Having gotten back from our trip sans cooler and some heirlooms, we determined that, Yes, a roof rack is in our immediate future, as we can easily forsee the need to do such things again (and again). I'm only crossing my fingers that we haul stuff OUT of the basement...

So, having reviewed too many posts here and elsewhere on racks, I never came up with a good blow-by-blow Yakima vs Thule comparison. Anyone willing to provide one? Or at least tell me why yours is better? Our first accessory will be a cargo basket, although a closed container may be short to follow.

TIA :!:

get factory....it has a better warrenty. I think the honda stuff is made by yakima.

:wink:

my suggestion is to get the factory rack

it has worked great for me

i constantly put tons of stuff up there and have hade no problems

like canoes kayaks lumbar

it can take more than 75 pounds

but you might want the aftermarket stuff i don't know

jus thought i would throw this out there for you


ps. people taste like chicken

To a significant degree the two systems are interchangable. The types of accessories that you have in mind will fit either. You could buy Yakima bars, and use a Thule basket or box, or v.v.. Yakima sells bar clamps that work with both their round bars and Thule's rectangular ones. Many accessories have their own clamps that work with most racks. Both racks use the same mounting points on the Element. Both use a base that bolts to the Element, and a bar 'foot' that clips onto that base. Weight capacities are similar.

I don't own either, though my homemade rack uses parts from an old Yakima system, including the round cross bars. The factory rack on my RAV4 uses Thule compatible cross bars. My opinion as a 3rd party, so to speak, in the debate, is that the Yakima base is simplier and cleaner looking, while the Thule base allows a minor degree of bar spacing adjustment. With the bars off, the Yakima base presents a more finished appearance. The roundness of the Yakima bars has its pros and cons - it allows you to fine tune the alignment of some accessories, but it also allows some accessories to rotate when you don't want them to.

paulj

I don't know about the bars themselves, but I think the accessories are made by thule. I've had Yakima and Thule and, Bottom Line - I cannot tell much of a difference when it comes to quality. I know when I was buying for the element the thule system was a little cheaper ($10) than the yakima. I bought TK9, 58" bars and a 44"(?) fairing.

I tell you though, I do wish that there was an extension kit for the towers to extend the bars to the rear of my element. I had a civic coupe with the extension kit (Yakima), and I thought it would be great for the element to have three sets of bars.

The good news is all my accessories worked on the thule that I had from the yakima.

I've had 'em all...Had Thule on my last car and loved 'em...Had Yakima on the car before that and hated 'em...Yakima's rotate. I don't care how tight you make 'em, eventually you'll be chasing your stacker, or landing pads across the roof with the damn kayak. And the noise! I don't know about the people who've put the Yakimas on the Element, but on my Trooper, they were LOUD! I mean the wind noise...They whistled. I have the stock Honda bars on the E and they work fine. Wish they were a little farther apart, but that's what you get with an Element.

FWIT: I eschewed the factory rack - they wanted too much, even at the best price online. So, it was either gonna be Thule or Yakima... Read all the discussions, and ended up going with Yakima cuz of the control tower fit and finish comments (Landing Pad #9). Waited until they were on sale (REI for the rack components and Back Country for the Load Warrior) and have been very pleased. Installation was incredibly simple and the fit is superb!
Thule is a fine outfit and I'm sure you'll see posts here echoing mine - except with "Thule" inserted as appropriate. I believe this particular accessory, whether Yakima, Thule, or even Honda, only further extends the utility of the E and is totally worthwhile! :)


8)

The Yakima/Thule debate sort of reminds me of old school Ford/Chevy discussions; lots of opinions, but very few facts upon which to base a decision. I think both makers offer an equivalent product and the retail price for each will be about the same.

It may make sense to look at your intended use and allow the items you plan on adding and carrying to make your decision. As Dan mentioned, Thule is generally preferred by kayakers, especially the whitewater set. The Thule kayak stackers are simply superior, and the method of mounting Yakima's stackers on the round bar essentially guarantees movement of the stacker itself. But perhaps skiers feel that the Yakima accessory for their gear is superior, so they go that route (just an example). There is some degree of interchangability, depending on the accessory. I have a Yakima paddle holder on my Thule bars, but my Thule stacker is designed exclusively for square bars, so it can't be added to aYakima system.

