photos of damaged or destroyed recovery/tie down points and equipment.

[Hally Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Hally]

I remember once upon a time you didnt use bolted on accessories for recoverys as the bolts are a weak point. Your trusting a lot for 2 grade 8 (if your lucky) bolts.

[photoprado Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close photoprado]

Everyone can make their own decisions, but from a basic engineering design perspective the plates don't substantially change the distribution of forces

You are an engineer?

As already explained, the plates are attached to the main chassis rail with a distance between the two locations. Already shown, a significant pull on the tie down point will fracture the chassis rail between those two locations.

I'll stick with my opinion, thanks for your opinion anyway.

Your trusting a lot for 2 grade 8 (if your lucky) bolts.

AMTS bolts are grade 12.9, not sure of other brand recovery point bolts though.

[krypto Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close krypto]

You are an engineer?

As already explained, the plates are attached to the main chassis rail with a distance between the two locations. Already shown, a significant pull on the tie down point will fracture the chassis rail between those two locations.

I'll stick with my opinion, thanks for your opinion anyway.

Yes I am a mechanical engineer, and I was looking at it purely from a design and failure mode perspective.

As I said earlier, I love all the stuff that people do on this site and the recovery points are a great example of that. The only problem is that they provide a false sense of security as the underlying structural issues have not been addressed.

So my point is be careful when doing recovery using any of the front attachment points, recovery points will not magically give you a fail proof attachment point.

[photoprado Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close photoprado]

Not looking for a false sense of security. Just want a better recovery point than a known tie down point that has never been accepted as a recovery point and has had issues. The manufacturer does not rate them, and the photos above explain why they are tie down points, not recovery points.

[Hally Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Hally]

Not looking for a false sense of security. Just want a better recovery point than a known tie down point that has never been accepted as a recovery point and has had issues. The manufacturer does not rate them, and the photos above explain why they are tie down points, not recovery points.

Apart from 2016 and up models

[photoprado Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close photoprado]

Apart from 2016 and up models

Really? Link to Toyota front recovery point details?

[leont92 Lurker Find all posts View Profile Close leont92]

Ok then.
This has gotten a bit off topic.
but actually highlights why i want spend a couple hours reverse engineering the front of the chassis & tie down points and actually do a few calc's to put some numbers behind it all. Then put out a report on the findings for people to draw there own conclusions.

i think everyone somewhat agrees the aftermarket recovery points would be better then the original, but how much better is the question. as\yes they do only attach to a similar area of the car and in a similar position meaning overall the loading through the chassis isn't going to change significantly but the areas where the load (stress) concentrates likely will.

not all welds are created equal and neither are bolted connections, but both welding and bolting have strengths and weaknesses. neither is 'stronger' or 'weaker'.
i would definitely recommend that everyone inspect there recovery points and the local area before every recovery (even between attempts) and if there are any signs of damage, particularly cracking or deformation they do not continue using it. (Sorry inner engineer came out a bit)


has anyone every asked for and engineering certificate on there aftermarket recovery points? and have they received one.
for an engineering perspective there actually would be much risk in certifying one. (Rud lugs don't have any obligation to certify everything that someone welds/bolts there lugs to and this is pretty much the same)
so i would be surprised if there are certificates out there but i would be very interested to see what they say.

also would anyone be able to measure up and send a sketch through of there rated recovery points so i could reverse engineer them?

[Guest Close Guest]

Apart from 2016 and up models

Interested in this too. Details ?

[adrian5800 Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close adrian5800]

also would anyone be able to measure up and send a sketch through of there rated recovery points so i could reverse engineer them?

I'm sure amts would have a cad file

[CamJam Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close CamJam]

Really? Link to Toyota front recovery point details?

Got it in my 2016 Manual, where it states you can tow with them. If you're idea of 'recovery' is a snatch strap only, then they're not (and they advise against it). but my owners manual clearly states you can tow with them. Now, I think that means a form of recovery, ergo - recovery points, not just tie-down points. I'd use them if I had to (but my ARB recovery points would have to fail before I did)

[photoprado Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close photoprado]

Yep, there is a difference between a tie or tow point and a recovery point. The tie down points can be used for towing because the car is on a firm surface and rolls down the road with relatively small effort from the tow vehicle.

If the Prado is stuck in mud or sand etc, the tie down point would be under much more load.

[Corigator Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close Corigator]

2016 + changed the design. Prior to that they were just a loop welded below the chassis. One let go on a friend's recovery. The resulting flying shackle dented the tow vehicle's rear shock. Fortunately it wasn't the driver who copped it.

[Guest Close Guest]

2016 + changed the design. Prior to that they were just a loop welded below the chassis. One let go on a friend's recovery. The resulting flying shackle dented the tow vehicle's rear shock. Fortunately it wasn't the driver who copped it.

I think you'll find they changed late 2005 from the loop below the chassis to one thru the chassis and welded all round on both sides. My 2006 has this.

[404pug Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close 404pug]

.... as did my late 2005

[ziggle Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close ziggle]

2016 + changed the design. Prior to that they were just a loop welded below the chassis. One let go on a friend's recovery. The resulting flying shackle dented the tow vehicle's rear shock. Fortunately it wasn't the driver who copped it.

Thanks Corigator, that's the first report I've heard of an actual recovery point failing. Are there any others people know of?