High-Clearance Anti-Intrusion Beams

[NotApplicable]

If you remove them for clearance, then they don't do much in your garage. With these, you can still have bars with more clearance.

Guess I didn’t realize OEM bars didn’t allow enough clearance given Sasquatch has them!

Sponsored

 

[NotApplicable]

No. The bars are removed with the sasquatch package. Legend confirmed this. A simple search of "crash bars removed with sasquatch" will give you the necessary citation.

I have been assured of the opposite, especially since Sasquatch is an OEM option.

some of the preproduction mules appear to have been missing them when parts of the mod bumper were removed, but this does not imply they aren’t included from factory

 

[Jr87mustang]

Confused by this too since Sasquatched Broncos have the OEM beams as well

No they don't.

 

[Beach_Bum]

I have been assured of the opposite, especially since Sasquatch is an OEM option.

some of the preproduction mules appear to have been missing them when parts of the mod bumper were removed, but this does not imply they aren’t included from factory

Good luck with that.

 

[NotApplicable]

Good luck with that.

Lolz same to you

 

[kodiakisland]

Guess I didn’t realize OEM bars didn’t allow enough clearance given Sasquatch has them!

You think those are the biggest tires people are going to run on the Bronco or that improved suspensions won't have more travel than factory?
Not everyone will keep the Bronco factory fresh.

 

[CoolTech]

Clever marketing - "anti-intrusion" beams.... unfortunately, totally BS. The reality is that these have absolutely NOTHING to do with occupant safety as the maker would want you to believe. Rather, Ford equips vehicles with these in order to have compliancy with Federal 49 CFR Part 581 which is summarized below - emphasis added.

Don't throw away your money!!!!!!

49 CFR Part 581, “The bumper standard,” prescribes performance requirements for passenger cars in low-speed front and rear collisions. It applies to front and rear bumpers on passenger cars to prevent the damage to the car body and safety related equipment at barrier impact speeds of 2½ mph across the full width and 1½ mph on the corners.

This is equivalent to a 5 mph crash into a parked vehicle of the same weight. The standard requires protection in the region 16 to 20 inches above the road surface and the manufacturer can provide the protection by any means it wants. For example, some vehicles do not have a solid bumper across the vehicle, but meet the standard by strategically placed bumper guards and corner guards.

 

[Rick Astley]

Clever marketing - "anti-intrusion" beams.... unfortunately, totally BS. The reality is that these have absolutely NOTHING to do with occupant safety as the maker would want you to believe. Rather, Ford equips vehicles with these in order to have compliancy with Federal 49 CFR Part 581 which is summarized below - emphasis added.

Don't throw away your money!!!!!!

49 CFR Part 581, “The bumper standard,” prescribes performance requirements for passenger cars in low-speed front and rear collisions. It applies to front and rear bumpers on passenger cars to prevent the damage to the car body and safety related equipment at barrier impact speeds of 2½ mph across the full width and 1½ mph on the corners.

This is equivalent to a 5 mph crash into a parked vehicle of the same weight. The standard requires protection in the region 16 to 20 inches above the road surface and the manufacturer can provide the protection by any means it wants. For example, some vehicles do not have a solid bumper across the vehicle, but meet the standard by strategically placed bumper guards and corner guards.

Which implies there is no load, deflection or integrity testing. Simply that it exists.

And if any of you have ever fabricated with non-HSS tubing, you'll know the factory bars are a minimal effort to satisfy the letter of the regs. This aftermarket solution should be substantially stronger with the inclusion of the center bar and boxed construction.

That being said, NEITHER of these is going to save your life in a roll-over or high g-force accident. It's a 5 mph bumper at best, possibly 7 mph with this aftermarket solution. Neither were crash tested specifically. The Bronco was crash tested as a vehicle, but to the best of my knowledge, they aren't doing CFD component testing to satisfy NHTSA regs the same way formula-spec motorsports is, so take it with a grain of salt.

If my alternatives were to not have a bar there, or have one, and my primary goal was to fit wheels then i'll choose to have the aftermarket solution to, hopefully, protect the unsprung components in a minor collision. Realistically, that component should be able to temporarily take the remaining vehicle weight if it were tilted precariously on only a tire or two.

 

[Sampsonrustic]

In their defense, they state that you “Retain the safety and security benefits of occupant protection” with “Notched design increases tire turning clearance”.

I think this is an upgrade to removing them.

That means you retain the existing occupant safety features of the car/cage - nothing about the bars themselves providing safety.

 

[CoolTech]

And if any of you have ever fabricated with non-HSS tubing, you'll know the factory bars are a minimal effort to satisfy the letter of the regs.

Correct. But keep in mind that this is NOT a safety-related regulation that is being satisfied. It is a regulation which OEMs comply to in order to; 1) demonstrate that these very low speed "impacts" do not cause the consumer excessive repair bills and; 2) that safety components are not compromised. In short, these bars are not inherently involved in occupant safety.