In short, I would allow the use to dictate the decision. The only absolute is that Yakima kayak stackers suck; beyond that, I truly believe its personal preference (even though square bars make more sense to me personally as a means of controlling accessory and load movement).

Mike

I bought the Yakima rack based on a couple of things I read on here. The first was from one person that bought the Thule and took it back because he didn't like it for some reason, bought the Yakima and liked it much better (sounds good to me). The second was finding out that the Yakima rack has these cool little covers that snap onto the landing pads so that if you decide to take the rack off for some reason you can 1) make the roof look smooth instead of like something is missing, and 2) prevent debrit from getting into the exposed areas of the pads.
After getting the Yakima I saw an E parked on the street with the Thule and my judgement was that the Thule system was kind of ugly... BUT I had Thule on my old car and liked it very much so really, like most people here, I don't think it matters all that much. Although I definetally would not get the Honda rack. Its more expensive and looks like the typical passenger cars luggage rack (no offense).

I can't speak for the Thule stuff as it relates to the Element, since I chose Yakima....

But, I can say that I've used Yakima for years, and have been happy. I just transferred my Yakima gear to my new Element (using new control towers and landing pads), and I'm extremely impressed by the design that went into the whole setup. I'd been using Q-Towers on my Passport for a few years, and this is an amazing step up in design, ease of install, and appearance. The mounting is solid, clean-looking, and my 58" bars are a great size, as is the 44" fairing. The fairing is so perfect that the four feet fit precisely into the roof grooves on the E. I need to get some pads though, for protection.

So that's my $0.02 on the debate. Pics forthcoming if there's interest.


Hey, does anyone have pics of 66" bars on their element? I'm thinking of bumping up.

Thanks....

i have the 66" bars and love them. had them on my old crv and had to take them off because i kept hitting my head on them. the element roof is tall enough that i can go right under them now. the best part about the 66" bars is the versatility they offer. they will easily hold 2 canoes, or at least 4 kayaks. i can also put both my loadwarrior w/ extension and space cadet on at the same time. i have been using yakima products for 10 years and love them.

I posted a shot of my 65" Thule setup a while back at http://www.elementownersclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1716&highlight= . The view is slightly from above, so the pic doesn't provide a good profile angle, but you can see where the bar ends are.

The bars just barely go past the roofline, and are probably at around 6'3" or so. I've had zero headbanging issues with the long bars, and they've proven to be quite convenient (4 kayaks and 4 paddles is easy).

If other views of the 65" setup are needed, just let me know and I can snap a pic.

Mike

I haven't decided which option I am going to pursue yet. I haven't had a need yet for having a rack but I can envision a need in the future. I have put about $500 into my Element in the last 2 months that I have had it, asside from the original purchase price, and am now at the point where I have done everything except for the rack and an alarm. Am trying to decide what is a more immediate need. My trip to Las Vegas wasn't as prosperous as I had hoped so I think I am at a this OR that position rather than both.

As for the rack and the research that I have done, I tend to lean toward the Thule. I have been thinking again at the OEM (HONDA) rack as I do prefer the lower profile of it but am concerned about it's expense to load issues. While cheaper than the Thule or Yakima it only has about 1/3rd of the rated capacity. That leads me to think that Yakima or Thule are the better value. I have been impressed with both the Yakima and Thule reviews that I have read. However the one thing that hits me is the square or rectangular, load bars on the Thule compared to the round on the Yakima. It seems that having flatter bars would be better for carrying a lot of things since they would seem to sit flat rather than slide around on a round pipe. My intuition leads me to think that the Thule (flat) bars would be more preferable.

After having shopped around, looking at every web site I could find, and then reading just enough postings to make my head explode, I ended up buying the Yakima set-up from a local outfitting company. Here's my list of decision-making points:

1. I really like that I don't have to have the racks on all the time- the Yakima's are very easy to remove and cover plates pretty much conceals the mounting points.
2. The price. For as much as I would like to keep it “Honda”, Yakima beat it.
3. I’m sure the Thule’s are just as versatile, but having the option to buy longer –or shorter bars made it more attractive than stock.
4. The bars are flat –not arched. It may not appear to be any big deal at first glance, but I found the arched racks (at least on previous cars) to be a real pain when trying to load things like plywood, lumber, etc. I’m sure there’s something there to do with the physics of applied pressure, but “big deal” when what you’re trying to load rolls off the roof and scratches the car!
5. Availability. Even though I had to wait a couple of days for “#9 landing pads” to arrive from the factory, it still saved me a cross-town drive to the dealer (and in JAX, that could mean 35 miles -one way!). Besides, I was in no rush at the time.

