Interested In Advertising? | Contact Us Here
Warning!

 

Welcome to Clean It Up; the UK`s largest cleaning forum with over 34,000 members

 

Please login or register to post and reply to topics.      

 

Forgot your password? Click here

Smudger

  • Posts: 13459
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #80 on: April 21, 2016, 06:30:07 am »
I remember!!

So, how was the tank secured and did it move ? If I remember you fit them upto the bulkhead so no forward movement but what about when it was upside down

Darran
Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience

Soupy

  • Posts: 21263
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #81 on: April 21, 2016, 06:32:55 am »
It's in a frame bottled to the chassis. It never moved.  In fact we got the written off landy back and removed and reused the tank. Not the frame obviously.
#FreeTheBrightonOne
#aliens

Smudger

  • Posts: 13459
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #82 on: April 21, 2016, 06:36:53 am »
Who made the frame ??
Darran
Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience

Clever Forum Name

  • Posts: 5942
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #83 on: April 21, 2016, 04:10:37 pm »
ALWAYS said a flat tank to the shape of the van floor made from plastic and baffled would be safest bet.

Thats exactly what i was gonna do 2 years ago, but my van blew up and needed a working van and system quick. Grippa is local so went to them.

The frame work is MASSIVELY over engineered. It's unreal. But i feel safer. Doesn't mean i drive like a mong.

CleanClear

  • Posts: 15356
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #84 on: April 22, 2016, 12:12:42 am »

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

Have you confirmed from the vehicle manufacturer if the floor strength through ribbing has been compromised with drilling and bolting through it ? Its all very well the frame manufacturers saying.."frame retains its integrity", what about the integrity of the van ?
*Status*--------Currently Online---------

Jonny 87

  • Posts: 3512
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #85 on: April 22, 2016, 07:11:37 am »
Am I right in saying that drilling through and fitting a tank invalidates manufacturer warranty of a new vehicle?

I was told this recently.

Could just be the manufacturers wanting a get out clause mind you.

Vision Technician / Visual Engineer /  Vision Enhancement Operative /...........................................................OnlyUseMeWFP AkA Jonny the Windy Wesher

dazmond

  • Posts: 24421
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #86 on: April 22, 2016, 07:33:57 am »
i had a 350L layflat tank in my last van(kangoo)and ratchet strapped it down tight using the vans eyelets.took me and my dad about half an hour.it felt very safe to me.then i took it out 4 years later when i sold the van and flogged it on gumtree. :)

this time round i got the local bodywork specialist mechanics to bolt a 500L tank frame through the van floor with 6 spreader plates(they had to take the fuel tank off and exhaust system to fit it).they fitted it longways so no axles are overloaded so it sits just behind the bulkhead with room down the sides for other gear.its perfect for me as i keep my trad gear near the side door so its easy to grab a clean cloth or change a brush.

the frame and tank i bought from the cleaning warehouse(£400)and £100 fitting.job done.ive had it 2 years now and hope to get another 3 years out of the van before buying a another one.
price higher/work harder!

Soupy

  • Posts: 21263
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #87 on: April 22, 2016, 08:22:01 am »
Who made the frame ??
Darran

My Dad designs and builds the systems.
#FreeTheBrightonOne
#aliens

robert mitchell

  • Posts: 2019
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #88 on: April 22, 2016, 11:51:01 am »

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

Have you confirmed from the vehicle manufacturer if the floor strength through ribbing has been compromised with drilling and bolting through it ? Its all very well the frame manufacturers saying.."frame retains its integrity", what about the integrity of the van ?

If you look at the grippatank crash test video you can see how the van chassis reacts in an accident , takes it pretty well but obviously you want it to deform some as it takes away some of the crash energy .

4 20-25 mm holes are not going to weaken the floor of a vehicle .
www.ishinewindowcleaning.co.uk

The man who never made a mistake never made anything.

Dave Willis

Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #89 on: April 22, 2016, 12:10:28 pm »
Pretty sure Grippa dont go through the chassis.

robert mitchell

  • Posts: 2019
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #90 on: April 22, 2016, 01:06:26 pm »
Pretty sure Grippa dont go through the chassis.

Correct , they don't,  the four holes are drilled through the floor and a large plate is bonded and bolted   underneath the floor with the t lock on the inside .......so its not going to affect the strength of the van floor/chassis .
www.ishinewindowcleaning.co.uk

The man who never made a mistake never made anything.

