Clean It Up
UK Window Cleaning Forum => Window Cleaning Forum => Topic started by: poleman on March 04, 2009, 12:03:58 am
-
http://www.brodexbms.co.uk
-
Good apart from the shower ;D
-
Very impressive. Well done Brodex. My only concern is the flying tank lid which could easily decapitate someone.
-
have to say i am impressed with Brodex site, and that is a kick in ionics USP
now they need to launch their hot system
-
A skid mounted unit going in reverse at what appears to be about 3mph, then you see the tank lid flying off whilst the skid is still moving and hasnt hit anything -
are you seeing something different?
-
A skid mounted unit going in reverse at what appears to be about 3mph, then the tank lid flying off. :-\
thats after hitting the stops going head on at unknown speed.
They do need a lot more info abot the crash test but for a start off vid it is closing ionics crash test usp they just need more details about it IMO
-
If it stoped because it crashed into something the front vehicle frame would have buckled which the video doesnt show at all.
Their are no marker stickers to show the distortion on impact and no footage of it hitting anything.
-
poleman how is the gutter cleaning with your sl2 poles and eastern vac? are they still going strong? any problems? much gutter work on? is domestic work easier than commercial in gutter cleaning?
-
I can see a skid test and after hitting the barrier the water momentum is still moving forwards when the vehicle is bouncing backwards as it would.... As its a frame test there won't be any marker stickers on the vehicle because its on a frame, wasn't this a first test of many? Just like Ionics did?
So the test is correct in my eye's but what caught my eye was the lack of a visible frame, so it does look like a good system and test to me
-
wasn't this a first test of many? Just like Ionics did?
Cannot see them spending £20,000 + on a test
-
A skid mounted unit going in reverse at what appears to be about 3mph, then you see the tank lid flying off whilst the skid is still moving and hasnt hit anything -
are you seeing something different?
I think that it is going backwards because it has just hit the bump-stop and is on the rebound.
-
I don't think it is a rebound.
I've looked closely and as it says on the annotations it is a reverse acceleration test.
One of my systems is a Brodex and I've never had any concerns about it's safety but what does concern me is that this is really just an advertising gimmick without quantifiable information such as speed on impact, load in tank. For all we know the test was carried out at 5 mph. I can see the point of the reverse acceleration test as it will simulate a rear end shunt but again no real info is supplied.
Dan
-
yes its lacking in sumert
-
I really have to say that was pathetic. Poor grammar and sentence structure, next to no information regarding the testing and to top it off a very very bad video that doesn't seem to instill any trust within me what so ever!
-
oh deary me
we have been here before havent we
your crash test it better than mine, yours was fixed
brodex are dammed if they dont crach test, they run a series of crash test and they are still dammed
just have to hope that your not going about 30 mph eh ::) ::) ::)
-
Well if they were going to do it then they should have done it properly, or not at all.
-
Having re-read the text next to the video (which is hard to do because you want to watch the video), there are several different tests in this composite video and the text tells you which clip you are watching.
I think that this is a perfectly legitimate test, it would just be nice to have some speed information to see how the great B v I fight will work out. :)
-
Preliminary crash tests are usually caried out at 12MPH
-
Are your systems crash tested glyn?
-
In the real World
YES head on at 50mph
want to see the photographs?
-
I don't think it is a rebound.
I've looked closely and as it says on the annotations it is a reverse acceleration test.
One of my systems is a Brodex and I've never had any concerns about it's safety but what does concern me is that this is really just an advertising gimmick without quantifiable information such as speed on impact, load in tank. For all we know the test was carried out at 5 mph. I can see the point of the reverse acceleration test as it will simulate a rear end shunt but again no real info is supplied.
Dan
A reverse acceleration test would simulate a head on collision...
The tank is heaved forwards as the van is yanked backwards with considerable force...
Same as going forwards then stopping suddenly.
-
I don't think it is a rebound.
I've looked closely and as it says on the annotations it is a reverse acceleration test.