:D I’ve been very happy in getting my racks put on –although my wife’s about ready to brain me as the noise level went up a notch! –hope this helps!

-Zzz’s

[quote:0897ad148f=" "]
As for the rack and the research that I have done, I tend to lean toward the Thule. I have been thinking again at the OEM (HONDA) rack as I do prefer the lower profile of it but am concerned about it's expense to load issues. While cheaper than the Thule or Yakima it only has about 1/3rd of the rated capacity. [/quote:0897ad148f]

Bear in mind that just because Thule or Yakima say that their RACKS have a higher capacity, that does not overrule the fact that Honday says that the ROOF OF THE CAR is only rated for 75 lb, regardless of the rack of choice. So while 125 lb (not 3x the Honda's rated 75lb BTW) may not break an aftermarket rack, it may indeed damage the car, or worse, could increase the likelihood of an accident (my guess is the 75lb load rating has a lot more to do with rollover risk than it does with structural risk).

By the same token, I just installed a Class III hitch on my Element and even though the HITCH is rated for 3500 lb, the car itself is only rated to tow 1500 lb.

It is interesting that one experienced Thule user is thinking of switching to the Honda rack. Tuscan of Coastline-of-the-world writes

'If the Honda rack will support the load I’m carrying, and I’ll keep it to a minimum, I’ll probably go back to the Honda factory rack. The Thule cargo box is fine, no problems there. But the Thule bars attach to the Thule supports. That means an extra connection and quite frankly, I’m tired of listening to the squeaking. A solid connection would be preferable to parts that move. '
http://coastlineoftheworld.com/postcard20.html

He did have problems earlier with spot welds on the Element's mounting points breaking. They were rewelded when he was in Texas. He attributed the problem to lateral wind forces on his kayak.
-----------------------

I doubt if the bar shape makes much difference when it comes to supporting various loads - at least not with respect to bearing surface. Accessories like baskets and boxes are designed to fit on a wide range of bar shapes. People who carry sensitive objects like canoes and kayaks use some sort of padding or adapter, regardless of bar shape.

Just because the Thule bars are flat on the top side, does not mean that a load (such as lumber) will rest flat across both bars. Based on work with my homemade rack I know that the mounting points on the car are not parallel to each other. The back ones are at about a 5 deg angle with respect to the front ones.

Could a Thule owner lay a yardstick across their bars? Does it rest flush across the whole width of each bar, or does it just contact one edge?

There was some discussion of bearing surface on the other forums a while back. Someone wanted to carry a load of wallboard home from the hardware store, and wondered whether Thule bars would support it better than the Yakima bars. The sane voices said he needed to spread the load out with some sort of plywood or lumber base, regardless of bar shape.

paulj

>He did have problems earlier with spot welds on the Element's mounting points breaking.

This surprises me not.

I previously commented on this when one of us was thinking about putting an Ansel Adams-style photo platform up top, and pondering whether it would hold his weight. My assessment was essentially "no way".

I've played a little bit with the roof rack mounts for projects, and, all said, they're pretty wimpy. I would not view Honda's rack weight limit as rollover vulnerability, but as an only slightly conservative attempt to preserve mount integrity. 75# plus vertical movement from bumps plus wind loading all conspire to make for a bigger load than you think.

IOW, I have grave doubts about the aftermarket racks' claims of much higher capacities.

Bear in mind that just because Thule or Yakima say that their RACKS have a higher capacity, that does not overrule the fact that Honday says that the ROOF OF THE CAR is only rated for 75 lb, regardless of the rack of choice. So while 125 lb (not 3x the Honda's rated 75lb BTW) may not break an aftermarket rack, it may indeed damage the car

First, you are correct, I was estimating from the top of my head regarding the 3X statement. It would appear, if 125# is the correct rating it isn't that much more. Considering under rating for insurance and liability you might be able though to say almost 2x. But then the HONDA may easilly be capable of a lot more than 75# also. So??????. Anyways.