Smudger

  • Posts: 13459
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #91 on: April 22, 2016, 05:58:21 pm »
Who made the frame ??
Darran

My Dad designs and builds the systems.

Fab!
They look the bees knees

Darran
Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience

CleanClear

  • Posts: 15356
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #92 on: April 22, 2016, 07:10:19 pm »
Pretty sure Grippa dont go through the chassis.

Correct , they don't,  the four holes are drilled through the floor and a large plate is bonded and bolted   underneath the floor with the t lock on the inside .......so its not going to affect the strength of the van floor/chassis .

Very few if any modern panel vans actually have a "chassis", they are a monocoque construction. Drilling though, on or near a ribbed floor does affect its strength, wether anyone likes it or not. They don't rib them for fun.
*Status*--------Currently Online---------

Perfect Windows

  • Posts: 4303
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #93 on: April 22, 2016, 11:28:43 pm »
Cleanclear, ref your sarcastic snipe in http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=202302.msg1779322#msg1779322

Yeah, start a poll....and ask, is a window cleaner qualified to state straps need to hold two buses up before your system is considered safe.

Come on then, Cleanclear, tell us all why 600 Kg of water decelerating at 30g won't exert the same force on your bulkhead as the weight of two double decker buses (which I take to be about 18,000kg above).   Show us all where the physics doesn't result in that conclusion.   Doesn't matter if I'm the most stupid person on the planet: if the physics stands up it stands up regardless of my competence or otherwise.  Please show your workings.

Vin

PS.  The reason to take this subject seriously is that bad advice from people who really don't know what they are talking about can kill people.

CleanClear

  • Posts: 15356
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #94 on: April 22, 2016, 11:52:55 pm »
Cleanclear, ref your sarcastic snipe in http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=202302.msg1779322#msg1779322

Yeah, start a poll....and ask, is a window cleaner qualified to state straps need to hold two buses up before your system is considered safe.

Come on then, Cleanclear, tell us all why 600 Kg of water decelerating at 30g won't exert the same force on your bulkhead as the weight of two double decker buses (which I take to be about 18,000kg above).   Show us all where the physics doesn't result in that conclusion.   Doesn't matter if I'm the most stupid person on the planet: if the physics stands up it stands up regardless of my competence or otherwise.  Please show your workings.

Vin

PS.  The reason to take this subject seriously is that bad advice from people who really don't know what they are talking about can kill people.

Ok, Ok, you're rushing me so this is off the cuff............... Your figures don't stack up. Neither does your metholgy. If we take the roof off your van and attach a ratchet strap around two buses and then onto your tank mounts, and lift your van in the air to lift the buses up the the bolts will rip out the van floor. Don't argue Physics with me either as most vans are good for a 6, 800, 100 kilo payload or what ever and NOT 18,000 KG.

You make no distinction in your assesment of how things will pan out in as much as, if 600KG is affixed firmly to a bulkead and a sudden stop occurs what its impact will be Vs 600KG in the middle of the load bed coming unsecured and flying through a bulkhead ? As i mentioned earlier in this thread, the fact alone of loading against a bulkhead, to stop any forward momentum, as opposed to loading away from a bulkhead where a load or fixture can gather momentum will lead to very differnent forces. You based your bus assumption on which one ?

And while i've got ya, if we lift buses up with your van system do we go steady, or snatch 'em up real quick ?
*Status*--------Currently Online---------

CleanClear

  • Posts: 15356
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #95 on: April 22, 2016, 11:58:28 pm »
Or another way to explain it...................
i ask you to give me a crack in the kipper, and you do. It'll hurt me, and may be, probably will knock me over.
Try do the same thing with your fist resting firmly on my cheek from the start.................

I'm sure your first crack will have a G force of whatever newtons law tells you, see if you can replicate it in the second scenario............
*Status*--------Currently Online---------

CleanClear

  • Posts: 15356
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #96 on: April 23, 2016, 12:25:38 am »
And in your own time Vin, could you please explain to the group "inertia", and its effects and how to delay those effects. As you say, its a life and death matter and its important we know more and are informed. Back to the Puma/Adidas question, i'd say.............Brand is not important. Just get something with spikes on, you need to get a grip !!  ;D

You're only a window cleaner though and wether you'll heed my advice is anyones guess .
*Status*--------Currently Online---------

Jonny 87

  • Posts: 3512
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #97 on: April 23, 2016, 06:14:10 am »
Or another way to explain it...................
i ask you to give me a crack in the kipper, and you do. It'll hurt me, and may be, probably will knock me over.
Try do the same thing with your fist resting firmly on my cheek from the start.................