One of my systems is a Brodex and I've never had any concerns about it's safety but what does concern me is that this is really just an advertising gimmick without quantifiable information such as speed on impact, load in tank. For all we know the test was carried out at 5 mph. I can see the point of the reverse acceleration test as it will simulate a rear end shunt but again no real info is supplied.
Dan
A reverse acceleration test would simulate a head on collision...
The tank is heaved forwards as the van is yanked backwards with considerable force...
Same as going forwards then stopping suddenly.
Back to school for me!
Yes you are correct.
Dan
-
I think Brodex should be Applauded for giving us more choice in the crash tested systems.
Well done Brodex
Dave
-
In the real World
YES head on at 50mph
want to see the photographs?
yes please that would be very interesting.
-
In the real World
YES head on at 50mph
want to see the photographs?
I would be intrested in seing them too! :)
-
glyn you posted the pics before - sorry but 50mph head on? I don't think so - the van would be completely totalled and the pics you posted the van wasn't completely wrecked.
-
Alan
I can only take the drivers word for the actual speed, they were traveling in the fast lane of a dual carrageway when a car comming in the opposite direction and lost control and crossed into their carrageway. The van was of course a total write off as was the car that hit it.
If you dont believe the drivers statement thats your perogative.
Both vehicles are shown
(http://www.omnipole.com/vivarocrash[1]%20(2).jpg)
(http://www.omnipole.com/vivarocrashothercar[1]%20(2).jpg)
-
glyn you posted the pics before - sorry but 50mph head on? I don't think so - the van would be completely totalled and the pics you posted the van wasn't completely wrecked.
I dont recon they are driving to far in them now.
What a gutter brand new van as well.
-
Glyn
Do you know whats happened to Paul C and the Powerclene franchisee's ?
-
Wow that looks terrible. :-[
No pictures of the tank etc? :)
-
David
Paul is no longer running the franchise. The franchises still continue to trade and we deal with them on an individual basis now.
Dont know any more details.
Glyn
-
Read about him on the other forum.....i dont think his franchisees are at all happy.
-
Glyn - notice how the front member is untouched, there are no signs of deformation around it at all (the front member is the bar leading up to the bumper) - at 50mph there would be no front member, no bonnet, no windscreen, nothing.
the other vehicles damage is not important as it has crossed the central reservation (wiping out anything there) and for all we know it may have hit another vehicle/crash barrier before or after impacting the van.
Note also that the accident clearly wasn't head on - only the extreme front drivers side is damaged which leads me to believe the accident was more of a glance, I know there is a fair bit of damage but certainly wasn't a head on as you stated.
The reason why the van is written off is most likely due to the twisting of the chassis which is very expensive to repair and in this case, ultimately not worth it when considered with the superficial damage the van has sustained.
So to recap - 50mph head on, not a chance, the car has glanced off the front drivers corner of the van and the bulk of the damage caused to the car wasn't caused by the van.
Nasty enough looking though and the restraint system of the tank would certainly have been subject to quite a severe moment of inertia (the tendency for an object to continue to move forward).
-
50mph is the last time they would have looked at the speedo, after that they would break, even if they would have have mere seconds till impact, if you slam on the brakes, depending on the situation, it would be more like 35-40 at the very best. Try slamming your brakes at 50, you'd be surprised how quickly you get to 30.
-
#It was still a nasty collision no matter what sppeed, and the tank was still intact, why split hairs
-
Going by all the "errors" that ionics print, such as longest and lightest pole in the world and other statements, I would have greater trust in a system installed by Glyn than one installed by Ionics, even if Glyn knew it was for me..... !!!! :D
Regards
Mr H
-
#It was still a nasty collision no matter what sppeed, and the tank was still intact, why split hairs
Because it's a matter of life and death! Rather splitting hairs then splitting my skull.
How do you know the tank is intact? No pictures of the tank or tank mountings?