You bring up a good point but I am not sure that HONDA rates the "Roof" at 75#. From what I have seen they rate their rack at that weight. I wonder why then. Is it, like you say, because the roof is only that strong? Or, is it that the mounting points under the garnish are only that strong? Or, is it that the HONDA rack is designed in such a way that the load bars, being arched and that the posts that they mount into, basically only being caps on the ends won't support large amounts of weight? Maybe the bars themselves aren't built of a heavy guage metal. Have never actually held the load bars on the OEM (HONDA) Rack so I don't know.

Note that with the Yakima and the Thule, you seem to have flat bars that sit higher off the roof. They seem heavier and more ridgid. They go all the way through their posts (Towers) and seem as though, even if they do flex or sag some in the middle, they won't come in contact with the roof. I don't get that feeling when I look at the HONDA rack. Grant it with a bow in the middle, any weight pushing down will cause the weight and pressure forces on the HONDA bars to be forced outward into the towers thus holding them in place tighter, so they don't, necessarily, need to go through the tower like the Yakima or Thule racks. Are the towers strong enough to sustain that? With the Thule and Yakima racks it seems that, since the bars go all the way through the towers and are open on the ends that weight will distribute DOWN to the gutter points (under the garnish) rather than OUT into the towers.

I am not an engineer but this is just how it looks to me. Does anyone have any definitive information on my theories and if they hold up? I probably wouldn't be looking for a rack for the weight so much but I do agree with one person previously that when loading flat stuff like say a box spring or some lumber having a flat platform to hold your items is better than an arched platform that will cause some stuff to roll or slide off your roof. Also if spending the money it would seem logical to get the extra capacity for the money, if it is there and won't be held back by the roof of the vehicle. Lastly, looking at the mounting points under the garnish, they look like they could hold some decent weight. However one of the pictures that I saw, last night, while reading this thread, it might have been on another linked thread, showed tracks that were screwed into the sheet metal. I wouldn't have as much confidence in that , personally, as I would with one of the racks mounted into the mount under the garnish.

There was some discussion of bearing surface on the other forums a while back. Someone wanted to carry a load of wallboard home from the hardware store, and wondered whether Thule bars would support it better than the Yakima bars. The sane voices said he needed to spread the load out with some sort of plywood or lumber base, regardless of bar shape.

I have some recallection of reading a similar thread. Maybe it was the same thing. My take on that is that regardless of the shape of the bars and whether there is a flat surface on the tops of the bars, the spacing between one bar and the next and the lack of span along the length of the roof will still allow your lumber, (wallboard) to flex and bow. If driving along with your wallboard bouncing around it can snap or crack and be damaged. Therefore, it would be advisable to alternate a couple sheets of wallboard then a sheet of ridged MDF or Plywood then a couple sheets of wallboard.... and so on. That would give the added ridgidity to help protect your wallboard and maybe keep it flatter.

The arching (from right to left) of the Honda bars is a big difference from the Yakima and Thule bars. Putting wide flat loads on the straight bars would be easier. However a lot of accessories don't rest on the whole bar width, but just on a couple of brackets. That is true, say for the Loadwarrior and other baskets. A box like the Sidekick does rest on the full width of its bottom, since it is held on with simple U bolts. However its bottom does flex some, and it is only about half width.

As for a load sliding or rolling off the arched bars - that could happen with straight bars just as easily when the car goes around the corner or is not perfectly level. With all of these bars you need to secure the load so that it does not move, in any direction. Simply tying a load to the bars is not enough - unless you are particularly good with knots.

The Honda bars do look like they would flex. However people like Kayakindan testify that they have no problems with these bars, despite loading them beyond the nominal weight limit. And again, the only recorded roof rack failure is Tuscan's - and that wasn't the rack itself.

paulj

This is a good discussion and has a lot of valuable points to consider. Let me add a couple of more points:

With respect to weight limits, Yakima offers the following statements in their dealer book:

"Roof strength vs Weight Limits: The carrying capacity of your Yakima Tower system depends on two things:

a) The Tracks and Siderails. The cars we list for Control Towers, EZ Riders and LowRiders are tested by Yakima using factory approved racks and fasteners. We cannot guarantee that the rack on your car is identical to the rack that we tested. If you wish to carry long, heavy loads, the track fasteners in the roof of your car must be all metal with no rubber components. We strongly suggest that you check the fasteners holding your track to your car.

b) Factory Rack Weight Limit. The total weight of rack, mounts and cargo must not exceed the manufacturer's weight limit for your car's factory rack. Find your car in the fit list to see how much your car can carry on our factory rack systems.

