to Aus for $2.50 GST inclusive, form a national pharmaceutical company and its related distribution, running costs, and profit; I'm guessing a $1600-$2000 roof rack also has significant fat. And one that will be another well kept and hidden detail I imagine.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by jaffles View Post

          They might make him their marketing director, as he seems to have more of a clue then Rhino.

          You are right though, they are managing litigation.

          However on a product that cost them very little to be made where it is. Enjoy the profits created and appear to have little concern for customers who just want to use a roof rack in the real world without searching for the hidden detail differing to what was marketed.

          There is also reports of the middle mount on the ridgeback cracking the Pajero roof. Not something everyone is going to check I admit. However Rhino's response was they aware of it, and are not adjusting the production jig, rather just have another roof rack. The bloke who posted his cracked roof was still left with 3k of repairs.

          I have no idea how much manufacturing cost in China, but if I can purchase a set of reading glasses with a case, plus packaging and freight to Aus for $2.50 GST inclusive, form a national pharmaceutical company and its related distribution, running costs, and profit; I'm guessing a $1600-$2000 roof rack also has significant fat. And one that will be another well kept and hidden detail I imagine.
          If it costs $100 per roof rack then the chinese manufacturer is also making a good profit!!
          Dicko. FNQ

          2014 NW with all the usual stuff plus more.
          If you take life too seriously you will never get out alive....



          Telegraph X camper

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by old Jack View Post
            Nice letter and all good questions Shaun.

            Is there anything in the Pajero's Owners Manual that dictates roof loadings off road vs on road?
            In the PB Challenger Owners Manual, the max roof load is specified as 80kg with no reduction for off road, but this is with the factory roof rails which are not very strong.
            A bolted through leg, backbone or track system will be much stronger that the factory rails and as you have calculated it will not be the through bolts that fail, the roof structure will only crack if the mounting points are loose and or there are preloads on the mounts because of misalignment. From an engineering view point, the most likely next point of failure is the 90 degree bends in the backbone/side rails where the mounting feet are. The bend radius is very tight and the laser cut edges of the steel have not been radiused sufficiently so there will be stress points formed during the bending process and this will be the area where a crack will develop.

            OJ.
            Hi nothing in the manual about on or off road capacity just that's it's 100kg.
            in the Ronny Daryl Video he found a competitor to Rhino that does not derate off road.

            had I have known about the derated load capacity off road, I would have looked for another brand.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Pixie_au View Post
              Normally I'm too lazy to get involved in an online discussion but, as an engineer, would you stack your professional indemnity insurance up against your assumptions and the number of variables that could be at play in loading 70kg on to the top of an off-road vehicle?

              Not saying your assumptions are wrong but I'm curious as to how you expect them to respond to the one question you have asked.

              This is about them managing significant risk through a significant safety margin.
              Other brands do not have lower off road ratings.
              As far as Mitsubishi is concerned I could put 100kg on the flimsy roof rails and be within limits.
              the rino system is stronger than factory roof rails, I don't know why it's de rated, and the de rated off road limit is not conspicuous in their marketing, this is what caught me and many others out.

              Comment


              • #8
                I suspect you're giving them took much credit. Obviously, once upon a time, they were leaders in the space, and developed some iconic products. But currently, I don't believe it is still the same company. I see no evidence that the talent that developer the brand are involved in the current debacle. Personally, I believe the current team lack the ability to recognise how far they are out of their depth.

                The business is only held above water by a set of old floaties. They don't realise the floaties are leaking, and may not until its far too late to save themselves.
                NT Platinum. DiD Auto with 265/70R17 ST Maxx, Lift, Lockers, Lockup Mate, Low range reduction, LRA Aux tank, bull bar, winch, lots of touring stuff. Flappy paddles. MMCS is gone!

                Project: NJ SWB. 285/75R16 ST Maxx, 2" OME suspension, 2" body lift, ARB 110, 120l tank, bullbar, scratches, no major dents. Fully engineered in SA. NW DiD & auto in place - a long way to go....

                Scorpro Explorer Box

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by nj swb View Post
                  I suspect you're giving them took much credit. Obviously, once upon a time, they were leaders in the space, and developed some iconic products. But currently, I don't believe it is still the same company. I see no evidence that the talent that developer the brand are involved in the current debacle. Personally, I believe the current team lack the ability to recognise how far they are out of their depth.

                  The business is only held above water by a set of old floaties. They don't realise the floaties are leaking, and may not until its far too late to save themselves.
                  Never a truer word said mate.
                  Hit the nail on the head 🤕.
                  MY21 NX Pajero
                  a few mods to come !