-
Sorry guys, we should have made it clear that the crash test was carried out at 31-34mph (as recommend by the European Frontal Crash Directive 96/79/EC). We've slowed it down so that you can see what's happening
We took MIRA's advice on the testing (internationally-acclaimed Ministry of Defence testing site). They're famous for testing Formula 1 cars, so of course they were the obvious choice when it came to testing... a Transit Van full of Pure Water! ;D Reverse Acceleration is the recognised simulation for a head-on collision. The static van, mounted on rails, is hit by a ram and forced backwards... admittedly it looks misleading and a little undramatic, but then we're not making a Schwarzenneger movie, here! It's a scientific experiment, with your safety in mind. We had to be guided by MIRA. Head-on into a wall may look more impressive, but that is allowing the crumple-zone of the van to absorb half the energy. "Reverse Acceleration" is a direct test of the absolute integrity of the van and its mount - taking the full brunt of the impact!
Very impressive. Well done Brodex. My only concern is the flying tank lid which could easily decapitate someone.
Don't worry, Alex, the lid flying off isn't going to decapitate you. It weighs 850 grammes! It might give you a nasty bruise or a headache, but then you've just met 17-year-old Dwayne, head-on, in his lowered Saxo GTi, on the wrong side of the road!... so you've probably already got one of those! And that, with the unexpected shower, is surely better than getting hit in the small of the back by a half-tonne tank!
Cheers,
Daniel
-
Very impressive. Well done Brodex. My only concern is the flying tank lid which could easily decapitate someone.
Don't worry, Alex, the lid flying off isn't going to decapitate you. It weighs 850 grammes! It might give you a nasty bruise or a headache, but then you've just met 17-year-old Dwayne, head-on, in his lowered Saxo GTi, on the wrong side of the road!... so you've probably already got one of those! And that, with the unexpected shower, is surely better than getting hit in the small of the back by a half-tonne tank!
Cheers,
Daniel
Congratulations on a well carried out test. The problem with the lid isn't it's stationery weight, more the fact that at speed it has a relatively sharp edge and could inflict more than just a bruise. However, most people have bulkheads anyway so it's probably academic.
-
I reckon the lid dould be tethered to the side of the tank with a small chain or strap.
Perhaps there is a market for lid restraint brackets
-
Or a bulkhead? The lids nothing compared to a hosereel or a water fed spear or perish the thought - a Vikan sill brush!
-
ok it the tank didnt go through the windscreen this time tested at 31..34 mph pretty pointless test, as vans go faster than 30mph that dont you think??
what does it look like worst case say 70mph?? does it stay bolted to the floor??
-
Going by all the "errors" that ionics print, such as longest and lightest pole in the world and other statements, I would have greater trust in a system installed by Glyn than one installed by Ionics, even if Glyn knew it was for me..... !!!! :D
Regards
Mr H
that made me laugh mr H, fair play, though the system would be installed ok, i would check under the seat of ticking things ;)
-
Sorry guys, we should have made it clear that the crash test was carried out at 31-34mph (as recommend by the European Frontal Crash Directive 96/79/EC). We've slowed it down so that you can see what's happening
We took MIRA's advice on the testing (internationally-acclaimed Ministry of Defence testing site). They're famous for testing Formula 1 cars, so of course they were the obvious choice when it came to testing... a Transit Van full of Pure Water! ;D Reverse Acceleration is the recognised simulation for a head-on collision. The static van, mounted on rails, is hit by a ram and forced backwards... admittedly it looks misleading and a little undramatic, but then we're not making a Schwarzenneger movie, here! It's a scientific experiment, with your safety in mind. We had to be guided by MIRA. Head-on into a wall may look more impressive, but that is allowing the crumple-zone of the van to absorb half the energy. "Reverse Acceleration" is a direct test of the absolute integrity of the van and its mount - taking the full brunt of the impact!
Very impressive. Well done Brodex. My only concern is the flying tank lid which could easily decapitate someone.