Note: Any load extending out over the windshiels must be secured to the front and rear of the car, in addition to the rack itself."

With that said...all Yakima accessories that are listed for a direct fit to the Element's roof rack are, indeed, shown with the 75 pound capacity restriction.

The limit is increased 50 pounds through the use of the full Yakima rack system.

Taking this one step further, the Element's manual states on page 119: "If you carry any item on a roof rack, be sure the total weight of the rack and the items does not exceed the maximum allowable weight. Please contact your Honda dealer for further information.

The manual continues: "If you use an accessory roof rack, the roof rack weight limit may be lower. Refer to the information that came with your roof rack".

I have not seen or read that the Element's roof will hold only 75 pounds and I do not believe that the 75 pounds has to do with the Element's roof carrying capacity...but rather with the designed carrying capacity of the Honda rack itself. The manual states that the "accessory" (which I take to mean the Honda Roof Rack accessory) may have a lower weight limit...which suggests that they recognize other roof rack systems may be able to carry more weight on top of this vehicle.

[quote]Bear in mind that just because Thule or Yakima say that their RACKS have a higher capacity, that does not overrule the fact that Honday says that the ROOF OF THE CAR is only rated for 75 lb, regardless of the rack of choice. So while 125 lb (not 3x the Honda's rated 75lb BTW) may not break an aftermarket rack, it may indeed damage the car

You bring up a good point but I am not sure that HONDA rates the "Roof" at 75#. From what I have seen they rate their rack at that weight. [/quote:a0e5e27259]

Honda, in their literature, does not differentiate between the rating of the "roof" and that of the "roof rack", since they have no acknowledgement of a method of carrying anything on the roof except for their own roof rack. Even if the Honda literature (which I do not have handy to check) says "the roof RACK is rated for 75 lb.", I think it's fair enough to IMPLY that they are also communicating (at least potentially) something meaningful about the stability of the attachment point of the roof rack (in this case, the roof of the car).

Again my point about the hitch... Honda literature says the Honda Element is rated to tow 1500 lb, but you can buy a hitch from a manufacturer who claims the hitch itself is rated for much more than 1500 lb. The increased rating of the hitch does not necessarily transfer to the vehicle. I would assume the same for the roof rack.

Regarding the construction of the Honda factory rack, it is easily as strong, if not moreso, as a Yakima or Thule rack, for a lot of reasons. Suffice to say, the ovalized alloy load bars of the factory rack are probably many times stronger in just about any measure than mild steel round or rectangular straight tubing.

Regarding the assertion that upon flexing, the factory rack will cause the towers to tend to move outwards while the aftermarket racks with straight tubes upon flexing will only cause downward force is also at least partly incorrect. When the arched rack bars flex, they will tend to push the towers outwards. But they are very unlikely to flex in that direction, particularly considering #1 that they are arched (which increase strength!) and #2 they are more than strong enough to handle 75lb loads in that direction without flexing. A steel bar that's flat will also flex, and when it does it will pull the towers inwards, which is opposite of the direction the Honda engineers likely presumed overloading would cause stress. The other issue is that a round or square steel tube is going to flex a lot more than an ovalized alloy tube with an arch profile.

There are many pros and cons of the factory vs. aftermarket racks, but I don't think strength is among the "cons" against the factory rack.

I am not sure I completely see what you are suggesting.

First though, you make some assumptions where there is no specific statements from HONDA. While you might be correct, and it is true that HONDA MAY be elluding to the strength of the connection points when they put a 75# limit on the rack it is also POSSIBLY true that they are acknowleging the WEAKEST link in this chain. Maybe that is the issue of the load capacity of the rack itself. HONDA doesn't make such a clarification so we can only make our individual assumptions, or go to the dealer and ask the service department like was suggested in the previous quote from page 119(?) of the manual.

