Yesterday on my way to the water I noticed some buffeting going over the gateway bridge and when I crossed the bridge at around 80 kph the roof racks, two boards in bags and an attached pull out awning left the roof as a single unit and landed on the road luckily not hitting anyone or being hit by anybody. I managed to clear the road of the debris before an accident occurred. The traffic was medium. The boards were a 65 and 52 wide slalom in bags and were side by side on the roof.
As you can see by the pics the racks are attached by hooks to a saddle bolted to the roof of a kluger. When I am travelling with the van or on a long trip I usually add a ratchet strap over the top and under the roof to hold the whole package down onto the roof. This was not the case yesterday as both boards weighed about 6 kg ea and it was a local trip though mostly on 100 kph freeway.
I could reshape the brackets and reinstall the racks but I would never trust them again.
I will therefore fabricate new fully bolted mounts and drill and bolt the bars in place. Therefore all the bolts will be of equal strength.
I always thought the weakest part of carrying boards on the roof was the ties - ropes, straps etc. not so in this case.
Again how incredibly fortunate that this had such a benign outcome. Even the boards only received minimal damage. I still tremble when I think how very badly this could have gone.
Thanks for the warning, I've got the same car with Thule racks and a top-box usually full of sails.
One of those little hooks straightened itself out and let go, is that correct?
I'm glad you came out relatively unscathed!
Which way did you load the boards on? Front or back of the boards facing the front of the car? Fins facing up or down? I think aerodynamically it is better to have fins facing front and up.
Looks like two boards side by side at 80 km/h did generate a fair amount of lift. Maybe a better idea is to stack them.
Glad you escaped major damage/accident with a priceless lesson for all of us.
Wow, that's a bit inconvenient Pete. The 105 Landcruiser has similar attachment points in the roof to your Kluger, the bases for the Rhino racks that I've got bolt into the threaded holes, they're going nowhere in a hurry being 2 x M8 in tension for each base.
Also I think the lesson I learned is that none of them will warranty anything over a very short overhang, like 50cm or something, unless there is a strap from the end of the load down to the bumper/ towbar.
None of us do that really, unless its a SUP or canoe.
Personally i think its bvllsh1t as I've driven 700km with WS boards on the roof countless times, at 120kph and never had a problem. I think the strap at the end of the load thing is an excuse for poor manufacturing. Like the Prorack brackets....
Trouble is, if the manufacturer of the racks specifies you have to do that, then your insurance may not cover you if you don't.... even though its unnecessary. Dumb condundrum...
And that's a scary thought.... so buy good racks.....
^^^that reminds me, great reviews of Yakima and Whispbar - and they also own Prorack and say its the same
It ain't. Some models made much cheaper in different factories etc...
I've never been a fan of the newer style of racks attaching into a bracket or fitting on top of the roof. Like others, not heard the best about pro racks, either. I've used a set of rhino racks with the older style tab that tightens up under the door frame. Many trips from Qld to Vic and back with sup, two sailboards, masts, sails in a bag and safe as houses. Glad to hear you didn't have worse. It's a horrible feeling. I still remember the time a kayak I had tied down on the frame of my Hobie cat trailer slide out and hit the road at a shade under Mark's cruising speed. I remember seeing it in the mirror, gracefully rotating as it planed along the tarmack before coming to a stop. Luckily no one behind me...
Yet another reason windsurfing should be banned,, geeezzzz , we aren't even safe driving behind you guys
Maybe we need to look at separate zones for driving near poledancers as well as in the ocean to keep the general public safe on land as well as in the water. 
An interesting fact,
You have more chance of being killed by an out of control poledancer than being killed by a shark........ but we want to cull sharks?????
Select to expand quotelotofwind said..
Yet another reason windsurfing should be banned,, geeezzzz , we aren't even safe driving behind you guys
Maybe we need to look at separate zones for driving near poledancers as well as in the ocean to keep the general public safe on land as well as in the water.
An interesting fact,
You have more chance of being killed by an out of control poledancer than being killed by a shark........ but we want to cull sharks?????
Ya don't need to ban windsurfers, just wait a few years and let natural attrition take care of us
Select to expand quoteelmo said..lotofwind said..
Yet another reason windsurfing should be banned,, geeezzzz , we aren't even safe driving behind you guys
Maybe we need to look at separate zones for driving near poledancers as well as in the ocean to keep the general public safe on land as well as in the water.
An interesting fact,
You have more chance of being killed by an out of control poledancer than being killed by a shark........ but we want to cull sharks?????
Ya don't need to ban windsurfers, just wait a few years and let natural attrition take care of us
Yeah , but keep in mind its the biggest oldest sharks that can do the most damage. So there will be a spike before were extinct 
