Posted by BeeClean (BeeClean), 6 November 2003
i keep reading about crash testing van mounted water systems. it seems that its the thing that ott keep pushing after they had it tested against another system which i assume is a tucker pole system
they recently had a big write up in cht saying their system was the same system used by the fire service and is safe as any 
i was toying with the idea of one of these systems some time ago but decided against it but im interested to know what others think about all the publicity it gets. truck mounted carpet cleaners never get crash tested do they so whats the difference
Posted by Pure_2o (Pure_2o), 12 November 2003
The difference is purely weight. A 1000 litre truck mount system will weigh on average 1.2 tons where as a carpet cleaner shouldn’t weigh anymore than 120 kilograms. The average households weekly grocery shop weighs 80-100 kg’s, nobody crash tests shopping ! If the water system you’re looking at isn’t crash tested the results can be horrific. It depends how much concern you have for the safety of yourself or your operators. A crash tested system doesn’t have to cost more
. Check out http://www.pure2o.co.uk/news.htm Carl.
Posted by Old_Master (Old_Master), 25 January 2004
Carl it shows that you are new to the Industry!Truckmount carpet cleaning equipment weighs at least as much as a waterfed pole system. It has a waterholding tank a great big water heater a deisel generator etc.etc.
Posted by stevekennedy (stevekennedy), 25 January 2004
These carpet machines seem to wiegh about 500 kilos plus they have a fresh water tank with 120 us gallons. Whole thing probably wieghs about a ton.http://www.prochem.co.uk/BLAZER.htm
Perhaps if one carpet machine manufacturer tested then the others would have to follow suit.
Don't know if the market is big enough to justify it though. There also doesn't seem to be the same competition in truckmounts
Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 25 January 2004
Just for the record, OTT have not once successfully crash tested any of their machines with a full payload; Fact."successful crash testing at Thatcham"? Is that an untruth?
Oh no, what have I started...?
Dom
Posted by WavieDavie (WavieDavie), 25 January 2004
Oh no, what have I started...?Hopefully nothing! Most folk should know by now not to rise to the bait.
Remember folks - Don't feed the trolls!!
All the best - Davie
(Hoping for a quiet night)
Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 25 January 2004
Hopefully nothing! Most folk should know by now not to rise to the bait.erm....apart from Davie...who likes to feed trolls... obviously....!
Posted by Reuben_Reynolds (Reuben_Reynolds), 26 January 2004
It is a fact, and we have a certificate from signed by the chief executive of Thatcham to prove it!.regards
Reuben
Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 26 January 2004
Post the certificate, let people see for themselves where it refers to half empty crash tests and let readers decide. Even better, post the technical data to back up the certificate....but we know you wont..Dom
Posted by Reuben_Reynolds (Reuben_Reynolds), 26 January 2004
So now the tank was just half full... You said that we would not publish the certificates.... You said that we had not carried out any crash tests... You say a lot of things yet can prove nothing.Follow the links to see the certificates. The data (due to its size) is in electronic form, Thatcham's software is required for it to be opened. This is one reason why you would need to attend a presentation in order to view it, its also one of the reasons that you would need to instruct a qualified third party in order to have it verified. Should anyone wish to see the data for themselves, they are welcome to contact us to arrange a visit. Contact information can be found on our website www.ionicsystems.com
regards
Reuben
Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 26 January 2004
Still wont answer why the tank was not full, credibility ?Still wont admit that OTT have not to date completed a satisfactory crash test with a full machine.
What a farce.! Looks like you might have to do it all again..but this time "for real"
Dom
Posted by Reuben_Reynolds (Reuben_Reynolds), 26 January 2004
Dom,Read the certificate!
Reuben
Posted by Terry_Burrows (Terry_Burrows), 26 January 2004
Why dont we all go back to squee gees I have crash tested my squee gee it falls out me hand on the floor yes its bent and broke alright I know Ill
just go and by another one! unless its in someones head sticking upright what a great forum this is! happy cleaning to all Posted by Majestic (Majestic), 26 January 2004
Why dont you 2 just agree to disagree and change the recordPosted by Reuben_Reynolds (Reuben_Reynolds), 26 January 2004
John,Agreed.