You mention that the towers are plenty strong and that HONDA stands by them to hold with OUTWARD pressure caused by the downward weight in the center of the bars. You do mention that they will be sufficiently strong enough to hold the 75# load that HONDA certifies. That may be the whole point here. HONDA may know from testing that an X% (their safety buffer for liability....) load exceeding 75# of their limit, on the center of the load bars might cause damage to the towers. OR, you might be correct that it might be the mounting points that are vulnerable under that tilting outward force on the mounts. However, there is an issue that with the differing nature of forces by the Thule or Yakima racks on those mounting points the points could hold more than when fitted with HONDA equipment.

I still differ with you on the issue of the OUTWARD forces of the HONDA rack compared to a DOWNWARD force of the Thule and Yakima rack. Note that the bars on the Yakima and Thule go THROUGH their towers and do not apply any force inward or outward on the towers. The HONDA towers on the other hand are closed ended and the outward movement of the bars push on that closed end. If the Yakima or Thule bars push outward OR inward they will simply slide in and out of the tower. I assume though that there is a set screw somewhere in the Yakima and Thule systems that could get stripped with forces like you are describing. That though would be a rack issue and subject to Yakima's or Thule's testing and not related to the strength of the roof, mounts, tracks....

As for the issue of the confusion where, was it Yakima, says that their racks are tested and rated by 2 criteria. 1....... and 2., the limits from the manufacturer for their roof rack system. Compare that to HONDA's disclaimer about the strength of After Market racks and how they may not perform up to the HONDA weight load. That is all legalese for We do not accept any liability for any product not produced by us and used on our vehicles. Or, if our rack does not perform on your car, WE are not responsible for the failure of your cars mounts, roof or any other part of the vehicle. And, even though our rack may be rated for heavier loads than your OEM rack we do not guarantee that YOUR cars mounts will hold that weight. They don't say that it will or won't, in either case. They simply say that they will not be responsible if it fails and are not going to open themselves to liability by telling you it will work. Neither company is going to accept the liability of standing by the other's limits, designs, ratings, testing.....

Thus, it is, ultimately, up to US to find the answers and make these decisions for ourselves. I have read many posts of people grossly exceeding 75#s on their racks. What do 2 kayaks weigh. Or a canoe, cargo basket full of camping gear, 2 bicycles.... What does a Load Warrior(?) basket with a full size spare tire some rally lights and other assorted cargo weigh. And, to be honest, I haven't read any cases of greater rates of failure of the HONDA rack compared to Yakima or Thule. Except for the one mentioned in this thread where some weld came loose. Was that on a HONDA rack? I just base my suspicions and preferences by how I see the racks designed. Of course, before I actually plunk down nearly $250 for a basic rack I will actually take a look at the actual construction before I make the decision. I think these manufacturers are being very careful to protect their liability. Either from people who will overload their cars, tip them over, loose control and go into a ditch, loose an expensive piece of furnature that they strapped to the top or cause an accident because their load of lumber came loose on the highway and landed on some guys Taurus.

I will actually take a look at the actual construction before I make the decision. I think these manufacturers are being very careful to protect their liability. Either from people who will overload their cars, tip them over, loose control and go into a ditch, loose an expensive piece of furnature that they strapped to the top or cause an accident because their load of lumber came loose on the highway and landed on some guys Taurus.

Weight is, at best, a crude measure of the forces on the roof rack. That weight is straight down when the car is still. On the road it translates into lateral forces as you turn and accelerate. However since my head doesn't get jerked around much when I drive, I don't expect these lateral forces to be great. However wind forces on the rack and its load are great. Those forces could be down, up, back, sideways. More racks and loads are torn off the car by the wind than break and fall through the roof. Those wind forces have more to do with the shape of the load than its weight.

Internally I believe the Honda rack feet are aluminium. I have not actually seen one, only read the installation instructions. The feet for both Yakima and Thule are plastic - a strong fiber reinforced one. The upper part of the Thule feet latch onto a small diameter pin or hinge on the base. Yakima latches on with a rotating pair of pins about a 1/2 in diameter and long. On both the feet slope outward, so the bars do put twisting forces on these feet. Both Yakima and Thule use 2 6 mm bolts to secure the base to car; Honda uses 3 bolts.