This aftermarket solution should be substantially stronger with the inclusion of the center bar and boxed construction.

Yes, probably a lot stronger....... but stronger is not always better. Case in point: There's a company in the UK that is making replacement a-arms for the 2005-2006 Ford GT because the OEM arms are in exceedingly short supply and priced accordingly $$$$! This company is advertising how much stronger their billet arms are over the OEM arms. Great, right? Well, no. The OEM a-arms have been designed to do their job is suspending the car and not having any deflection under loads, etc. They are also designed as a sacrificial part in the case of a collision. Collapsing and breaking (absorbing energy all the while) is better than a twice-as-strong arm which may not yield and the impact stress is passed to the $80,000 GT space frame. Its conceivable that the "stronger arms" have substantially increased repair costs and also potentially missed the objective of "yielding" and absorbing energy. In sum, there are scenarios where stronger is not necessarily better.

 

[BAUS67]

So for those who might not be in the know of all this govt. reg. Then when you buy parts look for the disclaimer below This one taken from BDS suspension. I have seen insurance companies pay damage bill because the vehicle involved had an aftermarket THICK steel bumper that didn't wad up upon impact. Causing more damage. Had fleet companies not install in their new vehicles because of this. Lost some business because of it.

NOT all lift kits or aftermarket parts fall under this compliance so if you are worried about BE CAREFUL.

The NHTSA's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.126 requires all new passenger vehicles to include Electronic Stability Control (ESC) systems that meet certain standards that can be tested through a comprehensive series of evasive maneuvers. Aftermarket products must meet these standards as well.
BDS Suspension is leading the industry by independently testing all suspension kits to verify our kits are fully compliant with the stability control system requirements set by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 126. more»

• BDS Suspension

 

[Rick Astley]

Correct. But keep in mind that this is NOT a safety-related regulation that is being satisfied. It is a regulation which OEMs comply to in order to; 1) demonstrate that these very low speed "impacts" do not cause the consumer excessive repair bills and; 2) that safety components are not compromised. In short, these bars are not inherently involved in occupant safety.


Yes, probably a lot stronger....... but stronger is not always better. Case in point: There's a company in the UK that is making replacement a-arms for the 2005-2006 Ford GT because the OEM arms are in exceedingly short supply and priced accordingly $$$$! This company is advertising how much stronger their billet arms are over the OEM arms. Great, right? Well, no. The OEM a-arms have been designed to do their job is suspending the car and not having any deflection under loads, etc. They are also designed as a sacrificial part in the case of a collision. Collapsing and breaking (absorbing energy all the while) is better than a twice-as-strong arm which may not yield and the impact stress is passed to the $80,000 GT space frame. Its conceivable that the "stronger arms" have substantially increased repair costs and also potentially missed the objective of "yielding" and absorbing energy. In sum, there are scenarios where stronger is not necessarily better.

Next time I replace suspension components or perhaps a steering rack with a compliance bar, i'll keep this in mind when picking the material load strength of the zip ties.

 

[Philly]

No. The bars are removed with the sasquatch package. Legend confirmed this. A simple search of "crash bars removed with sasquatch" will give you the necessary citation.

Also on the BL stock 33's, one bar is removed.

These are pictures that I took of a badlands with the stock 33's and crash bars. Not sure why they wouldn't include them if they clearly fit, but I guess things change all the time.

 

[Jr87mustang]

These are pictures that I took of a badlands with the stock 33's and crash bars. Not sure why they wouldn't include them if they clearly fit, but I guess things change all the time.

No, your right. The 33" Badland has both bars. There was one at MAP that Legend saw that only had one but every other one he has seen and we have seen since has both bars. Thats why I know for sure we can fit 33s on BB/BD without any problems right out the gate. We have not seen any pics of Sas package having both of the bars, they have always been missing, or (if I remember correctly in one photo) had the fronts still in.

 

[Broncoak]

Which implies there is no load, deflection or integrity testing. Simply that it exists.

And if any of you have ever fabricated with non-HSS tubing, you'll know the factory bars are a minimal effort to satisfy the letter of the regs. This aftermarket solution should be substantially stronger with the inclusion of the center bar and boxed construction.

That being said, NEITHER of these is going to save your life in a roll-over or high g-force accident. It's a 5 mph bumper at best, possibly 7 mph with this aftermarket solution. Neither were crash tested specifically. The Bronco was crash tested as a vehicle, but to the best of my knowledge, they aren't doing CFD component testing to satisfy NHTSA regs the same way formula-spec motorsports is, so take it with a grain of salt.

If my alternatives were to not have a bar there, or have one, and my primary goal was to fit wheels then i'll choose to have the aftermarket solution to, hopefully, protect the unsprung components in a minor collision. Realistically, that component should be able to temporarily take the remaining vehicle weight if it were tilted precariously on only a tire or two.

I'm still thinking about green Broncos and you guys are over here talking about flux capacitors and such. My plan is to never have a reason to "test" the crash bars, or whatever they're called. ?

Sponsored