Reuben
Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 26 January 2004
Ahh...... if only life was that simple Majestic.Dom
Posted by pdhanson (Silly Philly), 26 January 2004
For the benefit of BeeClean & new members, I'll try to explain my understanding of this issue (from what I have gleaned from the other posts) in as objective way possible.Reuban, Dom, Carl, Anyone else, please feel free to correct me if I get anything wrong:
Because van mounted Pure water systems are extremely heavy, sometimes more than 1000kg, there is a potential risk that if the vehicle crashes, the system could break free of its mountings and cause injury to the driver and passengers of the vehicle.
In response to this risk Ionic Systems have, at their expense, conducted crash tests of their system at Thatcham (which is an independent crash-test centre). Their crash test was successful in that their system did not break free. As Pure20 (an Ionic company) uses the the same system and mountings, I think they too can claim to have a successful test. These tests now make a good selling point for these companies, and some have speculated that in future such tests may become mandatory.
However, some have raised objections as to the validity of this test. A point Dom raised, was that since Ionic paid for the test, there is a conflict of interest, and such a test paid for by the manufacturer would not be impartial. (This same point is also a subject of hot debate about safety certification for new cars) Though this is a valid point, and since no government body exists to do these tests, Ionic argue that there is simply no alternative. Reuban raised the point that, by this reasoning the fact that you pay for your driving test or MOT would not make it impartial.
Dom also raises the point that the system in test was only 75% full. I'm not certain from where Dom has got this information (feel free to message me Dom and I'll include it), but Reuban assures me that this is not true, and the system was tested 100% full.
Ionic have voluntarily agreed to present the result of their tests to interested parties (Mike Boxall being one), and to explain them in detail.
www.thatcham.org Thatcham's website
www.brodexbms.co.uk Dom's company website (Brodex Machine Services)
www.pure2o.co.uk Pure20 website
www.ionicsystems.com Ionic Systems website
Revised 27/1/04
If I have any of this incorrect, please tell me and I'll edit this post.
Silly
Posted by sean_rimmer (Dom Matrix aka BRODEX), 26 January 2004
Silly,I think your observations are fairly accurate and I am pleased that you have identified the single most important fact about the crash testing fiasco...that is , the machine was some 300kg lighter than it should have been. By no stretch of the imagination can you conclude that this is a successful crash test
Anyone with an ounce of engineering knowledge, will sumise that there is a reason for everything. As I have stated before, misleading information with regard to safety will always be challenged by my company, untill the truth is outed.
BRODEX maintain that crash testing may well be a valid tool in shaping future policy within the trade, but to allow deceptive practices to go unchallenged, especially in the field of safety, will just not happen.
The pure20 machine has a different configuration of components (some very heavy) which will affect the machines balance and to say that the crash test filmed on the OTT 1000commercial covers the Pure20 machine, to any test engineer is a non starter, or "wishful thinking". Incidently, there is no crash footage of the Pure20 machine, because it was never crash tested...again, claims, but no evidence.Dom
PS. To anyone who is fed up of this crash test debate, please read the thread title. You dont have to read it if you dont want to....lifes about choices.
Posted by karlosdaze (karlosdaze), 26 January 2004
Won't the crash test also have bearing on what type or how old the vehicle is? If you put a system in a 20 year old Luton van for instance, and another in a brand new Renault Master, wouldn't the results have to bear with the anchor sytem to the floor. If it was old fatigued metal, wouldn't the fixings just rip through the floor anyway on impact?That brings us to the question of how old would the vehicle have to be before the anchoring becomes unsafe. Just a point
Posted by Terry_Burrows (Terry_Burrows), 26 January 2004
o god I am gonna crash test me squee gee again it was to old at the time of droping
Posted by Majestic (Majestic), 26 January 2004
Mr Turbo,What safety precautions do you take when going for a world record,
do you need to safety test your handel so it can withstand the heat as you are going that fast , 
Posted by nafzger2001 (nafzger2001), 28 January 2004
well done old master well said i agree reuben old chap why dont you sit down in doors at night and switch off the computer,if you do this at work you cant be selling many systems........... 
This page is a thread posted to the cleanitup forum at www.cleanitup.co.uk and archived here for reference. To jump to the archive index please follow this link.