From what I've seen of these bars, there is no obvious weakness in one compared to the others. Properly mounted any would serve as chinup bar.

In the broken weld case that I mentioned, the rack was Thule. I wouldn't blame the rack. Tuscan had put a lot of hard miles on the Element, with both a kayak and cargo box. Besides a lot of highway miles, he had some rough roads in Mexico, including getting stuck up against a road cut (did the racks hit any rocks?). His continuing rattle suggests there may slop in the fit of his rack, which could have also contributed to the breaks. All this, of course, is speculative.

In practice you can't just hide behind the numbers. You mount the rack, accessories and load, and pay close attention to how snug it all is. You should be able to hang on to rack. Then on a road trip you continue to check fit and looseness, looking for signs of anything wearing or breaking.

On my last camping trip I noticed that the load inside my Sidekick box was producing a slight bowing of the box's base. I've had to stop and tighten bolts on my Yakima bars and windfaring, to make sure that the wind was not pushing the faring into contact with the roof.

paulj

In practice you can't just hide behind the numbers. You mount the rack, accessories and load, and pay close attention to how snug it all is. You should be able to hang on to rack. Then on a road trip you continue to check fit and looseness, looking for signs of anything wearing or breaking.

It is amazing how roof-mounted gear can loosen so much in the first 5 miles!

We always teach our customers that the most dangerous part of kayaking isn't when you are out paddling (with apologies to the extreme kayakers in our group)...it is getting your boat safely from your house to the water![/code]

One item that I think we all may be forgetting is the lateral stress induced by wind. What caught my eye was the reply talking about loosing a large piece of furniture -or the potential for rollover. Not that I would hope we all pack like the Clampetts, but there is a logical consideration to be made with regard to vehicle stability with heavier loads. Potentially the greater weight, there is a greater volume- could this be their thought process? -not just a matter to weld points? I realize the necessity of a faring, but these only address head-on winds. What about those side-winds we feel when passing (or getting passed) by large semi's?

-I know, I know, just thinking out load. Besides, I can't find my bucket of Corona's & limes and it's almost time to go to the beach! :wink:

-Zzz's

I am not sure I completely see what you are suggesting. [/quote:8d428e47a4]

I think you are right javascript:emoticon('8)')
Cool

[quote]
First though, you make some assumptions where there is no specific statements from HONDA. While you might be correct,

There is no way to know for sure, just offering considerations.


You mention that the towers are plenty strong and that HONDA stands by them to hold with OUTWARD pressure caused by the downward weight in the center of the bars. You do mention that they will be sufficiently strong enough to hold the 75# load that HONDA certifies. That may be the whole point here. HONDA may know from testing that an X% (their safety buffer for liability....) load exceeding 75# of their limit, on the center of the load bars might cause damage to the towers.


I'm not concerned about damage to the towers, but to the roof mounting points.

OR, you might be correct that it might be the mounting points that are vulnerable under that tilting outward force on the mounts. However, there is an issue that with the differing nature of forces by the Thule or Yakima racks on those mounting points the points could hold more than when fitted with HONDA equipment.

I still differ with you on the issue of the OUTWARD forces of the HONDA rack compared to a DOWNWARD force of the Thule and Yakima rack. Note that the bars on the Yakima and Thule go THROUGH their towers and do not apply any force inward or outward on the towers.


That's incorrect. The Yakima and Thule racks, when the bars flex, apply forces inwards on the towers. The bars are rigidly attached to the towers, they are not allowed to slip under normal use.

The HONDA towers on the other hand are closed ended and the outward movement of the bars push on that closed end. If the Yakima or Thule bars push outward OR inward they will simply slide in and out of the tower.


No, they won't. They're firmly attached.


Thus, it is, ultimately, up to US to find the answers and make these decisions for ourselves. I have read many posts of people grossly exceeding 75#s on their racks. What do 2 kayaks weigh. Or a canoe, cargo basket full of camping gear, 2 bicycles.... What does a Load Warrior(?) basket with a full size spare tire some rally lights and other assorted cargo weigh. And, to be honest, I haven't read any cases of greater rates of failure of the HONDA rack compared to Yakima or Thule. Except for the one mentioned in this thread where some weld came loose. Was that on a HONDA rack?