Don't worry, Alex, the lid flying off isn't going to decapitate you. It weighs 850 grammes! It might give you a nasty bruise or a headache, but then you've just met 17-year-old Dwayne, head-on, in his lowered Saxo GTi, on the wrong side of the road!... so you've probably already got one of those! And that, with the unexpected shower, is surely better than getting hit in the small of the back by a half-tonne tank!
Cheers,
Daniel
couldnt you have added a explosion at the end ? ?? ? you know it makes sense
-
May sound like an obvious question, but why did you only test a 650L tank and not 1,000L?
-
ok it the tank didnt go through the windscreen this time tested at 31..34 mph pretty pointless test, as vans go faster than 30mph that dont you think??
what does it look like worst case say 70mph?? does it stay bolted to the floor??
The reason for these tests at these speeds is probably down to the technology available for testing. It is one thing having a crash sled that can test at up to 34mph, but there probably isn't a machine built that could do the same test at 70mph. The firms can only use what equipment is available at the test centres.
-
You are more likely to be travelling at less than 35mph than 70mph. Most guys will be doing residential properties and so most of their time driving will be either trying to get up to 35 or breaking to take the next turning.
Admittedly a 70mph crash test would give you more confidence in the system but a few other things would need to be taken in to consideration in a real crash.
1. Inertia. Your more likely to hit a car than another van and as you have the added weight of a tank of water in the back then your vehicle will have more forward force than a car or half loaded van of the same size and so more forward force means you would take longer to slow down than the vehicle comeing the other way. If you hit the back of another vehicle then you are more likely to push that vehicle forward and so again longer to come to a stop.
2. Crumple zones.... The test doesn't take in to account these safety features either, which once again help to reduce how quickly you actually stop and disipate energy away from what is inside a vehicle including you.... Many deaths in vehicles are not from external injuries but from internal injuries caused by the vehicle stopping to quickly and your insides carrying on forward and hemmoraging.... (sorry if your eatting).... see top gear crash test of Smart cars..
3. Not many people will carrry 1000kg tanks and I'm sure the Brodex 1000L tank would have extra fittings and so the fittings to bolt ratio would actually be less than the 650 tank.
So to me it looks like Brodex have gone and crash tested for the most likely crash.
I will admit a 70mph 1000L full system, with poles, reels, etc, crash test would be good for even more confidence but if your mainly local and use a full 650 or less tank then that test should make you feel safer.....
Regards
Mr H
-
Do you think you are going to walk away from a head on collision at 70 MPH in a van without a tank?
-
There was one on the tv last week it was about driving in fog on the motorway they had 9 parked cars in 3 lines of 3 then had a remote car doing either 60 or 70 mph smash into the midle car of the back row the 2 cars involved were smashed to bits everyone in the 2 cars would of died instantly there was also damage to the cars on either side and the cars in front to.
-
Do you think you are going to walk away from a head on collision at 70 MPH in a van without a tank?
yes im sure it is possible, you cant say everybody dies in an accident at 70? and you stand more of a chance without 600/1000 kg lump flying through your van.
im sure there is the technology to crash test @70 its easer to pass a 30mph rather than 70mph.
-
also they say it was tested @ 31..34 was it??
was it 5 10 15 who knows?
there was a time code on the film but no speed indication, why not put it on there??
im sure it was left out
there could be lots of scientific data on that film, all there is frame number.
you are taking brodex word its 30 i would like to think it is.
i think tank design shoud be radically changed more thought for safety in mind.
-
If they werent telling the truth , beleive me Ionics would be all over them like a rash.
-
Isn't the sled supposed to stop on impact ???
-
50mph is the last time they would have looked at the speedo, after that they would break, even if they would have have mere seconds till impact, if you slam on the brakes, depending on the situation, it would be more like 35-40 at the very best. Try slamming your brakes at 50, you'd be surprised how quickly you get to 30.
Don't forget, it isn't just the speed that you are travelling at! You have to take into account the speed of the other vehicle!
It's the combined speed that you should look at, if both vehicles are only travelling at 25mph on impact then is is still a 50mph crash, you might just as well have driven into a wall at 50mph!
Ian