[iClean]

I found this report in my search, it makes interesting reading (I'm only up to page 30!). It clarifies some of the issues regarding panel vans securing loads. I made the comparison between HGV  and LGV load securing , this report explains why you can't compare the two. It also talks about load positioning in relation to bulkhead and the difference between home made bulkheads and factory fitted (crumple zone) bulkheads. It makes the point that an unsecured load in the middle of the load bed as compared to one secured tight up to the bulkhead becomes 10x its own weight at a 30mph head on collision. I think there's something in this for everyone on each side of the argument.
http://www.fta.co.uk/export/sites/fta/_galleries/downloads/loading_of_vehicles/technical_reference_on_cargo_restraint.pdf

Heh, I have that page bookmarked from a while ago.  I used some the information therein to help decide which water tank restraint to use.

[Perfect Windows]

From that document (section 5.1.2):

"In the DfT Code of Practice (2002) it is recommended that cargo should be placed next to partitioning
systems. In the absence of not having any purpose designed restraint system to restrain the cargo (e.g.lashings, racking systems etc.)  then placing cargo next to the partitioning system should still be considered a minimum Best Practice (Assuming the barrier is designed and engineered to accommodate the forces generated in an accident)."

So up against a bulkhead is regarded as a minimum and it assumes the bulkhead is designed for the purpose.

Ah well, it's your lives not mine.

Vin

[8weekly]

From that document (section 5.1.2):

"In the DfT Code of Practice (2002) it is recommended that cargo should be placed next to partitioning
systems. In the absence of not having any purpose designed restraint system to restrain the cargo (e.g.lashings, racking systems etc.)  then placing cargo next to the partitioning system should still be considered a minimum Best Practice (Assuming the barrier is designed and engineered to accommodate the forces generated in an accident)."

So up against a bulkhead is regarded as a minimum and it assumes the bulkhead is designed for the purpose.

Ah well, it's your lives not mine.

Vin

No need to be patronising, but in any case it says in the "absence" of lashing systems. In my opinion (and it is no more scientific than yours) a few bolts through a cage and through the floor of a van with a 800 litre tank are unlikely to restrain it in a head on crash. If it breaks through those bolts it's going to hit that bulkhead at 10x its own weight, whereas if it's already against the bulkhead the force is reduced. 

Again, I may be wrong (although the report quoted tells me I'm not totally wrong) but it just feels inherently safer to have the tank strapped to the bulkhead than in a cage. It actually isn't the cheapest option as a bulkhead costs more than an aftermarket cage. 

[Perfect Windows]

No need to be patronising, but in any case it says in the "absence" of lashing systems. In my opinion (and it is no more scientific than yours) a few bolts through a cage and through the floor of a van with a 800 litre tank are unlikely to restrain it in a head on crash. If it breaks through those bolts it's going to hit that bulkhead at 10x its own weight, whereas if it's already against the bulkhead the force is reduced. 

Again, I may be wrong (although the report quoted tells me I'm not totally wrong) but it just feels inherently safer to have the tank strapped to the bulkhead than in a cage. It actually isn't the cheapest option as a bulkhead costs more than an aftermarket cage.

The system I have has been tested.  No "feelings" involved.  Just an experiment where someone drove a van with a tank full of water into a concrete block at 30mph.  The tank didn't go flying.   Forgive me if this next phrase is patronising but that experiment is rather more scientific than a "feeling" about a bulkhead.

I've argued this till I'm blue in the face and I normally leave repetitive threads well alone.  However on this subject I generally put my neb in because there's just a chance that someone might do something that could save their life one day.

Buy a crash tested system for a couple of thousand quid, keep it for ten years and it'll have cost you about 80p a working day.

Vin

[8weekly]

No need to be patronising, but in any case it says in the "absence" of lashing systems. In my opinion (and it is no more scientific than yours) a few bolts through a cage and through the floor of a van with a 800 litre tank are unlikely to restrain it in a head on crash. If it breaks through those bolts it's going to hit that bulkhead at 10x its own weight, whereas if it's already against the bulkhead the force is reduced. 

Again, I may be wrong (although the report quoted tells me I'm not totally wrong) but it just feels inherently safer to have the tank strapped to the bulkhead than in a cage. It actually isn't the cheapest option as a bulkhead costs more than an aftermarket cage.

The system I have has been tested.  No "feelings" involved.  Just an experiment where someone drove a van with a tank full of water into a concrete block at 30mph.  The tank didn't go flying.   Forgive me if this next phrase is patronising but that experiment is rather more scientific than a "feeling" about a bulkhead.

I've argued this till I'm blue in the face and I normally leave repetitive threads well alone.  However on this subject I generally put my neb in because there's just a chance that someone might do something that could save their life one day.