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Rhino reminds me of a confident & arrogant supplier that has led the way with sales over quite a long time & feeling very comfortable with themselves.

                    Generally speaking, they worry about their earn & if people continue to support them, they keep earning your letters will go in the waist basket & innovation will be zero, just legal loopholes to protect their back pockets will continue as they shove out mass produced huge margin alloy trays pop riveted to roofs & make a killing.

                    I won't be supporting them,
                    How they react to the market winds remains to be seen, they have become over confident spent bugger all on R&D, brought a few pop rivets & wrote don't put weight on your roof, maximised profits & become complacent.

                    Ripped people off & that's floating to the surface, they may have made enough anyhow
                    Last edited by Jasonmc73; 2 weeks ago.
                    Mitsubishi Pajero NX MY16

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Good news

                      Rhino have removed the off road rating reductiuon for the Pajero Pioneer Platform.

                      See their responce below and the new fitting instructions for the Gen 4 Pajero that confirms this (attached).
                      Please not the Gen 4 Pajero has a maximum roof load of 100Kg so the cargo load is 63Kg for the larger rhino rack being 52107, note I installed the smaller one 52102 being 200m shorter at 1928mm to help with the offset from the front knowing the wind noise issue, the smaller one gives a cargo load of 65kg when installed with the Rhino Backbone.

                      Before you purchase many people complain about wind noise.
                      I do not have that issue, as I have set the Pioneer platfrom back approx 450mm from the front of the car and have a low mounted light bar full width between the backbone reducing air flow under the rack.
                      Not sure which one of these is the factor in reducing the wind noise, but between the 2 it has worked, it's not like there is 0 noise, just that is 90% less than the howling you get in a Hilux.

                      Customer Service <[email protected]>
                      Wed, 7 Apr, 11:49 (21 hours ago)
                      to me
                      Hi Shaun,
                      Thank you for contacting Rhino Rack - I do apologise for the delayed response.
                      We have been reviewing the off road load rating on a range of vehicles, this is one of them. The off-road rating has been removed from this vehicle, I have attached for you the new fitting information.
                      In regards to your load rating potential increase when rails are removed - you should verify with Mitsubishi what the new load rating will be.
                      Thank you
                      Kind Regards,
                      Marisa Tucker
                      Customer Service and Sales

                      Rhino-Rack Australia Pty Ltd
                      57 Felspar Street, Welshpool WA 6106
                      P +61 8 9458 4446
                      E [email protected]

                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • #12

                        Interesting that the fitting instructions show a default value of 150kg. Is there a Pajero variant with that capacity?
                        2007 NS Pajero GLS Diesel. Factory rear diff lock. Custom rear bumper. Custom side steps. Boos front three 3mm bash plates. Cooper Evolution MT tyres. Couple of CB radios. Provent 200. Traction control diff lock mod. ARB Comercial bull bar with custom brush bars and Domin8r X 12,000lb winch. Dobinsons and Kings raised springs and shocks. TJM snorkel

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by rgrubby View Post

                          Interesting that the fitting instructions show a default value of 150kg. Is there a Pajero variant with that capacity?
                          DYNAMIC LOAD LIMIT (ON AND OFF ROAD):
                          *USE THE VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S MAXIMUM ROOF ALLOWANCE IF IT IS LOWER THAN THE FIGURE LISTED

                          UP TO 150 Kg or *VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S ROOF LOAD LIMIT

                          TOTAL STATIC LOAD LIMIT; UP TO 350Kg / 773 lbs*
                          I interpret all that to say their system, before it's installed on a vehicle, is good for up to 150kg in dynamic conditions, but stick with the manufacturer's roof limit if it's less - which, in the case of Pajero, it is.

                          If some other vehicle has a roof limit of (say) 200kg, then the Rhino system is still only good for 150kg - including the weight of the system.

                          They're not going to stick their necks out on providing a rating specific for a Pajero, because they don't want to be responsible if they miss that there's a model out there with a lower limit - and I don't blame them for that.
                          NT Platinum. DiD Auto with 265/70R17 ST Maxx, Lift, Lockers, Lockup Mate, Low range reduction, LRA Aux tank, bull bar, winch, lots of touring stuff. Flappy paddles. MMCS is gone!

                          Project: NJ SWB. 285/75R16 ST Maxx, 2" OME suspension, 2" body lift, ARB 110, 120l tank, bullbar, scratches, no major dents. Fully engineered in SA. NW DiD & auto in place - a long way to go....

                          Scorpro Explorer Box

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X