I'm sure your first crack will have a G force of whatever newtons law tells you, see if you can replicate it in the second scenario............

That's a good point actually......
Vision Technician / Visual Engineer /  Vision Enhancement Operative /...........................................................OnlyUseMeWFP AkA Jonny the Windy Wesher

Dave Willis

Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #98 on: April 23, 2016, 07:07:36 am »
I think the moving water helps provide the inertia? Shoving everything up against the bulkhead might help but your weight distribution won't be within the vehicles parameters with a large tank. The rear axle will have next to nothing on it, the front will be overloaded.

Perfect Windows

  • Posts: 4303
Re: tank cages necessary?
« Reply #99 on: April 23, 2016, 08:37:50 am »
Ok, Ok, you're rushing me so this is off the cuff............... Your figures don't stack up. Neither does your metholgy. If we take the roof off your van and attach a ratchet strap around two buses and then onto your tank mounts, and lift your van in the air to lift the buses up the the bolts will rip out the van floor. Don't argue Physics with me either as most vans are good for a 6, 800, 100 kilo payload or what ever and NOT 18,000 KG.

I see where your misunderstanding comes from; you've missed an important point.  As I said in my explanation earlier in the thread, the situation in an accident is the same as if you turn the van on its nose and rest the 18,000 kg against the bulkhead (or tank, or whatever's holding the water back).  You'll note that all the forces on the tank mounts are shear forces (at right angles to the bolts).  You're not trying to rip the bolts out of the floor vertically as in your example.  To see the difference, stick a normal pin in a bit of cardboard.  Pull it all the way through and it's pretty easy.  Try to rip it sideways through the cardboard.  Difficult to the point of impossibility.

You make no distinction in your assesment of how things will pan out in as much as, if 600KG is affixed firmly to a bulkead and a sudden stop occurs what its impact will be Vs 600KG in the middle of the load bed coming unsecured and flying through a bulkhead ? As i mentioned earlier in this thread, the fact alone of loading against a bulkhead, to stop any forward momentum, as opposed to loading away from a bulkhead where a load or fixture can gather momentum will lead to very differnent forces. You based your bus assumption on which one ?

There is a distinction but it's irrelevant.  If the van is decelerating at 30g then the force acting on whatever's holding the load back has to be thirty times its weight.  I'm happy to work it all out in Newtons but all of the units cancel out so you may as well take the short cut and say deceleration in g multiplied by mass.  Saves a great deal of maths.

The bus assumption is based on both scenarios.  If the van is decelerating at 30g then the force acting on whatever is holding the 600kg load back will be 18,000kg.  It doesn't matter if the tank's held with straps, blu-tack or whatever, the forces will be the same.  Then, in your scenario, the tank starts moving and hits the bulkhead and yes, you're right, it probably passes through the bulkhead because the impulse (force over time of action) is huge as it hits the bulkhead.   That would be relevant if at any point I'd been arguing that unrestrained (or insufficiently restrained) away from the bulkhead is as good as up against the bulkhead.  Sadly, I've not been saying that, you're the one fixated with that comparison.

And while i've got ya, if we lift buses up with your van system do we go steady, or snatch 'em up real quick ?

I'm not lifting buses.

Anyway, you're not interested in anything factual as you've decided, with no basis apart from your opinion, that up against a bulkhead is safe.  The physics says that if the bulkhead can withstand an 18,000kg weight acting along the axis of the van then you're right.   Note (and I know you haven't) that at no point have I said that a bulkhead can't withstand 18,000 kg.  I've taken a look at a couple of bulkheads since this thread started and while I suspect mine wouldn't (Hiace), a Vivaro's might, much more substantial.  But the problem is that's guesswork.

But my job here isn't to convince you.  You're unconvincable (I'm already awaiting yours and your cronies' posts telling me how sad I am and how tragic that I actually understand physics). 

No, my aim is to convince anyone reading this with an open mind that a crash-tested system is the way to go rather than believing the word of a bloke on the internet who tells them that up against a bulkhead is safe.  For the sake of a couple of thousand quid over ten years (£4 a week) you might just save your life.

Vin

PS. If this post is too long for your attention span (boy, can I see those posts coming), apologies.  Sometimes difficult matters take a bit of space to explain.

PPS. Ref the upcoming torrent of abuse about how tragic I am, how little I really know, how odd that I can be a window cleaner and understand physics at the same time, remember the final paragraph.  This is potentially life and death and £4 a week might save your life.