Buy a crash tested system for a couple of thousand quid, keep it for ten years and it'll have cost you about 80p a working day.

Vin

The thread is about cages vs ratchet straps though. Note the title.

[robert mitchell]

No need to be patronising, but in any case it says in the "absence" of lashing systems. In my opinion (and it is no more scientific than yours) a few bolts through a cage and through the floor of a van with a 800 litre tank are unlikely to restrain it in a head on crash. If it breaks through those bolts it's going to hit that bulkhead at 10x its own weight, whereas if it's already against the bulkhead the force is reduced. 

Again, I may be wrong (although the report quoted tells me I'm not totally wrong) but it just feels inherently safer to have the tank strapped to the bulkhead than in a cage. It actually isn't the cheapest option as a bulkhead costs more than an aftermarket cage.

The system I have has been tested.  No "feelings" involved.  Just an experiment where someone drove a van with a tank full of water into a concrete block at 30mph.  The tank didn't go flying.   Forgive me if this next phrase is patronising but that experiment is rather more scientific than a "feeling" about a bulkhead.

I've argued this till I'm blue in the face and I normally leave repetitive threads well alone.  However on this subject I generally put my neb in because there's just a chance that someone might do something that could save their life one day.

Buy a crash tested system for a couple of thousand quid, keep it for ten years and it'll have cost you about 80p a working day.

Vin

The thread is about cages vs ratchet straps though. Note the title.

Its still relevant to the subject as he is asking which is safest .......i totally agree with Vin on this .

As part of my other job i have been to a car accident only this morning , head on collision and the guy in the back actually hit the front seat passenger after his seatbelt snapped!  The guy was old and frail and probably weighed no more than 65-70kg......this just goes to show how much the forces are multiplied in an accident.

[Soupy]

From that document (section 5.1.2):

"In the DfT Code of Practice (2002) it is recommended that cargo should be placed next to partitioning
systems. In the absence of not having any purpose designed restraint system to restrain the cargo (e.g.lashings, racking systems etc.)  then placing cargo next to the partitioning system should still be considered a minimum Best Practice (Assuming the barrier is designed and engineered to accommodate the forces generated in an accident)."

So up against a bulkhead is regarded as a minimum and it assumes the bulkhead is designed for the purpose.

Ah well, it's your lives not mine.

Vin

Not sure what you are getting at here. The tanks in the crash test videos I've seen don't appear to be up against the bulkhead so this report seems to contradict your argument. Is your crash tested tank against the bulkhead?

Just a question, not trying to hurt your feelings or nowt.

[Dave Willis]

So is it good practice to overload the front axle then?

[Dave Willis]

I can't believe how all the tight arse cleaners on here twist and turn the facts untill they are satisfied their homemade lash up is safe. There are tested systems out there I can see no reason not to use one to be honest. You know they work you've got the evidence. I'm sure the broom handle I've got between the door pillars will work and I've saved two grand!

[Soupy]

Aww, you've hurt my feelings now. 

Really though, I agree with you and the other posters who say to go with a engineer designed system. Ours are designed by an engineer, it's just that he puts them flat, and against the bulkhead, which he says is safer.

[8weekly]

Aww, you've hurt my feelings now. 

Really though, I agree with you and the other posters who say to go with a engineer designed system. Ours are designed by an engineer, it's just that he puts them flat, and against the bulkhead, which he says is safer.

No, they're saying crash tested not engineered. So I'm guessing there's only two - Grippa & Ionics? I think. Wasn't there some issue with Pure Freedom's crash test? Dunno.

[Smudger]

I'm an engineer ( well ex-engineer ) and I can tell you some so called engineered designs are not worth a w@@k.

Before we all get on our high horses and throw handbags at each other, has anyone been involved in an accident with either DIY or PRO setups and what was the result, secondly can anyone find a report of a window cleaner being crushed/drowned by his DIY system.... Not attempting to dismiss the serious consequences of our tank systems, but as I understand it, DIY systems get insured and there is no legal requirement for crash tested systems - so it would appear in this H&S mad world DIY systems would be outlawed and certainly you could not get insured

Darran

[Soupy]

Ours have been crashed at 50 mph (mk1) into a ditch and rolled at 60 (mk3).

No fatalities or serious injuries. No injuries whatsoever in fact.  The tank stayed exactly where it was even with the landy lying upside down in the road.

[8weekly]

Ours have been crashed at 50 mph (mk1) into a ditch and rolled at 60 (mk3).

No fatalities or serious injuries. No injuries whatsoever in fact.  The tank stayed exactly where it was even with the landy lying upside down in the road.

It's more than a bulkhead though isn't it between the tank and the cab in a Defender? By that I mean it's more than just bolts holding it together.