It's a moot point... the mounting point on the car broke, so as I suspected, the vehicle mounts themselves may be the weak link. In this case, then the Honda rack is sensibly the most likely to reduce the risk to this weakest link, but I guess it is possible that somehow Yakima and Thule have out-engineered Honda in rack design, but being as their racks are boiler-plate generic designs that adapt to many different cars and the Honda rack is made specifically for this vehicle, I find it unlikely that Yakima and Thule racks are more able to deal with weaknesses in the mounting points on the car, presuming that's the weak link.

IMHO the most likely big difference in the ratings is that Yakima and Thule do not have to pay for bodywork on your car if the mount point breaks, so they have a lot more latitude about how they can rate their racks. But Honda must more aggressively cover themselves because the vehicle warranty on a dealer installed accessory opens the door for much greater liability of you break something. So I would not regard the rating difference as an indicator of difference in quality or strength of the product, but rather as reflecting a difference in the degree of risk endured by the manufacturer in the case of damage due to load.

I still think that structurally, just from design, the Honda rack is a better design than the generic Yak/Thule designs, however perhaps not as convenient for certain kinds of loads.

the landing pads for the yakima system are specific for the honda element. i assume the thule ones are too. so presumably they are sufficient for the weight they claim. just like the honda ones!

though it mystifies me why yakima didn't take advantage of all three screw holes, rather than just two.

The Element shares the attachment points with the 2nd generation CRV, but the roof garnish geometry is different. I believe, that with all the racks, the part that bolts to the car is the same for the models, but the garnish filler is distinct. Without further study of other Honda racks it is hard to say how much of their rack is borrowed, and how much is custom.

Thule's base, without the filler, is a simple adaptation of one of their existing systems intended for cars with factory or after market tracks. The part that bolts to the roof is just a short length of track. That is why the TK6 was on the market before Yakima's custom molding.

While I did point out that the Honda rack uses three bolts per foot, I don't use three on my homemade rack. I drilled the holes for all three, but haven't felt a need to install the third bolt. That is in part because other joints in my feet use only two bolts of the same size. Not a lot of point in making one part stronger than others, unless it experiences greater stresses.

paulj

>it mystifies me why yakima didn't take advantage of all three screw holes, ...

Because they don't need to. Saves machining the extra hole and the cost of the bolt, per side. Actually, one bold would probably be enough from a pure strength standpoint, but it would be slightly unstable torsionally (flex).

The weak link in all the rack systems which use Honda's mounting points appear to be... Honda's mounting points. It would be so easy to strengthen these - weld a plate on to fill the outboard gap of the bracket. It would relieve most of the stress on the tack welds at each end of the bracket, plus it would stabilize the bracket relative to flexing.

Nothing special here, but I wanted to make good on my promise of posting pics of my yakima gear for anyone interested. For reference, it's the 58" bars, control towers, landing pad 9, and the 44" fairing.

The fairing is neccessary, without it the bars have a harmonic howl from 45mph on up. Strange, on my Passport the same bars produced wind noise, but no howling or 'tonal' noise. FYI, you can mount the fairing backwards, so that the logo doesn't show, if you prefer.

Anyway:
(Click the pics for large versions)

http://64.142.39.120/e/yakrack1sm.jpg (http://64.142.39.120/e/yakrack1.jpg)

http://64.142.39.120/e/yakrack2sm.jpg (http://64.142.39.120/e/yakrack2.jpg)

http://64.142.39.120/e/yakrack3sm.jpg (http://64.142.39.120/e/yakrack3.jpg)

I'm pleased with the setup. Yakima even sent me new fairing pads since the last ones went with my last car.

One more pic: This front view shows the bar width well. Click for a big one.

http://64.142.39.120/e/yakrack4sm.jpg (http://64.142.39.120/e/yakrack4.jpg)

cheers!

that's so funny that you get noise, as i have none at all.

i have the same standard yakima setup, but have four bike holders, two anklebiters and two raptors.

maybe the addition of the bike stuff cancels any wind tunnelling?

does yours make noise when you have stuff on the bars, and take off the fairing

I bet you're right, the gear you have up there must disrupt the harmonics. In my case, even reaching a hand up there to hold the bar was enough to disrupt it and remove the howl. (This was with the bars totally naked).

With the fairing on, it's nice and quiet.