It seems a nonsense to me to have that weight anywhere other than tight against the bulkhead. It would be interesting to see how such a system would perform in a crash test.

[Jonny 87]

I'm an engineer ( well ex-engineer ) and I can tell you some so called engineered designs are not worth a w@@k.

Before we all get on our high horses and throw handbags at each other, has anyone been involved in an accident with either DIY or PRO setups and what was the result, secondly can anyone find a report of a window cleaner being crushed/drowned by his DIY system.... Not attempting to dismiss the serious consequences of our tank systems, but as I understand it, DIY systems get insured and there is no legal requirement for crash tested systems - so it would appear in this H&S mad world DIY systems would be outlawed and certainly you could not get insured

Darran

That's always something I say to be honest.

safety has to be of everyone's concern, but I'm yet to hear of a tank causing serious injury?
Obviously that isn't to say stick your tank on the rear axle with blue tack, but any tests that are done always seem heavily "weighted" (pardon the pun) towards manufactures selling there systems.

It would be really interesting to see a crash test of a tank against a steel (purpose built) bulkhead.

I've known a few incidents of window cleaners crashing, and only once have I heard of the tank moving at all, and then was only slight.

No matter what vehicle your in, or what you carry in the back.... If you have a head on crash at 50mph your going to be in big trouble.

I've seen some tanks bolted through the floor about 3 feet from the bulkhead, and it really makes me wonder if that is better than strapped in tight to the bulkhead? 

Having said that..... My next tank will be a flat tank that fits the profile of the van. Should only be about 15 inches high, this is probably the safest way to carry a water tank. It is too long to flip up and come through the bulk head, And if it all went Pete tong at worst it would smash through the bulkhead underneath your feet.

Who knows though. Threads like these are a bit of a can of worms. We all have our opinions, and even the opinions of the companies who have carried out these crash tests aren't really fair. (in my opinion.)

[Perfect Windows]

Not sure what you are getting at here. The tanks in the crash test videos I've seen don't appear to be up against the bulkhead so this report seems to contradict your argument. Is your crash tested tank against the bulkhead?

Just a question, not trying to hurt your feelings or nowt.

Not sure it contradicts, as I read it as saying that, if you don't have purpose built racking (for which I read " purpose built whatever",  in our case cage) then it should be against a bulkhead.  If you do have a tank in a proper rack, I reckon it should be safer with space for the cage to deform in an accident - the deformation uses up energy, a good thing in a crash.

Vin

[Perfect Windows]

Having said that..... My next tank will be a flat tank that fits the profile of the van. Should only be about 15 inches high, this is probably the safest way to carry a water tank. It is too long to flip up and come through the bulk head, And if it all went Pete tong at worst it would smash through the bulkhead underneath your feet.

I've always liked that idea.  The problem is getting it to work properly as a tank; park on a slope when it's 10% full and you'll be stuffed.

Vin

[Jonny 87]

Having said that..... My next tank will be a flat tank that fits the profile of the van. Should only be about 15 inches high, this is probably the safest way to carry a water tank. It is too long to flip up and come through the bulk head, And if it all went Pete tong at worst it would smash through the bulkhead underneath your feet.

I've always liked that idea.  The problem is getting it to work properly as a tank; park on a slope when it's 10% full and you'll be stuffed.

Vin

Yeah that was my worry too.

My current tank is from Stephen Scargill and he has  recently made a 500 litre flat tank which is just like this. Sits on the floor of the van about 12 inches high. He builds in a false sloped floor at the bottom of the tank so the water is slopes to the outlet.

Then with a non return valve fitted on the outlet it gives the owner no problems apparently. Might be the way forward.

[Soupy]

Having said that..... My next tank will be a flat tank that fits the profile of the van. Should only be about 15 inches high, this is probably the safest way to carry a water tank. It is too long to flip up and come through the bulk head, And if it all went Pete tong at worst it would smash through the bulkhead underneath your feet.

I've always liked that idea.  The problem is getting it to work properly as a tank; park on a slope when it's 10% full and you'll be stuffed.

Vin

Luckily vans have wheels on and can be pointed downhill as well as up.

[Soupy]

Ours have been crashed at 50 mph (mk1) into a ditch and rolled at 60 (mk3).

No fatalities or serious injuries. No injuries whatsoever in fact.  The tank stayed exactly where it was even with the landy lying upside down in the road.

It's more than a bulkhead though isn't it between the tank and the cab in a Defender? By that I mean it's more than just bolts holding it together.

It seems a nonsense to me to have that weight anywhere other than tight against the bulkhead. It would be interesting to see how such a system would perform in a crash test.

No, it's a bulkhead, same as you get in a van.